Wednesday, November 30, 2016

The Left is Still in Denial as to Why Hillary Lost

The political left and the left-wing media are still in disbelief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.  But, instead of looking inwards for answers, they continue to float the idea that "conspiracies" were responsible.

Just a few days ago, the New York Magazine reported that a group of  "prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" believed that the loss was a result of hacked voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania -- citing irregularities such as lower vote counts where voting machines were used. Then in that same article, the confidence in their hacking theory is immediately tempered by this statement:
"While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review."
Just last Friday, the Washington Post theorized that in fact a Russian propaganda effort threw the election; along with the hacking of emails from the Clinton camp and the Democratic National Committee.  However, as above, the veracity of that story was also weakened when the following was written:
"There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders."
The only problem with the above "speculation" is that team Clinton members never disavowed any of the hacked emails as not being "real".  All they ever said was that they were being released because Putin wants Trump to be President.  Hillary's campaign chief, John Podesta, even "suggests" that Trump had before-hand knowledge of the email hack and data dump in the last few weeks.  "Suggests" is not a proven fact, but thought the story was fit to print.

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about "fake news". The implication is that somehow, the political right is the primary "faker" of news stories intended to hurt Hillary Clinton.  Well, the above stories are only a few from the mainstream media that are solely based on speculation and not fact, in an effort to undermine President-elect Donald Trump. Maybe the agencies writing these types of stories should think about the fact that a lot of people may only read a paragraph or two of a long story and come to the conclusion the voting machines were hacked; not reading further to understand that this was simply an unproven assumption.  Obviously, "fake news" comes in all flavors.


Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States:

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say:

Clinton Refuses to Disavow Hacked Excerpts From Paid Speeches:

Hillary Clinton Adviser Suggests Donald Trump Campaign Knew About Hacked Emails:

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Could the Recount Have Been Pre-Planned?

While reading a number of articles regarding the recounting of votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, I ran across one that intrigued me the most.  Written by Richard Baehr at the American Thinker, he surmised that the whole purpose of the recount is to run out the clock on determining the final winner in those three states so their electoral votes are dropped from the final count.  Thus, Donald Trump would be deprived of the win because he would not achieve the requisite 270 votes.  As a result, it would be up to the Republican controlled House and Senate to determine the final victory for Trump and Pence.  In doing so, the election results would be delegitimized in the minds of millions of Americans.

That is an interesting viewpoint.  But, when you think about it, the groundwork for the recount -- based on the hacking of the voting apparatus of several states -- was laid weeks before the election.  Back in August, the FBI alerted us that the voting systems in Illinois and Arizona were under assault. Then, on October 1st, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that voting systems in 20 states had been targeted.  Thus, the stage was set for a potential recount.

Its  also interesting that Jill Stein filed for recounts in those three aforementioned states on the basis that she wants to make sure the voting system wasn't hacked.  But, what about the two states -- Illinois and Arizona -- that the FBI already said were under attack.  Instead she went after three states that went to Trump and that, in total, would deny him a win if the manual counting of ballots went beyond the cutoff date for confirming a winner in those states.   I am sure this is the case.  A week ago, we were told that Stein had nearly $5 million in support of a recount in all three states.  Yet, she waited until the very last minute before filling the petition in Wisconsin.  Thus, insuring the least amount of time left to conduct a recount.  As of this writing, she still hasn't filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania; and, I am sure that it is for the same "delay of game" reason.

However, the biggest thing that makes me think that this is both political and pre-planned, is that Jill Stein is driving this.  Even if all 50 states were recounted, she couldn't win.  In my opinion, if Clinton feels cheated of a win, she should be the one driving it.  But, she isn't.  For this reason, I think her dirty fingers are all over this effort. Further, as most strategists have noted, recounts of vote differences of the magnitude in those three states have almost a zero chance of reversing the win.  Because of this, the theory that the intent to delay the results past the drop dead dates for the Electoral College is even more believable.

If in fact, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are dropped from the Electoral College vote count and Trump is denied an outright win by an ongoing recount effort, it will be a travesty created by taking advantage of a weakness in our voting system by someone who had zero chance of winning.


The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts:

FBI alert sparks fears that state voting systems are under digital assault:

DHS Confirms Hackers Targeted Election Systems in 20 States:

The cost of the Jill Stein recount effort keeps going up:

United States presidential election, 2016:,_2016

Recount Unlikely to Change the Outcome: 

Monday, November 28, 2016

Obama: History Will Judge Castro?

Following the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Barack Obama said this:
"History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."
I don't know what planet this President has been living on but, for him to think that somehow "history" will think differently of Castro in the future is simply ridiculous.

