The tears may not be dry on the pillows of Hillary Clinton’s most ardent supporters, but now is the time to discuss one of the many reasons why Donald Trump handily defeated the former secretary of state on Election Day. The American people saw blatant evidence that a nexus of cronyism connecting powerful politicians, lobbyists, and federal bureaucrats kept a woman out of prison who clearly — clearly — should be in an orange jumpsuit.
Imagine if you will, dear reader, a case where you are entrusted with Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) intelligence. You want to run for president one day, but you don’t want reporters or congressional committees gaining access to your work through Freedom of Information Act requests and other legal means. You decide to run the nation’s top secrets through a secret email server in your home, and it somehow winds up on the laptop of Anthony “I-sext-teenagers” Weiner.
Question: Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be in shackles in a heartbeat?
Answer: Of course not, which is one of countless reasons why voters revolted against Mrs. Clinton in droves on Tuesday.
President Obama, The Department of Justice, FBI Director James Comey, and the former secreatry of state made a mockery out of the rule of law, so the American people made a mockery out of her.
Anyone who is remotely familiar with Hillary Clinton knows that she has drooled over the presidency for decades. There was an insatiable craving for power in her eyes that even the writers of Saturday Night Live could not deny. She acted as if she were entitled to job, and so the American people rightly denied her the one thing she wanted more than anything in the world. Her friends in high places may have kept her out of jail, but voters were determined to keep her out of the White House.
This all seems pretty straight forward, doesn’t it? Wrong. To political commentators like like Van Jones, what really happened last night was a “whitelash against a black president.” That may be news to the millions of white voters who voted for Mr. Obama — twice — before pulling the lever for Mr. Trump, but I digress. The point is that no level of electoral punishment is brutal enough to cause many well-known members of the media to engage in serious self-reflection.
Here is the simple truth: If the Democratic Party did not want to lose the 2016 U.S. presidential election, then it should not have nominated a woman who is the epitome of corruption. Case closed.
Anyway, feel free to share your thoughts on the election in the comments below. I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Your friendly neighborhood blogger has heard people in political conversations — for years — bring up how “weird” it was that Nancy Reagan believed in astrology and what implications it might have for the country since her husband was the commander in chief. This week, however, the mainstream media ran as fast as possible away from a WikiLeaks reveal that Hillary Clinton’s right-hand man, John Podesta — and his Clinton-bundler D.C. lobbyist brother Tony — are good friends with Marina Abramovic. She is the “performance artist” who has a passion for getting naked, cutting herself, and doing all sorts of bizarre things with sperm and blood.
Translation:Republican wife who thinks there may be something to astrology = Scandalous. Liberal elite rings who think “Spirit Cooking” and blood mixtures painted on golems (clay figures used during religious ceremonies) is normal = non-story.
Earlier this week I was sifting through WikiLeaks files when I ran across an invitation from Tony Podesta to his brother John to attend a “Spirit Cooking” dinner with Ms. Abramovic (i.e., the lady who gets upset on Twitter when she’s accused of being into satanic rituals despite creating an @AbramovicM666 account).
“Are you in NYC Thursday July 9 Marina wants you to come to dinner Mary?” — Tony Podesta, June 28, 2015.
“Dear Tony, I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining? All my love, Marina.” — Marina Abramovic, June 25, 2015.
These people are obviously good friends. This is how you speak with your inner circle. Therefore, it is newsworthy that someone who will literally be able to whisper in the ear of the commander in chief if Hillary Clinton is elected president hangs out with freaks.
Here is what the New York Times said of Ms. Abramovic on Nov. 1:
“You will need to be able to withstand a great deal of conversation about clairvoyants and tarot cards and didgeridoos and kundalini life forces and monks and gurus and ‘how the soul can leave the body through the center of the fontanel of the head’ to make it very far in this memoir. …
Ms. Abramovic reports in ‘Walk Through Walls’ that under the right circumstances, she can foresee world events,” the newspaper wrote. “‘I dreamed of an earthquake in Italy: 48 hours later, there was an earthquake in southern Italy. I had a vision of someone shooting the Pope: 48 hours later, someone tried to shoot Pope John Paul II.’”
Ask yourself this question: Who are your friends and what do you guys do on the weekend? Do you fill tubs with blood-like goo and naked women and then eat from their bodies, or do you go to a steakhouse and have fun over a few beers?
Ask yourself this question: Why does Hillary Clinton’s inner circle include Anthony Weiner — a man who is under FBI investigation for sexual messages to a teenage girl; Bill Clinton (need I say more?); and people who think Marina Abramovic’s naked self-mutilation and occult “art” is normal?
I wrote a story on this subject for work, but not a single mainstream media outlet covered it. They ignored it. They shunned it, ironically, like the devil. Meanwhile, Twitter and YouTube and other social media platforms exploded with “Spirit Cooking” trends. The traffic for the story was through the roof — and yet, silence.
People like Katie Pavlich over at Townhall, one of the few writers who addressed it, tried to torpedo the story entirely using giant straw-man arguments. Because Ms. Pavlich felt Infowars likened Mr. Podesta to a “blood sucking, hair eating devil worshipper,” then ipso facto there was nothing to cover.
You can tell a lot about a man by who his close friends are, and it speaks volumes that the Podestas receive “all my love” messages from a woman who thinks it’s normal to get naked in front of strangers and cut herself, or to create “aphrodisiac” recipes that require “fresh urine” and “fresh sperm milk” for “earthquake nights.”
For Townhall writers like Ms. Pavlich, it apparently means nothing that Ms. Abramovic a.) sees herself as a mystic, b.) says that performing her rituals at home makes “magic” possible, and c.) told artist James Franco that she hates the studio and loves to “perform” at home.
“If you are doing the occult magic in the context of art or in a gallery, then it is art. If you are doing it in a different context, in spiritual circles or private house or on TV shows, it is not art.” — Marina Abramovic on question about magic via Reddit interview.
Move along. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Oh, and did I mention that the artist now says she called the “Spirit” dinner that because “we just call things funny names”?
What are all the chances that out of all the “funny” names she could have picked, she used “Spirit Cooking dinner”?
And here is what she told Mr. Franco:
“I hate studio, to start with. Studio is a trap. Studio is the worst place — the artist should never be [there]. The art comes from life — not from studio.” — Marina Abramovic to James Franco via Wall Street Journal interview, December 2009.
The mainstream media are terrified about what will happen if they cover an explosive story about Hillary Clinton’s inner circle and then she is elected president. That is why CNN and others had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover WikiLeaks, FBI investigations into the former secretary of state, and the “pay-for-play” corruption of The Clinton Foundation.
But hey, maybe I’m wrong and the Podesta brothers’ buddy-buddy relationship with Marina “Eat the Pain” Abramovic is not worth your time.
Exit Question: What are the chances that late-night comedians and SNL would have a field day if Donald Trump’s inner circle included an “artist” whose works required her to sit on mountains of bloody bones, stab her fingers, and “eat the pain”?
A really weird thing happened in Flint, Michigan on Monday: Bill Clinton criticized The [not so] Affordable Act just as Republicans have since 2010.
This blog said years ago that anyone who understood basic economics could predict exactly what would happen with the passage of Obamacare — and now the former president is on the campaign trail for his wife sounding like your friendly neighborhood blogger.
Here is what he said:
“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.”
I worked for three different organizations since The [not so] Affordable Care Act was signed into law, and the cost of insurance plans spiked at all of them. Early on, I was trying to live inside the Beltway on less than $40,000 a year while trying to pay off students loans from USC and American University. (Try making that work with a morning commute into the city while paying rent.)
“The people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies,” Mr. Clinton added at one point.
Indeed! I and millions of other hard-working Americans knew the feeling all too well. And, yes Mr. Clinton, I was working well over 60 hours per week at the time.
The funny thing is, the next step will be to call for a total takeover of the health care system by the federal government. Republicans claimed that Obamacare was a Trojan Horse for socialized health care, and they were called conspiracy theorists. But that is exactly what is happening.
It looks like 2017 will be ObamaCare’s worst year yet. The three major insurers, along with many smaller plans, are largely exiting the health-insurance exchanges, leaving more than half of U.S. counties with only one or two health-plan choices, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Nearly 36% of ObamaCare regions may have only one participating insurance carrier offering plans for 2017, according to health-care analytics firm Avalere Health. Data from analysts at Barclays and Credit Suisse project that health-insurance premiums are expected to rise at least 24% in 2017.
To rescue President Obama’s health-care law, Hillary Clinton has proposed resurrecting the “public option.” This failed idea—a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers—can’t save ObamaCare. But introducing it across the country would move the U.S. much closer to the single-payer system progressives have always longed for. …
In 2011 Vermont tried to use this waiver process to introduce a public option, only to abandon it three years later when it became clear that the scheme would yield skyrocketing taxes on small businesses.
If you think health care is expensive now, then just wait until it’s “free.” And if you don’t think that will happen, then simply take a step into the the Douglas Ernst Blog Time Machine and consider the following: There will always be men like Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber on call for the next Democrat president.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — it made explicit the healthy pay in and the and sick people get money — it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Yep. That actually happened — and it’s only a matter of time before the next “Gruber” gives it a shot with socialized health care.
Democrats like Jonathan Gruber need people to be stupid to get signature pieces of legislation passed. They want people to be stupid. Consider that as you walk into the voting booth in November, and then again when your Democrat neighbor bashes charter schools.
A funny thing happens in old video games when players reach a point that exceeds the cartridge’s available memory: the “kill screen.” The character may die, although sometimes users can continue playing a jumbled mess that ostensibly makes no sense. The reality that Donald Trump will square off against Hillary Clinton to be the next U.S. commander in chief is a clear indicator America has reached its own kill screen.
Kill screens may be fun to watch — there is no doubt that cable news networks are thrilled with the 2016 election season — but on another level (no pun intended), they are sad affairs. If you do not believe the U.S. is at its own kill screen, then ask yourself the following two questions:
What led to the rise in popularity of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist), and Donald Trump?
Will the election of Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump mitigate or exacerbate the nation’s underlying problems?
Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue doing exactly what President Obama has done for eight years, which was a catalyst for Sanders’ groundswell of Democrat support.
Donald Trump’s popularity is based on the illusion that he is a political outsider who will “make America great again” via giant walls along U.S. border with Mexico and “great” deals with Congress. Ironically, the same people who have deified Mr. Trump regularly go apoplectic when “deals” are made in Congress. Unless Trump plans on becoming a dictator, his own supporters are in for a rude awakening if he wins in November.
Here is what the 45th president of the United States will encounter on Day One:
The U.S. is $19 trillion in debt, but there is no political will to get spending under control. This is due to economic illiteracy (thanks public education and academia), greed (it’s easy to rob from future generations when you know you’ll be old or dead when the bill comes due), lying politicians, and a whole host of other issues. There will be a day of reckoning.
The U.S. is culturally lost. Multiple generations have simmered in a stew of cultural relativism. Tens of millions of people have no idea why they believe what they believe — they just do. They have been taught to loathe the principles that made America the freest nation in the history. They have been conditioned to yearn for tyranny and not to care about it as long mindless viral videos, Facebook “likes,” and free pornography flows on their computers.
American media outlets are corrupt. The news long ago ceased to be about informing people and turned into a never-ending quest for “clicks” and “shares” and “tweets” and ratings. Journalists are usually more interested in showing they’re as witty and cool as John Stewart in his heyday than objectively reporting facts. Cable news shows are inspired by WWE wrestling matches and reality television shows, which is why the more appealing option is to just watch Food Network or turn off the TV all together.
In short, unless someone rewrites the U.S. “code” in the near future, we will soon disappear in the “integer overflow.”
Welcome to the kill screen. I look forward to seeing you after the “reset” button is pushed.
Donald Trump has dominated news cycles for months, but perhaps the most apt description of the man came yesterday in a piece by The Federalist. Author James Poulos writes that cultural shifts, like the one that burst the “celebrity bubble” in the 90s, claim more than just the careers of actors, writers, and musicians. Politicians, too, he argues, can be crushed within sudden societal churning. That is why, he argues, we are now seeing the emergence of “the Deadpool of national politics” — Trump.
How is it that others, but not you, know Trump perfectly inhabits the form of leadership that naturally emerged from our cultural moment? Even deeper and broader than the issue of the GOP base becoming completely disenchanted in the established party leadership is the problem that so many Americans (who are not senior citizens) just have zero respect for old-style politicians.
Even a young guy who’s auditioning for the part of tomorrow’s old-style politician — Marco Rubio — just doesn’t pass the derisive laugh test among the most culturally consequential Americans, whatever their class. Trying to reduce this situation to class makes as much sense as trying to decide whether “Deadpool” is highbrow, lowbrow, or middlebrow.
There was a moment when expectations shifted about what it was to be a real human being in politics, too, and the only major figure to apparently intentionally catch that wave was Trump. He is the Deadpool of national politics. You can agonize over this fact or you can deal with it.
Think about it:
Trump says whatever he wants — he’s completely unfiltered, like Deadpool. They both hate political correctness.
When Trump is damaged — even by self-inflicted wounds — he heals incredibly fast, like Deadpool.
Deadpool was created by unprincipled goons. Likewise, the creation of Trump in many ways hinges on the unprincipled goons of the Republican Party. They promised one thing, delivered another, and then laughed in the faces of those who expected them to live up to their word.
Deadpool lets the audience in on “the joke” by breaking the fourth wall. Likewise, Trump exposes “the joke” that is Washington, D.C.’s political class (on the left and the right).
It appears, unfortunately, as though the Republican Party will not listen to Poulos’ advice, but instead will continue to “agonize” over Trump. Meanwhile, Democrats like President Obama continue on their quest to “fundamentally transform” America. It’s a recipe for disaster.
America needs a Colossus in the White House, but perhaps it deserves Deadpool at this point. If nothing else, perhaps real-world Deadpool (and, sadly, the body count his administration will be responsible for) will show people that politics isn’t a joke. Maybe then the next cultural shift will attract serious men and women to the nation’s capital. Or not, and America will usher in its own “Age of Mephisto.”
Conservatives have known for a long time that liberalism warps the human mind and the human soul, turning individuals with unlimited potential into human gerbils whose only aspiration is to get their hands on the next government pellet. Now, as details leak out about President Obama’s 2012 campaign, it’s clearer than ever that he sees his supporters as a bunch of lab rats.
Ask yourself: Would the founding fathers ever favor a United States of America where career politicians are so hungry for power that they would assemble a “Dream Team” of behavioral scientists to figure out the best way to manipulate the minds of registered voters?
For their part, consortium members said they did nothing more than pass on research-based ideas, in e-mails and conference calls. They said they could talk only in general terms about the research, because they had signed nondisclosure agreements with the campaign.
“A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. Fox said.
At least some of the consortium’s proposals seemed to have found their way into daily operations. …
“Mr. Jones, we know you have voted in the past” — acts as a subtle prompt to future voting, said Dr. Cialdini, a foundational figure in the science of persuasion. “People want to be congruent with what they have committed to in the past, especially if that commitment is public,” he said.
Got that? President Obama is watching you. Correction: President Obama has been studying you. His campaign has been sifting through your public data and putting together psychological profiles that could be unlocked, disassembled and then put back together into a reliable Obamabot. It’s downright creepy.
And yet, it gets worse. Your digital history is fair game, too.
To pinpoint voters who might actually change their minds, the Obama campaignconducted randomized experiments, Slaby said. Voters received phone calls in which they were asked to rate their support for the president, and then engaged in a conversation about different policy issues. At the end of the conversation, they were asked to rate their support for the president again. Using the results of these experiments, combined with detailed demographic information about individual voters, the campaign was able to pinpoint both what kinds of voters had been persuaded to support the president, and which issues had persuaded them.
Avi Feller, a graduate student in statistics at Harvard who has worked on this kind of modeling, compared it to medical research.
“The statistics of drug trials are very similar to the statistics of experiments in campaigns,” he said. “I have some cancer drug, and I know it works well on some people — for whom is the cancer drug more or less effective?” …
One official with knowledge of the campaign’s data operation said that the campaign’s experiments also tested how long the “persuasion” effect lasted after the initial phone conversation — and found that it was only about three weeks.
This is what we have wrought. No matter who you voted for, these tactics are scary. The government has grown so expansive and we have abdicated so many responsibilities to a ruling “elite” in Washington, that they will now go to any length to win. They will say anything, or do anything that experiments — on you — tell them to do, if it means another two or four or six years in power.
In President Obama’s mind, your free will is a cancer, and the “drug” is the “tested” combination of “experiments” that will get you to pull the lever for him. But it’s not just President Obama; these tactics will be used in 2016, 2020 and beyond by both parties. Republicans and Democrats will seek to play Jedi mind tricks on millions of our most gullible citizens. And as they perfect their craft they will “win” more elections — not because they are the better candidate, or the candidate the country needs — but because they are the candidate who could pull your psychological strings like a mad puppeteer.
Are Republicans any better than Democrats in this regard? No. If they are, it’s not by much. But the difference between conservatives and liberals is, the conservative casts a perpetually suspicious eye on all politicians and seeks to limit the power of the federal government; the left quixotically puts their trust in princes.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some reading to do on President Obama’s “Terror Tuesday Kill List.” For some reason I don’t believe his canvassers or experiments addressed that one.