100 days to go

How dangerous would Hillary be as president. This dangerous:

“In my first 100 days, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new, good paying jobs since World War II. Jobs in manufacturing, clean energy, technology and innovation, small business, and infrastructure.”

If this kind of cross between Keynes and Alinsky doesn’t worry you, you don’t know when to be worried. And that is the least of my concerns about what a third Clinton presidency will include.

For another take, you can try Roger Simon on America’s First Major Socialist Party Debuts in Philadelphia. Guess which party that is.

Meanwhile, Trump may have his nose ahead in the polls but he will have to win by a lot to overcome the vote early, vote often approach taken by the residents of local cemeteries.

Valerie Jarrett – the story continues

And having discussed Valerie Jarrett the other day, I find her mentioned at The American Thinker in an article on Valerie Jarrett was our First Female President. I will only add here to what I have already discussed, and begin with this, weakly put though this is:

She arguably has more influence over Obama than anyone with the possible exception of Michelle Obama herself.

This is followed up by the following quote which comes closer:

Her influence is shown by an account in Richard Miniter’s book “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.”

It relates that at the urging of Jarrett, Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL mission. Seems she was concerned about the possible political harm to Obama if the mission failed.

Miniter writes that the president canceled the kill mission in January 2011, again in February and a third time in March, in each instance at the urging of Jarrett.

Miniter cites a source within the Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Edward Klein, author of the best-selling book about Obama, “The Amateur,” once asked Obama if he ran every decision by Jarrett, and the president responded, “Absolutely.” A former foreign editor of Newsweek and editor of the New York Times Magazine, Klein describes Jarrett as “ground zero in the Obama operation, the first couple’s friend and consigliere.”

Another quote:

Obama has said he consults Jarrett on every major decision, something current and former aides corroborate. “Her role since she has been at the White House is one of the broadest and most expansive roles that I think has ever existed in the West Wing,” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s former communications director. Broader, even, than the role of running the West Wing. This summer, the call to send Attorney General Eric Holder on a risky visit to Ferguson, Missouri, was made by exactly three people: Holder himself, the president, and Jarrett, who were vacationing together on Martha’s Vineyard. When I asked Holder if Denis McDonough, the chief of staff, was part of the conversation, he thought for a moment and said, “He was not there.” (Holder hastened to add that “someone had spoken to him.”

Jarrett holds a key vote on Cabinet picks (she opposed Larry Summers at Treasury and was among the first Obama aides to come around on Hillary Clinton at State) and has an outsize say on ambassadorships and judgeships. She helps determine who gets invited to the First Lady’s Box for the State of the Union, who attends state dinners and bill-signing ceremonies, and who sits where at any of the above. She has placed friends and former employees in important positions across the administration — “you can be my person over there,” is a common refrain.

And Jarrett has been known to enjoy the perks of high office herself. When administration aides plan “bilats,” the term of art for meetings of two countries’ top officials, they realize that whatever size meeting they negotiate — nine by nine, eight by eight, etc. — our side will typically include one less foreign policy hand, because Jarrett has a standing seat at any table that includes the president.

Obama is a cypher of no account other than he can be elected. If you wish to understand what has mattered, following Jarrett and her circle will give you a far better understanding of who the Americans have been governed by and the principles, as such, that have guided what they have done.

Niallist rhetoric

It is one thing to recognise that no political vehicle is perfect, it is quite another to reject someone who goes most of the way with you because he doesn’t have everything you want. Donald Trump has no political history, no past set of political judgements to assess him against, and there is no certainty how he will act in any particular set of circumstances. But I don’t worry about renegotiating trade arrangements, I am not worried that he will start some war by accident and it never crosses my mind that me will renege on his stated aim to close the American border and restrict immigration. He is also more likely than anyone to take on the most dangerous issue of our time which is the jihadist rampage across the West.

Meanwhile, we have Niall Ferguson in a particularly vacuous article titled, Paranoid Republidents for Trump. You would think that given his previous concerns about immigration, he might at least lean towards Trump for President. If he believes any of what he has written here, he is instead among the shallowest of our current commentators on Trump’s run for the president who has no idea how to achieve anything he says he wishes to see achieved. He is, by the way, Mr Aayan Hirsi Ali and this is what he has to say:

Trump’s acceptance speech was a ghastly masterclass in what Richard Hofstadter more than 50 years ago called “The paranoid style in American politics.” As Hofstadter summarized it, the paranoid view was that “the old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; [and] the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots.”

The paranoid worldview verged on the religious: “The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms. . . . He is always manning the barricades of civilization. . . . Like religious millennialists, he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days.” Yet even as he denounces the corrupt, cosmopolitan elite, the political paranoiac is implicitly expressing a kind of attraction. He hates intellectuals, yet he provides extensive footnotes.

This — including the footnotes, 282 of which the Trump campaign supplied on Friday — is about all you need to know about Trump’s acceptance speech. It was all here, beginning with the conspiracy theory. “America is a nation of believers, dreamers, and strivers,” yelled Trump, “that is being led by a group of censors, critics, and cynics. . . . No longer can we rely on those elites in media, and politics, who will say anything to keep a rigged system in place.”

“Big business, elite media, and major donors” were backing Hillary Clinton, Trump declared, “because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.” As a result, “corruption has reached a level like never before.”

For me, adjusting for the typical rhetorical flourishes that are the basics of political discourse, there is nothing there that seems exaggerated. But if you cannot see how dangerous a Clinton presidency would be, even if you think of her as the lesser of two evils, then your ability to make sound political judgements is running on empty.

Found at Five Feet of Fury which even has a link to this.

Comedy: you need to find the line and then cross it

Kelly Carlin, Rain Pryor, and Kitty Bruce are the daughters of the godfathers of comedy.

Their fathers, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and Lenny Bruce, shaped the stand-up comedy you hear today. If you listen to any of their routines and none of them surprise you, it’s because they influenced every comedian who came later.

In this exclusive interview with FIRE, the daughters speak out for the first time together about their fathers and the censorship fights that all three comedy legends combatted in their quests to stay true to their art.

An audio version of the interview can be heard on FIRE’s “So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast” at: http://sotospeakpodcast.com

Transcript: https://www.thefire.org/the-daughters…

This exclusive interview is part of FIRE’s campaign to defend comedy and free speech on campus. To support this campaign and to learn more about the FIRE-supported documentary “Can We Take a Joke?”, visit here.

And though this is not entirely the same thing, there is a lot of truth in this: The media wasn’t prepared to handle sarcasm from a candidate.

The idea that someone running for office could regularly engage in sarcasm or even some off color language or jokes is so foreign to the political media that they feel obligated to treat obvious sarcasm as if it was a serious policy proposal. And in reality, it’s not much of an “obligation” to deal with because it helps them continue the narrative and paint Trump as some sort of out of control monster.

It is part of how dense the left really is. It is part of how Trump deals with the media. He may unfortunately be unique in that he is not intimidated at all by what the media write. It is certainly a major point of difference, and is perhaps a major point of strength, but only time will tell.

Hillary’s America – it’s closer than you think

At Rotten Tomatoes Hillary’s America is 5% among the critics and 82% among the audience. Here is a link to the only positive review listed. It begins:

Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is a searing, powerful and persuasive exposé on the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Just like in America: Imagine the World Without Her, director Dinesh D’Souza re-examines American history and highlights the facts that should make you horrified and alarmed if you’re a critically-thinking individual. Yes, you might find yourself in denial at first, but denial is a crucial and natural step in the process of coming to terms with a harsh truth. D’Souza includes some re-enactments and archival footage which help to enliven the film so that it’s not just a bunch of talking heads. The fact that D’Souza remains calm and collected, unlike Michael Moore, throughout the film, is a testament to his strengths as a documentarian and investigator. Did you know that it was actually the Democratic Party was racist the Civil War? Or that the “hood” or “ghettos” are essentially the modern versions of plantations? In other words, the Democratic Party is still just as racist now as it was back in the Civil War, but Democrats, will, of course, deny their racism. Did you know that the KKK originated from the Democratic Party and its members were Democrats themselves? Or how about that Planned Parenthood is mostly found in areas where minorities can be found is a form of eugenics started by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood? Hillary Clinton just so happens to consider Margaret Sanger to be a role model. D’Souza explains something that you ought to know about Hillary: her mentor was writer Saul Alinksy who began scamming people early on in his college days by ripping off his school’s cafeteria while convincing others to take part in the scams as well. That scam serves as a microcosm of what Hillary Clinton plans to do in our country.

And on it goes. The 95% who hate this film are Democrat Operatives with Bylines, and these are merely film critics. The political commentators are worse. Whether we end up seeing it in Australia, it is worth noting that Box Office: Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Hillary’s America’ Becomes Top Grossing Doc of 2016. Fighting the left is a continuous ongoing uphill battle.