He murdered and jailed dissidents.  Thousand of Cubans both risked their lives and gave their lives to escape his tyranny to get to the U.S..  The regime strictly controls what Cubans read, hear on the radio, and see on state-run TV.  Human rights groups consider him and his regime abusers of its own citizens.  Outside of the Disney Land appearance of a cleaned up Havana that Fidel created for the benefit of tourists, the rest of the country lives in slum conditions and extreme poverty.  Granted they are fed, schooled, and have their health needs taken care of by the Castro regime.  However, most of the tap water is contaminated and undrinkable; putting the island residents at a serious health risk.  Multiple people live in tiny apartments with no inside bathing facilities.  And, most of the buildings on the island aren't being maintained and in near complete disrepair.

Despite all of this, Obama seems to think that history will judge Castro differently.  He is so eager to have the reestablishment of U.S.-Cuban relations as part of his legacy, that he won't even criticize an obvious brutal dictator and human rights abuser.  Is everything always about himself ?


Obama: History will judge Castro:

Beyond the Tourist Fa├žade Are Cuba’s Victims of Communism:

Human rights in Cuba:

Extreme Poverty in Cuba: Welfare in a Broke Country:

Drinking Water in Cuba - Havana Forum - TripAdvisor:

Video: A day in the life of Havana:


Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Are We Headed Towards a Constitutional Crisis?

Ever since Donald Trump was elected, a bunch of "not my President" protestors hit the streets.  Some rioting.  Additionally, there has been an online petition, with now more than 4 million signatories requesting that the members of the Electoral College switch their votes to Clinton.  To top it all off, the leader of the #NotMyPresident movement, Jon Gedney, has published and distributed the names and personal info for all of the Trump electors.  Of course, those electors are now getting threats.

Simply, if Trump is not duly put into office by the Electoral College, there will be a meltdown in this country reversing the will of nearly 60 million disenfranchised citizens who legally elected Donald Trump.  In other words, we will have a full-blown Constitutional Crisis on our hands.  This could be seriously dangerous to the stability of the country.

For this reason, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should call for the end to the #NotMyPresident movement for the good of the country.


Distressed ‘Not My President’ group publishes personal contact info on Electoral College officials:

Google search: Electors Threatened:

Constitutional Crisis:

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Kerry Takes Aim at Trump Over Climate Change

While in New Zealand, John Kerry said: "We will wait to see how the next administration addresses this, but I believe we're on the right track and this is a track that the American people are committed to." He then added: "The majority of the American people believe that climate change is in fact happening and want to see us address it."

Days later he said this about Trump: "No one has the right to make decisions that affect billions of people based solely on ideology or without proper input."  Additionally, ABC reported that "Kerry said the impacts of global warming are now evident across the world with record-breaking droughts, rising sea levels, unusual storms and millions of people displaced by weather events."
This is factually incorrect.  The American people, in poll after poll, do not rank climate change as a priority.  For example, here's the latest results from Polling on where America ranks the importance of climate change:
  • CBS News/New York Times Poll. Oct. 28-Nov. 1, 2016.  Just 2% said the "environment" was a priority. Don't know if "environment" actually means climate change
  • ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 5-8, 2016. No mention of climate change as a priority.
  • NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). May 15-19, 2016.  Just 8% mentioned climate change.
  • CBS News Poll. April 8-12, 2016.  No mention of climate change.
  • ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 16-19, 2015.  ABC didn't ask any of the respondents about climate change being a priority.
  • Quinnipiac University. July 23-28, 2015. Only 6% gave a nod to climate change as an issue we should be focusing in on.
I could go on and on but the results would always be minimal.  Kerry should never use the words the "majority of American people" when talking about climate change.  It is a lie.  And, because it is a lie, I could easily say that Kerry is the one making decisions based "solely on ideology and without proper input" from the American people. 

But, the biggest problem I have with Kerry and other climate change alarmists is that they attempt to cement support for their movement based on "impacts" that can't be proven or are factually incorrect.  Hurricane impact on the U.S. has been unusually quiet.  Tornado activity has been below normal for the last five years.  NASA tells us the rising sea levels have slowed. Another study shows that sea levels in Manhattan have not risen in 20 years.  And, Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data has shown a dramatic fall in temperatures over the last 8 months.  This despite the claim that 2016 will be the hottest year on record.  This unexpected cooling has led to the conclusion by one Russian scientist that a "New Little Ice Age has Started".

As usual, by calling climate change a "hoax",  Trump may just be more in line with public opinion than Kerry or any of the other climate alarmists.


