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.)

Ready..begin!

           CLINTON 101 MIDTERM EXAM

NAME ________________
DATE ________________

(1) Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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., “state.gov” 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 “state.gov” 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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.

For LL..

Shhhhh!

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.

Richness..

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!

Surfeit..

Obligaroty:

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

Paucity..

I am in a bad mood this morning, Monday, 29 August 2016.

Why?

Well, for one, it's Monday and let's leave it at that. But on a tangential albeit post-filling subject, no one will accuse Frau Colostomy Bag of over-exposure:

The Diseased Beached Whale from today to 14 September.. 

..and through the third week in October.

WRY, CYNICAL OBSEVATIONS
No wonder Donald Trump now calls her "Hiding Hillary"! That's only SIX appearances in SEVEN weeks and note that TWO of her appearances are the Presidential Debates and there are EIGHT fundraisers..and what in the hell is the "Commander-in-Chief Forum"?

Plenty of nap time programmed in there but maybe there is a bright side to all of this. If she get [s]elected, then she'll probably snooze her way through four years and just collect the money.

Also, given her health and the fact that she has to "pillow up" or provide a stool sample at her appearances, one wonders if she actually will make the debates or will she have a designated "surrogate" stand in for her. Maybe they could line up The Lawn Jockey POTUS and bill it as one of his "farewell tour" appearances like they did for Kareem Abdul Jabaar, Larry Byrd, or Kobe "The Rapist" Bryant. They probably could work in a guest walk-on for Candy "Cookie Monster" Crowley.

Can't you just see it now:

"Ladies and gentlemen, please put your hands together for our once-and-forever-beloved President of the United States, Barack Who-sein Obama, who will be accepting the award for Secretary of State Hillary "Make Your Checks Payable To" Clinton."

"..please clap."

Someone bench this asshole and trade him to the Nefoundland Newfs..

I am/was a died-in-the-wool Niner fan. (As a kid I listened to them faithfully and went to a couple of games in Kezar Stadium in GG Park and actually got down on the sidelines courtesy of my friend's dad and shook the hands of the likes of Y. A. Tittle, John Brodie, R. C. Owens, Bob St Clair, Leo Nomilleni, and a host of others.)

Colin Kaepernick (A.K.A., "Colon Kaopectate") is a consummate asshole. I hope he dies and goes to hell with a hard-on. I hope he is sacked by a garbage truck in the parking lot at Levi Stadium. I hope he is gang-raped by all of the bull queers in residence at the "Q". I hope he is traded to the Newfoundland Newfs* for a dozen rolls of toilet paper and a sack of dog crap to be named later..

..I hope.

Anyway, why would anyone be a fan of some Mooz-lem-converting, way-past-his-sell-by-date has-been loser who glues scrotal hair to the sides of his head?

If there is a God, may he see to it that this waste-of-tatooed-skin rides the pines and retires and retires into oblivion and the Niners get someone who will lead them back to their former days of glory.

Also, as an aside, The Newfoundland Newfs were the mythical team that George Plimpton alledged to have played for when he tried out for the Detroit Lions in 1963.

As it is told in Wikipedia:

Paper Lion is a 1966 non-fiction book by American author George Plimpton.
In 1960, Plimpton, not an athlete, arranged to pitch to a lineup of professional baseball players in an All-Star exhibition, presumably to answer the question, "How would the average man off of the street fare in an attempt to compete with the stars of professional sports?" He chronicled this experience in his book, Out of My League.

To write Paper Lion, Plimpton repeated the experiment in the National Football League, joining the training camp of the 1963 Detroit Lions on the premise of trying out to be the team's third-string quarterback. Plimpton, then 36 years old, showed how unlikely it would be for an "average" person to succeed as a professional football player. The book is an expanded version of Plimpton's two-part series which appeared in back-to-back issues of Sports Illustrated in September 1964.^[1][2] The book's epilogue is also an expanded article from Sports Illustrated which appeared one year later.

Plimpton had contacted several teams about his idea including his hometown New York Giants and New York Titans (an American Football League team that would change their name to the New York Jets) and Baltimore Colts. The Lions finally agreed to host Plimpton in their training camp. The coaches were aware of the deception but the players were not until it became apparent that Plimpton did not know how to receive the snap from center. Despite his struggles Plimpton convinced head coach George Wilson to let him take the first five snaps of the annual intra-squad scrimmage conducted in Pontiac, Michigan. Plimpton managed to lose yardage on each play.

Feeling confident he could do better, Plimpton hung around training camp one more week as the team prepared for its first pre-season game against the Cleveland Browns, being sure if the Lions had a big enough lead near the end of the game, Wilson would let him play. However, team officials informed Plimpton at halftime that NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle would not allow him to play under any circumstance. The next day Plimpton packed up and ended his experiment. Before he left, however, the Lions awarded him a gold football that was engraved: "To the best rookie football player in Detroit Lions history."

The book is memorable as one of the first to showcase the personalities of the players and coaches and what happens off the field. Figuring prominently in the book are linebacker Wayne Walker, quarterback Milt Plum, future Hall of Famers cornerback Dick "Night Train" Lane and middle linebacker Joe Schmidt, and defensive tackle Alex Karras, among others. However, Karras's inclusion is exclusively through the stories about him told by teammates, coaches and other team personnel. Karras missed the 1963 season serving a suspension for gambling on football games.

Of course, my absolute favorite coming out of that movie as Alex Karras who has a long an storied career as an All American at Iowa and a lustrous albeit combative career with the Detroit Lions, In fact, if you read his bio over at Wikipedia, you come to the realization that Alex did not exactly stride down a smooth and easy road of life.

One of his most memorable moments occurred, if I recall correctly, when he was commentating with Howard Cosell during a Monday Night Football pre-season game between the Raiders and Packers. The camera panned onto a sideline shot of Raider lineman Otis Sistrunk who had his hemet off and had steam rising from his shaved head in the late September evening.

"Well, there's Otis Sistrunk, from the University of Mars", Karras remarked.

..infinitely more witty and graceful in his life and manner that the course, brash, untalented "Colin Kaopectate", wouldn't you say?

Hillary's stool samples and other medical shit..

In light of the fact that Frau Colostomy Bag has short-circuited yet again, these were discovered and enjoyed:

And this:

In the tank for Clintoon big time..

When I was a young officer in the USAF, I was instructed that military protocol dictated our STANDING UP when a senior-ranking officer (or civilian government DOD official) came into the room. And we WERE TO REMAIN STANDING until bade by that senior officer or official to be seated.

Here, some CNN diaper-wearing toady has clearly levitated above his pay grade in his zeal to promote Frau Colostomy Bag. My only hope is that this little puke ends up sharing a dirty needle with a transgender stevedore from the New York waterfront and dies a horrible death with the sticker in his arm and the trans' member inserted to the hilt in his virginal anus.

"Oh man..

"..sometimes the bullshit piles up so fast around here you need wings to stay above it.."

Sometimes the magic works..

Sometimes it doesn't. Just sayin'.

Or, as ol' Georgie boy would say.

Black Lives Matter

..to The Donald in Florida.

Cannot stand the heat!

Self-explanatory:

Clintoon Campaign Shift?

So, here's the deal. No, really, the deal deal as my beloved smarter-than-most-people-in-the-room-Dem-ex-lawmaker-from-NH would say.* Since late June you've been appearing before pathetic crowds of barely over 1,000 while your opponent has been rolling attendances at his soirees of 5,000 to 25,000 wildly screaming and lively folks who represent a viable cross-section of the electorate including white, women, blacks, and Hispanics,

And it is dawning on you that maybe what they are saying your crowds are reflective of the fact that you are widely disliked and trusted even less. Of course, the NYT never fails to bash Trump in the article published written by them back of May 16, 2015 but that's par for the course. One wonders if anything like that will see the light of day now that they are in the tank for Frau Colostomy Bag.

But I digress. After a disastrous series of appearances post-DNC-convention, it hits her and her staff that people generally have better things to do than turn out for her rallies. You know, like cleaning out the septic tank or shoveling the shit out of their horse stables or the like. Also, you realize that Clintoon cannot do stand-up for more than 20 minutes at any of these gigs, has to be bolstered by pillows, have a stool present (not what you're thinking), and has to have Mr Syringe, the Diazepam guy, nearby to talk her down from her petit mol episodes and slam her with some wake-up joy juice as soon as she vapor locks or goes off the rails.

So, what to do?

I got it! How about cancel the rest of her appearances until election day and hold fundraisers instead? Good solution. Avoid the embarrassing low-yield crowds, attend a cushy event where you have others speak and you can rest your voluminous posterior on pillows, sip Chablis and only have to get up to change out your colostomy bag.

Yeah, that'll work!

*Don't misconstrue this, Brother-of-War-Planner is a smart guy. He just bats for the other team.

¡Clintoon es una gran mentirosa!

Just now on Breitbart:

¡Es verdad!

Couldn't be bothered..

Well, this just about says it all, tying the ribbons on the question of "who really gives a fricasseed crap about the flood victims in Louisiana?"

The Lawn Jockey POTUS practicing his putts (courtesy Drudge Report this date)

The Hillary scoop is courtesy of The American Mirror via Drudge. It literally was a 20 mile flight from Martha's Vineyard to Nantucket because HRH Fatasse did not want to endure the inconvenience of a car journey and *gasp* the commonfolk she would have to deal with on the way. Oh, and the trip was to attend a closed-to-the-media fundraiser with that nutjob singer "Cher":

The presidential candidate, who is endlessly trying to tell factory workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania that she’s one of them, jetted approximately 20 miles from Martha’s Vineyard — where she was last night partying with President Obama — to Nantucket for a fundraiser on Saturday.

Or as Cindy Adams in the NY Post reports:

Civilians breathe. Clintons fundraise. It’s in their DNA. She’s scheduled nine in three days. The Hamptons hills are alive with political functions, but Nantucket’s bucket’s also filling up. So’s another oceanfront cash register Martha’s Vineyard.

On the 20th Hillary’s piggy bank gets a do at the de Rothschilds. As in Sir and Lady de Rothschild. As in Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild and his good-looking blond Ladyship wife, New Jersey’s Lynn Forester, whose previous second husband Andy Stein once tried for NYC mayor. This de Rothschild event’s eclectic, magnanimous, open to all — at $100,000 per.

And Aug. 30, like he needed more marquee names to attract anyone, Jimmy Buffett’s fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton added his Coral Reefer Band plus Jon Bon Jovi to his VIP list. Plus aides to collect your $25,000 for “preferred” seating, or $100,000, which grabs fried chicken dinner, “premium” seating, private reception, dancing and the ability to sprinkle in an additional campaign contribution.

And then there's Trump, showing up, paying for a truckload of relief supplies and helping to unload it:

..of course, the left is unhinged about this and are employing all manner of circuitous logic to unravel the event.

But here's a nice video on the actual hypocrisy:

at 1:56 "..about a president who only saw the people from the window of an airplane instead of down here on the ground trying to provide comfort and aide.."

This was Obama during a campaign speech in 2008 when he could make political hay out of a catastrophe for his own personal benefit. But, since he is not up for re-election and since Louisiana is a reliable red state, there's no reason for either he or Broad-Beam to head down there and show their concern.

..and scooped!

Remember when this asshole suckered McLame into hitting the pause button on his campaign because of the pending 2008 financial melt down? Well he and the double-wide-pant suited sleeper just got their heads handed them by Trump and Pence in Louisiana

Also, Senator Landrieu gave a big Dem smooch to Trump and Pence..and a smack-down to The Lawn Jockey POTUS and bubble-ass:

..and pooped upon:

..versus hands on..

See my previous post down there.

From the Daily Caller article:

Republican nominee Donald Trump visited Louisiana Friday as the state is experiencing massive flooding. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have yet to visit the state.

Trump is visiting Louisiana with his running mate Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to offer his support to the flood victims. Tens of thousands of residents have been displaced and at least 13 people have been killed in the flooding. The GOP nominee was greeted warmly when he visited Baton Rouge. “We knew you’d be here Mr. Trump,” a supporter yelled out from a crowd.

..but remember that The Magic Negro IS VERY BUSY and HILLARY DID TWEET THAT SHE'S MONITORING THE SITUATION!

Phoning it in..

Trump flew to Louisana because Hillary and The Lawn Jockey POTUS apparently don't give a fricasseed shit. Here, from Breitbart, is the WAPO covering The Magic Negro's ass:

And here is the ever-dilligent Hillary, hard on the case and tweeting from her pouffed-up pillows on the couch at home:

Someone tell her that the storm was last weekend.

And here is the running narrative of Trump ON THE GROUND in Louisiana.

Somewhere, George W. Bush is spinning in his grave.

Where I go to get my [political] rocks off...

..oh, for fuck's sake!!!

Hot Gas just came up with an interrogatory:

Gasland Confidential: Gassers reveal their “guilty pleasure” daily must read sites!

So, I responded in no special order for their imagination:

(1) NOT EVER AGAIN DeadAir. (Why would anyone *willfully* rummage around a festering septic tank.

(2) Weasel Zippers, (I love the war porn but I skip the detailed pictures of how the R.O.P. Goat Humpers find new ways to off their captives.)

(3) Breitbart. (Rarely comment. It's like having an intimate conversation in the with 93,500 of your closest friends in the L. A. Memorial Mausoleum during a USC football game.)

(4) Drudge. (Daily fire-up/catch-up. Has Clintoon finally fallen off her stool and vapor locked?)

(5) You Tube vids:

(a) Paul Joseph Watson rants. (ANYTHING he does with F**K in the title. F**K George Clooney is infinitely re-watchable.)

(b) Dissection of Donald Trump rally crowds versus the pathetic photo-shopping and cheerleading attempts by her staffers and the MSM.

(c) Alex Jones/INFO WARS that engage clueless BernBots and Hillaey supporters.

(d) Gavin McGinnes. (When he takes down Clinton Supporters and/or anti-Trump demonstrators. Any rant about dickless liberals, especially ugly SJW and uglier 3G feministas who melt down and drop the F-bomb to emphasize their pointless points.)

(e) NOT ANYMORE Stephen Crowder. (Used to was; now just two hours of unhip, non-funny, tangential non-issues. Who gives a crap about the Northern tier of states and Canada, eh?)

(f) Especially serious videos of the threadbare, empty-high-shcool auditorium Clintoon rallies where 65% of the sub-1,000 audience are obligatory attendees and the other 35% are huddled together on the risers behind Clintoon, her stool, and her pillow for the tight MSM-limited-crowd-scans. Special added bonus: dropping razor-witted barbs down on the mouth-breathing, mirror-fogging, brain dead Hillary proles who react like paramecia to bright lights. No f**king clue.)

(g) ibidem. (Love to Hoover up the schadenfreude as as legions of pro-Trump supporters descend upon the aforesaid clueless like the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where the A-Rabs fall upon the wretched, pathetic retreating Turkish column screaming "No Prisoners". Yeah, the metaphoric, blood-and-gore-spattered bed sheets are fun to visualize as well.)

Will be back for more.

(c) War Planner Megalomaniacal enterprises. (Reserved for my person blog.)

Shit Show winds down..

..jeeee-zus!

These Rio De Janero-ians ain't too blindingly swift, are they? First, their shit bag socialist government folds leaving no cash to cover the whole operation, then they spend all of the money meant for slum improvement and built a huge brick wall around all of the slums, then they impeach their lying, crook president (sound familiar?), then they can't complete some of the venues and lose the gate key for others, then they discover cadavers and couches floating in the bay where some swimming events and boating events take place and body parts about 50 yards from the beach volleyball venue, then they set up athletic dorms with open sewage and hot and cold running pallegra, then they openly cheer when U.S. athletes stumble and fall, then they sequester/kidnap two of our athletes who claim they were robbed at gunpoint, then..

..hey! you getting all of this? It's beginning to sound like a Paul Joseph Watson rant, innit? If only I had a three-day beard, a wall-sized map of the world, and a video camera.

I forget anything?

Oh yeah, how about opening ceremonies conducted in what looks like a giant, pulsing, fevered, unshaven vagina?

Yessir! All this and this shit berg denied Chicago -- negro murder capitol of the world -- the chance to host this quadrennial crapfest.

Sometimes life is just too good!

ADD OLYMPICS: I would hasten to add that I am closing in on a personal best: I have only watched 30 seconds of this coverage because Mrs War Planner wanted to show me one of her Japanese countrymen winning an unexpected bronze medal in swimming.

Yay for him. Hope his bowels and his health are intact.

To your health, Hillary..

In a previous post, I did a rant on the morning and evening drive-time dullards that inhabit SoCal AM radio. (WARNING: NSFW!) These range from Mark Levin to locals like Doug McIntyre, of whom I wrote:

..you can flush Doug McIntyre on KABC 790 down the crapper almost immediately. He comes off as a too-hip guy from the East who made his bones on a stand-in gig during the Bush-Gore 30-day war back in November 2000 when he took George Bush's side and adroitly dissected the crap the left and the Dems were attempting to pull off. Ratings went through the roof and he got an overnight slot doing what he called "Red Eye Radio". (I am not going to explain it; you look it up.) Well, he was promoted to the morning drive slot, demoted, and then promoted again, currently being in that role today..

But he is apparently turned off by Trump and his antics and is prepared to vote third-party or for his wife's Chihuahua or something. You know the type: smug, principled, just a hair's breadth away from Big-L Libertarian and pandering to our Dem and liberal betters out here in Kalifornia. He does not realize that we are sinking in a river of sewage and, although his favorite crusade is illegal immigration, he apparently cannot make the connection between Trump's metaphoric wall, the fate of the common American citizen, and the perils of allowing that bubble-[butted] lying, [female dog of a person] in the $13,000 house coat a shot at the presidency.

He gets about a minute or two of my time; the scan button gets hit as soon as he begins one of those smug trump-is-a-buffoon routines. We are currently taking up a collection for McIntyre to have a plate glass window installed near his belly button so he can see the world because is seems his head is perpetually shoved up his own [anal pore] and all that.

Well, it seems that this smug, principled, insufferable guy invited Dr Drew Pinsky on his show this morning to discuss Hillary Clinton's health, and, expecting it to be a walk-over, got hit in the groin with a couple of surprises. Here's the link to the underlying INFO WARS piece and while Alex Jones is not exactly a towering landmark of objectivity, he does report what the MSM does not care to touch and the facts herein are certainly less impeachable that the bogus medical records I graced this site with last time.

And, here's the first few graphs of article:

..and, not to be flippant, there's some red meat in the interview below. More than the cackling, rubbing-our-hands-with-glee, schadenfreude we on the right might feel for discovering information that damages an opponent, Dr Pinsky (arguably a reliable, credible source) lays out some profoundly troubling conclusions of analysis he and a colleague arrived at from Clintoon's medical record already available.

To be perfectly honest, if this came to the surface about a candidate I was backing, I would be seriously concerned about that person being able to hold down the office of President of the United States.

This is definitely worth an in-depth perusal, if only to imagine McIntyre gagging on his oatmeal and raisins.

UPDATE: One comment on the INFO WARS article summed it up. Paraphrasing:

"..if this is a s serious as it appears, if Hillary gets elected it looks like she'll be as much of a shovel-ready job as Ted Kennedy was."

Yet even more poll dancing..

Again, I do not put much stock in polls at this time because (1) they are skewed or over-sampled and/or (2) they do not mean shit this far out from the election.

HOWEVER..

("Ah hah!", you say. Here comes the big "but". Not to be confused, of course, with Clintoon sashaying into the room wearing one of this those $15K housecoat-with-sleeves double-knit pantsuits, with her immense caboose and California Redwood thighs going "scritch..scritch..scritch..".)

..however, the Los Angeles Times/USC poll is updated daily and I consult it for reference or to see trends. In other words, absent hard reference points, it's a good trend index. So, how's this grab you:

So the breathless MSM/FNS/GOPe narrative would be that Donald Trump has climbed back into the race after his campaign was on life support receiving a ten count. Well, that's horse shit as I said. But it shows me that Trump is viable after the two conventions, two months, three campaign shake-ups, and an avalanche of bullshit laid on him by the media. It also shows that he is neck-and-neck after Clintoon has spent $200 million and he has spent zero, zilch, nada and done little more than barnstorm around the country on Trump One, shadowing Hillary and rolling up ten times the crowds she has.

Sure is going to get interesting.

Pillow talk..

Did a little spelunking on that Drudge topic re Hillary's pillows (no, not about her expansive caboose) and found this delicious tidbit:

Hillary is being propped up by a pillow, and it’s hardly the first time this has happened. In fact, the former secretary of state used to include propping cushions on her list of demands during her lucrative time on the paid celebrity speaking circuit.

According to the Washington Post, for one speech at UCLA, a public university that she graciously offered a discounted rate of $300,000, Hillary demanded that “chairs be outfitted with two long, rectangular pillows — and that two cushions be kept backstage in case the chair was too deep and she needed additional back support.”

At first I thought the pillow thing was a nothing-burger but this is kinda serious -- not to mention it offering THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY for a "jokes just write themselves" moment since *ahem* Wiener got himself into a pickle.

(Come again on that? A discounted $300,000 fee?)

Comes the revolution..

(I wrote this comment over at Hot Gas in response to a post by Fossten who said we need to have a divorce in this country because the left and right are in the midst of a terminal case of irreconcilable differences, I say it;s more serious than that.)

Much more than a divorce..

..re conversations about impending revolution, it will come sooner than later if Clintoon wins. (More below.) If trump wins, it will hardly be a victory. This is not a slam against Trump, but he's not a "principled conservative" in the same way Cruz and so many of the constipated "purists" are. You see, the truth is that a "purist" (even a well-intentioned one; not a Cruz) could not survive the onslaught of the leftists, libs, and liberal press like Trump is doing.

So, if Trump wins, there there will be deals cut, concessions made, etc. Again, not a slam against Trump. It's just his style. You have to play ball with the bureaucrats and power owners to build skyscrapers and run governments. That's life.

My main reason for supporting Trump (aside from the fact that he is a pragmatic businessman) was/is to watch heads explode. So far, that dream has been realized in spades as masks have been ripped off right and left (so to speak).

Trump is the closest thing to a bloodless revolution we have.

But, if Clintoon wins, the reaction on the right will be intense, visceral, and radical. We who backed Trump will be left at the mercy of the D.C. power brokers (Dems and our GOPe betters), the liberal (and psuedo-conservsative) media, the "I told you so's", and the mindless "Gimme Dats" and goat-humping Islamic refugees.

It will not be a pretty situation.

Either way, with Trump or Clintoon, we face a struggle to right the ship. The effort just foments more quickly with one versus the other.

That said, there is a calculus that works in our favor: as the Dems and leftists have demonstrated, a small, motivated, vocal, disobedient minority can drive the bus pretty easily if they are determined enough. Not nearly as distasteful as emulating them is the calculus of the III%. (This is the concept, not specifically the militias formed under the aegis of this principle.)

Take heart, for we grey beards will not be in this struggle for our betterment but for the betterment of the younger of us and our children and grandchildren.

Remember, it was six whole years between 1783 and 1789.

That many?

Gas Lighting

Over at Hot Gas, they have appropriated a term for what the media is attempting to do to Donald Trump's campaign. It is called "gaslighting", defined thusly:

It was derived from an underlying article at The Conservative Treehouse on the same subject but dating back to February of this year. Here is Bill Whittle on the subject:

That said, it seems that the latest attempt at this is the assertion that 20 or so people interviewed close to Trump's have said he has become "exhausted, bewildered". In fairness, this is a "re-tweet" of a piece that appeared in the N.Y. Times ~~ and we all know about that house organ, don't we? (Candid disclosure: I did not go to the Times' article as I know it's full of shit.)

But, over on the Monday morning open thread that contained the link to the WEX/NYT "exhausted, bewildered" fantasy piece, a commenter dredged up this graphic, a summary of the appearances by the two candidates thus far through mid-August:

The data cited brings to mind several questions:

(1) How "exhausted, bewildered" could a candidate be that appears at 19 events in 15 days?

(2) How energetic is a candidate who ONLY schedules eight events in the same time period?

(3) How does one reconcile the alleged popularity of Clintoon versus Trump when the former has been out-drawn by almost ten to one versus the latter?

In fact, Clintoon's appearances are scant versus Trump's and the turn out is paltry. Also note that the stats DO NOT show those turned away from the candidates' appearances. We know for a fact that Donald Trump has had turn-away crowds at may of his appearances as pictures of Jacskonsville and Daytona show.

Trump "turn-away" crowd at Jacksonville

And looking at the averages, we see that Clintoon's number was largely influenced by her appearances in Omaha and Colorado and Washington, D.C. (And you mean to tell me that ALL Ms Establishment could muster in D.C. was 4,000? Give me a break!)

As to energy, I don't see her doing any two-a-days and am given to understand that she only appears for 15-20 minutes at these shit shows while her panderers fill in for her. We all know from the You Tube videos that you cannot shut The Donald up, his enthusiasm abounds so.

And you want a really glaring comparison: take a look at the Kissimmee, Florida appearances. Clintoon on 8 August only drew an estimated 150 while Trump appeared before 8,000 after speaking to 900 at the NAHB convention earlier in the day. That means that about eighty times more people went to see Trump the same city a Clintoon WITHIN DAYS OF EACH OTHER in a swing state that the recent polls show Trump trailing Clintoon. (And, yes, I realize my logical fallacy here. But it's a point that has to be made.)

Bottom line is these stats show that narratives like the WEX/NYT are a glaring departure from reality.

Gaslighting yes, reality definitely not!

.

Pic of the day..

Too good to miss: