September 22, 2016

So, who'll win the first debate?

Joel Pollack maintains that Pussy Deplore will.

His article intones:
Trump fans, brace yourselves: Hillary Clinton will win the first presidential debate. She will not do enough to put away the Republican nominee, but she will stop his momentum and force him to work that much harder to win.

There are several reasons Clinton will win. Ironically, one of them is her fragile health.

Winning debates is all about beating expectations. And expectations for Trump are very low. Until recently, it seemed that all he would have to do to win is avoid major gaffes, and keep his cool.

But now, expectations for Clinton are even lower. Her collapse on September 11 has led to wild speculation that she might not be able to make it through 90 minutes. If she merely stays upright, she beats expectations.

(The Commission on Presidential Debates confirmed to Breitbart News Thursday that the candidates will be standing for the first debate. If they were seated, Clinton would have more energy but lose the strategic benefit of diminished expectations.)

Even without low expectations, Clinton should win the first debate, for two reasons.

The first is that she is the most seasoned debater in American political life today. Clinton does not have any real achievements to boast after eight years as First Lady, another eight years in the Senate, four years as Secretary of State, and two presidential campaigns. But years of debating — and years of evading questions — have helped her develop a polished, if uninspiring, public persona that conveys competence.

Clinton has two main debating tricks. One is to deploy distracting but serious-sounding details whenever she is faced with a question she does not want to answer. The other is to laugh at uncomfortable moments. Her laugh — a “cackle,” to her critics — is awkward but disarming, humanizing.
It is telling that while Trump successfully used the Republican primary debates to pick off his opponents one-by-one with a series of well-crafted “kill shots” — “low-energy” Jeb Bush, “little” Marco Rubio, “lyin'” Ted Cruz, Carly “look at that face” Fiorina — he won very few of the debates, online polls notwithstanding. If the moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, decides to play “fact-checker” against Trump — something Trump is clearly concerned about — Trump is probably going to suffer most.

But there is one larger reason that Clinton will win the first debate: the media will tell everyone she has won, regardless.

They are openly hostile to Trump, they know Clinton needs help, and they want to make up for Matt Lauer and Jimmy Fallon, who committed the grave sin of being fair to both.

With legions of faux fact-checkers, and battalions of biased pundits, the fix is in. Clinton will enjoy a bump in the polls– and Trump will have to claw his way back in the weeks and debates that follow.

To which I respond:
I submit that you are both correct and wrong at the same time. You are correct in that Hillary will "win" the first debate. But you are wrong in that the press and her relieved followers may by jubilant because she did not wheeze, hack, take a 30-minute pee break or do the funky chicken and fall to the floor frothing at the mouth -- and therefore call her the victor.

But while the debate will be called "hers" by acclaim of the adoring press, it will not diminish the fervor of Trump followers and probably do LITTLE to add to her ratings. (Famous last words on my part, to be sure, but I do NOT believe that Trump "will have to claw his way back" as Pollack states. Her style, wonkishness, and grating voice will do more to turn off voters than win them over. The media had Carter the winner of his debate with Reagan in 1980, but the viewing public would have none of it.

Then, again, Trump may have a Gipperesque "Well, there you go again.." moment and put the old cow away.
..and this presupposes that NO Assange Wikileaks releases will see the light of day, contrary to what he promised.

Ruh Roh!

Look come de judge!

September 21, 2016

Straight Line

In one of the BEST STRAIGHT LINES ever handed out, the Dem's beloved Pussy Deplore walked into rotating fan blades with this tweet:

Of course, pounced upon by a sharp cementer over at Hot Gas.

Bud Abbott could not have done better.

Cluster Fuck

Money quotes (emphasis added):

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook dodged questions about Clinton’s Syria policy, which prompted members of the panel to say, “we may be tiptoeing into Gary Johnson territory here,” and ask, “you can’t lay out your plan, how can you convince voters that Hillary Clinton is the better choice, Robby?” And “why do we have you here?”

Mook was asked by co-host Willie Geist, “Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when this crisis began. What’s her biggest regret about the way Syria’s been handled?”

He answered, “Well, I — obviously she’s been out of office for some time now. … I think she’s well regarded for her leadership as Secretary of State. She came out of that office with a 70% approval rating. She, in contrast to Donald Trump has released a clear and decisive plan to defeat ISIS. Donald Trump has said that he thinks he knows more about it than the generals and refuses to tell us what his secret plan is.”

Geist responded, “I understand, Robby. What about in Syria, though? She supported the drawing of the red line. Obviously, she was out of her office when Assad used chemical weapons. Was it a mistake to draw the red line if the president was not willing to go — to do something about it when it was crossed?”

Mook stated, “Well, as you pointed out, the decision regarding that was made after she was out of office so, I think you’d have to ask President Obama.”

followed up, “Was she disappointed that the president didn’t act when the line was crossed?”

Mook said, “I think you’d have to ask her about that question, how she would characterize it.”

Geist then asked, “Well, you’re here to speak for her, Robby. So, you haven’t discussed that all?”

Mook responded, “She — look, I — what matters is what she is going to do as president. And as I said, she has a clear plan to defeat ISIS. Donald Trump does not. It’s a secret. He won’t tell anybody what it is and he says he knows more than the generals. I think the choice for voters is clear.”

Mook was then asked by Geist, “So, day one in office then, Robby, what does she do in regards to Syria?”

He stated, “Well, first of all, she needs to — she has said that she will work with our allies to dismantle their safe harbor in Syria and Iraq. She will harden our defenses here at home, and she will dismantle their network around the world, and a lot of that’s going to happen in the — in cyberspace, and through digital communications. So, you can go on our website and read the full plan there.”

Columnist Mike Barnicle then asked, “So, Robby, we do realize that you are not secretary of state, but in the debate, next Monday evening, how would Secretary Clinton respond to somewhat of a version of the following question: We’ve had a relief convoy bombed, potentially a war crime, leading into Aleppo. What would you do, Secretary Clinton, about providing food, water, and medicine to the citizens of eastern Aleppo today, right now, differently than what the Obama administration is doing? What would she do differently?”

Mook responded, “I — again, I think you’re going to have to ask her that question. That’s a matter of policy. I’m going to leave it for her to determine that.”

..yet the lying, diseased bag of pig afterbirth is abed with pneumonia or the flu or walking pellagra or some such malady and, when vertical, waves off basic questions about such banalities as crashing poll numbers, etc.

What an aptly named campaign manager this guy is and what a clusterfuck this campaign is.

"Sweet" Lou Dobbs

..having tired of the drivel at FNS and other outlets, I have taken to watching Lou Dobbs *exclusively* in the evenings and skulking around the internet as daily activities permit. I know Lou Dobbs as a source is not exactly old news but I wearied of "spirited, bi-partisan debate" and the other platitudes used to describe the presence of some unhinged, screaming/giggling, sardonic lib moron advocate spewing his or her bile all over the living room floor in front of my 60" Samsung.

To the point: Ed Rollins has been an interesting bellwether recently. At first cynical and uncomplimentary when DJT was running his mouth and stepping all over his dick (so to speak), Rollins can barely suppress a demonic grin here and there as he lauds Trump's performance these days. He REALLY, REALLY loves The Donald and what his campaign is doing.

Also, the incessant gushing -- while clearly the sound track for our DJT echo chamber -- by Dobbs and his panels (all certified Hillary haters/Trump lovers; nary a commie in the bunch) are the perfect balm for the irritations and abrasions of the caustic, anti-Trump elitist manure extant in other outlets.

Weak and Pauline Kaelesque on my part to be sure, but if the diseased, lying, [semi-]ambulatory quivering mass of pig afterbirth that is HRC has got this rigged and WILL triumph in November, then I want to be sitting at a table on the afterdeck of the Titanic, listening to the band play "Closer My God to Thee" and sipping a very dry Beefeater's Martini as the country goes down by the bow.


I didn't think so.

September 20, 2016

Bush League

Drink this in:

So here's the deal. I did not pay serious attention to the GOP side of the POTUS race until about January of this year. There was a fascination with the fact that Donald Trump was rolling up massive crowds even back on October, November, and December of 2015 but that was it. Then the primaries started and in New Hampshire ~~ who the hell counts people gathering in the dead of Winter at coffee klatches to discuss politics? ~~ and then somewhere around the end of February, Jeb Bush backed out. Up 'til that point, I remember a couple of things: fristly, I went to a USAF Auxiliary meeting and the speaker didn't show up so we watched a debate. Secondly, Jeb Bush burned through ONE HUNDRED MILLION BUCKS before he bailed.

Somewhere between February 20th and now, I put these two events together. Let me explain.

The debate I watched was the one where Trump bailed because he said they were a waste of time and the remaining candidates battled each other. It was my distinct impression that ALL OF THESE FOLKS were just like Mutt Rumbley back in 2012 and John McStain back in 2008. They were boring, said the same old shit, and all looked like they had NOTHING up their sleeves that would prevent them from getting steamrolled by the then anointed Democrat Queen on her coronation march. I suddenly grokked to why the GOPe was a steaming pile of shit and, no matter what the fuck we did, these folks were just trolling us to get their political power and get back to D.C. where they could play their games and bend over Americans.  It was at that point that my interest peaked in Trump and the crowds he was attracting.

As for the $100 million, I understood it -- sort of -- but still thought it was a lot of money.

I'll come to the point.

Today there were a couple of items about the Bush family and supporters that caused me to go back and do a little research on Jeb's campaign skills or lack of same (see above) and it sent me over the edge. It shows me that, for all of their money and breeding and so-called class, they would rather throw their support behind a crook, a liar, a thief, and, arguably, a murderer -- about the closest thing you can get to a Mafia crime boss -- for president than the nominee of their party and a genuine champion of the working class American. Moreover, it seems that some of their rich friends do as well. So they are joining the slime that is Mutt Rumbley and the others in kicking the teeth of those millions of Americans who supported their kin in 1988 and 1992 and 2000 and 2004.

I worked very hard for "W" in 2000 and 2004; walked precincts, did mailers, worked the phones -- and even contributed money. And this is the tanks I get. The whole lot of them (except for Jeb's son, George P. Bush) can die in a fire for all I care. Except for Bush 41: I hope he does one of those birthday parachute thingies and the rip cord breaks.

(I am somewhat curious about "W" but do not hold out hope.)

So them and Rumbley and all of the other rich bastards who sucked on us to gain/attempt to gan=in political power are nothing but grimy ward-heelers and card carrying members of the Uniparty in D.C.

Fuck. Them. All.

Oh yeah, and I finally dug up a video that explained how Jeb Bush blew through the huge wad of cash put up for his campaign:

This guy is a monumental shit stain.

Bring it on..

Culled from a thread somewhere on the interwebs:

My response:

Good! Then we will keep bombing you,imprisoning you, vilifying you, usurping your lands BECAUSE WE HATE YOU AND WILL NOT STOP FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER UNTIL ALL OF YOU FUCKING VERMIN ARE WIPED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH!

..there, are you happy now?

September 19, 2016

Throwing in the rag..

No words; just drink this in. Any moment now Lord Cornwallis's aide de camp will be showing up with his commander's sword.

..a-dope a-dope a-dope-dope dope dope..

Monumental stupidity by the diseased bitch:

..but here's the money shot:

They didn’t care. Their attitude, then, back in July, during the DNC, was they were going to win this thing anyway, so who cares? Now, I think the tides have turned a little bit and she’s on her heels. As many times as we’ve tried to…have it a fair process and an open process, the emails back were that they’re not interested and no thanks. Just snide things like that.”

He stated his local chapter will heed the recommendation for Trump, who he met with personally in New York.

“We’re falling in line with the national FOP and, basically, she just disregarded and blew the police off. You can’t go in and expect to get respect when you didn’t give it to us. We gave a very fair process, we thought. We put out a questionnaire and she absolutely refused…outright refused, with a nasty campaign rebuttal to why she wouldn’t. Simple as that, we went in and we participated with the candidate that cooperated. He filled it out. We met with him.”

Oh, man, you cannot get any dumber than that! It's the city where she held her convention, fer crissakes!

Boy, is Lou Dobbs gonna be fun tonight!

September 16, 2016


So there's this deal: some time ago the "Birther" issue surfaced. This was the conjecture over The Lawn Jockey POTUS's place of birth and whether he was an American citizen (and eligible to be POTUS) or not. Lost in the mists of time and riddled by accusation and counter accusation is who started it, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Frankly, I do not give a crap!

I do know that Trump was prominent in that conjecture, forcing Obama to eventually produce his birth certificate. I also know that Clinton used that issue in her failed run for the nomination versus Obama in 2008. I also know that, given the increased desperation of Clinton in the wake of her slowly disintegrating campaign this year, she is pulling out all the stops and throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick. And this birther issue seems to be one of those chunks of goo that Frau Colostomy Bag is hefting at the moment.

So Trump seizes on the opportunity today and says he's going to make a big announcement on the subject. Immediately, Hillary took the bait. America's ex-wife thought she had Trump lined up in her sights so she came out and made the acerbic video below anticipating that Trump was going to re-open the issue.

And then here's Trumps big announcement:

That's right! At the end, he says that Obama's a citizen and the matter is closed!

So it's a 30-minute commercial spot of him being endorsed by 17 Medal of Honor winners at a the opening of one of his new hotels and it ends up that Trump (1) suckered Hillary into giving that horribly negative and disgraceful talk and appearing to be the clueless bitch she really is, (2) got 30 minutes of FREE air time out of CNN (as conceded by by John Hill of CNN), (3) got glowing endorsements from the 17 American military heroes, and (4) laid the matter to rest and relegated it to the scrap-heap should his opponents or the media bring it up again.

Clear to me that while others are playing checkers, Trump is playing chess.

Hillary's probably just playing Mumbly Peg.

UPDATE: It seems like this Birther thing is going through the last conniptions of its death throes. the two campaigns are fighting to get in the last word or, in the case of a pissing contest, the last squirt. Well, Breitbart has come up with this tidbit:

Jesus! It's a non-essential, desperate Hail-Mary issue that has little relevance and won't advance the ball for Frau Colostomy Bag. Even if she did/does succeed on pinning the responsibility for the birther meme on The Donald, who the fuck cares?

I gotta tell ya, if Hillary had a dick (which she probably does; at least an enraged clitoris), she'd be stepping all over it.

She should switch to the Republican party; they do that sorta shit all the time.

September 15, 2016

[Back] On the Road Again..

Worth the wait? You tell me as Hillary seemingly picks up where she left off before doing the Funky Chicken and being the object of a Sunday morning Bag Toss into her Scooby Van at Ground Zero on Sunday, 9-11-2016.

Her sidekick, Kaine, did not exactly pack 'em in either up in Cow Hampshire. He beat HRC's crowd but only by abbout 60 soulds He had a protester jump his bones after he gave his speech but, other than that, it was pretty desultory:

As one cementer observed it's a pretty patnhetic showing when you consider about 40 were the press, 25 was security detail, 30 were protestors, 90 were paid shills...the balance was Kaine's or HRC's immediate family and some guys with nothin' to do.

Ms Peggy Lee said it so well..

And so did the late great Dandy DOn Meridith with his rendition of Willie Nelson's favorite:

So, the old adage must be true: Hillary sucks.

September 14, 2016

Roll Tide!

Remember to wear RED on Election Day!

Not making this shit up -- Part Deux and a Half..

A week agor or so, Frau Colostomy Bag ruminated in scripted remarks about HALF of Donald Trump's supporters being "deplorable and irredeemable" and it brought down HALF of the house. Well, it seems that her subsequent health issues and Sunday, 9/11 vapor lock has brought down another half:

I think this is really rich! And, just between us girls, if that evil cunt faceplants and starts a dirt nap tomorrow, nary a tear would roll down my whiskered and haggard cheek. I would probably inquire where they were going to plant the remains, down four bowls of the spiciest chili I can find, a bottle of habaneras, three flagons of Milk of Magnesia and migrate to that location to plant a steaming and fragrant Hershey Squirt on her grave.

..yes, I am in a shitty mood and, YES, I hate the crooked bitch that much.

But, in the future I resolve not to hold back.

September 13, 2016

You cannot make this shit up..

It seems that HRC is/will be -- I hope you're sitting down -- featured in the October issue of Women's Health magazine.

Well, I told you to sit down, didn't I?

Well,, courtesy of Breitbart, here it is -- or at least a tweet about it:

But that ain't all. It gets better:

When asked about the biggest obstacle she faced during her campaign, Clinton said it was the new media culture.

“In the heat of a campaign, in a culture that rewards brevity and clever phrases on social media, it can be really tempting to give simple answers to complex problems,” she said. “That’s never been my style.”

She asserted that she was “a little wonky” but believed in discussing specifics in her proposals.

Clinton called for women across the country to work for change in America, to make it more equal between women and men.

“As first lady, senator, and secretary of state, I would watch world leaders roll their eyes whenever I brought up issues that affect women and girls,” she said. “But with persistence – and data – I’ve watched it dawn on more than a few men that women’s issues are their issues too.”

I think I am gonna barf. Can you imagine four years with a tyrannical shrieking psycho-bitch like this. One of the bloggers on the old Hot Air used to call her "America's Ex-Wife".

Not too far from the truth, that!

UPDATE: But, as long as we're on the subject of truth, here's an asshole who has not been known to purvey much of it:

CNN is orgasming because his approval rating is somewhere around the high 50s but they don't realize it's because he's on his way out and a lot of us are happier to see his ass end than his front end. I frankly hope he dies in a fire.

Twenty-five to Life

From BB this morning:

He basically said:

You will see every president, in recent years, literally ages about 25 years. They go gray in just a matter of their first term, usually. This is a product of what? The incredible stress put upon the individual who, every day – well, except for Obama, who only read half of them – but usually every day is given an intelligence brief that would make most people never sleep again.

“The president’s daily briefing is the latest intelligence on what the bad guys are doing, whether it’s Russia, ISIS, North Korea, or what have you,” he explained, adding:

And on top of that, they have to bear on their shoulders the responsibility that there’s always somebody walking within 20 yards of them, carrying the suitcase, the “football,” that allows them to launch a nuclear strike within minutes, should it be required to defend the United States.

“That’s the level of stress. I mean, short of being a brain surgeon, or somebody like, you know, Ben Carson, who has to separate conjoined twins, there really are very few jobs comparable to being the commander-in-chief, when it comes to stress levels,” he concluded.

So, by way of extrapolation, if HRC gets elected, I kind of think she's going to end up like this poor schlumpf:

September 12, 2016

Face Plant for Hillary..

(I'm NOT with her.)

..courtesy of a poster over at Gateway Pundit.

And, as long as we're talking about "face plants". (Get it?)

No, I really did NOT mean that picture above. Although, every day, more and more, we see these absolutely HORRID pictures of this creature. It's like her pitch-black inner soul is eating away at the surface and she is becoming an almost Hollywood-like apparition, the crystallizaiton of pure Satanic evil. I meant that she and her minions are still unrepentant and resuse to walk back some of the PREPARED "deplorable/irredeemable" speech she gave while at the Friday fundraiser:
A Clinton official said that while the nominee has expressed regret over her phrasing, there are at least some Trump supporters her campaign considers to be in the "deplorables" category.

"What should she have said? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Five percent? What would have been a more accurate number?" CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon on his show.

"I don't know, Wolf. It's certainly a non-zero number," Fallon responded.

Earlier Monday, Trump called Clinton's remarks "the single biggest mistake of the political season" and called on her to retract her comments or drop out of the race for the White House.
“The disdain that Hillary Clinton expressed for millions of decent Americans disqualifies her from public service,” Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, said during a speech in Baltimore.

“You cannot run for president if you have such contempt in your heart for the American voter, and she does. You can’t lead this nation if you have such a low opinion for its citizens," Trump said.

Clinton on Saturday said she was wrong to generalize that "half" of Trump's supporters fell into a "basket of deplorables," while defending her attack on certain elements of his support.

"The mistake I think, Wolf, was trying to quantify it," Fallon said Monday on CNN's "Wolf."

Fallon mentioned former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's support of Trump's candidacy and Trump's hiring of Stephen Bannon from the far-right Breitbart News website to be his campaign's chief executive as examples of Trump lending credence to the so-called alt-right movement, a hardcore conservative sect often associated with white nationalism.
Jee-suz, talk about bitter clingers! It's like the guy in the bar asking the girl if she would screw him for a million and then $10 and when she accepts the first and rejects the second he tells her he already knows she's a whore and they're just haggling over the price.

By the way, there are whispers that the DNC is beginning to plan to prepare to contemplate the possibility of perhaps moving her aside in favor of a short closer. Also whispered is the fact that Tim Kaine is beginning to heat up (in the bull pen). Also mentioned by some of the MSM dick-suckers (I am looking at you, Cokie Roberts you phallus-ingesting NPR crack whore) wonder if Slow Joe Biden might want to take a turn at the plate. And, you all know that once the whispers start, they can turn into stiff breezes and eventually full gale force winds.

Not sure how that would work at this late date, but this ain't gonna like the NJ dropout of Toricelli owing to malfeasance or Paul Wellstone dying in a plane crash. This is the election of the POTUS and this concerns all fifty states. One has to beleive there are deadlines in place and even votes cast because of early voting that should constrain these frivolities.

Should, I said.

September 11, 2016

Death Throes [of a campaign]..

Or is it "rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated" as mark Twain once said?

Events are coming quick and fast here in the first fortnight of September and things ain't looking grand for Frau Colostomy Bag. By the time anyone gets over to this dark and dank corner of the interwebs where I hang out and post my pathetic screeds, this will be old news. But I still post for posterity and to vent and rage and exult.

Frau Colostomy Bag just vapor-locked at the 14th annual commemorative of this tragic event. (It is, for clarity, 15 years ago that this happened.) According one typical narrative:
Hillary Clinton has been rushed away from the 9/11 memorial service in New York as she was feeling unwell.

A video shows the Democrat stumbling and being carried into a van, with aides and security guards on either side.

As she is being helped towards the vehicle, she appears to sink towards the ground, and her team gather closely around her to help her back up.

Her campaign said in a statement that Ms Clinton became "overheated" and left the service early.

Shortly afterwards Ms Clinton emerged from her daughter Chelsea's apartment in Manhattan. A little girl approached her and she was filmed hugging the girl, before smiling and waving to reporters as she walked away.
At first, only verbal/eye witness reports appeared but later video emerged. Below is preliminary, raw footage of her getting loaded into her ambulance van with Syringe Man and her SS detail giving her the heave ho:

There are subsequent videos appearing on FNS and other places with close-ups of her in a dead faint and staggering into the conveyance. The ever-observant Ms War Planner remarked that, if you look closely, you will see that Clintoon is leaning on a traffic bollard before she attempts to get in the van. Of course, later she emerged from her daughter's apartment, smiling and laughing and saying there was no problem.

This, by the way, follows on a "press conference" that she held on Friday prior to her "Deplorables speech", Significant at that press conference was her phlegmatic and drugged demeanor as she stumbled her way through softball questions and then abruptly ended it all by turning on her heel, walking off stage left, and hacking out her lungs behind a column:

But the damage has been done. I told my bride -- after the twin hacking fits of Labor Day -- that ONE MORE EPISODE CAUGHT ON CAMERA betwoen now and November 8th and she was toast. One can chew on this morsel and argue back and forth, but Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has, I believe, issued the most succinct and piquant opinion on this entire episode:

September 8, 2016

Playing in Peoria..

Unfortunately, this happens to be in North Carolina and they ain't a lot of adherents aboard the Hillary train. Shot of her struttin' her stuff at the John C. Smith University gymnasium:'s a small black liberal arts college in Charlotte; ideal sweet spot for attendance being a swing state and the ethnicity and so on. (Wonder if she's carrying a bottle of hot sauce in her purse?)

Again with the Socal afternoon drive radio..(a rant)

Following up on an earlier post about the desert wasteland that is SoCal AM/PM commute radio, I am feeling mean and nasty and just want to drop a steaming deuce on some of these clowns' parades.

In the morning, we are saddled with the sanctimonious, glib, and truly unlistenable while the afternoon features the bloviating genius (Mark Levin) and Mr Cheeto-Face (Glenn Beck) plus John & Ken, sensationalist pot-and-pan bangers on KFI and John Phillips and Jillian Barberie on KABC. Stir into the mix vacuous sports talks shows with their eternal rehasing of the Colon Krapper-knickers stand-up-sit-down-fight-fight-fight non-controversies (someone just shoot him and let's move on), a former all-news station converted to 24/7 Hindu music (I kid you not), and mile-wide and a mile deep of Hispanic stations pounding out Salsa, Ranchera, and Mariachi.

Some days, I get home and swear I can see bits of my brain leaking out of my ears.

While my fervent hope is that either Levin or Beck (or both) tank so badly in their ratings that they move someone like Larry Elder into do the drive slot. Tah man is fervent, impetuous, driven, and a great listen.

But, that said, this bag job is about one of the aforesaid personalities who has just flat turned me off ~~ and, believe me, I do the same to her!

Jillian "Ben Wa Balls" Barbarie (left) is an otherwise good-looking woman who co-hosts with Phillips on KABC as I mentioned. But, after you get past her looks, what she talks about and how she talks are a distinct member-wilterer. If it has anything to do with sex, she's on it like -- er -- a dog on a bone.


She must be a fucking nymphomaniac!

The Real Deals
At first I thought enticing and a little racy, but then after I realized that this woman has a one track mind, it just got flat boring -- and downright unlistenable. Add to that the fact that her delivery is akin to some post-juvenile crack-whore ingenue and you get the picture: just incessant prattle about boy and girl parts and the conjoining thereof.

My wish is that someone would attach her to the business end of a steam pile driver so the earth will move and she will finally STFU.

September 7, 2016

Donald Trump on security..

According to a Breitbart post, Trump leveled a scathing blast at Clintoon on the subject of defence and the security of this nation:
Donald Trump is zeroing in on national security, foreign policy and America’s military.
During a speech in Philadelphia, the Republican blasted his rival Hillary Clinton — describing her record as “disqualifying.”

“In a Trump administration, our actions in the Middle East will be tempered by realism,” Trump stated, explaining that regime change produces radical terrorism. During his remarks at the Union League of Philadelphia he added, “we can make new friends, rebuild old alliances and bring new allies into the fold. I’m proud to have the support of war fighting generals.”
Trump blasted his rival’s record as secretary of state on foreign policy and national security, saying he will be guided by “diplomacy, not destruction.”

“She’s trigger happy and very unstable,” the New Yorker stated of Clinton, also calling her “reckless” over her use of a personal server with classified emails during her time as secretary of state.

Trump criticized Clinton’s handling of Libya, Syria, ISIS and Iran. “What have we gotten from the horrible decisions made from President Obama and Secretary Clinton?” Trump questioned.

An NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll published early Wednesday showed that voters who currently serve in the military or previously served prefer Trump over Clinton by 19 points.
He released a list of proposals:
PROPOSAL: Immediately after taking office, Mr. Trump will ask the generals to present a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military as soon as he assumes office.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an active Army of around 540,000, as the Army’s chief of staff has said he needs.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Navy approaching 350 surface ships and submarines, as recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Panel.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will seek to develop a state of the art missile defense system.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will modernize our nation’s naval cruisers to provide Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will enforce all classification rules, and enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.

PROPOSAL: One of Mr. Trump’s first commands after taking office will be asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all relevant federal departments, to conduct a thorough review of United States cyber defenses and identify all vulnerabilities – in our power grid, our communications systems, and all vital infrastructure.
All this is in advance of an NBC News "Commander-in-Chief forum" on Wednesday at 8 p.m. where Trump and Clinton to answer questions on military affairs, veterans issues and national security.

Clintoon's response:

UPDATE: Trump Sizzles!

In a follow-up article, BB mentioned intoned that Trump hit it out of the park:
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania — Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, dazzled in yet another speech in which he outperformed expectations here on Wednesday laying out a strategic vision for the United States under a Trump presidency when it comes to foreign and defense policy.

The speech, which stunned media figures, pundits, and those throughout the political class, only seemed to get better as every line went by.
Well, I sure hope he gets elected because I am sicker than puke of the last eight years of these "Kumbaya" circle-jerks as a defense policy.

I worked for an organization whose philosophy was basically this:

"You can launch a nuclear attack if you like, but be prepared to have ten times what you unleash on us shoved up your asshole before your missiles and bombs land!"

Of course, that's back when men had balls. Now they're just a bunch of pasty-faced, tutu-wearing metro-sexual ballerina dancers.

September 6, 2016

Deplaning in Ohio..

So Frau Colostomy Bag had a pair of fits whilst making appearances over Labor Day -- one at her appearance venue and the other aboard Colostomy Bag One. The former was so severe as to affect HER ENTIRE SPEECH while the latter cut off a "press gaggle" of fawning sycophantic admirers reporters on her new, used 737. (Which will, in light of comparison to Trump's "Trump One", the top-of-the-line 757 with the gold plated fixtures, appointments, and seat belt buckles, to be renamed "Dump One".)

Anyway, there are tons of points to chew on here and I wish to do so as the campaign progresses. But for the moment, here are some semi-official non-Reuters-interdicted videos of the two hacking fits:

For the moment, I will proffer this thought on Clintoon's -- er -- labored breathing: If a casual off-hand and enthusiastic scream was sufficient to torpedo a Dem campaign effort way back when, then surely demonstrably questionable health and demonstrably questionable ethics and truthfulness is certainly sufficient to disqualify an individual from the most important job in the free world.

Just spitballin' here. More to come.

September 5, 2016

Pee Diddely Shit..

So, it seems that Donald Trump has lit a fire under a number of assholes' asses with his outreach to the black community -- and it seems to have especially annoyed some of the race pimps who perceive Trump and moving in on their territory. Here's a blast From BB on the subject from two of 'em:

In an interview with Al Sharpton on Sunday, rap and fashion mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs urged the African-American community to “turn up the heat” on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, because their issues have not been addressed under President Obama’s leadership.

“I feel like we put President Obama in the White House. When I look back, I just wanted more done for my people because that’s the name of the game,” Diddy told Sharpton on the latter’s MSNBC show PoliticsNation on Sunday.

“This is politics. You put somebody in office, you get in return the things that you care about for your communities. I think we got a little bit shortchanged,” the 46-year-old mogul continued. “That’s not knocking the president. …He’s done an excellent job, you know, but I think it’s time to turn up the heat because the black vote is going to decide who is the next president of the United States.”

That's rich. These guys -- both wealthy and black get together and beat their gums about a black president who "dint do nuffin" for their people arguably cause race relations to deteriorate int he eight years he was he HNIC.

Look, I understand where they are coming from and blacks have EVERY RIGHT to be pissed off at politicians who patronize them EVERY TWO TO FOUR YEARS, get their vote, and then go into hiding until the next elections. Shit howdy, I can't stand these butt wipe pols myself and, compared to some crack whore in the projects, I am "a honky wif a crib and gitas and a ride and I be livin' large"..

..or however you say it.

I also see where they would get annoyed at the GOPe who NEVER EVEN GOES THERE AND ASKS FOR THEIR VOTE. Nutless, dickless McStain and Mutt Rumbley just hung with their rich posses and soldiered on with out any outreach howsumever. So, as far as them government is concerned, black folks can choose a shithead form column A or a shithead form column B.

Speaking of shitheads, here's his opponent on the subject of this outreach:
During a speech in August in Reno, Nevada, Clinton accused Trump of being disingenuous with his outreach to African-American voters. Clinton also accused Trump of “mainstreaming” white nationalism.

“Donald Trump misses so much,” Clinton said. “He doesn’t see the success of black leaders in every field, the vibrancy of black-owned businesses, the strength of the black church. He doesn’t see the excellence of historically black
colleges and universities or the pride of black parents watching their children thrive.”
Well, there you go, folks! From her hidden bunker and hospital room somewhere in upstate New York or at some Hollywood or Hamptons or Woods' Hole fundraiser, Frau Colostomy Bag chirps out some meaningless blather during her busy schedule of NOT going to Louisiana or NOT going to Mexico City like we give a flying crap. Add to that the fact that she has been part of the problem since she and her husband (the real "First Black President") arrived on the scene in early '91 locking up them soul brothers and doing jack shit for the racial tensions as FLOTUS, Senator form New York, and SOS."

Shut your pie-hole, you insufferable, sclerotic old cunt.

So then, of course (and rightfully or wrongfully), I believe Donald Trump is motivated to do this outreach for the same reason he was motivated to run for President. Basically, he's a 71-year-old man with all the money he needs to care for his family and live out his life in comfort and relative worry. He sure as shit does not need the stress and aggravation he's getting on the campaign trail now from the media and the Democrats and the race pimps and all of the rest of this crowd who have turned the United States of America into a shit pile of weak, mewling assholes and GimmeDats. And, when he wins the election, this will only increase exponentially.

Also, there's a history of race pimps on the subject of Donald Trump that makes their words today pretty embarrassing:

Like I said, expect people to whine when you move in on their territory.

September 3, 2016

Of all the gin joins in all the towns..

Here is something I stumbled on that just riveted me right down to my socks:

I responded to this dear, sweet lady:

Ma'am, you can wander through the blizzard of rhetoric, comments, and written articles and editorials and not find a comment MORE SALIENT AND PERTINENT AS YOURS.

You have distilled the essence of Mr Trump's popularity: he has articulated our pain and anger and frustration with our elected government and has promised that he will be our voice as our president.

God bless you ma'am and God bless the good people of this United States of America.

September 1, 2016

Le Pen est plus puissant que l’épée

O.K., my Frog sucks and it's supposed to be "La Pen". But too good to pass up as is this endorsement by that wonderful conservative voice in France. She ain't hard on the eyes either.

Here is an excerpt formt he BB article with emphasis:

Asked by CNN which U.S. candidate she supports, the Front National leader remarked that “everything but Hillary” would be better for France.

“As far as France’s best interest is concerned it’s, ‘Everything but Hillary Clinton’.

“It’s everything but Hillary Clinton because I believe Hillary Clinton means war, Hillary Clinton means devastation, destabilizing the world, economic choices that would be devastating for my people, geostrategic choices that would lead to global conflicts,” Ms. Le Pen said.

Ms. Le Pen, who is running as the populist, anti-mass migration and Islamisation candidate in the 2017 presidential elections next year, noted similarities between her campaign and Mr. Trump’s.

“What we have in common is that we’re not insiders, we are not taking part in the ‘system’, we depend on no one and do not take our orders from any financial institutions,” she told CNN in the interview taped and released yesterday.

The Front National leader voiced similar sentiments in July, telling Le Parisien: “If I were American, I’d vote everything but Hillary Clinton.”

Ms. Le Pen declared that the Democratic party candidate: “embodies everything the United States could build and export that’s harmful in the world in terms of business model, international choice…”

She then praised Donald Trump’s appeal as a financially independent candidate, as leaked documents are starting to reveal the extent of Hillary’s dealings with foreign and financial interests.

She explained that what appeals to Americans about Mr. Trump is that “he is a free man, in respect of Wall Street, markets, and financial lobbies and even his own party.”

Vive Le Pen!

Hatin' Hillary.

After all, it's all the rage..

..this from today's WAPO via Drudge:

Here are the highlights form the article with added emphasis:
Hillary Clinton hit her stride after the Democratic National Convention, riding to a double-digit lead over Donald Trump in some national and swing-state polls -- her highest of the year.

As of today, though, Americans' views of her just hit a record low.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows 41 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent have an unfavorable one.

That's the worst image Clinton has had in her quarter-century in national public life. Her previous low favorable rating this year was in July, when it was 42 percent, lower than any mark in historical Post-ABC polls except a few points in the 1990s when a large share of the public had no opinion of her. Her previous high for unfavorable views was in June, when 55 percent disliked Clinton.
Of course, the WAPO never misses an opportunity to bash Donald:
Trump, of course, has long been the more unpopular of the two presidential nominees, and he remains so; 35 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of him, compared to 63 percent unfavorable.

But if you look just at registered voters, the new poll actually shows Clinton's image is about as bad as Trump's, with 38 percent having a favorable impression and 59 percent unfavorable, compared to a 37/60 split for Trump.
But it then regains stride, blurring the message with this bit of written three-card monty:
Clinton's numbers serve as a reminder that Trump's unpopularity isn't prohibitive, largely because Americans -- and specifically registered voters -- don't much like Clinton either. If it weren't for Trump, in fact, Clinton would be the most unpopular major-party presidential nominee in modern American history.

Perhaps most notably, Clinton's image has declined significantly from just a month ago. After the Democratic convention, Americans were about evenly split -- 48 percent favorable and 50 percent unfavorable.

Running scared..

Late to the dance tonight, but I am up for the obligatory Zero-One wiz and saw the vapor-locking colostomy bag cabal trying to desperately to spin Trump's visit to Mexico. As we all know, these people are absolutely delusional -- as in what is the color of the sky on the planet where they live?

Were I prone to write comment more, I would just have to say that the Hoover-Vacuum-Cleaner-Bag-wearing broad got woofed twice: she was in the middle of a spate of fundraising appearances and didn't go down to Louisiana to visit the flood victims and, whilst in a coma-swoon, got left at the gate by Trump on the way to see President Enrique Nieto. Here's her tweet on the matter:

Now she's faces with the prospect of trudging down to the Land of Perpetual Amoebic Diarrhea to meet with Presidente Nieto in an obvious "me too" effort or have her non-appearance be labeled as another diplomatic fail.

Also, here's a little hit Google selectivity on the news coverage. I am sure you saw the press conference both men had in Mexico City. It was the height of respect and decorum. Hell, even the afterwards questions were polite and circumspect. But note Google scours up articles whose headlines just *scream* "fair and balanced". I mean, the matter of who would pay was discussed briefly and dispatched in a polite manner as something what would come up again later.

And who does NOT think this "paying for the wall" thing is a red herring? I am sure President Trump and President Nieto can come up with an agreement that will be beneficial for BOTH COUNTRIES and the modest cost of the wall can be attended to out of the renewed cooperation.

But it shows how desperate these woofers are. They jump any time Trump blows the dog whistle,

The people know what the deal is, guys. Win the battles, lose the war, MSM.

August 30, 2016

Hillary 101 Midterm Pop Quiz..

May I have your attention, please! Alright then, the time is at hand and here are your midterm test booklets. You have until September 29th to complete the test so don't waste time sniffing the mimeo sheets and NO 30-minute pee breaks or stools or pillows. Besure to put your iPod or iPhone or other tablet devices away and not use them during the test.

They will NOT be graded on a curve. Anything less than 99% is a FAIL and you will have to do more than go to the Principal's office. (Probably end up going to see the Warden.)



NAME ________________
DATE ________________

(1) Describe the creation of the system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

(2) Describe the creation of your email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.

(3) When did you decide to use a email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?

(4) Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

(5) In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?

(6) Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.

(7) Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.

(8) After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

(9) During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

(10) During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?

(11) During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a email account to conduct official State Department business?

(12) During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.

(13) At the time you decided to use your email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?

(14) On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.

(15) In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.

(16) Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.

(17) In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.

(18) On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.

(19) Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your email account or the server that hosted your account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?

(20) When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?

(21) After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?

(22) In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.

(23) After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

(24) During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

(25) Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

August 29, 2016

For LL..

I have very few commenters on this blog which is a blessing. For you see that when I started this, I got into a fever about getting plugged into the blogging things and seeking security and peer approval by having flash-flood-like flows of traffic and comments coming my way. Those whom I entered the lists with either went on to ignominy or fame (very few in this latter group), but some focused their whole energy on getting their hit-counts up and spent no ends of time tutoring me on how to do do.

All I remember from my dim, dark beginnings was that I soon developed a distaste for it but retained the love of scribbling my thoughts down for some shred of posterity to rummage through.

Like with my tech blog alternate persona The Right Hand of Zod (entirely apolitical and supremely, geekishly boring for anyone NOT interested in amateur radio and electronics), this blog gets my attention when conditions warrant and I am not beholden to anyone for effusive copy. So, as I said, I don't get a lot of commenters.

One exception is LL, whom I have met and shared my grog rations with and who offered up frequent expressions of his interest. Another is Woodsterman who is a dear soul and with whom I have likewise libated with. Both are exceedingly fine gentlemen and we trace our association back to the dark days of 2009. (As opposed to the dark days of 2010, 2011, especially 2012, and onward.)

Anyway, LL is a former operative for a three-letter-acronymed arm of our government and a fine author. (I would pass out the link to his books if he authorizes me to do so otherwise I choose not to blow his cover.

Anyway, LL commented in a previous post, remarking that "Hillary is expected to win" which was an observation many are making. In fairness, I do not think he meant it in any other way except to quote the abundant and commonplace opinion extant in the general public today. LL really knows whats going on and, in the dark cloistered inner sanctums of ale houses and boozers, will dispense tidbits of intel contrary to this, I am sure.

However, for the sake of LL and his loyalty, I am compelled to make this known: it is far from certainty that Frau Colostomy Bag has this contest anywhere NEAR being locked up. And this is stated by a guy who lived through the 1980 election where the alphabets predicted a Carter second term only to have their socks blown off by Reagan's one-state-short-of-a-clean-sweep victory. And the tell-tale signs (except for the manipulated polls) evidenced those as November approached.

Now, I have posted this several places here in this blog and it has been also mentioned by those who read tea leaves. But, here's another conjecture from 1988 whose model of thirteen keys to Presidential victory seems to conform:

Here are some more tidbits from the original underlying source which posits a prediction coming election based upon a model (emphasis added):

If five or fewer are negative for the incumbent, the incumbent party will win the election. If six or more are negative, the incumbent party loses the election. Merry counts eight negatives for President Obama's second term, which if true spells defeat for the Clinton ticket.

Whether the 13 issues are positive or negative for the candidates is of course open to debate, but consider what it means that Trump won the Republican nomination despite the near-universal opposition of the Establishment.

Consider that some polls found that 68 percent of adults think the country is on the wrong track and a recent average of six polls on the subject concluded that 64% of adults feel the nation is moving in the wrong direction.

This means 2/3 of the nation's adults no longer buy into the Establishment/ mainstream media's narrative that the economy is expanding nicely, things are going in the right direction and Hillary Clinton has a lock on the presidency.

Merry scored the economy as a positive for the incumbent party, but based on the public's view of where the nation is heading, I suspect the reality that the economy is weakening rapidly can no longer be hidden from the voting public. If we score the economy as a negative, that's nine negative keys for the incumbent party, well above the six minimum.

Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might win by a landslide--with landslide usually being defined by an overwhelming advantage in electoral college votes or 60% of the popular vote.

As improbable as this may seem at the moment, consider the improbability of Trump capturing the Republican nomination. Consider the nature of Clinton's support: a mile wide (encompassing the entire Establishment) but only an inch deep.

If the mainstream media has failed to persuade the American public that everything's going in the right direction, why should anyone remain confident that they can persuade the American pubic that Hillary will be their president come heck or high water?

As I have noted before, there are very few ways left to stick your thumb in the eye of the elitist, predatory, self-serving Establishment that won't get you tossed in prison other than voting against their candidate, which in this election is Hillary Clinton.

Memo to Clinton supporters: if you want to persuade the American public the nation is going in the right direction, you'll have to actually change the direction rather than just promise more of the same.
Pretty heady stuff and it goes along with what I feel in my bones. But I do know this: come 9 November one side will be surprised.

By the way, LL, we are overdue for a libation. First round's on me.


Stolen from Breitbart and just reeking with irony, another "me too" blog post from your humble narrator. Of course she will be looking in the mirror to start?

One wonders why she would tangentially grab onto this subject. I mean, it ties so-o-o-o-o-o very closely with the economy, immigration, and national security. There are those who gaslight and say that she's got the election wrapped up (NOTHING could be further from reality) and others who do the Eeyore thing by claiming Trump's early August rants were merely an attempt by him to torpedo his candidacy. However, I think we have exactly the opposite here. Clintoon in the past two weeks with the outbreak of calamitous news for her campaign, Frau Colostomy Bag scaled back her appearances (admission that she doe snot play in Peoria), scheduled an appearance in Reno (before a robust crowd of 400 or so campaign staffers, paid actors, and the few curious souls who wandered in out of the noonday heat) and ranted about how Trump is a racist and a hate monger, and now picked up this non sequitur to yak about.

Sure seems like she's tanking herself on purpose to me..

..or maybe there's more to this mental illness thing than meets the eye!



(..not writin' nuffin. Just basking in the glow of this. The jokes -- which just write themselves -- will soon follow.)