Kerry tells Trump that Americans want climate action:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a stirring appeal Wednesday to all countries — including his own — to press ahead with the fight against climate change, saying a failure to do so would be a "betrayal of devastating consequences." Problems and Priorities:

NOAA: U.S. has gone 11 years without a major hurricane strike:

NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ – Below average for 5th year in a row:

NASA, University Study Shows Rising Seas Slowed by Increasing Water on Land:

No Sea Level Rise At Lower Manhattan For 20 Years:

Record Global Cooling Over The Last Eight Months:

Russian Scientist: ‘The New Little Ice Age Has Started’:



Monday, November 21, 2016

What Gold & Silver are Saying About the Trump Election

Gold and silver are supposed to be safe-haven investments in times of trouble.   So, it's interesting that since Trump was elected, the prices of these two metals have fallen like rocks.  Just look at the price of silver from the Goldline website:

Then, there's this chart for gold:

Back in July, a senior writer for MarketWatch, William Watts, predicted that if Trump should win, gold would rise to $1850 an ounce.  Implying that Trump's policies would weaken the U.S. economy.  Really? In fact, the U.S. dollar has hit 13-year highs since Trump won the highest office in the land.  A signal that traders are betting that Trump polices would make (you know) America great again.  Along with the rise in the dollar, the stock market has also been on a tear; setting record highs. But that same writer for MarketWatch still can't believe Trump might do good things.  Just last Friday, he wrote a another opinion piece titled: "Stop calling stock-market rise a ‘Trump rally’".

In my opinion, any time William Watts at MarketWatch makes a prediction, a wise investor should do  the opposite. Apparently, he puts his political leanings before any rational and common business sense. 


Goldline Silver Chart:

Goldline Gold Chart:

Here’s what Donald Trump would do to the price of gold:

U.S. dollar hits 13-year high:

Stop calling stock-market rise a ‘Trump rally’:

Friday, November 18, 2016

Obama's Phony Feel-Good Record on Education

Recently, President Obama announced a record -- repeat "record" -- high school graduation rate of 83.2% for the school year 2014-2015.  But, as usual its always about quantity and never about quality with this President.  At the same time, statistics that tout a "record" are always dubious.

First, let us address the issue of quality. 

In 2011, the people at ACT (American College Testing) found that only one in four high school graduates were qualified to go on to college; failing many areas of college-prep.  More importantly, 23% of white high school graduates failed in reading while 65% of Latinos and 79% of blacks couldn't read well enough to attend college.  This is pretty consistent with other findings by other groups.  Additionally, only 59% of blacks graduate from high school. Obama's own Education Department found that 19% of all high school graduates were functionally illiterate and could not read above a 4th grade level.  The Programme for International Assessment (PISA)that measures educational achievement in the areas of  math, reading and, science among the top economically developed countries found that the U.S. ranked 36th in math; 24th in reading; and 28th in science.  As little as 20 years ago, this country was number one in the world in all three categories.

Then, there is this "record" graduation rate.  Its a little difficult to believe that 83.2% of high school students graduated when other studies have found that one-in-four does not.

Later this year, the newest PISA results will be released. It will be interesting to see if there is any improvement in educational achievement compared to the 2012 results.  Also understand, the PISA result will be the first time common core will be measured.

With all the negatives swirling around high school performance and graduation rates, one questions whether or not we are simply playing a numbers game as we falsely create a positive impression of a failing educational system?


Obama highlights record high school graduation rate:

College-Bound Students Not Prepared in Basic Subjects:

Pisa 2012 results: which country does best at reading, maths and science?

Was the USA ever No. 1 in education?

11 Facts About High School Dropout Rates:

National Graduation Rate for Blacks 59%:

Illiteracy Statistics:

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Democrats Want Trump to Fail

Just recently, I read an article in the Boston Globe written by a progressive named Micheal A. Cohen titled: 'I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly'.  In it, he complained that Democratic policies such as ObamaCare may just go away.  Further on, he states: "What gives me fleeting hope is the knowledge that millions of Americans — a majority even — feel as I do."

What makes his little opinion piece so laughable is the fact that the true spectacular failure for his party was Barack Obama.  Since taking over the White House, along with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, he has overseen the literal decimation of his party's control of the country.  Now, the Republicans are in the catbird seat with control of both the Senate, the House of Representatives as well as the presidency.  In addition, since President Obama has been in office, the Democrats lost 35 state legislatures and 900 state legislative seats. They also lost a net 14 governorships. The Republican party, for the first time since 1920, has dominant control of the  ruling classes.   If that isn't a spectacular fail in only 8 years, I don't know what is.

Now, back to Mr. Cohen.  If a "majority" of Americans feel as you do, ask yourself why your party  lies in tatters.  It is this very attitude that has turned the Democratic Party into a political desert.  For almost 8 years, we have had a President who found it too bothersome to work with the Republicans; instead using his "pen" to set the Constitution and true legislative action aside. Now, with the possibility that non-legislative actions may be reversed with the stroke of a Trump pen, you view this as some type of failure.  I, for one, don't think so.  Nor do I believe that you somehow spoke for millions of Americans when you wrote: "They are angry. They are scared for the future. They are holding their children just a little tighter and perhaps looking over their shoulders in ways they hadn’t done before. Like me, these Americans want Trump to fail."

Enough with the stupid melodrama!  

And, what if Trump doesn't fail? More shed blood for the Democrat Party?  Maybe that's why they're "holding their children just a little tighter and perhaps looking over their shoulders in ways they hadn’t done before."  Instead of wishing Donald Trump failure, you, Mr Cohen, should be searching for the answers as to why your Democrats failed so miserably that you even have to worry about a Trump presidency in the first place.


I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly:

Obama Leaves Democratic Party in Shambles:

Obama's Legacy: The Total Destruction Of The Democratic Party:

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

For the Second Time in 16 Years the Electoral Colloge is in Question

As it stands right now, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election because of the way we count Electoral votes.  Currently, she received 600,000 more popular votes than Donald Trump.  But lets look a little deeper into the issue of the popular vote.

As of this writing, they are still counting votes in Michigan and New Hampshire.  Even so, it looks as if Trump will win Michigan on the basis of that popular vote.  Hillary should win New Hampshire.  Therefore, when all is said and done, Trump will have won the popular vote in a total of 30 states; versus 20 states for Hillary.  But, losing the popular vote overall really comes down to two states -- California and New York -- where combined, Trump lost by a massive 4.25 million votes.   And, this  demonstrates why the framers of our Constitution established the Electoral College.

Essentially, they understood that large states and large groups of people could dominate the political process.  So, they were obsessed with equalizing power among the states and insuring that the voices of smaller states were also being heard.  Much of this "obsession" was best stated by the founder Thomas Jefferson in these words: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.".

To that point, the Constitution mandated that states be broken up into Congressional Districts to insure that the many voices in any given state could be heard.  The framers established a U.S. Senate where every state, regardless of size, was equalized on the basis of having just two Senators.  In amending the Constitution, a simple majority of 51% could have been the norm.  But, again, to insure the process wasn't dominated by a few big states, any change to the Constitution requires a two-thirds approval vote in both the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate.  Following that requirement, two-thirds of the states must also approve the change.

This, then, brings us to how the Electoral College was established.  Again, in the interest of fairness among both large and small states, each state -- regardless of size -- automatically gets 3 Electoral votes.  In addition, each state is apportioned the balance of their electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts in that state.  Thus, a small state such as Maine gets a total of 4 electoral votes rather that just the one it would have based on population alone. This is not a great equalizer against a big state like California that has 55 votes, but collectively, the small states are then able to make a difference.

We surely can abandon the Electoral College with an amendment to the Constitution.  But, in doing so, liberal California and liberal New York would always have a major say in every presidential election.  And, that is exactly what the framers didn't want to happen.  In fact, because California and New York are becoming increasingly left wing (Democrat), I think we will see more and more incidents of candidates winning the popular vote and then losing to the electoral college.  It is no wonder that the only person wanting to kill the electoral college is a Democratic Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, who just submitted a bill to do just that.  Of course, with both Houses of Congress being controlled by Republicans, it has as much chance of getting passed as my chances are of winning a Nobel prize.


Clinton & Trump’s Popular Vote Count: State-by-State: And, a video explaining how the Electoral College is works:

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote: 

Thomas Jefferson Quote: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.":

U.S. Electoral Vote Assignments by States:

California Sen. Barbara Boxer files long shot bill to scrap the Electoral College system:

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Obama's Latest "Green" Legacy: Destruction of Wilderness Areas.

For decades, Democrats and environmentalists have blocked and drilled for oil and gas in the almost humanly uninhabitable and so-called pristine land known as the Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  The fear was that any drilling would disrupt fragile wildlife in the area.  In 2015, President Obama finalized a ban on all drilling in the "Refuge" by expanding the span of land covered by the ban to 12 million acres.

But, this concern over preserving wildlife appears to be gone to the wind (literally) because Obama has  now finalized plans to allow wind farms and solar power plants on millions of  acres of federal land in our Western states.  Already, 60 renewable projects are approved to begin before he leaves office.

The problem with wind and solar is that they, themselves are killers of wildlife.  Birds, by the thousands, die each year by either being burned to death at solar collection farms; or hacked to death in the blades of wind turbines.  Worse, is that many of the birds being killed are protected raptors such as the Bald Eagle.  Additionally,  the abnormal ground vibrations and noise from wind turbines have caused still births and birth defects in animals who either live or are confined near these operations.

Some environmentalists are now seeing the light that "green" energy is not nearly as "green" as they would like.  But, their silence all these years has now resulted in massive wind and solar projects on  once-protected lands.  This is thanks to Obama trying to cement a legacy with the climate change people.  The fact is, that drilling for oil and gas has far fewer deadly affects on wildlife than wind and solar.  I suppose we'll just have to chalk up the lives of the wildlife being killed by these technologies as a small (?) price to pay for saving the planet.  Anyway, those dead creatures can't vote, so what the hell!  Let's just do it and save the planet anyway!

Lastly, here are the Federal regulations for killing a Bald Eagle:
The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment.
Maybe this should be applied to Barack Obama for being "repeatedly" complicit in the killing of these majestic birds!


Arctic Refuge drilling controversy:

Obama finalizes plans to ban oil and gas drilling in ‘undisturbed’ Alaskan refuge:

BLM sprints to cement Obama's green legacy:

Windfarms and birth defects:

Bird deaths at Calif. power plant a PR nightmare for industry:

License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats:

Save the Eagles International: US wind farms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought: Contrary to what we are being told, wind farms will cause the extinction of many bird and bat species:

Greens Concerned Vast Federal Land Clearances for Renewable Energy Projects Might Harm Nature:

Federal-lands rule pits green groups against wind, solar firms: Renewable energy firms have been flocking to sites on federal lands. Now pricing by the Bureau of Land Management is about to change toward competitive bidding similar to the system for oil and gas companies:

Federal Laws to Protect Bald Eagles - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Monday, November 14, 2016

Trump Didn't Beat Hillary. Hillary Beat Hillary!

Over the next few weeks, expect a flood of analysis as to how Trump won; and, of course, how Hillary lost.  But, one thing we already know is that the coalition voters that Obama put together fell apart. Note this chart that appeared in an article by Jason Easley at the PoliticusUSA website:

Simply, Trump under performed both John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 in total votes.  And, as such, he probably should have lost. However, more importantly, Hillary lost many of the votes that Obama garnered in 2008 and 2012.   While Hillary managed to win the popular vote by a couple hundred thousand votes, she captured those votes in all the wrong places; leaving Trump to win the electoral college and the Presidency.

In addition, as CNN is reporting,  Hillary greatly under performed among Latinos, Blacks, and younger voters:

Even more astonishing is that Trump did surprisingly well among both Blacks and Latinos.  Two groups that supposedly hated him.  Then, as the website 538 is reporting, Trump beat Hillary among white women who voted 53% for Trump against 43% for Hillary.  But, Hillary did much better with college educated women: 51% to 45%.  Still, the supposedly misogynist Trump did well against Hillary for the women's vote.

For whatever the reason or reasons,  Hillary just couldn't put together the votes to win.  To me, her flaws greatly outweighed those of Trump. The media may be responsible, also, for publishing big polling leads that she commanded during the closing days of the campaign.  Often big reported leads are a form of voter suppression.  Some voters tend to stay home if they think their candidate is a shoo-in and doesn't need the extra votes.

As bad a candidate as Trump was, he still beat Hillary.  One can only wonder what the results would have been if someone more electable than Trump ran against her.  Perhaps a landslide!


CNN: Trump stomps all over the Democrats' Blue [Fire] Wall:

5 Reasons Why Trump Won the Election:

Source of Top Graphic:

Source of 2nd Graphic:

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women:

Google Search: Hillary has double digit lead: 


Friday, November 11, 2016

Trump Wins and It's Moving Day for a Lot of Celebs

I'm filing this under, I made a list and I'll Be checking it twice.

Prior to the election of Donald Trump, a number of celebrities said they'd move if he was elected.  Of particular note, Cher said she'd go to Jupiter.  Personally, I thought she hasn't been of this planet for years. But, I'm not holding her to her Jupiter promise.  Actually, she's free to move to any planet of her choosing; either in our solar system or elsewhere.  Jon Stewart also stated that he'd be “getting in a rocket and going to another planet".  Maybe he and Cher could share a ride.

My favorite "mover" is Al Sharpton.  He said he'd be “reserving my ticket out of here if [Trump] wins.”  If only I knew that was all it would take to get rid of him I would have promoted "Trump for President" years ago.

Finally, I'm really counting on Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's promise to move to New Zealand.  Then, instead of Trump having one Supreme Court Justice nomination to make, Ginsburg will have given him two; right off the bat.

In all, some 23 celebrities have promised to leave the U.S.A. if Trump wins.  I have heard this all before, and when all is said and done, these people aren't going anywhere.  They all seem to think that by announcing their intentions, millions of Americans will be so impressed that they will vote against the targeted candidate.  As if my life would come to an end if Lena Dunham wasn't here anymore.  They really seem to think that we are, somehow, glued to every word they say and can't live without them.  Talk about inflated egos!

Oh! By the way.  Since Obama has been in office, we have had record numbers of people renouncing their U.S. citizenship.  A record 1380 Americans "renounced" in just the last quarter; alone.  That sure beats 13 lousy celebs that want to leave if Trump wins.


These 23 Celebrities Said They'll Leave The Country If Trump Wins:

Celebs who said they’d leave country if Trump won:

Feds: American expatriations near 4th annual record:


Thursday, November 10, 2016

Obama Was on the Ballot and He Lost

More than anything, Donald Trump's victory was not about defeating Hillary Clinton, but instead, defeating 8 years of Barack Obama.  Eight years of going around Congress with executive orders.  Eight years of stagnant wages; high poverty; slow economic growth; and more than 28,000 new regulations.  Then, of course, there was ObamaCare.  At a time when we were hearing nothing but bad news about that law, Hillary was proudly declaring that she would build on the success of it.  Trump said he would repeal it.

