Commentary on sports, current events, and politics

What If Hillary Had Won? !!

Had Hillary Clinton Won the Election…

To paraphrase Robert Frost, America has taken the road less traveled.  We elected a political outsider.  What might America look like today if Hillary had been elected?  Had she won we would not be hearing a single word about Russia.  Not a whisper.  It was not on the left’s radar at all.  Ms. Clinton had embarrassed herself with that inane Office Depot reset button while she was Secretary of State.  Obama had told Medvedev to tell “Vlad” he would have more flexibility after the election, presumably re: nuclear disarmament.  The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion.

Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose.  Besides, the Left has historically loved Russia and wanted to emulate its authoritarian governments.  They laughed when Mitt Romney, in 2012, named Russia as our most serious foreign policy problem.  And Obama, even when he knew/believed that Russia was attempting to meddle in the election, he did nothing.  They’ve done it for decades and so what?  Hillary was going to win.

Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before.  She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us.   She would be further eviscerating our military and she would be raising taxes to fund Obamacare even though it is a clear and present disaster.  Anyone who doubts that should look up Hillarycare, the monstrosity she designed behind closed doors when her husband was in the White House.  Her plan would dictate who could go to medical school, what specialty they would  “choose,”  and where they would be compelled to practice.  Her plan was the U.K.’s NHS on steroids.  Her plan was rationed care and death panels from hell.

Had HRC won, she would be implementing thousands of new regulations on businesses to further hamstring the economy.  She would let the fascist freaks at the Environmental Protection Agency have their way with every aspect of our daily lives:  Our cars, our showerheads, our toilets, our rainwater in our yards, etc.  She would, like the EPA under Obama, privilege any species, no matter how insignificant,  over humans.  Central California has been devastated by the environmentalists’ reverence for the delta smelt!  Thousands of farm workers lost their jobs thanks to this lefty decision, turning a lush agricultural valley into a brown wasteland in the name of “going green.”  This is the American left today.

Dr. Ben Carson, Trump’s Secretary of HUD has already uncovered $520 billion in fraud that occurred under Obama.  Two-thirds of the people who got Obamaphones at taxpayer expense lied.  That program was riddled with fraud.

Had Hillary been elected, the stock market would be tanking rather than booming.  Every one of her policies would have been an economic wet blanket.   She would have instituted a minimum wage by executive order and thousands of more small businesses would be closing.  Instead, the stock market has gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected.  Hillary would have already increased our $20 trillion in national debt; Trump reduced it by $100m in his first hundred days.  Job numbers would have fallen under Hillary; Trump added nearly 300k jobs in the first month after his inauguration.  Housing sales would have fallen under Hillary because even fewer people would have been able to afford to buy a home.  Under Trump, housing sales have increased for the first time since 2011.

Had Hillary won, she would, as promised, have increased the number of refugees from the  Middle East, Mexico and Central America.  There would be countless more potential terrorists in our midst, thousands more on public assistance on the taxpayer’s dime.  Under Trump, illegal immigration is down 67%.  The DOJ, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is rounding up criminal illegals, most of them gang members, many of them released from prisons by Obama to roam our streets with impunity.  Hopefully, the citizens of sanctuary cities will realize how much safer they and their children will be once this pathetic policy comes to an end.  Trump stands firmly behind our law enforcement officers; Hillary would be standing with Black Lives Matter and even more police would be sacrificing their lives to this domestic terrorist group and its anti-cop rhetoric.

Hillary, like the rest of the left, hates the Second Amendment.  Had she won,  it would likely have been abrogated out of existence.  Law-abiding citizens would be relegated to victim status by decree, no longer allowed to defend themselves from the always armed criminals while the likes of Hillary and her crowd live in gated mansion and have armed guards.  “For me but not for thee” is the mantra of the left.  She would be taking the nation in the direction of Oregon, which is fast becoming the fascist state the left so admires.

Trump was vilified throughout the campaign for repeatedly calling out NATO members for not paying their minimal fair share.  Since he won, allied spending is up $10 billion!    Then there is the Supreme Court. We now have another constitutional scholar, like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, on the bench who may just do Antonin Scalia proud.  Trump  will likely get the chance to appoint two more justices in the coming years.  Given the power our courts have grasped for themselves, his appointments of jurists who revere our founding documents may be the only path back to a Constitutional Republic.  Neil Gorsuch is the first step.

Trump took us out of the Paris Climate Accord, a $2.5 trillion economy killer.  He got us out of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that would have been great for the eleven other nations in it, and bad for America.  As he promised, he is putting America and American workers first.  The left and the media hate him for all this.  They have been rendered apoplectic and thoroughly irrational.  Their response to his glorious speech in Warsaw, was that it was racist, xenophobic, tribalist.  How dare he preference Western Civilization! They no longer hear actual words spoken. They hear what their radical ideology dictates they must hear when Trump speaks.  If he said it, it must be racist, it must be sexist, it must be nationalist, etc.  They are completely unable to grasp the meaning of Trump.  Had Hillary won, this miraculous nation would be continuing the death spiral Obama set in motion eight years ago.  It’s almost as though divine providence has rescued us once again as it has at so many crucial times over the past 241 years..


The Story of Trump’s Taxes, or What Hillary Doesn’t Know or Understand

When a business loses money, it doesn’t pay taxes. When a lot of money is lost, the losses can be deducted for years with limits, until they are used up.  The principle here is to encourage investment and job creation by softening the fall if it doesn’ t work. That’s why we have laws on bankruptcy that, again, encourage investment and job creation. 
Donald Trump has invested and lost from time to time. He gets to recognize those losses, it’s what we encourage. 
Hillary has done none of this. She and husband, Bill, have made hundreds of millions of dollars by selling influence through their Clinton Foundation. For example, if you are a Russian company who want to acquire the US supply of uranium, you send $500,000  to the Clinton foundation, get a fifteen-minute speech from BIll,  and Hillary, as secretary of state, approves the transfer. Yes, this happened.(
Trump’s businesses and ten thousand employees all pay taxes to local, state and federal governments. Hillary’s claim that was not the case was just a big lie, or, and this is more alarming, a statement made through ignorance. In her world, the income into the Foundation, hundreds of millions of dollars, is tax-free under IRC 501c3.  this tax-free money then pays Clinton family expenses, chartered jets, hotel suites, office rental and living expenses like clothes, food and “what ever else you want.” She is not paying her fair share, not Trump. This fact will come out soon and may just start here.  
Read on.

Trump, Taxes and the Times

See also: New York Times violates law to publish partial Trump tax return from 90s and speculate about his taxes

The New York Times put out a hit piece on Donald Trump saying that he took a $900 billion-plus business loss in 1995 that allowed him to pay no income taxes for years. If it was a legitimate loss that is what he is supposed to do. Trump and his businesses pay property taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, motor fuel taxes and all the other taxes and fees the government entities charge. Therefore, it is either pure ignorance or intentional lies for Hillary and others to say he pays no taxes to support schools, the police, the roads and all other government functions. Why doesn’t the media fact check that lie instead of repeating it?

Amazon, which is led Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, lost $1.41 Billion in 2000 and that offset their minimal income for years. Would Hillary and the NYT say Bezos paid no taxes and did not support government activities?

Solar City and Tesla, which are owned by one of the heroes of the left Elon Musk, have never made a profit and therefore never paid income taxes and they are also heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. Where are the media stories ripping Musk for not supporting the government?

If anyone wants to look at pure abuse of the income tax system they should look at what President Obama did for GM in 2009. We not only bailed out GM to the tune of $50 Billion, Obama gave GM an exemption from income taxes on their next $45 billion of income for up to twenty years. Why doesn’t Hillary bring that one up as she campaigns in states with auto facilities?

The New York Times has had some financially troublesome years. Do they voluntarily pay income taxes when they lose money or do they carry back and carry forward the losses? That is all Trump did and it is pathetic that the Times would do a hit piece on what is and what should be a legal practice.

Can the New York Times find any company or individual that had a loss thatdidn’t use the loss to offset income taxes for years? What about Buffet when he was a major shareholder of US Air?  I bet they can’t find any.

Where Obama Does Not Help Hillary!

President Obama sounds rather annoyed at blacks who aren’t panting for a Hillary Clinton presidency. In a stem-winder delivered to the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday, Mr. Obama said he would consider it a “personal insult” if blacks didn’t back Mrs. Clinton in November and thus preserve his legacy. “My name might not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot,” he insisted.

This wasn’t the first time the president has used a Congressional Black Caucus forum to scold black people for insufficient appreciation of his leadership. In 2011, after black lawmakers began criticizing the president’s lack of attention to the economic problems of the underclass, he told the group, “I expect all of you to march with me and press on,” adding that they should “stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying.” Some black commentators took umbrage at his tone.

