The talking points show

That’s how I usually refer to the Presidential “debates,” which are anything BUT debates.  (I debated competitively, and what goes on every four years is a mockery of what should be an enlightening process.)

While I’ve been extraordinarily preoccupied lately, I tuned in to the first 2/3 of the show… and immediately wished I’d taken my usual route of skipping the TV and just reading the transcript later.

Scores of political hacks will spend today trying to convince the public that one of the candidates won the debate.

My only gut reaction was “dear God, how did we come to this?”  Since the 2000 election, I’ve been amazed at the lack of substance and the inability to stay on a topic for more than 30 seconds at a time.  (I’ve also been highly annoyed with the exclusion of third party candidates, many of whom met the criteria to be on the ballot in all 50 states or very close to it.  The system is rigged.)  Someone with real plans and message discipline would wipe the floor with their opponent.

But we don’t have such a candidate.  Again.

May God preserve what’s left of this once great nation.

The war on history & a heritage of liberty

The was never any doubt in my mind that the cultural cleansing of Confederate flags and symbols would be expanded into something much broader:

The EEOC has already ruled that coworkers’ wearing Confederate flag T-shirts can be punishable harassment (a decision that I think is incorrect); and, unsurprisingly, this is extending to other political speech as well.

On January 8, 2014, Complainant filed a formal complaint in which he alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of race (African American) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when, starting in the fall of 2013, a coworker (C1) repeatedly wore a cap to work with an insignia of the Gadsden Flag, which depicts a coiled rattlesnake and the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me.”

Complainant stated that he found the cap to be racially offensive to African Americans because the flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a “slave trader & owner of slaves.”  (emphasis added)

Stop and think about the criteria emphasized above.  If anything associated with a “slave trader” or “owner of slaves” is now tainted and subject to removal from the public square, then we have lost the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and pretty much the entire foundation of our heritage.  It takes discernment to make distinctions between attitudes and actions we now recognize as wrong (i.e. enslavement and racism), and legitimate contributions by human beings every bit as flawed and imperfect as we are today.  Regrettably, discernment is sorely lacking in our society today.

The EEOC acknowledges (then ignores) the context of the creation of the Gadsden flag, which was an early symbol of the rebellion that became known as the American Revolution.  While the Southern Cross or the Stars and Bars (not the same flag!) can be legitimately criticized for their association with a breakaway region explicitly devoted to the preservation of slavery and racial hierarchy during the War Between the States, the Gadsden Flag has NO such historical connotation, despite a few modern groups’ attempts to appropriate it for such causes.

I believe this storied yellow flag is being targeted because of its association with the Tea Party protests of a few years ago against Obamacare and other examples of ineffective, inefficient, wasteful and unresponsive government. It remains a symbol of defiance and independence, which runs contrary to the increasing demands for compliance and conformity in our land.  Thus, symbols that inspire and remind Americans about their heritage must be controlled or eliminated. (Prediction: they’ll go after this symbol next.)

People like myself with genuine concerns about the direction of our country tried a few years ago to demonstrate and appropriately ‘petition for the redress of grievances,’ and the Gadsden Flag quickly became a symbol of that segment of the citizenry — which should have been a warning to any leader with a sense of history.  But at the time the professional punditry and not a few of our national leaders smeared the whole movement as some sort of racist enterprise and ignored them. Then they were surprised at the sudden surge of support for a deeply flawed and disruptive candidate like Trump.

There’s a lesson there: when people believe acting traditionally and respectfully gets their legitimate concerns libeled and dismissed, they stop acting as civilly.  If our national leaders (on both sides of the aisle) don’t start actively addressing these concerns–the very real negative effects of free trade and unfettered immigration, a lack of faith that our nation is secure, bloated, wasteful and ineffective agencies and programs, and a general sense that our whole government is just one great big racket for the well-connected–then the next standard bearer for them is likely to be even less palatable from a civil, traditional perspective.

The clock is ticking, the tinder is drier than it’s been in generations, and we have perhaps the most tone-deaf, insular and arrogant leadership class in our nation’s history.  Absent a miracle, I don’t expect this to play out well.

Based on their frantic cultural cleansing, it appears they don’t, either.

Remember, America.


People are buying it

…just not necessarily what the Clintons are selling.  While most of my writing on Her Hillariness for now will be at the Guilty as Hill website, I found the current (week of Aug 7) New York Times nonfiction bestseller list to be interesting:

Anti-clinton bestsellers

Three of the top four books are all aimed at Hillary.  Guess the dollars of the average American reader are going a different direction than those of the Goldman Sachs crowd.

In fact, D’Souza’s book is the tie-in to the top grossing documentary of 2016 and the #2 grossing documentary release of all time in the United States, with more than $33 million in ticket sales.  Maybe people are paying more attention than I expect.

One can hope.  Speaking of the old “hope” trope:


Pretty much sums it up for me right now.

Guilty as Hill

I’m still in furious disbelief that the FBI recommended no charges be filed against Hillary over her use of an unauthorized, personal email server as Secretary of State, through which highly sensitive and classified information passed (and likely passed to our nation’s enemies).  If anything proves there’s no equality before the law in our land these days, this does.  I say this as someone with personal experience during my military service with handling highly classified information.  There is no doubt in my mind that I would have been locked away for a long time had I been half as “careless” with the national trust I’d been given.

Regardless my misgivings about Trump or Gary Johnson (and they are many), it’s clear to me that Her Hillariness must not become the next President of the United States.  The “get out of jail free” card over the email server is just the latest in a long saga that includes zero accountability for her actions.  For that reason, I’ve agreed to work with a colleague on a collaborative site:  Guilty as Hill.

Guilty as Hill logo copy

Our vision for the site is simple: provide an easy reference source to debunk the vapid talking point that all of Hillary’s woes are part of some “vast right-wing conspiracy.”  Far from being unduly persecuted, what little heat she has felt she’s brought on herself through her actions.  The problem is that ‘heat’ has amounted to little more than mild inconvenience, rather than justice being served.

We’ve been building content since the FBI announcement on July 6th.  As the election approaches, RonKo and I will continue to comment on developments, as well as posting reminders of the Clintons’ “greatest hits” — a long track record of playing fast and loose  and getting away with it.  It’s about time that caught up with them.  Feel free to share the material, and to let me know if there are ways to make the site a more useful resource as you advocate protecting our nation from a President Hillary.

Parsing the pontifications

Some thoughts and interpretations (in italics and parentheses) as I read through the transcript of Hillary’s acceptance speech:

“Now America is once again at a moment of reckoning. Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart. Bonds of trust and respect are fraying.” (Pay no attention to how I’ve contributed to the fraying of trust by hiding my activities on a private server and deleting 30,000 emails after my highly questionable electronic practices came to light.)

“[Trump] wants us to fear the future and fear each other. Well, you know, a great Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt came up with the perfect rebuke to Trump more than 80 years ago during a much more perilous time: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” (Of course, after saying that, FDR ordered the round up and interment of Japanese in America, due to the fear they could be an internal threat during a time of war. Kind of like the threat your refugee resettlement policy poses.)

“…remember, our Founders fought a Revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power.” (But my former boss, Barack, didn’t let that stop him from using his ‘pen and phone.’ I won’t, either.)

“I get it that some people just don’t know what to make of me.” (Maybe that’s because you often change your tune to match the prevailing winds, and always in support of your own ambitions. Despite all the smoke screens, though, some of us DO know what to make of you…)

“Tonight we’ve reached a milestone in our nation’s march toward a more perfect union. The first time that a major party has nominated a woman for president!” (And I’m counting on the “let’s make history” novelty vote to overcome that lack of trust I talked about earlier. Hey, it worked for Barack!)

“It’s wrong to take tax breaks with one hand and give out pink slips with the other.” (And that’s why I support oppose TPP (at least, some of the time) and will preserve H1-B. Oh, wait…)

“Bernie Sanders and I will work together to make college tuition free for the middle class and debt free for all. We will also liberate millions of people who already have student debt.” (By increasing government spending–and the national debt–even further. Barack only managed to double the national debt during his eight years. Wait until you see what I can do!)

“Donald Trump can’t even handle the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign. He loses his cool at the slightest provocation, when he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter…” (Something that, thankfully, my allies in the mainstream press help keep me from experiencing!)

“A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons!” (And a woman who passes the most sensitive national security information through an unauthorized, insecure personal e-mail server is not one we can trust with the launch codes, either.)

“I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.” (Please forget here that I once stated “we’re going to take things away from you for the common good,” or that to my party, “common sense gun control” includes three extra words to throw you off the scent… it’s really just about ‘control.’)

“And we will stand up against mean and divisive rhetoric wherever it comes from.” (Unless, of course, it’s coming from our camp.)

“More than a few times I’ve had to pick myself up and get back in the game.” (Usually because I was doing something questionable, got called on it, and had to play the coy “who, li’l me?” act in order to lull the gullible back to sleep. Like I’m doing now)

Don’t fall for it again, America!

Know your place, peasants!

I checked back on the We the People petition regarding Hillary’s damning ‘exoneration’ by the FBI.  Not only had the petition picked up another 25,000 signatures since I’d last looked, it also had a ‘formal response:’

know your place peasant

So let’s take a look at the Terms of Participation.  The relevant clause would seem to be:

“To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.”

Get that?  It’s not improper for the President to suggest Clinton’s unauthorized personal server was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered” while the investigation was ongoing.  But it would be improper to respond to the concerns and outrage of tens of thousands of Americans who believe Lady Justice was kneecapped once again when it comes to the Clintons.

They couldn’t even be bothered to re-summarize the reasons given for not indicting (and remember, the case is now closed, so how could there be “influence” by doing so?).

A more transparent administration would simply have posted a graphic of an upraised middle finger, accompanied by the caption “You’re not the boss of me!”  After all, that’s pretty much the way they approach everything else they do.

It’s worth noting the Declaration of Independence carefully lays out the many ways in which that generation tried to petition Parliament and the King for the redress of grievances.  Given the response by the We the People team, it can safely be assumed petitioning this government for redress of grievances (and miscarriages of justice) is about as much a waste of time.

Ultimately, though, you can only hide from an aggrieved people for so long…