Then, we see the state of the world that Obama is leaving us with.  The Middle East is on fire.  Russia and China are constantly testing us.  There are now fewer people working in manufacturing jobs than  government jobs.  Crime and murder, after decades of decline, are rising.  Call it the Ferguson effect.  I call it the Obama effect. Having his Justice Department riding rough shod over city police departments, has so negatively affected morale, the police have stopped doing their jobs. 

No,  Hillary didn't lose.  Obama did.  Every poll taken with regard to the direction of the country said "the people" believed the country was on the wrong track.  I would expect Trump to do everything possible to reverse the past 8 years of Obama from the face of our government; and hopefully, get this country back on the right track.


Obama's Tattered Middle East Policy | RealClearPolitics:

Record-High Number of Pages of Obama Regulations Exceed That of Bush, Clinton:

Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era:

Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9977000:

Reminder: Obamacare Is Still A Giant Cronyistic Disaster:

Polls: Direction of the Country:


Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Nearly 10 Million People Worldwide Don't Think Climate Action is a Priority

In 2015, President Obama said: "No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change".  But apparently, those words fell on deaf ears around the world.  In this year's annual United Nations polling on "Priorities", more than 9.7 million respondents from more than 100 countries placed "climate action" dead last with just about 20% believing it to be a government priority.
Click on Image to Enlarge for Clearer Image or Click on Links Below

Among all countries, "A good education" was a top priority; with "Better Healthcare" being second.  But, interestingly, when you interactively filter the results for just the United States, the number two priority is "An honest and responsive government."  Still, at the top is "A good education".  Maybe these are the things that Obama should be working on instead of saying climate change is our greatest threat.  You think?  Especially, that "honest" part about government!


Obama: No greater threat to future than climate change:

Graph Source: UN Poll Shows Climate Change Is the Lowest of All Global Concerns:

Interactive Graph: UN Poll: MyWorld2015 Analytics: Priorities:

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Will More Charging Stations Create Bigger Demand For Electric Cars?

Well,  Barack Obama would probably say yes.  That's why his administration just announced $4.5 billion in loan guarantees for states and private companies to build charging stations along 25,000 miles of 48 electric vehicle corridors in 35 states.  The goal is that no owner of an electric vehicle (EV) should have to go more than 50 miles to find a charging station.  And, there will be lots of signs to guide them on their way.

President Obama claims that the lack of adequate charging stations caused him to miss his goal by more than 50% to have 1 million EV's on our roads by 2015.  Really?  Thus, like the thinking of many climate change alarmists, the only reason people aren't buying electric cars is that there isn't enough charging stations.

Here's the reality.  A ten minute pit stop for a conventional gasoline powered vehicle can buy you up to 400 miles of travel before having to stop again.  Even with the quickest electric charging capability available, a 20 minute pit stop at a fast charge station will only give you another 50, maybe 60 miles before you need to spend another 20 minutes at the next station.  How, convenient is that?

Also, think about this.  When someone spends 20 minutes charging their car, it is unavailable to anyone else.  How would you like to waste 20 minutes waiting for someone getting their charge, and then wait the same amount of time to complete your own.   Then, less than an hour later, you may have to go through the whole procedure again. Of course, this assumes the car in front of you has quick charging capability.  Otherwise, you may be waiting hours for a station to open up.

In my opinion, the President missed his goal of 1 million cars on the road -- not because of the lack of charging facilities -- but because electric vehicles are simply too impractical.


White House, 35 states to boost electric vehicle charging stations:

25,000 Miles Of U.S. Highways Designated As Electric Vehicle Charging Corridors:

Quick Charging of Electric Cars:


Monday, November 7, 2016

Will She or Won't She? A Hillary Clinton Carbon Tax?

Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton made this claim: "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business".

Now, she never indicated what she would do over and above what is already happening to coal with more stringent clean air standards.   But, because of a leaked email from her campaign Chairman, John Podesta, and her campaign Press Secretary, Brian Fallon, we do know that a carbon tax is on the campaign's mind because of a plan to impose one by Senator Schumer; assuming she becomes President, wins the House and Senate, and Schumer becomes the Senate Majority Leader.  But, as also expressed in those same emails, any discussion of a carbon tax would be "toxic".  Thus, this is probably why Hillary has never mentioned it as part of a climate change plan.

The reason that a carbon tax is being discussed is because many left-leaning economists believe it is the only way to dramatically reduce carbon output.  Stupidly, those same economists don't understand how regressive a carbon tax is and what a negative impact it would have on our economy.  Everything we buy would be negatively affected by a tax on energy; especially a tax that more punitively taxes the more carbon-dirty fuels like coal and oil.   But understand this, the tax is truly regressive because it will disproportionately hit low and middle income families the hardest.

People don't realize how pervasive coal is in our lives.  Without the coking of coal, we would not have steel.  The same is true for cement.  Only about half of refined oil results in the production of gasoline. The rest is used in products like asphalt, diesel and jet fuels, plastics, synthetic fibers for clothes and carpeting, paints, and so much more.  Essentially, a carbon tax would be a tax on everything because you can't get asphalt from wind and solar.  This is why Obama, himself, shelved the concept in 2012.  And, once again, the poorest of us would be forced to pay a disproportionate amount of their income in support of such a tax.

Because team Hillary is discussing it shows how dangerous both she and her people are. Hopefully, she won't have control of both houses of Congress and the Schumer's plan for a carbon tax won't come to fruition.  Simply, our economy couldn't afford it.  And, a tax like that will also accelerate the relocation of our overseas manufacturing locations.


Clinton: 'We're Going to Put a Lot of Coal Miners and Coal Companies Out of Business':

Podesta emails: ‘Carbon Tax has a Chance if Hillary wins’ – but ‘it’s lethal in general’ don’t mention it:

Schumer: Carbon tax has a chance if Clinton wins:

Coal Plants Are Shutting Down, With or Without Clean Power Plan:

Hillary Clinton’s Ambitious Climate Change Plan Avoids Carbon Tax:

Coal and Steel:

Coal and Cement:

Products from Oil:

Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the U.S. Economy - Heritage Foundation:

Congressional Budget Office: Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment:

Carbon Taxes: Reducing Economic Growth—Achieving No Environmental Improvement:

Friday, November 4, 2016

Hillary's Disasterous New Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia

One of the supposed accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was her negotiation of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia that was signed in 2011.  She personally touts this on the campaign trail. So, does her running mate Tim Kaine. Husband Bill, proudly and verbally pats her on the back for this good work.   Her campaign started running ads in early September that said “Hillary oversaw hard-nosed negotiations with the Russians for a new START treaty to greatly reduce our countries’ nuclear stockpiles."

Well, here's the truth.  Little noticed, on October 1, the State Department gave a report card on the New START treaty.  While both the U.S. and Russia were to maintain nuclear weapon stockpiles at or below 1,550 by 2018, Russia now has 1,796.  That's more than they had at the time the treaty was agreed to.  At the same time, the U.S. has taken our stockpiles from 1,800 to 1,367.

So, being "hard-nosed" equates to us rolling over and weakening our strategic position, as Russia ignores the ink on the treaty without paying a single penalty for building up arms.  And, don't forget, Hillary also worked on the Iran nuke deal.  She'll really make a tough president, alright!


Clinton, Kaine go too far in touting a nuclear deal with Russia:

Jake Tapper Video: Clinton Ad Misleads on Russian Nuclear Agreement:

The Russian Nuclear Weapons Buildup and the Future of the New START Treaty:

Russia’s Nuclear Surge: Putin Adding Nukes While Obama Cuts:

Thursday, November 3, 2016

The Damnatio Memoriae of Huma Abedin

In Latin, the words "damnatio memoriae" literally means to "condemn memory to damnation".  In reality, it is to strike the name of someone or something forever.  It is someone or something that is so reviled, the name should never be spoken again.  History is littered with incidents of "damnatio memoriae".  In this country, Benedict Arnold achieved such notoriety with his image and name being stricken from the United States Military Academy.  He is now only referred to as a "Major General. Born 1740". Most recently, we are seeing the "damnatio memoriae" of the Confederate flag. 

This brings us to Huma Abedin and the emails that were found on a laptop that was shared between herself and her disgusting husband Anthony Weiner.  Following that disclosure, Hillary has never spoken her name again.   Instead, she refers to the Vice Chairwoman of her campaign as "one of her staffers".  Wow!  What a demotion!  She might as well be one of the volunteers handing out bumper stickers at one of Hillary's campaign events. On top of that, Huma has been relegated to civilian life and appears to be completely off the campaign trail.

I think the "damnatio memoriae" of Huma demonstrates that there is something "there", there, in the FBI investigation.  If Hillary believed that Huma did nothing wrong, she would be defending her previous closest friend. But instead, it appears that Huma has been thrown under the bus; with perhaps, the bus backing over her once again for good measure.


Damnatio memoriae:

Huma Abedin:

The Rise and Fall of Huma Abedin: From Hillary's Most Trusted Adviser to Just 'One of My Staffers':

Huma Abedin just 'one of Hillary Clinton's staffers' after aide left behind on Ohio trip: 

Huma Abedin lies low amid email probe:

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Merrick Garland---if Hillary Wins and the Senate Flips

I have always thought that Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court was nothing but a political move.  While Garland is "supremely" qualified, he is too moderate for either Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's tastes.  Don't be surprised if his nomination is pulled by Obama if Hillary wins, thereby leaving the nomination process in her hands.  If the Senate flips to Democratic control, there will be nothing stopping her from seating a young, far left nominee that will affect the high court for decades to come.

Both Obama and Hillary are very aware of what the Supreme Court means to an extremely liberal administration.  The very left-leaning Obama and his "pen" actions on executive orders have yielded just a 45% win rate in the court. Compare that to an average win rate of more than 60% for all other administrations in the last 50 years.  Obama was so liberal that the 4 liberal Justices on the court sided with their conservative counterparts by handing down a total of 44 unanimous decisions against him.

The Republican Senate probably made a horrible tactical decision by not approving the appointment of Garland; especially since they have known for months that a potential loser like Trump was their party's nominee. Now, there is a distinct possibility that the first liberal court since before 1970, can wind up being more extreme than ever imagined.  At stake will be decisions on gun control, late term abortions, extreme air and clean water rulings, and every liberal direction Hillary Clinton can take us.  When she takes office, she will quickly begin her run for a second term, by showing her suppporters that she means to take care of business for them.  A more liberal Supreme Court will assist by not blocking her actions.


Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot:

What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?:

Obama Has Lost In The Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President:

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do:

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Like Cord-Wood Stacked For a Bonfire, Obamacare Problems Continue to Pile Up

It seems like a week doesn't go by that we learn of another problem with Obamacare.  The latest is that premiums are set to rise an average of 25%.  Some states will see increases above 50%, and in Arizona, one insurer is set to increase premiums by as much as 116%.

Of course, the Democrat's defense is that 20 million people now have insurance as a result of the law.  However, that is only true if you ignore the fact that 11 million lost their insurance in the first five years since Obama took office; rising from a 14.6% uninsured rate to a record 18% since Medicaid became law. While it's true that today's uninsured rate of 11% is a record low, 36 million people still aren't insured.  To put that in perspective, its almost as if the entire state of California was uninsured.

The Democrats also argue that most people who buy ObamaCare insurance won't see those rate increases because they will be receiving federal subsidies.  So what if 20% don't get subsidies?  Two problems......First, a 25%, 50%, or 116% increase for those unlucky 20% hardly makes the Affordable Care Act affordable.   Ultimately though, the taxpayers foot the bill for the increases.  I suppose the promise of lowering the cost of insurance was only fleeting; one that many knew would never happen.

But, the biggest problem is that insurers are leaving the ObamaCare marketplace in droves because of financial losses.  Thus, leaving many counties with only one insurer.  In other words, no competition, no choice, and another broken promise.  In 2016, there were only 182 counties with one insurer.  Next year, that number goes up to 960.   More than a four fold increase.   One county in Arizona -- Pinal -- was set to have zero insurers until the state regulators stepped in and allowed Blue Cross a 50% increase to stay in the marketplace.  Also, keep in mind that most insurers competing in the exchanges are acting as either a PPO or HMO, which provide only a narrow selection of networked doctors.  Oh well..hope you like your new doctor!

In addition, even though you may be getting subsidized premiums, the average deductible for the insurance is very high.  Most people who buy ObamaCare insurance buy the Silver Plan.  This year, the average deductible for an individual is $3,177.   For a family, it is $6,480.  To put those numbers  into perspective, a recent poll found that 63% of families polled would struggle to cover the cost of a $1,000 emergency medical expense.  Another, not-so-affordable fact.

Lastly, our doctors are overburdened by the reporting mandates of ObamaCare.  A new Weill Cornell Medicine study found that on average, the doctors they surveyed, spent 15 hours a week or 785 hours a year in complying with the reporting mandated by ObamaCare.  For the average doctor, that equates to approximately 9 patients fewer per week. The result is that the country will probably have a doctor shortage as they spend more time reporting and less time treating patients.

Would someone please take a match to this cord-wood pile of ObamaCare problems? And, would somebody ask Hillary Clinton what are the successes she plans to build on?


Obamacare premiums are spiking 25% next year. How bad is that?

USA Today: The Cascade of 2017 Obamacare Premium Hikes Has Arrived:

U.S. Uninsured Rate at 11.0%, Lowest in Eight-Year Trend: 

Nearly 1,000 counties will have just one insurer next year:

Arizona's Blue Cross reverses Obamacare exit:

63 percent of Americans say they're unable to handle a $500 car repair or a $1,000 emergency room bill, according to a new survey from

U.S. Physicians in Four Specialties Spend $15 Billion Annually Reporting Data to Insurance Providers:

Silver Plan – Affordable Care Act (Obamacare):

The Doctor Shortage in the US Is Real – and It’s Getting Worse:

Overwhelming Evidence That Obamacare Caused Premiums To Increase Substantially:

Half Of Obamacare Choices Are HMOs Or Narrow Network Plans:

Obamacare: No Successes to Build On: