The Slime Creature Strikes

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Sept 2016

At the first Republican primary debate, moderator Megyn Kelly went straight at Donald Trump for his alleged treatment of “women.”  Kelly prefaced her question with a series of unqualified premises.

You’ve called women fat.  You’ve called women ugly. You’ve called women stupid, she said, or words to that effect.

“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump interjected to laughter.

Kelly continued to bore in relentlessly, much to the annoyance of Trump.  And much to the annoyance of this viewer, because the beautiful but dense Kelly didn’t realize that her trick of logic had been exposed and yet she continued to piously and righteously to allege that Trump was a bad man.  For Trump to have ripped Kelly then and there for her mental density would only have conduced to establish her point, that Trump is a bad man towards women.

The Clinton slime creature employed the same illicit trick at the presidential debate on Monday.

The trick is to employ what in logic is called an “unqualified” statement.  For example, it is true to say that “cars are blue,” because some cars are blue.  It is equally true to say, “cars are white,” because some cars are white.  In both premises, the subject ‘cars’ is unqualified.  There is no qualifier ‘some’, ‘all’, or ‘none’ modifying the meaning of the subject, cars.  What happens when you add a qualifier?

Adding a qualifier gets you, “some cars are blue,” and “some cars are white,” both of which can be true simultaneously.  Likewise, “all cars are blue,” and “no car is white,” can be true simultaneously.  However, “all cars are blue,” and “all cars are white,” cannot be true simultaneously.

Suppose Megyn Kelly had premised her question with, “Mr. Trump, you’ve called Rosie O’Donnell fat, ugly, and stupid, doesn’t that prove you are terrible towards women in general?”  The logical fallacy of the statement is obvious when formulated that way, which is why Kelly didn’t formulate it that way, but in a way that illicitly made her case that Trump was terrible towards women in general.

But Trump obviously loves his wife and his daughter, and highly regards the many women who work for him, including his campaign manager.  It could just as logically pressed that his high regard for these women proves his high regard for women in general.

But the game being played isn’t reaching a logical deduction, the game is political sliming, and the means are illicit and fallacious.

The Clinton slime machine pulled the same stunt at the debate.  Near the very end of the debate, Hillary Clinton just remembered that she had pulled together a campaign to slime Trump with the allegations of Alicia Machado, the Miss Universe of 1996.  She accused Trump of calling Machado “Miss Piggy” and “The Housekeeper,” twenty years ago on account of her gaining 60 lbs in weight during her reign as Miss Universe, and on account of her Venezuelan heritage.  There has been no independent verification of these claims, but when you are running a slime campaign verified facts don’t matter.

Hillary Clinton, in practiced and proud fashion, accused Trump of being bad towards women because of what he allegedly said privately to Alicia Machado twenty years ago.  Hillary went so far as to imply that Trump was a kind of pervert who “liked hanging around beauty pageants.”   I suppose owning and producing the pageant isn’t reason enough to hang around and ensure that it comes across as a television spectacular.  But when the aim is to slime, facts and context don’t matter.  Perhaps Hillary does have expert credentials at spotting sexual perverts, but I digress.

Donald Trump has no fixed attitudes towards women any more than he has a fixed attitude towards men.  Trump is a meritocrat.  What matters to Trump is the job an individual does, and he is indifferent to that individual’s race or gender.  Such indifference used to be a liberal ideal.  The other side of this coin is that Trump is an equal opportunity insulter.  If an individual isn’t doing the job he expects, he is going to let that individual know in no uncertain terms, and why.  This may at times make him an unpleasant man, but it doesn’t make him prejudiced.  In fact, just the opposite, for he is indifferent to race and gender; it proves that he is only concerned about the job.

It is a nasty trick to employ to reach an unqualified conclusion on the basis of one or a small number of individual cases.  Trump is not bad to women in general because he let individual cases know it when they let him down.  It is just as reasonable to reach the opposite conclusion on the basis of one or a small number of individual cases in which Trump praised or promoted individual women.  Can it be said that Donald Trump loves all women because he loves his wife and daughter?  Of course not, but that is the illicit trick that Megny Kelly and the Clinton Slime creature used against Trump, only played in reverse.

I’ve noted previously how even getting physically close to a Clinton can get you covered in political filth.  It is happening this time to Alicia Machado, who is having all the bad and stupid things she did in her life dragged into the public square.  She is getting this treatment because she lent herself to Hillary Clinton, who is benefitting at Machado’s expense.  Donald Trump was forced to stand physically close to Hillary during the debate, and she spent the entire night trying to cover him in political filth, saving the unverified Machado accusations for the very end.  Trump has spent the rest of the week washing off the slime.

None of Hillary’s debate preparation included thought about improving the American economy, bringing back jobs, dealing with the budget deficit, strengthening the military, fixing the VA, or solving foreign policy crises.  It was all about sliming Donald Trump in the most effective way possible.

Given the long string of slimed and bloodied bodies trailing behind the Clinton bus, do Americans realize that electing Hillary Clinton president could well get all America covered in Clinton political filth?

Hillary’s legal troubles aren’t going to disappear even if she is elected president.

-30-

Hillary is Certain You’re Biased and She is Not

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Sept 2016

Perhaps because it happened near the end of the debate, when moderator Lester Holt was turning his attention to Donald Trump, Hillary loosed her “implicit bias” remarks and they went by practically unnoticed.  Hillary’s “implicit bias” comment lies at the heart of her belief that Trump supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.”  It is key to understanding her pandering towards the Black community.  It forms the basis of her moral superiority that, in her mind, and gives her the right to say who belongs in her basket of deplorables and who doesn’t.

Hillary says that “racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes” belong in her basket of deplorables.  In addition, she reserves the right to declare what precisely amounts to racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia.  If, for example, you think Miss Universe 1996 is breaking her contract with you by rapidly gaining 60 lbs in the course of her term and you demand that she lose the weight, well, that makes you a “fat-shaming” sexist, even if the concept of “body-shaming” did not exist when you made those remarks.

The “implicit bias” (which Hillary must be free of) remark was made in response to the rioting in Charlotte, NC.  When speaking of police shootings in general, Hillary said, “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other.”

Actually, implicit bias can’t be a problem for everyone, for if it were, then to observe it in others could simply be an example of it in yourself.  The only solution to this dilemma of logic is to hold that you and your group of supermen and superwomen are above that, and therefore are able to see implicit bias in others without suffering from it yourself.  Of course, how do you know that you actually belong to the supergroup is another problem, but it takes time to come to that.  (It leads to an infinite regress, which means that the solution is impossible.)

So, what is Hillary’s solution to the problem of “implicit bias” in police officers, even black ones?  “When it comes to policing, since it can have literally fatal consequences, I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers.”

This is where the logical dilemma becomes obvious.  If we all suffer from implicit bias, who is going to train whom, and in what?

Hillary’s solution to the dilemma is to hold that she and her group of progressivist supermen and superwomen know best, and so they are the ones who are going to develop the re-education programs.

If you are a Hillary supporter, that makes you one of the progressivist elite who can see bigotry in others but do not suffer from it yourself.  You have the moral right, indeed, the moral obligation, to accuse, denounce, and fix those whom you decide are bigoted and are expressing the implicit bias they suffer from.  And because you belong to Hillary’s elite, you don’t have to establish your credentials or prove your case to your moral inferiors, first because they don’t deserve to have your superiority proven to them, and secondly, they wouldn’t understand it anyway.  They just need to be fixed.

Progressivism is the good cause, and because in progressivism truth is relative, the actual facts of a particular case don’t matter.  The larger narrative is what matters.  Whether Michael Brown was assaulting a police officer when he was killed and didn’t have his hands up, doesn’t matter.  It’s the contribution to the larger narrative of injustice suffered by blacks exemplified by the gentle giant Michael Brown being killed that matters.  Whether a convicted felon who was carrying a gun and failed to obey repeated police orders to drop it and was shot and killed by a police officer who was also black doesn’t matter. What is important is the narrative that police departments are hunting down innocent black men and shooting them for no good reason.  Black or not, if they’re police, they’re racists looking to kill black men.

This is what Hillary is talking about.  You have biases you don’t even realize, unless you are one of her supporters.  You are not American, you are irredeemable.  Even if you graduate from one of her re-education camps, you are still suspect.

This is the intellectual world inhabited by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the rest of the progressivist elites.  This is what she gave us a glimpse of with her “implicit bias” remarks.  Earlier in the campaign, she promised blacks that as a representative of the white race, she would have a word with the rest of the white race concerning their biases towards blacks.  Hillary thinks herself innocent of racism.

Too bad Hillary’s world is too deep to discuss in a presidential debate, but here you can see plainly where Hillary and her friends are coming from.  When Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton is a bigot, he likely said more than he knew.

-30-

Obama’s Deplorables: White Men

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Sept 2016

If you’re white and a man, it isn’t just Hillary Clinton who thinks you’re deplorable, President Barack Obama thinks so as well.  Yesterday, on The Steve Harvey Show, Obama enlightened the audience with his view that Trump supporters are sexists.

"People just do not give [Clinton] credit, and part of it, maybe, is because she's a woman and we have not elected a woman president before," Obama said.

And in case you missed the moral certainty of the President of the United States, he added this,

"But here's somebody who, as I said at the convention, is as qualified as anybody who has ever run for this office, and she's been on the right side of the issues that we care about, and we need to support her, and that begins by making sure that everybody is registered and everybody is voting. The stakes in this election is so high."

Obama did not explain why he ran against Hillary himself.  By his own admission, she was far more qualified than he was, and it would be sexist not to vote for her.

To add to the evidence of Barack Obama’s moral incoherence, he denounced Trump’s “treatment of women,” which he based entirely on Hillary’s account of Miss Universe 1996, who broke her contract and turned herself into Miss Piggy.

"You had somebody who basically insulted women and then doubled down ... in terms of how he talks about them and talks about their weight and talks about, you know, how they look instead of the content of their character and capabilities, which is not something that I want, not somebody I want in the Oval Office that my daughters are listening to and that sons are listening to," Obama said.

Obama failed to mention that it was Hillary herself who guided the “bimbo eruptions” squad, which destroyed the reputations of women who had been raped by, molested, or had a sexual encounter with her husband, Bill Clinton.  Trump is the guy who treated women equally to the point of demanding that they live up to the contract they signed.  Perhaps that is just too much equality for the morally incoherent Obama.  It’s simply wrong to hold women to their contract word, right?

Barack Obama has an evil rhetorical habit: he impugns the motives of those who oppose him, as he did above.  He does this all the time.  Impugning the motives of those who oppose him has the effect of cutting off the discussion and leaving him holding the field of the right and the good.  There can be no honest differences of view, no discussion, when the other side is said to hold their view because of base motives not related to the matter at issue.

If you hold your view because you’re a sexist, a racist, cowardly, or just looking to enrich your supporters, then the reasons you offer in support of your view are not worth discussing because they aren’t the real ones.  If you don’t agree with Obama in 2016 concerning Hillary, you are a sexist.  And if you didn’t agree with Obama in 2008 concerning Hillary, you are a racist.  Got it?  End of discussion.

Who are these sexist people Obama referred to?  According to polls, 75 % of non-college educated white men support Trump.  So there is the profile: Hillary’s deplorables are Obama’s deplorables.  And you know what else?  If Hillary’s free college tuition is passed into law, they are going to be Hillary’s suckers as well.  The non-college educated white men who work for a living are going to pay taxes so that other people can go to college for free.

In the course of getting their free college education, the privileged are going to have their head filled with reasons why non-college educated white men are responsible for all the ills in America, and why the country they love is the worst country in the world.  And after a free college education, the privileged are going to expect to be the bosses of the non-college educated, those who paid the freight.  And the bosses will be free to enlighten their subordinates with all the wisdom they learned at college.

It is one thing to be scorned by the elite in private, when the elite are talking among themselves; but it becomes really ugly when the elite are so smug that they let their scornful views be made known to the outside world.  That is really grinding the boot in someone’s face.

Obama is motivating his base among African-Americans to vote for Hillary as a means of degrading non-college educated white men once and for all.

Is there any doubt why the Trump revolution is so powerful?

-30-

Winning the Point

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Sept 2016

It is hard to have a serious debate with a person who is prepared to lie through her teeth to win even a small point at issue.  Two examples of lying to win trivial points occurred during the Hillary-Trump debate on Monday night.  One was by Hillary, and the other was by Lester Holt.  I’m going to put Lester’s down to falsehood rather than a deliberate lie, because his research was poor on a very minor point.  Lester’s problem was that he made too big an issue of it.

The lie Hillary told to win a point occurred when Donald Trump said that she had previously supported the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, and didn’t change her mind about it until Trump and Bernie started getting political traction by opposing it.  Hillary denied that she ever supported the deal.  When Trump replied that she had called the TPP the “gold standard” in trade deals, she shook her head, smiled, and denied it.  Lester Holt let the moment pass.

This moment of lying by Hillary was her low moment in the debate in the opinion of Charles Krauthammer, who on Special Report last night said,

“In fact she did call it “the gold standard.” And this one exchange, this one issue, exemplifies all that’s wrong with the Clinton candidacy. She obviously is not saying the truth. She changed her mind on it, which can happen, but it’s obvious that she changed her mind only because she was being hit by Sanders on this issue, and because Trump was having such success in coming out against trade, and all public opinion has turned against trade.”


Hillary could have said that in 2012 the deal looked like it was shaping into the gold standard of trade deals, but between then and 2016 the deal did not finalize as she had hoped and expected, and so she’s changed her mind.  But she didn’t say that.  She had to lie in classic Clinton fashion.  Hillary’s change of mind on TPP is a minor point, yet she felt compelled to lie to deny Trump his point.

Lester Holt had his moment of falsehood on a minor point when he tried to press Donald Trump on his alleged support for the war in Iraq before it was launched in 2003, only changing his mind when it became unpopular on the left in 2004.  Lester pressed hard, seeming to quote authoritatively from his research notes while insisting that Trump had at one point supported the war in Iraq in 2003.  Trump, on his feet, insisted Holt consult with Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto of Fox News, with whom Trump had had interviews prior to the war (i.e. in 2003) in which he expressed a coolness towards the venture.  Trump also raised his conversation on the Howard Stern Show before the war, in which he expressed a cavalier coolness towards a war in Iraq.

Trump was not in public service in 2002, as Hillary Clinton was.  He did not vote for the Iraq war or for the AUMF – the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as Hillary Clinton did as Senator from New York.  It is inconsequential what Trump thought about the war in Iraq in 2002, and in the case of Hillary, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Holt thought he could pin Trump in a lie, and that is why he pressed so hard, though why he didn’t press Hillary over the TPP is not clear.  But Holt was wrong.  The next day, the Fox News website hammered Holt over the falsehood he tried to advance in front of a hundred million viewers.  I thought Trump handed Holt his head in his reply, but precious time was wasted hacking it off and defending against a falsehood over a minor point.

Another troublesome episode occurred when Holt accused Trump of racism for pressing Barack Obama, America's first African-American president (if you weren't aware) to release his long-form birth certificate and end the debate about his natural-born legitimacy to be president.  In the course of formulating the question it never occurred to Holt that Obama should probably had done it himself without requiring a political campaign by Trump to accomplish it.  It was easy to do, and when done, ended the controversy that Obama had used to his advantage from time to time.  Regrettably, Trump did not think to mention that Obama was half white, and so it's not racist.  He might have tempted Holt to foolishly raise the racist "one-drop" rule.

The takeaway from this episode is not the sordid way in which the media advanced a falsehood against Trump and failed to fact-check Hillary when she was plainly lying through her teeth.  The takeaway is that it is hard to have a civilized and reasonable debate in such circumstances, and the TV audience ought to be aware of it.  It becomes no longer a debate but a vicious spectacle.  Hillary was her smarmy, smiling, lying self, while the Chairman of the Board was having to keep his cool in face of an attack by the moderator.

There are two more presidential debates scheduled, and Trump promises to hit Hillary harder.  I hope he does not.  People are shocked when Trump gets vicious, but they expect smiling viciousness from Hillary and her coterie in small doses.  Once too often, and she is finished.

Trump should hit back by all means, but should take refuge in the fact that Hillary regards him as deplorable, along with at least fifty million other Americans whom Trump stands with and represents.

-30-

Miss Piggy

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Sept 2016

Getting close to the Clintons can get you covered in political filth.  This has been noted before, and the former “Miss Universe,” Alicia Machado, who allowed herself to be used by Hillary Clinton to strike at Donald Trump, is getting covered now.

As mentioned in the extract below, Machado, shortly after winning the Miss Universe contest, allegedly drove a get-away car from an attempted murder scene, and then threatened the judge with murder when he indicted her boyfriend for the attempted murder.  This would not have become widespread knowledge but for Machado lending herself to the Clintons.

On my list of tweets is a re-tweet of a 1997 interview with Donald Trump and Alicia Machado along with a personal trainer that Trump had hired for Miss Machado to help her deal with her weight problem.  Trump was an understanding gentleman throughout, explaining to the press how both he and Machado like to eat when the pressure is on.  Machado had won the contest at a weight of 118 lb, and they discussed how Miss Machado was going to get herself down to between 125 and 130 lb.  From the context, Machado was up over 140 lb by that point.

One of the requirements of entering a beauty contest is that if you win it, you have certain responsibilities to appear.  At appearances, you have to look like the glamorous and beautiful woman who won the contest.  An event that is hiring “Miss Universe” to appear, isn’t paying for a fat facsimile of same.  They aren’t hiring a pleasant looking 140+ lb heifer; they are hiring a 120 lb beauty queen.  Machado was violating her contract, and Trump was trying to re-coup his investment in Miss Universe.  This isn’t about personal relationships, this is about a business deal heading south because of an undisclosed personal weakness in one of the partners.

Of course, there are personalities and egos involved.  Miss Machado’s ego seems to equal her personal self with the entire Latino community.  The extract below from CNN covers the facts well:

• "We cannot accept no more insults for my Latin community. No more insults for the women," she says
• "He tried to destroy my self esteem," she says

Washington (CNN)Former "Miss Universe" Alicia Machado struck back Tuesday against insults hurled at her by Donald Trump, saying that he was "aggressive" and "really rude."

Machado, who represented Venezuela in Trump's 1996 "Miss Universe" competition said that Trump called her "Miss Housekeeping" and "Miss Piggy" when she gained weight after winning the beauty pageant.

"I know what I left with him and he knows, too. And he was really aggressive. He was really rude. He was a bad person with me," she told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "AC360."

"That is the story that I need to share with my community. We cannot accept no more insults for my Latin community. No more insults for the women. I know very well Mr. Trump and I can see the same person that I met 20 years ago."

At the presidential debate on Monday, Clinton referenced Machado to make a bigger point to Trump about his public treatment of women -- which has become a key campaign issue that hits on his vulnerabilities with both Hispanics and women.

"And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest -- he loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them -- and he called this woman 'Miss Piggy,' then he called her 'Miss Housekeeping' because she was Latina," Clinton had said.

She continued: "Donald, she has a name. Her name is Alicia Machado. And she has become a US citizen and you can bet she is going to vote this November."

Cooper also asked Machado about reports that she was accused of driving a getaway car from a murder scene soon after the "Miss Universe" pageant.

"There are reports that Trump surrogates tonight have been referencing and been pointing to ... about an incident in 1998 in Venezuela where you were accused of driving a getaway car from a murder scene. You were never charged with this. The judge in the case also said you threatened to kill him after he indicted your boyfriend for the attempted murder. I just want to give you a chance to respond these reports," Cooper said.

Machado responded: "He can say whatever he wants to say. I don't care. You know, I have my past, of course everybody has a past. And I'm no saint girl. But that is not the point now ... (Trump) was really rude with me, he tried to destroy my self esteem. And now I'm a voice in the Latin community. I'm in a great moment in my life and I have a very clear life. And I can show my taxes."

Earlier Tuesday, Trump refused to back down from his criticism of Machado, telling "Fox and Friends" in an interview that she had "gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem."

"She was the winner and you know, she gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem. We had a real problem," Trump said. "Not only that, her attitude, and we had a real problem with her, so Hillary went back into the years and she found this girl -- this was many years ago. And found the girl and talked about her like she was Mother Theresa. And it wasn't quite that way but that's OK. Hillary has to do what she has to do."

Surprisingly, the Clinton News Network covered this story factually.  The story proves that Hillary Clinton was lying when she used this as an example of how badly Trump treats “women,” or is it “Latinos,” or whatever.  Publically, Trump said nothing bad about her at the time, 1997.  If he expressed anger with her, it was in private.  Latino or no, woman or no, Machado was letting down her side of the contract and costing Donald Trump money because of it.  Getting herself involved in an attempted murder and then threatening to kill a judge would have ruined the reputation of “Miss Universe” and cost Trump a lot more money.  No wonder he was furious with her.

Now that Miss Piggy has identified herself, and has allowed herself to be held up by the Clintons in her petty revenge against Trump, her private life, her own terrible decisions, and her raging ego are now exposed to the world.  She is getting covered in filth she would never have been exposed to but for her contact with the Clintons.

-30-

Trump Buries Clinton in Debate

Vincent J. Curtis

27 Sept 2016

Last night I watched Donald Trump bury Hillary Clinton at the debate.  It was lopsided how big he won.  Hillary may have scored some points among her committed base and among her partisans, but she barely touched Trump.

One hundred million people tuned in.  One hundred million people did not tune in to see Hillary Clinton’s slab face.  One hundred million people did not tune in to listen to Hillary offer the old tired bromides, the same platitudes, and the same solutions that have failed the last thirty years.  One hundred million people tuned in to watch Donald Trump.

The TV audience were watching to decide who ought to be the next president of the United States.  They weren’t watching to choose the next debating champion.  They weren’t watching to see who was the smarmiest lawyer.  They were looking for the person best suited to lead the United States for the next four years.  Trump was clearly a leader, and Hillary demonstrated no leadership qualities at all on the stage.  She was there to win a debate under debating rules, a rulebook the audience is not especially careful of.  Trump was there to show why he should be president.

Trump dominated the debate.  He interrupted Hillary when useful in good parliamentary style – fast and incisive, too fast for the moderator to intervene.  Trump would not let the moderator, Lester Holt, push him around.  Trump talked about what he wanted, more or less in response to the question put to him.  He did have an answer, but when it suited him at that point in the debate, Trump would divert to throw another shovel full on Hillary.  Then he answered the question.

One commentator from the far left of the political spectrum sent out a message that he was getting uncomfortable watching the debate because, as performance art, Trump was miles ahead of Hillary.  Performance art is how I let the debate present itself.

Within a minute or two into the debate, I stopped looking at Hillary.  I watched Trump and his reaction to her.  I stopped listening closely to Hillary because she bored me, and she had nothing new to say.  It didn’t take Trump long to seize on it, asking Hillary if she was just thinking of this now or was this the same boilerplate that has been tried for thirty years and hasn’t worked.  Trump was far more interesting to watch and to listen to.  Meanwhile, Hillary presented herself like a harridan.

Eventually, Hillary turned to getting under Trump’s skin.  This was supposed to be her great ability and achievement in the debate: to have gotten under Donald’s skin.  How pulling off such a thing makes her qualified to be president and a welcome presence in the living rooms of America for the next four years was never explained to me.  I did watch Hillary try to strike really low blows at times, and especially near the end, but I never saw Trump get any more exercised than his usual level.  Trump never got angry or lost his cool, if that is what Hillary provocations were attempting to do.

The commentary after the debate was over had the outcome of the debate pretty close, with a slight advantage to Hillary.  I don’t know what debate they were watching, or what set of rules they had in mind to judge the thing.  I watched the debate as a TV spectacle for its impressions – at its most basic level.  And Trump looked and sounded much better than Hillary, whom I could neither watch nor listen to after a while.  I’ve seen it all and heard it all before from her.  This debate would have been a tiresome to political wonks if the debate were between John Kasich and Hillary.  It was Trump who made it interesting and who drew the audience.

Trump did not explode.  He belonged on stage and most of the time dominated it.  He did not say anything outrageous.  He gave sensible answers to the questions put to him.  Compared to Trump, Hillary looked bad.

Watch the polls over the next few days, and I’m sure Trump will rise.

Hillary did not cause Donald Trump to prove himself temperamentally unfit to be president.  Instead, Trump made her look weak and tired, with nothing new to offer.  Trump may not have won over many people who were leaning towards Hillary, but those people are going to stay home rather than vote for her.  Trump continues to chip away at Hillary’s support among minorities when he made another direct appeal to the Black and Hispanic vote by observing the hellish conditions in which they live, devoid of law and order.  He said he wants to do something about it, something Democrats won’t do.

Hillary failed to put Trump away, and Trump came away looking like an executive, a Chairman of the Board -  presidential  - and a more powerful leader than Hillary.

-30-

Mark Cuban in the Front Row?

Vincent J. Curtis

26 Sept 2016

Apparently, it’s true.  Hillary Clinton is going to sit Mark Cuban in the front row of the auditorium during her debate with Donald Trump tonight.  I don’t know why this is being allowed.

Mark Cuban is not a participant in the debate.  All he can do is jeer and make faces at Donald Trump as a means of distracting him, and that is why Hillary is putting him in the front row.  I hope the NBC will focus a camera on him continuously so that there will be a record of his conduct, which is intended to be inappropriate.  I doubt that NBC will, however.

Earlier in the week, when Hillary made the Cuban announcement Trump threatened to play tit-for-tat and have Gennifer Flowers sit next to Mark Cuban.  Juanita Broadderick and then Paula Jones wanted invitations also so that they could sit with Gennifer.  The media reacted with horror and pretended that Trump had initiated a pre-emptive strike against Hillary.  How dare he invite Gennifer Flowers?

It is a sign of how long the Clinton corruption has polluted American politics, that one can write the names of three private women without having to explain anything about them.  Their names are just in the public memory because of their association with the Clintons from nearly twenty years ago.

A typical exchange occurred on Fox News Sunday, when host Chris Wallace interrogated Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Mike Pence about the story of placing Gennifer Flowers in the front row.  There was no mention of her sitting right next to Mark Cuban.  Wallace took on the air that this seemed to be another of Donald Trump’s outrageous stunts that tend to prove his unfitness for office.  Wallace made no mention of the proposal being a tit-for-tat, and for his part Mike Pence didn’t either.  Pence finally said that none of the many women in Bill Clinton’s past were going to be invited to the debate by the Trump campaign.

Later in the day, on the Sunday edition of Special Report, Wallace said that the Trump campaign were “running away” from inviting any of Bill’s women to the debate.  He made it sound as though Trump were afraid of something.  We have yet to see in this campaign an occasion where Trump shied from a fight, over anything.  Yellow journalism can be subtle at times, but its frequency has degraded the public’s view of journalism, and it exists even at Fox.

After Mike Pence, as a kind of equivalence, Wallace then interviewed a staffer from the Hillary campaign.  Tim Kaine wasn’t available, and neither was Hillary, apparently.  So, Wallace interviews a Hillary staffer - who can’t be held responsible for anything he says or be blameworthy for things he doesn’t know.  He can offer the most outrageous defenses of the indefensible, and it isn’t Hillary or Tim Kaine’s face saying the words, or being the one directly confronted with what he said, as Pence was.

The staffer, Joel Benenson, was asked by Wallace what he thought of Trump’s first inviting Gennifer Flowers and then disinviting her, with no mention by either of the Mark Cuban stunt initiated by Hillary Clinton.  Wallace then raised the Mark Cuban matter, and Benenson responded by praising Cuban, ragged the puck for a while, condemned Donald Trump and then stopped talking.  Wallace moved on to another topic.

This was a small exercise about small things of monumental importance.  If Cuban is a non-factor, as he should be, all the news will be about the debate.  The debate will wipe out the news that the reason Hillary wasn’t recommended for indictment was because it was Barack Obama she was being irresponsible with.  That Barack Obama lied about not knowing of Hillary’s private server is also news that will be buried.  The news that Hillary tried to pull a cheap trick by putting Mark Cuban in the front row to distract Trump will be gone.

But like rocks that are still rocks whether or not they are covered by water, when the tide recedes, these rocks will be exposed again.

-30-

Covered in Clinton Filth

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Sept 2016

Even getting physically close to a Clinton can get you covered in political filth.  Just ask Loretta Lynch, Attorney-General of the United States, who had a private meeting with Hillary’s husband Bill aboard her aircraft in Phoenix, AZ, Sky Harbor airport, of all places.

Colin Powell is now being tarred with Clinton’s political filth.  His use of private email when he was Secretary of State (2001 – 2005) was used by Hillary Clinton as the legal precedent for her use of a private email server to conduct all her business, both public and private.  According to reports, Powell’s use of private email involved about three dozen transmissions, and these occurred at a time when email was relatively new to the State Department infrastructure.  Condoleezza Rice, who was Secretary of State from 2005 to 2009, did not use email while her department completely overhauled the rules and the infrastructure at State to handle email communications and to comply with records retention laws.  She has had nothing to do with the Clintons, and her reputation remains clean.

Powell, however, described Hillary in an email as a “good friend.”  He did not realize that his “good friend” was going to use him as her legal and reputational shield.  His reputation was going to be blackened before hers was.  His judgement was going to suffer in the public’s estimation if hers was.  Powell became the target of hackers because of his association with Hillary, and numerous embarrassing emails of his were leaked to the public, including his contempt for husband Bill, said to be “still d---king bimbos at home.”

In the FBI document dump of late yesterday afternoon, it became obvious that Hillary was setting up her “good friend” Colin Powell to be the fall guy should her secret server become known.  His example was to be Hillary’s legal precedent.  This is how Fox News reported the information:

“In a separate conversation, Pagliano's IT colleague, whose identity is redacted in the documents, said that "he wouldn’t be surprised if classified information was being transmitted."  Pagliano said his colleague asked him to convey the concern to Clinton's inner circle.   When he did so, however, Pagliano said Mills shrugged off the warning, telling Pagliano that "former Secretary [sic] of State had done the same thing, [including] Colin Powell."

Colin Powell must have thought that his reputation was untouchable.

FBI Director James Comey is having his once-sterling reputation torn to shreds over Hillary Clinton.  The late Friday afternoon document dump is the fifth or sixth such use of the classic Washington trick to avoid having bad news in the news while people are watching: to dump large amounts of material very late on a Friday afternoon.  Among many things that were present in the data dump were the people who received immunity from the Justice Department in return for cooperation with the FBI investigation.  Five of Hillary closest helpers in the email scandal were given immunity, including Cheryl Mills.

Mills was given immunity as a witness to a potential crime, but she was allowed to represent Hillary as an attorney during Hillary’s questioning by the FBI.  The conflicts and unethical conduct here is overwhelming.  Mills was a witness to a potential crime.  But for her immunity deal, she was open to indictment herself.  Yet the FBI allowed a witness and potentially a co-conspirator to a crime to sit in on the questioning of another suspect – and have the power to give advice to the witness whether to answer a question and how to answer a question!

In addition to Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, who set up Hillary’s home-brew server, and Paul Combetta, the guy who deleted and bleach-bitted Hillary’s email archive at Platte River Networks were also given immunity.

Nobody in Washington is looking at James Comey the same.

It also turns out that Hillary had her email archive transferred from the original server in her home to another server at Platte River Networks in Denver, CO.  She then had her old server destroyed electronically.  When the FBI asked Hillary for her server, not realizing the lateral of information had taken place, she gave them the ruined one.  Big joke!

It also came out that Barack Obama is getting brushed with the Clinton tar.  It was revealed in the document dump that he sent email communications directly to Hillary on her clintonemail.com server, when previously he denied even knowing about her secret server.  The exposure of Obama as a liar is not shocking, but it will become known that the reason Hillary wasn’t indicted for careless handling of classified information is that he was the one Hillary was being careless with.  Obama himself is sinking into the Clinton ooze.

The last person of public prominence to cover himself in political filth in aid of the Clintons is Congressman Elijah Cummings, (D- MD).  Cummings was a hero of the civil rights movement, but he has drunk so deep of the Democrat kool-aid that he is a partisan Democrat first and above all.  Cummings had tried his best to protect Hillary.  He has portrayed all congressional investigation into Hillary scandals as mere partisan witch-hunts.  The proper way of going about his job is to express skepticism first, then announce his determination of witch-hunting after the investigation is complete or nearly complete.  But no, his conclusion is pronounced before the investigation even starts.  He is ruining his reputation on a bad cause.  The protection of the Clintons is not in the interest of the Democrat party, or of the Republic.  It is in the interest of the Clintons alone, and they alone will benefit.  As in the case of Colin Powell, the moment it becomes expedient, Elijah Cummings will be covered in herring oil and then thrown under the bus.

You have to wonder how long the string of filth-covered and bloodied bodies trailing behind the Clinton bus will be necessary before Democrats start to notice.

-30-

Huma Spills the Beans: Obama Knew

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Sept 2016

In my posting of July 27^th, 2016, I concluded that the reason Hillary was not recommended for indictment by FBI Director James Comey was that President Barack Obama himself was among those with whom Hillary was having those highly classified email conversations.

The latest late Friday afternoon document dump by the FBI contained this nugget that serves as powerful support for that thesis:

“Top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, in her interview, explained how they had to update email addresses with the White House so Clinton could email President Barack Obama. When Abedin was shown a 2012 email exchange, she did not recognize the pseudonym -- when agents explained it was Obama, she replied, "How is this not classified?"”

Previously, President Barack Obama denied knowing about Hillary’s home-brew server.  This is what he told CBS News:

Last Updated Mar 7, 2015 6:56 PM EST

President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.

"The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," the president told Plante.

Mr. Obama's comments follow a long week of media scrutiny surrounding Hillary Clinton's private email address and the "home-brewed" server that hosted it.

Plainly, President Barack Obama lied about not knowing.  He did know.  He communicated with Hillary at her non-.gov address.  Huma Abedin told the FBI of updating email address with the White House so that Hillary could email Obama directly, using his email pseudonym, Barry Soetoro.  When Huma was shown an email between H and Barry, she ejaculated, “Why is this not classified?”

Communications between the President and the Secretary of State are born classified, at the Secret or Top Secret level depending upon the sensitivity of the material.  Even if the content is not especially secret, a discussion of baseball for example, the email contains header information useful to hackers.  Non-classified content would reveal to foreign intelligence agencies the state of the relationship between the two, and also what is on their minds.  That is why even innocuous emails between the Secretary and the President need to be kept secret regardless of content.

Obama lied about his knowledge of Hillary’s secret server.  And because it was he who was communicating with Hillary about highly classified matters through her secret server that Comey couldn’t recommend indictment for Hillary.  If she were indicted, Obama ought also be indicted.  Obama is the fount of classification authority.  If he was communicating with Hillary by standards that would have others indicted, that’s okay because he’s the boss.  And there is her defence.  Enough reasonable doubt to get off.

-30-

Responses to the Charlotte Riots

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Sept 2016

The response to the riots in Charlotte, NC, by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was a study in contrasts. Trump played to his strengths, and Hillary straddling, trying to protect a weakness.

Donald Trump was in Pittsburgh, PA, yesterday and directed his remarks first at President Barack Obama, who has been conspicuous by his absence during the rioting.  Trump said that Obama has a responsibility “to address this crisis and save African-American lives.”  Trump went on to put a finger on drugs as a contributing factor to the tension and rioting, “If you’re not aware, drugs are a very, very big factor in what you’re watching on television,”

Trump then turned to his campaign themes of law and order and of American greatness, “There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct.  Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration,”  “Our country looks bad to the world, especially when we are supposed to be the world’s leader,” “How can we lead when we can’t even control our own cities?  We honor and recognize the right of all Americans to peacefully assemble, protest and demonstrate, but there is no right to engage in violent disruption or to threaten the public safety and peace of others.”

Trump is on record as appealing to black communities by speaking about the deplorable living conditions in the black slums of America’s great cities.  In a North Carolina rally Trump said that black communities “are absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before—ever, ever, ever.”  He has promised to do something about it.  “What have you got to lose?” he asks.

Clinton’s response showed the weakness she feels in her support in the black communities.  She did not condemn the rioters or the rioting, as Trump did.  Instead, she patronized the Black Lives Matter movement, balancing her remarks with a favorable mention of law enforcement.

Clinton lamented, “Two more names to add to a list of African-Americans killed by police officers,”  “It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable,” “We also saw the targeting of police officers in Philadelphia last week. And last night in Charlotte, 12 officers were injured in demonstrations following Keith Scott’s death. Every day police officers are serving with courage, honor and skill.”

If Donald Trump peals away 15 to 20 percent of the black vote from Hillary Clinton, her campaign is finished.  Trump doesn’t need to win every black vote; he would like to win one vote in five.  Hence, Trump can be more targeted in his appeal.  He can appeal to common sense, he can observe that rioting is most harmful to the black community itself, he can touch on the evil impact of drugs, and he can link respectable black protest to his larger theme of American greatness.  He can make a gesture of understanding towards the black community without looking like he is pandering.  All he needs to do is make a good impression with one in five to one in seven black voters through a statesman-like appeal to their intelligence.

Hillary on the other hand has to get every black vote, and she has to motivate blacks to turn out in larger than average numbers as they did for Barack Obama.  Consequently, Hillary can’t reprimand, chide, hector, castigate, talk down to, or otherwise been seen lecturing to the black community, as she does to her basket of white deplorables.  Blacks are the victims, and she has to pander to that victimhood.  She can’t afford otherwise.  She can’t condemn the rioters lest she face a backlash from the extreme left; and in her remarks, she did not.  She tried to appear sympathetic to everyone.

Her noises of praise for law enforcement were intended to keep peace with the center of the Democrat party, however incongruous they seem in her sentiments.  She is weak on the law and order issue, and some favorable balancing mention of law enforcement was essential for her to maintain any credibility at all on the issue, and so that her pandering to the black community was not so obvious.

The Charlotte riots are a threat to Hillary’s campaign because they drive a wedge between her bases of support – a disparate collection of groups.  When it finally becomes known that the organization for the riots came from outside Charlotte, from successor organizations to ACORN and those sympathetic to the Saul D. Alinsky school of radical organization, Hillary could be hurt by those of her base in the political center of the party withdrawing their support and staying home.

The Charlotte rioters are not members of Hillary’s basket of deplorables.  She is has to be sympathetic to the rioters lest she lose any portion of the black vote.  Noises from her sympathetic to law enforcement is an effort to straddle the divide between her supporters.

Trump on the other hand can stay true to his message and try to peel away a small portion of Hillary’s base in the political center.  Trump will never get the extreme left; they are Hillary’s to lose.  Social upheaval after eight years of Barack Obama plays into Donald Trump’s message.

-30-

  

Teleprompter Brain

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Sept 2016

In his last speech to the United Nations as president, Barack Obama read the following off his teleprompter:

"If we are honest, we know that no external power is going to be able to force different religious communities or ethnic communities to co-exist for long,"

You have to wonder if the man who read that statement understood what he just said.  In practice, Obama wants to bring into the United States large numbers of Syrian Muslims as refugees.  If no external power such as the various levels of government in the United States can force difference ethnic and religious communities to co-exist for long, then why is he importing the potential for religious and ethnic conflict into the country he is the president of?

Barack Obama is the president of the American people, he is in no wise responsible for the care of Syrian refugees beyond the foreign assistance expected from the world’s most powerful and richest nation.  Yet here he is following a plan that he knows will result in the creation of ethnic and religious strife in the United States.

Obama went on the say, "Until basic questions are answered about how communities co-exist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn. Countless human beings will suffer."

Let’s completely agree with that statement.  Given that Obama admits that no one knows how communities can co-exist, and that until that question is answered ‘the embers of extremism will continue to burn’ and ‘countless human being will suffer.’ why is Obama trying to import large numbers of Syrian refugees into America?  Muslim communities in the United States constitute a distinct religious community, and being of either Arabic or Somalian origin, constitute a distinct ethnic community as well.  Why is Obama trying to import into the United States fresh burning embers of extremism?

Aren’t countless human beings going to suffer – in the United States?  Isn’t Obama as president of the United States committed to promoting the general welfare of the United States?  Importing causes of disturbance of the civil peace is utterly at odds with general welfare of the United States!

Aren’t the riots presently going on in Charlotte, NC, enough for him?  Does America need even more civil strife Mr. Obama?

In a less-than-subtle jab at Donald Trump, Obama said, "The world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent (extremism) from affecting our own societies."  Obama then met with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.  Israel built a wall between Israel and the West Bank that has completed halted terrorist attacks in Israel that once originated in the West Bank.

Obama answers his own question: a wall is a way of keeping separate communities that cannot co-exist peacefully.  If that wall is maintained, the community protected by the wall can live in peace.  It can flourish on its own without the civil strife implicit in the intermixing of distinctive and hostile ethnic and religious communities.

Barack Obama read his speech from his teleprompter.  The words seemingly went from the screen and through his mouth without passing through his mind.

It gets worse.  Obama is at pains not to link acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the United States with any outside group, such as ISIS.  At most, Obama will say that perpetrators of terrorist acts were not upholding true Islam.  Again, let’s take that as read.

What becomes necessary, then, is that members of the Muslim community in the United States spontaneously go thermonuclear, just as it is a matter of random chance which radioactive atomic nuclei will be the one to spontaneously fission.  We don’t know which one, but statistically we know that a certain number will in a certain time period.  And Obama wants to import entire communities of people of whom we know statistically will produce a certain number of thermonuclear events in a given period of time!

Putting down ISIS won’t stop it, because domestic Islamic terrorism isn’t inspired by ISIS, according to Obama.  Correct interpretations of Islam won’t solve the problem either because the known terrorists have interpretations of Islam that are in accordance with ISIS - whether that interpretation is correct or not.

Islam is not a religion capable of living in peace with its neighbors.  Islam cannot accept inferior status.  Islam cannot accept status of equality.  Islam has to be dominant.  Islam has to hold all other religions and atheism in inferior status.  That is not solvable by reasoned argument.  That is the nature of the beast.

Since it is the nature of the beast to dominate, and since no external power can force different religious communities to co-exist for long, the aggressive nature of Islam cannot be permanently contained by external force.  Islamic violence against its failure to be dominant must eventually break out.  And it breaks out in America precisely because Islam is not dominant.

Obama knows this, and yet he insists on more Muslim immigration to America.  Obama may read, but not understand the implications of, the words on his teleprompter.  But that cannot prevent thinking people from putting two and two together on their own.

Donald Trump is practical enough to see that a good wall and strong immigration controls can be effective barriers that keeps the people behind them safe from external threats.  He came to this conclusion not reading it from a teleprompter but by his own practical thinking.  Trump, by the way, is running to be president of the United States.

-30-

Hillary: The White Race is Deplorable

Vincent J. Curtis

21 Sept 2016

After a grueling 24 hours on the campaign trail, Hillary yesterday took the rest of the week off to rest and prepare for the first presidential debate with Donald Trump next Monday night.

She had not abandoned campaigning entirely.  Taking a page from Trump, Hillary called in to the Steve Harvey morning show in the wake of the Tulsa, OK, shooting.  A police officer, who happened to be a white female, (40-year-old Officer Betty Shelby) shot and killed an unarmed black man (40-year-old Terence Crutcher) during a traffic incident.  The matter is still under investigation, but the incident played into the Black Lives Matter narrative.

Always careful never to throw gasoline onto the fire unless it servers her purposes, Hillary sought to burnish her fading image in the black community through the Harvey show.  She spoke more or less as follows:

"We have got to tackle systemic racism… This horrible shooting again.  How many times do we have to see this in our country…..This is just unbearable, and it needs to be intolerable."

"And maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, 'Look, this is not who we are,'"  "We have got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias."

This is not the first time Hillary has spoken of the need for her to have a word with white people about their racism.  At the NAACP convention earlier this year, Clinton said:

"We white Americans need to do a better job of listening when African-Americans talk about the seen and unseen barriers you face every day. We need to recognize our privilege and practice humility, rather than assume our experiences are everyone's experiences,"

Perhaps a black audience is used to being spoken to directly as a race, but to a white man’s ears it is jarring to listen to Hillary speak in my name on behalf of the race that I belong to.

Hillary the Harpy is going to castigate me for this and other police shootings because I happen to be of the same race as the police officer involved?  Am I guilty by association on account of my race?

Since harridan Hillary is going to tell me who “we are” and who “we are supposed to be,” let me fill her in on some of my details.  I am not one of the police officers involved in these incidents.  I have no say in how police officers are trained or in the tactics they employ.  I just pay my taxes and go about minding my own business.  I am not one of the deplorables you think I am, and, frankly, I am offended by your presumption even to speak to me about my alleged biases and my alleged privilege on the basis that I am white.  You have no right to castigate me “one white person to another.”

Hillary is very, very careful to make sure that at the latest act of radical Islamic terrorism Muslims as a whole are not painted with the brush of suspicion.  Yet here she is doing the very opposite, holding the entire white race responsible for these individual instances of police officers shooting black men while on police duty.

If Hillary wants to talk about changing police training and tactics, fine.  But the white race as whole, of which I am a member, cannot be held responsible for possible breakdowns or failures in police training and tactics in individual instances.  These are the responsibility of the individuals involved, regardless of the race or gender they belong to.

When it comes to her, Hillary thinks that racism is “okay for me, but not for thee.”

Evidently, Hillary thinks that much of the white race belong in her basket of deplorables.  Donald Trump was right when he declared, “Hillary Clinton is a bigot!”

-30-

Hillary Calls Trump a Traitor

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Sept 2016

In contrast to the press session on her aircraft, when she looked “like a zoo animal that had been hit with a tranquilizer dart,” yesterday Hillary looked well-rested and bland as she calmly and cold-bloodedly told reporters that Donald Trump’s rhetoric is “giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.”

Luckily, nobody asked Hillary that if Trump’s hateful rhetoric is a recruiting tool, how much more a recruiting tool is Obama’s bombing campaign against them?  Isn’t actual bombing more offensive than mere talk?

Hillary’s thesis is that because Donald Trump wants to halt Muslim immigration, or at least to impose ‘extreme vetting’ on Muslim immigrants and refugees from Muslim civil wars, that ISIS is using such rhetoric to recruit adherents.  Hillary even cited retired Air Force General Michael Hayden to say that Trump was a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIS.  Hence, in a way, it is Donald Trump who is responsible for terrorist attacks in the United States - because he inflames Muslim feelings.

Hillary campaign spokesliar Brian Fallon weighed in, “For most of his campaign, Donald Trump has made dangerous and irresponsible statements that experts say play directly into the hands of ISIS and its perverse ideology.”  In plainer English, Fallon was arguing that Trump should just ‘shut up’ - a standard progressivist tactic in the middle of a political campaign.  Fallon doesn’t want to win the argument, he wants to close the argument.  Well, at least Fallon didn’t use Obama’s increasingly odd formulation, “ISIL.” 

The media coverage of Hillary’s accusation focussed, naturally, on the content of the accusation and neglected its larger implication.  The ‘aid and comfort’ line nobody seriously believes, not even Hillary.  And if Hillary does believe it, then that is more proof of her unfitness for office.  The 'stronger together candidate' felt she needed to dump another bucket of manure over Trump’s head, and the terrorist attacks in New York – New Jersey and Minnesota provided as good an occasion as any.

Acts of domestic terrorism by Muslims in America, especially Muslim immigrants, plays into Trumps campaign theme of security, law and order, and bringing order and control to America’s borders.  If a terrorist cannot get into the United States, he can’t carry out a terrorist attack in the United States.  If entry to the United States is made orderly, and common sense measures such as profiling and special attention being paid to migrants from certain countries, then America ought to be made safer.

But the Obama-Clinton policy can’t abide by common sense thinking.  That policy holds that America reduces Muslim hostility by allowing greater Muslim immigration to America, opening her citizens’ breasts to a knife-thrust by the bad-apples who come in, and trusting that they won’t take advantage.  America needs to prove to the Islamic world that she is at war with radicalism, not with Islam per se, and does so by exposing the breasts of her citizens.  The incoherence of this position is glossed over by saying that opposition to it amounts to Islamophobia, or, in Trump’s case, giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

Hillary’s bucket of manure was an attempt to thwart the power of Trump’s argument, or at least to make him seem like the guy who shouldn’t be one implementing it.

In fact, ISIS doesn’t care a ‘flying fatwa’ about what American politicians say, or American elections.  ISIS came into being because the American withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 provided space for it to grow and no one to nip it in the bud.  Its fundamentalist ideology combined with its military successes are what gives it recruiting appeal.  As ISIS says in its own literature to the West, “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”

To say that America has to prove something to the Islamic world that it is fighting extremism and not Islam per se, fundamentally misunderstands Islam, and even human nature.  Muslims are human beings before they are Muslims, and as human beings they ought to understand that if you attack a powerful person, expect a return blow.  To Muslims, there is no ‘radical’ Islam, there is only Islam, and Muslims are notorious complainers about the West.  (“If it’s not colonialism, it’s the crusades.” Said George W. Bush in an unguarded moment.)

I can understand why Obama does what he does, but Hillary has no excuses.  If she thinks that unlimited immigration from the Muslim world is what America needs, and what the world needs to do to end the civil wars in the Muslim world, then she is one at sea, she is the one who is manifestly is not up to the job of being president of the United States.

-30-

Out on Her Feet

Vincent J. Curtis

19 Sept 2016

Two terrorist episodes took place in the United States on Saturday: two actual bombings in New York City and in New Jersey as well as unexploded devices found, and a stabbing attack in Minnesota.  Investigations are ongoing, but an Islamist connection has already been made in both instances.

Donald Trump heard about the New York – New Jersey explosions and announced them at a campaign rally in Colorado Saturday night.  He used the incident to argue that the United States is in peril.  He called the explosions “bombings” before the New York police said so.  “Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what’s going on,” he said on an airport tarmac.

Then, this report from The Daily Mail: “Hillary Clinton appeared to criticize her rival Donald Trump on Saturday night for immediately referring to the New York City blast as a bombing, only moments before calling it a bombing herself.”

“After landing in White Plains, New York, a noticeably tired-looking Clinton told reporters she had been 'briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attacks in Minnesota.'

A reporter then asked what she thought about the Republican presidential nominee appearing to pre-empt New York City officials when he declared a 'bomb went off' in New York City before officials had released details.

'Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb',' the reporter asked.

'Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this,' Clinton said.

'That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. 

She added: 'I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.' “

The visuals of Hillary’s press session aboard her plane were not good.  She looked and sounded like “a zoo animal that had been hit with a tranquilizer dart,” according to Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt.

She looked like she was out on her feet.  She called it a bombing and then, in response to a question regarding Trump calling it a bombing, she attacked him for precipitateness - not realizing what she herself had just said.  A boxer who is reduced to fighting on instinct will lash out in such a manner: see target, punch target.  She heard the name Donald Trump and her immediate response to was attack him.  This time it made her look like she was unaware.

This, combined with her duplicitousness about her heath issues – and there seems to be growing awareness of them – is not going to help her cause.  She may be more palatable than Donald Trump to many, but a crucial number of those who prefer Hillary may not vote for her because they feel that she is physically not up to the job.

Look for growing calls among Democrats and the media for Donald Trump to “come clean” on his physical fitness.  That would be the obvious alternative narrative to combat worries about Hillary’s fitness – to question the fitness of Trump.  If Hillary is sick – then Trump is sick also.

Hillary’s visuals did not look good, and her responses were formulaic and exhausted.  Trump would do well to encourage her to rest and regain her health.

-30-

Rancid Racism

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Sept 2016

At a prayer breakfast yesterday, Donald Trump looked at a sea of upturned white faces in the room of Evangelical voters and said, “After all that white people have done for this country, it would be an insult to your forebears, an insult to everything America stands for, if you people here in this audience and all the white people in America let down and failed to vote for me, Donald Trump, the one white man in the race, in the forthcoming election.  You want American to be great again?  Go vote for Trump!

Oh!  Sorry!  That wasn’t Donald Trump at all!  My mistake!  It wasn’t Donald Trump being a rancid racist and a sexist at all.

It was actually President Barack Hussein Obama, America’s first black president, who, as the keynote speaker at the Congressional Black Caucus dinner last night, said:

“[A]fter we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send off? Go vote!"

Okay black people.  If you truly love me, and know which side your bread is buttered on, you better get off your asses and vote for ………[Hillary.]

This naked appeal to racist voting has so far gone unremarked in the main-stream media, because despite Obama’s contemptuous treatment of them, the MSM still loves the guy – like a beaten wife loves her abusive husband.

If Trump ever said any such thing as I pretended that he had, the gates of media hell would open against him.  But he wouldn’t because, by all accounts, Trump hasn’t a racist bone in his body.

And the black community seems to be realizing it.  According to the latest polls, Trump is now supported by around 15 % of that voting block, a dangerously high number for Hillary.  Perhaps Trump’s appeal, “What have you got to lose?” is beginning to register.  Maybe black mothers are attracted to his law and order and public safety appeals.  Maybe his call for jobs for the inner cities is melting some hearts.  Maybe those black dudes are uncomfortable with voting for a sickly white woman for president.

Who knows?  But Obama’s appeal to pure racism may not work this time.

However, that he did resort to such an appeal ought not to go unnoted.

-30-