Donald Trump's Inauguration: Alternative Facts for an Alternative Universe

Tweet

Kellyanne Conway, adviser to President Donald Trump, gave birth to a new sound bite, i.e. "alternative facts," when justifying White House press secretary Sean Spicer's declaration on Saturday that "this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe."

In fact, Spicer was correct, period ... if you include the protesters. Apparently unbeknownst to Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, "Facts are in the mind of the beholder."

Alternative facts for an alternative universe.

And now back to my dogs and my vegetable garden.

Paul Krugman, "Worthy of Our Contempt": The "Real Hillary"

Tweet

Okay, I agree with Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Worthy of Our Contempt," that rational Republicans, or rational voters of any "denomination," should not be supporting Trump. His election could indeed lead to "irretrievable disaster." On the other hand, Krugman also uses this opportunity to suck up to Hillary:

"[W]hile we won’t know about a Clinton presidency until or unless it happens, I find much to admire in the real Hillary, who is nothing like the caricature."

Ah yes, the "real Hillary." Perhaps Krugman would care to inform us with whom she has been sharing her bed for the past decade? Bill, who repeatedly flew on the Lolita Express? I don't think so.

And while he's at it, perhaps Krugman would care to explain his admiration for the foundation established by Hillary, which has been roping in donations of millions of dollars from some of world's most oppressive regimes, including some that subjugate women.

And maybe Krugman would care to justify how Hillary lied to the parents of the victims of the Benghazi attack, claiming it was all on account of the video.

And then there was that basement home server, evidencing her desire to hide her correspondence at the expense of national security. (The Washington Post yesterday gave her four Pinocchios for telling Chris Wallace that "Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.")

Or maybe he simply admires how Hillary always backed her "husband" to the hilt, notwithstanding charges of rape.

Sorry, Paul, both candidates stink.

Michelle Ye Hee Lee, "Why the Clinton email scandal and Petraeus leak are not really alike": Bullshit!

Tweet

Can you imagine placing Donald Trump's finger on the launch button of America's nuclear arsenal? I can't, but apparently no small number of Republicans from Nevada are willing to risk this potential nightmare. Nauseating.

Meanwhile, District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled yesterday that top aides of Hillary Clinton can be questioned under oath concerning her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. As reported by Spencer S. Hsu in a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system":

"Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin to return all emails related to Clinton’s private account, not just records their camps previously deemed work-related and returned.

'There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?' Sullivan said, 'This case is about the public’s right to know.'"

I guess Judge Sullivan wasn't informed by the State Department that what the American public doesn't know, can't hurt . . . Hillary, even if it is already known to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. (Mention of Judge Sullivan's ruling by The New York Times? I can't find it. Perhaps the story doesn't fall within the category of "All the news fit to print.")

Counterbalance to Hsu's WaPo story? Of course! Today, in a Washington Post "Fact Checker" entry entitled "Why the Clinton email scandal and Petraeus leak are not really alike," Michelle Ye Hee Lee opines:

"Whether the Clinton cases is 'worse' than the Petraeus case is a matter of opinion, and one we can’t fact-check. But we took a look at the factual circumstances underlying both cases. It’s easy to say that they are alike, because they both involve how a high-level government official handled information that was, or potentially was, classified. One can also argue it’s a question of judgment or transparency.

But there clearly are fundamental differences between the two cases that make it an illogical comparison, based on what we know of the Clinton case so far. At the most basic level, there is dispute over whether Clinton’s emails contained 'classified' information. An array of experts we consulted all told us that as long as the dispute exists, it will be difficult to bring the same charge of mishandling classified information to which Petraeus pleaded guilty."

There is a "dispute over whether Clinton's emails contained 'classified' information"? Oh really? Perhaps the public should be allowed to see the emails between Obama and Hillary that passed through this private server. But wait! That would be impossible, because it would implicate Obama in the scandal.

More to the point, Hillary made exclusive use of her unprotected home server while secretary of state. Are we really to understand that nothing "classified" passed through this home server from 2009 to 2013? Or, are we to understand that inasmuch as these emails were not marked "classified," even if their content was cut and pasted from classified materials, this somehow absolves Hillary from charges of gross negligence?

Spare me, Ye Hee Lee.

Washington Post Editorial, "Hillary Clinton smartly distances herself from Obama": Blowing Smoke Up Hillary's Ass

Tweet

The etymology of "blowing smoke up your ass"? Back in the 18th century, there was a popular medical device called a tobacco smoke enema, which was used to resuscitate drowning victims. However, it was ultimately discovered that blowing tobacco smoke into dead persons arses had no medical benefit, and from there, "blowing smoke up your ass" was born, i.e. telling someone a lie that she/he wants to hear.

Well today, in an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton smartly distances herself from Obama," The Washington Post blows smoke up Hillary's arse. WaPo would have us know concerning Hillary's position on Syria:

"Ms. Clinton has a strong claim to express her differences with Mr. Obama, since it’s well-known that she argued them privately during her time in the administration, especially about how to handle Syria. (She favored more substantial U.S. support to dictator Bashar al-Assad’s opposition early in the popular uprising that has since devolved into civil war.) Not only that, but it’s clear from events in Paris that any progress Mr. Obama’s approach has achieved so far — and there has been some — is insufficient to stop the Islamic State from sowing terror far beyond the Middle East. Finally, the measures Ms. Clinton endorsed, such as safe zones, directly arming Kurdish and Sunni tribal forces if the Iraqi government won’t, and a more aggressive use of airstrikes and Special Operations forces, enjoy the backing of many military experts."

Excuse me, boys and girls, but how do you make such a claim without mention of Hillary's March 27, 2011  "Face the Nation" interview (massive protests against the Assad regime had begun two weeks earlier), during which she declared:

"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

Assad a reformer? As the Washington Post's own Glenn Kessler subsequently wrote in a "Fact Checker" column entitled "Hillary Clinton’s uncredible statement on Syria," in which he gave Hillary three Pinocchios:

"Hillary Clinton is known for making provocative statements, but few have generated such a firestorm as her comment last week that the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, may be a reformer. She made her remarks after 'Face the Nation' host Bob Schieffer noted that Assad’s late father had killed 25,000 people during an uprising against his regime. Clinton responded by noting that the son was now in power and he was a 'different leader.'

Lawmakers and columnists quickly condemned her remarks. So two days later Clinton tried to deflect the criticism by telling reporters she was only referencing 'the opinions' of lawmakers who had met with Assad and that she was not speaking for the administration. But then she added: 'We’re also going to continue to urge that the promise of reform, which has been made over and over again and which you reported on just a few months ago – I’m a reformer, I’m going to reform, and I’ve talked to members of Congress and others about that, that we hear from the highest levels of leadership in Syria – will actually be turned into reality.'

. . . .

Throughout the Middle East uprisings, Clinton has had trouble calibrating her comments to the mood of the moment, such as when she pronounced the Mubarak regime to be 'stable' and 'looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.' Days later, Mubarak was gone.

We grant that we have no way of really knowing what lawmakers may have said privately to Clinton. But there is only a small universe of GOP senators and members of Congress who have recently traveled to Syria — 13 or so — and the word 'many' would suggest at least half of those traveling."

The Mubarak regime was "stable"? "There is a different leader in Syria now"? Spare me.

Regarding today's Washington Post editorial, I would also mention in passing that Hillary cannot even bring herself to say the words "radical Islam."

I would also mention that Hillary was instrumental in bringing about Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, after she recommended allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran, Assad's primary backer, to continue to enrich uranium as part of the said deal. Obama's passivity over the years toward Assad was in no way linked to his desperation to reach a legacy-creating nuclear deal with Khamenei? The answer is obvious. Worse still, Iranian fighter jets are now flying over Syria, creating a powder keg of Gargantuan dimensions, given their proximity to American and Israeli aircraft.

Bottom line: Hillary's foreign policy recommendations have proven no more substantive or consistent than smoke in the wind (or tobacco smoke blown into a corpse's arse). The Washington Post's editorial board should know better than to foist such nonsense upon us.

Ben Carson on Syria: Both Charles Krauthammer and Ruth Marcus Wrongly Slam Carson

Tweet

In his most recent Washington Post opinion piece, "The most revealing debate yet," Charles Krauthammer wrote of the last Republican presidential debate:

"Ben Carson had an awful night — the Chinese intervening in Syria? "

Similarly, Ruth Marcus in her latest WaPo opinion piece entitled "Carson’s real scandal is his ignorance" would have us know:

"Asked whether he supported President Obama’s move to send Special Operations forces to Syria and leave 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, Carson’s answer careened around like a crazed pinball, bouncing between wrong facts ('You know, the Chinese are there [in Syria]') . . ."

However, as noted in a September 28, 2015 RT article entitled "China’s military advisers ‘heading to Syria to help fight ISIS’ – report":

"DEBKAfile, has cited military sources as saying that a Chinese aircraft carrier, the Liaoning-CV-16, has already been spotted at the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean coast. It was said to be accompanied by a guided missile cruiser."

Historically, DEBKAfile has been extremely accurate. Or stated otherwise, Carson was not entirely off the mark. Both Krauthammer and Marcus owe Carson an apology. (Krauthammer's comment seems to have been based upon Glenn Kessler's Washington Post "Fact Checker" column, and I again ask, who checks the checker?)

Meanwhile, Donald Trump seems to have experienced a meltdown of sorts in Iowa. Will it affect his standing in the polls, or will Republicans insist upon shooting themselves in the foot by nominating him? Stay tuned . . .

Maureen Dowd, "He Is Heavy. He’s My Brother.": Jeb's Giant Goof

On Monday, Megyn Kelly asked Jeb Bush whether he would have invaded Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now." Jeb Bush responded in the affirmative, setting off a media firestorm and subsequent claims by Jeb that he misunderstood the question. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "He Is Heavy. He’s My Brother.," Maureen Dowd seizes upon this controversy and goes for Jeb's jugular. Dowd writes:

"Jeb had barely finished insisting that he was his own man before he voluntarily shackled himself to W., putting several members of his brother’s war-torture-and-Katrina tarnished brain trust on his advisory list and telling a group of financiers in New York that W. was his top adviser on the Middle East!!

. . . .

And consider this: Jeb hasn’t even been asked any questions yet about W.’s dark contributions on waterboarding, the deficit and the near-total collapse of the American economy."

To set the record straight: I opposed the 2003 Iraq War, inasmuch as I anticipated that it would destroy the Sunni/Shiite equilibrium in the Middle East, i.e. without Saddam in Iraq, the mullahs in Iran would run amuck. Moreover, I will shed no tears if Jeb abandons the race for the Republican presidential nomination: Two Bushes in the White House was one too many. But blame George W. for "the deficit and the near-total collapse of the American economy"? I don't think so.

Dowd needs to be reminded that the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 by the Clinton administration set the stage for the Great Recession.

Moreover, as regards Obama's effect on the US deficit, Glenn Kessler wrote in a December 2014 Washington Post "Fact Checker essay entitled "Does Obama have the ‘worst’ record of any president on the national debt?":

"One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term. Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.)

One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term.  Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.)

Debt increase*    End-of-term GDP*    Percentage

Reagan             $1,873                    $8,850                     21%
GHW Bush        1,484                    $9,410                     16%
Clinton               1,268                  $12,680                     12%
GW Bush           4,899                  $14,580                     34%
Obama                7,198                   $16,160                     44%
(*in billions)"

Indeed, according to my calculations, Obama's present debt increase to current GDP amounts to some 43%.

Or stated otherwise, George W. Bush is not the only one to blame for the enormity of the deficit, which will ultimately lead to economic disaster - unless you believe in the tooth fairy or Paul Krugman.

David Brooks, "The Nature of Poverty": Actually, Jon Stewart Lied

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Nature of Poverty," David Brooks writes about the rioting in Baltimore:

"Lately it seems as though every few months there’s another urban riot and the nation turns its attention to urban poverty. And in the midst of every storm, there are people crying out that we should finally get serious about this issue. This time it was Jon Stewart who spoke for many when he said: 'And you just wonder sometimes if we’re spending a trillion dollars to rebuild Afghanistan’s schools, like, we can’t build a little taste down Baltimore way. Like is that what’s really going on?'

The audience applauded loudly, and it’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not really relevant."

Indeed, it was a "nice," crowd-pleasing sentiment on Stewart's part, but it was also a lie. As reported by Glenn Kessler in a Washington Post "Fact Checker" column entitled "Nope, Jon Stewart, $1 trillion wasn’t spent on Afghanistan schools at the expense of Baltimore.":

"Since 2002, Congress has appropriated $104 billion for Afghanistan relief and reconstruction, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). A lot of this funding went to bolstering the Afghan military and security forces and fostering better governance.

But Stewart specifically mentioned schools. The numbers are even smaller in that instance. Using USAID’s ForeignAssistance.gov Web site, one can drill down to individual programs in Afghanistan year after year. For basic education in Afghanistan, the number is about $100 million annually. Adding higher education boosts the spending about $30 million a year. For instance, in 2012 and 2013, the total spent on education in Afghanistan was $128.6 million and $115.1 million, respectively.

Now let’s compare that to the federal spending for the city of Baltimore. According to city budget documents, the federal contribution to Baltimore schools was $184.8 million in 2012 and $169.3 million in 2013. (Most of the more than $1.2 billion budget comes from state and county funding sources.)

The contrast was even greater in 2011: $95 million for Afghanistan schools and $265 million for Baltimore schools. That’s because the 2009 stimulus bill bolstered funding for schools for several years.

. . . .

In fact, in a direct comparison of federal spending on Baltimore schools and spending on Afghanistan education, Baltimore easily comes out on top. So, even with allowances for comic effect, Stewart earns Four Pinocchios."

But back now to Brooks, who concludes his op-ed by observing:

"Jane Jacobs once wrote that a healthy neighborhood is like a ballet, a series of intricate interactions in which people are regulating each other and encouraging certain behaviors.

. . . .

Yes, jobs are necessary, but if you live in a neighborhood . . . where half the high school students don’t bother to show up for school on a given day, then the problems go deeper.

The world is waiting for a thinker who can describe poverty through the lens of social psychology. Until the invisible bonds of relationships are repaired, life for too many will be nasty, brutish, solitary and short."

Or stated otherwise, it's not all about money. Rather, it involves the disintegration of social fabric.

A pity that President Obama, who never misses the opportunity to lose himself on the links, can't drive the 55 minutes from the White House to Baltimore to observe for himself the violence and destruction. Effect "change" involving America's inner cities? Now here's an opportunity to truly build a "legacy," but instead, the president is preoccupied with reaching a bogus nuclear agreement with Supreme Leader Khamenei, which will free up $50 billion for Iranian sponsored terror.

Gail Collins, "Mitt’s Political Vortex": Is Tom Cruise Gay?

The Obama campaign, with nothing positive to say about their own candidate, is again questioning when Romney left Bain Capital. However, WAPO's Glenn Kessler, in a thorough and detailed "Fact Checker" article entitled "Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html#pagebreak), derails these allegations:

"As we wrote yesterday, we are standing with our assessment that Mitt Romney left the helm of Bain Capital in 1999, when he departed to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. The date is important because some questionable investments by Bain took place between 1999 and 2002, when he ran for governor. But a Boston Globe article on Thursday raised new questions about that timeline, citing SEC filings, and the Obama campaign jumped to take advantage of it.

. . . .

Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the 'key investment professionals' who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, 'the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.'

. . . .

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here."

Although "tempted" to award the Obama campaign's contentions four pinochios, Kessler and his team decided to give the Democrats "only" three.

However, this did not prevent Gail Collins in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mitt’s Political Vortex" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/collins-mitts-political-vortex.html) from also questioning Romney's departure date from Bain. A daffy Collins concludes:

"The Republicans currently have a symbolic legislative agenda and a presidential candidate who can be in two places at one time, but who nobody likes.

Other than that, it’s all good. Nobody’s brought up the dog on the car roof for days."

Yes, Collins is irrelevant. Worse still, she would disgracefully perpetuate this canard.

However, as long as we are on the topic of irrelevant, Tom Cruise's breakup with Katie Holmes has reawakened baseless speculation concerning Cruise's sexual orientation (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/tom-cruise-gay-manhunt-invitation-_n_1651645.html). Is Tom Cruise gay? Who cares? Which is exactly how I feel about Gail Collins's groundless drivel on the op-ed page of The New York Times.