“Funny, isn’t it, how Obama always gets the nerve to say shut up when he’s addressing a friendly audience?” wrote the Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy. “The unemployment rate among blacks stands at 16.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, up from 11.5 percent when Obama took office. By some accounts, black people have lost more wealth since the recession began than at any time since slavery. And Obama gets to lecture us?”

Five years later, the lectures continue while progress in the Obama era remains elusive to many blacks, which might explain the lack of black enthusiasm for a Democratic successor. By almost any traditional metric—homeownership, median incomes, labor participation, poverty—blacks are worse off today than they were at the start of Mr. Obama’s first term. The jobless rate for blacks has improved since 2009, but it’s improved even more for whites, which means the racial gap in unemployment has gotten wider.

Mr. Obama won 95% of the black vote in 2008 and 93% in 2012, election years that also saw record black turnout. Mrs. Clinton was never destined to duplicate that performance, but she’s struggling more than she thought she would with certain voting blocs. The black primary voters who powered her to the nomination over Bernie Sanders tended to be older. Mrs. Clinton, perhaps overconfident, spent much of the summer courting moderate Republicans instead of shoring up younger blacks who are more skeptical of establishment politicians and more likely to view third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein as viable alternatives.

There is little doubt that the former secretary of state will win a much larger percentage of the black vote than Donald Trump. What’s unknown is the total number of blacks who will show up at the polls without Barack Obama being on the ballot. Because the president’s economic record is so unimpressive, he’s relying on what Democrats have long relied on to fuel minority turnout: anger, fear, resentment and racial paranoia.

In his Saturday address, the president touted efforts to reduce the “mass incarceration” of blacks today, which he suggested stems from a racist criminal justice system rather than from disproportionately high black crime rates. And he voiced support for “ban the box” measures that prevent employers from asking job applicants about their criminal past, even though economic studies repeatedly have shown that these policies harm the job prospects of less skilled young black men. These are the kinds of issues that may excite the Democratic base but don’t necessarily benefit struggling black communities.

Mr. Obama also told his audience that Republicans are disenfranchising blacks by promoting voter ID laws, which he likened to having to “count bubbles in a bar of soap” during Jim Crow. In fact, a Gallup Poll published last month found that 95% of Republicans, 83% of independents and 63% of Democrats support a photo ID requirement for voting. So do 81% of whites and 77% of non-whites. Moreover, given that the black voter turnout rate in 2012 exceeded white turnout—including in those states with the strictest voter ID requirements—the GOP seems to be doing a very poor job of suppressing the black vote, if that is the objective.

The Democrats can’t run on the president’s track record with blacks, but what they do have going for them is an opponent in Donald Trump who may be the only politician in the country more unpopular than Hillary Clinton and by all indications eager to remain so. Mr. Trump’s recent return to the birther fever swamps is another signal that he is not merely uninterested in the black vote but may be hostile to it. Right now, Mr. Trump is more indispensable to Mrs. Clinton’s black outreach effort than the president.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).

Why Trump Should Worry About TRUMP®

Donald Trump has built an empire around his name. This is his trademark and it serves him well. I think his running for President was part patriotism, as he clearly is worried about having Hillary Clinton in the oval office, but part was brand development.

He has made his brand “huge,” as he would say, but he may destroy it.

A brand’s strength is based on its reputation and visibility. Trump® has enjoyed a very good reputation for decades. The words powerful, smart, elegant, fabulous, best, cool and etc. are associated with Trump® buildings, products, and concepts. That means people are eager to live in Trump® towers, play golf or vacation at Trump® golf courses or resorts, buy Trump branded clothes and other products, and even pay to attend Trump® programs and events.  In short, due to the appeal of the Trump ® brand, Trump the man and presidential candidate is fabulously wealthy and enjoys a perfect life, at least until he was the official Republican presidential candidate. Up to that point, he was even leading in the polls.

Trump the candidate is now in danger of destroying Trump® the brand. Since his stupid, outrageous, stumbling, buffoonish comments about a fellow named Kahn, and other missteps and oafish statements. He has fallen behind the highly flawed, untalented, constantly lying Democrat, Hillary Clinton.

The words now associated with Trump® are the same now associated with Trump the candidate. They are racist, stupid, buffoon, redneck, clumsy, ogre, oaf, out of touch, mean and it goes on. Now, soon no one will want to wear a Trump® golf shirt or live in Trump® towers, attend a Trump® seminar and etc.?

Trump the candidate has one option. Only one. He can start now to be presidential, smart, diplomatic, empathetic, kind, charming, humorous, and articulate. He must, in brief, act like a person who capable of being president. His opponent doesn’t, but may win by default if he continues to destroy Trump®.

What he needs to do at this point is called re-branding. Where this can be a very involved process for companies, it is easy here. Trump the candidate simply has to show discipline in the words that he speaks. He must speak of the economy that is terrible, of Hillary’s lying which is documented by the FBI, of her horrible time as Secretary of State where he has volumes of evidence, including dead bodies, and, I think he takes the high road,  and apologizes to that fellow Khan and expresses condolence over the loss of a son in combat. That will make him seem humble and human and he needs that, more importantly, Trump® needs that.

If Trump the man doesn’t win the election, Trump® is irretrievably damaged. Don, Jr., Eric, Ivanka, Tiffany, and Barron must insist on this and he must do it for himself and for America. He really has no choice.

Postscript: If a reader has access to Trump the candidate, please send this article to him.









Obama’s Trump Problem

Obama has a Trump problem and it is that he claims that Trump is unprepared for the Presidency. Of course, the problem is that Obama is the most woefully unprepared President ever.

Obama claims that Trump doesn’t know “basic stuff.” This is from the man who said he “visited all 57 states” during his first campaign and thought Austrians spoke Austrian, stuff that 6th graders know.

Obama is still the most hopelessly naive President ever. He just gets nothing right. His economy is the worst in fifty years, his foreign policy is in disarray. He relies on a complicit media to support his activities.

So, Obama’s Trump problem is that he sees someone he thinks is as unprepared as he was. The fact is that Trump is much more prepared that Obama ever was. He is a man of accomplishment whereas Obama was a community organizer, an Alinsky position, an undistinguished Illinois legislator who voted present because he didn’t have knowledge of issues that would allow him to vote “yea” or “nay,” an undistinguished US Senator from Illinois, need I say more. He was elected for reasons we all understand.

Obama’s Trump issue is that he sees himself in Trump and is really afraid that Trump will win and prove to be a superior President.

Trump Destroys The USFL, After Promising to Make it Great

The United States Football League should have been a success and was headed in that direction until Donald Trump bought the New Jersey Generals and promised to make them great. Due to his activities, the league failed and Trump just walked away. READ MORE BELOW.

After Saying He’d Make the USFL Generals Great, Trump Destroyed Them

In 1983, Donald Trump promised to make my beloved New Jersey Generals great, yet he succeeded only in destroying my team and the rest of the USFL.

As a Yankee fan, I was used to the ways of megalomaniacal sports owners dominating the New York Daily News, promising the moon, and—yes—occasionally delivering championships. Growing up in New Jersey, we had perilously few opportunities to watch live football. New York Giants tickets were notoriously difficult to come by, the New York Jets were still playing at Shea Stadium in far-off Queens, and there wasn’t much of a tradition of college football excellence in the Garden State. When the possibility of Generals season tickets emerged for my father and me—in the upper deck, right along the 25-yard line—we didn’t walk; we ran.

The USFL, as envisioned by Saints and Superdome progenitor David Dixon, was one of the underappreciated ideas of our time. Dixon saw through the eyes of the Sacko men and recognized market space (New Jersey, Birmingham, among others) and time (spring) that NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle was ignoring. This league would supplement, not compete with, the NFL. Dixon recommended a tight $1.8 million salary cap per team. As long as sober-minded owners controlled spending, girded their lust for the limelight, and kept their eye on the long-term interest of the league, USFL success was highly probable.

Initially, the Jersey Generals had only alliteration and Herschel Walker—and as broad as #34’s shoulders were, they could not carry the team alone. Walker went on to lead the league in rushing in 1983 (in all three years of the USFL, in fact), but the Generals finished 6-12 that first year.

Then Donald Trump gazed down from his newly christened Tower in mid-town Manhattan upon the lowly Jersey Meadowlands, like Sauromon searching for the one true ring from Mount Doom, when something else shiny caught his eye. He didn’t have to wait long to bring it into his possession. After the guardedly successful 1983 season, the league added six more teams (rather than the four envisioned by Dixon) and approved the sale of the two coastal teams to big-pocket owners—the L.A. Express to J. William Oldenburg, billionaire former vacuum-cleaner salesman, and the N.J. Generals to Donald Trump, real-estate developer. At that point Mr. David Dixon wisely sold his stake and had no future dealings with the USFL.

Like George Steinbrenner with the Yankees, Donald Trump promised to make his team great (again). Mr. Trump seemed he might bring to the Generals what Steinbrenner had brought to the Yankees in the ’70s. Leaders provide a vision and inspiration. Mr. Trump’s vision was to make his team great, and he certainly used his resources in that pursuit. He hired former N.Y. Jets Coach Walt Michaels as head coach and then former NFL co-MVP Brian Sipe as quarterback, along with the great Gary Barbaro to anchor the Generals defense. The Generals improved in 1984 but lost in the first round of the playoffs to the eventual champions, the loathsome Philadelphia Stars.

Next year would be different, Mr. Trump promised. He delivered in drafting and signing the then-career passing leader in college history, Doug Flutie, who joined Walker as the second Heisman winner on the Generals’ roster. (Brian Sipe, you’re fired). He not only signed Flutie but even got someone else to pay for it (sound familiar?), concluding a deal where the other owners subsidized the large contract. In what would be their final season (unbeknownst at the time to us), the Generals lost in the first round again, in 1985.

Mr. Trump then doubled down by going after a deal that ultimately compromised his primary responsibility, which was to his team. He convinced the USFL leadership to go head-to-head with the NFL and to sue the football giant to help make that possible. His hope was to force a merger—after all, the NFL Generals would be markedly more valuable than the USFL model. Trump pushed his fellow owners to move the USFL’s season from the spring to the fall—saying, “If God wanted football in the spring, he wouldn’t have created baseball”—with the hope that the NFL would panic. Rozelle, however, was not a man who panics; he held strong through the anti-trust lawsuit brought by the USFL. As he knew, this lawsuit wasn’t about fairness. It was about a deal.

The USFL sued the NFL for anti-trust damages of $1.7 billion. Despite having been offered $67 million per year for the next three years by ABC and ESPN, the USFL foolishly suspended the spring 1986 season, eyeing the fall. That summer, ajury concurred that the NFL had exhibited illegal monopoly behavior but saw right through the USFL’s (Trump’s) gambit to force a merger with the NFL. Unsympathetic to the USFL’s claims of NFL-induced financial woes, and concluding that theUSFL’s problems were due to its own mismanagement, the jury ordered the NFL to pay the USFL only $3. On August 4, 1986, USFL owners voted to suspend operations; the league would never play another game. After every judicial appeal failed, the USFL disbanded.

I felt betrayed. The New Jersey Generals faithful had been abandoned for the art of the deal. The cold, barren 1986 New Jersey spring would see no football after the historic takedown of the hapless New England Patriots by the Chicago Bears’ and their ’46 defense on January 26. Thank you, Donald Trump: You wrecked spring football.

David Sacko is a professor of political science at the United States Air Force Academy. The views expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Academy, the Air Force, or the Department of Defense.

Trump’s Major Fallacy

Thomas Sowell points out the Trump fallacy. The fact is he is not the majority candidate under any analysis. 


We hear many fallacies in election years. The fallacy that seems to be most popular this year is that, if Donald Trump comes close to getting the 1,237 delegates required to become the Republican nominee, and that nomination goes instead to someone else, then the convention will have ignored “the voice of the people.”

Supposedly Republican voters would be outraged, many would stay home on election day, and some might even vote for the Democrats’ nominee, whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Mr. Trump has more than once made the veiled threat that he would run as a third-party candidate if the Republicans failed to “respect” him. And of course Trump would himself decide what “respect” means.

In so far as the voting public believes the fallacy that choosing someone other than Trump is ignoring “the voice of the people,” when Trump has the most delegates, his threat carries weight.

In reality, Trump has never gotten a majority of the votes in any state. In other words, “the voice of the people” has been consistently against nominating Trump.

In a poll of Republican voters in Wisconsin, 20 percent of them said that they would be “concerned” if Trump became President of the United States, and 35 percent said that they would be “scared.”

If “the voice of the people” has spoken, whether in Wisconsin or nationally, what it has said repeatedly is “No” to Donald Trump. The illusion of Trump’s overwhelming appeal to the Republican voters has been maintained by the fragmenting of Republican votes because so many candidates were running as conservatives that Trump won primaries without ever getting a majority of the votes.

This would not be the first time that the conservative majority votes in a Republican primary season have been split so many ways that someone who is not a conservative ends up with the nomination.

That is how the Republicans ended up with Mitt Romney in 2012 and lost the election. That is also how the Republicans can end up with Donald Trump and lose this year’s election. Worse yet, from the standpoint of the country, that is how Donald Trump might end up in the White House.

The Republicans in Wisconsin who were scared of the possibility of Trump as President were on to something. We should all be scared.

Why? There is not room enough to list all the reasons. But Trump himself has demonstrated, over and over, how he lacks the depth of knowledge — and sometimes any knowledge at all — of complex life and death issues that are inescapable for any President of the United States.

Ignorance is dangerous enough in itself. But ignorance on the part of an egomaniac, who announces that he is his own best advisor, is incorrigible ignorance. He can surround himself with the best minds in the country and it will not do any good if they are just there for window dressing.

Barack Obama has already demonstrated what disasters a President can create when he ignores the warnings of the country’s top military leaders, as he did when he pulled American troops out of Iraq, setting the stage for the emergence of ISIS.

Obama dealt with that problem, as he has dealt with other problems, by coming up with glib rhetoric — in this case, dismissing ISIS as the junior varsity. The horrors that have followed — especially for women and girls — wherever ISIS has taken over in the Middle East make Obama’s slick words grotesque.

So too do the terrorist slaughters in Europe that are virtually guaranteed to be repeated in America.

The unprecedented public criticisms of President Obama by four of his former Secretaries of Defense, not to mention retired four-star generals, demonstrate that having knowledgeable and experienced advisors cannot make up for headstrong ignorance on the part of a President.

A headline on Bret Stephens’ column in the Wall Street Journal — “Trump Is Obama Squared” — hit the nail on the head. After seven long years of disaster after disaster, at home and abroad, under the Obama administration, have we learned nothing about the dangers of choosing an untested candidate for President of the United States on the basis of his saying things we want to hear?

Elections are not held to make us feel good at the time, but to select someone with the depth of knowledge and character to be entrusted with our lives and the future of the nation.

Palin Endorses Trump, His Biggest Error

I have been surprised at Donald Trumps success as a presidential candidate and his continued improvement as a candidate. His message resonates with many who are dismayed by the state of the nation. He is smart and his authoritative demeanor is what is being sought by many voters.  He is the alpha male who seemed to have the nomination “in the bag.”

By allowing and probably seeking Sarah Palin’s endorsement, he is showing a tone deaf ear to the voters. Palin’s appearance and her statements were awful for his campaign. He will now be tied to a polarizing character and it can only prove damaging.

This action is a response to Ted Cruz’s rise in popularity. Still, the Iowa caucus is not a clear indicator of probable success in the race for the nomination. Many Iowa winners are ultimate losers in that race.

I must admit that I once admired Palin and attended her acceptance speech at the St. Paul convention. She was electric. With the passing of time so has her luster. Trump has embraced Palin or vice versa, and voters will now be confronted by the suggestion that  a vote for him may be a vote for her as Vice President. The effect will be damaging to Trump.

This is his first big mistake and may well propel Cruz, Rubio, the surging Kasich or a steady Bush into the lead. I just don’t like Christie for his Sandy statements that won an election for Obama. Nevertheless, Trump is now tied to Palin and that will make all the difference. Moreover, this endorsement at this time was not necessary. It was his first big mistake.


Why, How Trump Beats Hillary. Alinsky Works Both Ways

You must concede this about Donald Trump: He does keep his enemies and opponents rocking back on their heels. He does it, as the Wall street Journal’s sage James Taranto, observes, by following the very Saul Alinsky tactics that so impressed Hillary as a Wellesley undergrad.

This week he made clear that if Hillary was going to charge him with being part of the “war on women” (the successor, I take it, to her historic “vast right wing conspiracy”), he was going to attack her as an enabler and defender of a serial sexual predator — her husband.

Now, he is accusing Mr. Clinton’s defender in chief of being a moralistic hypocrite, applying to her rivals (including Trump) standards from which she excuses her husband. The current kerfuffle is only incidentally about Mr. Clinton at all.

It’s a textbook example of Saul Alinsky’s fourth tactical rule: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” (That is as true of feminism as of Christianity.)

And Trump is perfectly situated to level this attack, for precisely the reasons some Chozicks imagine otherwise. He himself is a voluptuary, not a moralist, which immunizes him through pure logic against any accusation of hypocrisy. As a practical matter, his tabloid lifestyle inoculates him against inquisitions into his private life of the sort that snared Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston during the Clinton impeachment. It all reminds us of a now-quaint anecdote in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:

“During a conflict with a major corporation I was confronted with a threat of public exposure of a photograph of a motel “Mr. & Mrs.” registration and photographs of my girl and myself. I said, “Go ahead and give it to the press. I think she’s beautiful and I have never claimed to be celibate. Go ahead!” That ended the threat.’

Others, knowing that the public memory is short and millennial voters deficient in history have reminded readers of how sordid and extensive Bill Clinton’s known abuse of women has been.

Taranto is right as he so often is: The Trump charge is an effective one. Even the notoriously leftwing writer, the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, agrees the charge is warranted:

“Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true.”

Don Surber observes that Hillary, too, slandered women and adds, “Bill Clinton’s return to the center stage reminds people that for a quarter-century, the media has covered up for this lecher, which further makes the case for Trump’s attacks on the media.”

At Breitbart, John Nolte twisted the knife:

Hillary Clinton and the DC Media were sure they had found the secret weapon to waltz the Lying Benghazi Bungler directly into the Oval Office: a replay of the phony War on Women issue.

It didn’t matter who won the nomination in 2016. Mitt Romney was no sexist, so the DC Media fabricated a Todd Akin to beat him to death with.

Then Donald Trump came along, a candidate who not only understands that the rules set by the DC Media are rigged to elect Democrats, but someone competent enough to serially-beat them at their own game.

On this day, Bill Cosby is finally facing justice for the longstanding allegations against him, and thanks only to Trump, so are Bill and Hillary Clinton after 20 years of being shielded by the corrupt media.

When NBC’s Savannah Guthrie tried downplaying Bill’s abuse by calling the Lewinsky scandal “alleged”, Trump made her retract that description — after all, both parties did admit to the misconduct under oath. It was not just alleged — the sexual relationship in the Oval Office with a young subordinate is fact. The  media aren’t dealing with the usual Republican patsies any more.

In salty language, my online friend “Ignatz Ratzkywatzky” characterized the state of play.

Memorandum has the headline “Donald Trump doesn’t understand what ‘sexism’ is” from some dumb cluck at CNN.

I don’t have to even read it to know that real sexism is saying certain trigger words like “HIStory”. And it’s refusing to admit women are paid 1% of what men are, though every reputable study that controls for factors like education, pregnancy, time in the work force etc demonstrates women make slightly more than men. And most importantly, it’s not supporting a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby even though ~half of those dead babies are little women.

And of course he goes on to explain that sexism is not arranging trysts with sad, lonely subordinate girls in your employ. Nor is it raping women or pouncing on them after their husband has committed suicide. Nor is it shaming and embarrassing your wife by screwing hundreds of women while married to her. And it’s not even shaming and embarrassing the women who have the courage to speak out against your serial adulterer and abuser husband.

Guys like this assbite aren’t afraid Trump doesn’t know what real sexism is. They’re afraid he and we all know what it is and for once are willing to talk about it, rather than their stupid fables.

How bad is it starting to look for Hillary? Even the New York Times concedes, that next to West Virginia, Trump’s strongest support may be in New York State.

He fares best in a broad swath of the country stretching from the Gulf Coast, up the spine of the Appalachian Mountains, to upstate New York.

Mr. Trump’s best state is West Virginia, followed by New York. Eight of Mr. Trump’s 10 best congressional districts are in New York, including several on Long Island. North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana and South Carolina follow.

If Trump is the nominee and the Republicans win New York, the electoral college vote tally for Hillary looks exceedingly difficult. As Michael Walsh reports, if Trump takes New York, he can easily win.

Perhaps it wasn’t such a great idea for Hillary to try to reprise the tired, ridiculous War on Women campaign theme or for her party to dump on the blue collar white base that they rode to victory so many times.


Fiorina’s “Look at this Face” Ad. The Best Ad So Far.

This link will take you to the best campaign ad so far. Carly Fiorina just slams Trumps’ comments and makes the proper point. She is a candidate to be reckoned with.
A candidate that is up front, out there, and very smart will go a long way. Maybe those who want a woman president will find their candidate here!

%d bloggers like this: