Handy Resources

Understanding the 2012 Election

My Sister's Blog New!

The Desktop Dyno

Salem Gravity Gran Prix

Jordan's Eagle Project.

Duke Boys Car Chase

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Gymkhana Practice

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files

Things you may not know about Sarah Palin

Amazing Grace on the Sax

Obama's Magic 8 Ball

Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe

Refresh to get latest blog entry

Trump Day
1.28.16

Yesterday was hump day. Today is Trump Day.

This is Donald.
Donald wants to take on ISIS and Putin.
Donald pees his pants when little girls ask him questions.

Don't be like Donald.

Remember when I said Ann Coulter had the ability to take positions that seemed untenable and make a good case for them? Like when she made a pretty solid case for Ted Cruz, the best candidate for President that we have, not being eligible as a "natural born citizen."

Today she did it again.

Here's her defending Trump in her weekly column about immigration.

Remember that girl back in high school?

Wow.

She was exciting. She was exciting and alluring and appealing. She was different from any girl you'd ever met.

Okay, sure, she had some things that gave you pause. Just nagging shadows of things that you didn't want to think about. But you could overlook them, because she was exciting. How bad could they be?

Then, as soon as you were locked into a relationship with her, all those little unimportant things . . .

Wow.

Total psychotic b . . .

Did you not learn anything from that?

#DonaldTrump

I don't have any enlightenment on Trump that everybody doesn't already know. He's refreshing because he says it like it is. We are so sick of political correctness that we're drawn to him.

Wait. I do have a money quote. That's why you come here (dear imaginary reader), to hear these exclusive nuggets of Leany on Life wisdomosity.

The Trump candidacy is a result of the Obama Presidency, the same way labor unions were a response to oppressive employers.

Sure, we hate Obama because he doesn't love America and at best he's useless as a President, and at worst he's doing his level best to wreck the country we love. But do you love labor unions?

Okay, that's my $.02 worth.

But on to what everybody already knows. The man is a clown. He's just . . . well, John Hawkins worded it best in this column called Why a former Trump fan doesn't support him anymore, which you really should read. (Why you no click on my links ever?)

Also, as entertaining and successful as Trump may be, he doesn’t have the right temperament to be President. It’s a serious, sober job and even if you like him, you have to admit that he’s crude, mean-spirited, narcissistic, unpredictable and conspiratorial.

He's a clown. A guy on the radio said it that way and I thought "Yep. That sums it up." But the guy said "He's a clown . . . and he isn't capable of doing that job." I totally agree with the 'clown' part, but as to being capable . . . compared to Barack Obama? Really?

The nature of the office has changed. It doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't require a man of a certain caliber like it used to. If Barack Obama can occupy the office for two terms it can be accomplished by Will Ferrell. Or the guy on the night shift at 7-11. Or my lazy cat that tries to pee on everything.

That's pretty much been the situation since the trailer trash Clintons went in there. Every living President all of a sudden lost bragging rights. "I was President of the United States!" So what? So was Bill Clinton. Tell me something I can admire.

Anyway . . .

Everybody knows this. Donald Trump is clown. We don't elect leaders like that (but then again, we don't elect wet-behind-the-ears pantywaists with absolutely no experience or accomplishment like Barack Obama, do we?).

He just doesn’t have "the right temperament to be President." Everybody (including his supporters) understands this. In addition to the general pattern of being a clown, evidenced by things he said about Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly, there are some disqualifiers, that even absent that pattern, would keep me from ever considering voting for the man.

• Said Hillary is a great person
• Gave money to Harry Reid
• Figures a man is entitled to rape his own wife
• Said Barack Obama was not born in the US and not eligible to be President

. . . then . . . !

• Voted for Barack Obama

Seriously? A man with bad enough judgment (or 'New York values') that he actually voted for Barack Obama? And he's running as a Republican candidate?

One of the guys got a fortune cookie at lunch today that said "A feather in the hand is better than a bird in the air."

Okay, that's just dumb. That's all.

So another guy said, wait a minute, maybe it's like if you have the feather in your hand, it means you used to have a bird. So I say, you mean like "better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?" Only in a 'glasshoppah' kind of a phrasing?

All that from a fortune cookie written by someone who doesn't speak English.

You see this all the time. Someone writes a book about a trip to the post office and the English teachers find metaphors of journeys into one's inner consciousness.

You see it in Barack Obama. The guy likes to golf. He doesn't like to work or think. So you get people saying "Did you see that?! Right there! Where he didn't do anything! That's brilliant. He's playing us."

What?! No, he's not.

Most recently you see it with Donald Trump. Donald Trump wants us to hire him to take on Putin and ISIS and Iran and all the bad guys in the world. But he pees his pants if Megyn Kelly asks him a question. Donald Trump is a blowhard.

But then people get on the radio and say it's a brilliant strategy and he knows exactly what he's doing . . . Some guy said that Megyn Kelly should recuse herself from the debates for the good of the country because it's that important that we see Donald Trump. And Trump says Fox isn't going to have any viewers without him.

I guess we'll see.

You know how this works. Christians are largely conservative and conservatives are largely Christian. And if you're a prominent conservative you'd do well to appeal to them.

So Rush Limbaugh was playing a clip where Trump quoted a scripture from "Two Corinthians . . . " and I, along with every other Christian in the audience, thought "Yeah, Second Corinthians, Trump hasn't opened a Bible since Bruce Willis had hair." It's fine. I understand, not everyone is scripturally literate, and I don't care how they exercise their own personal religious beliefs. It was just pretty obvious to anyone who'd ever spent three minutes in a Sunday school class.

Then Rush said "So Trump quoted Corinthians 3:17, uh, I mean Corinthians 2, 3:17 . . . " Yeah, see? Like Rush. He obviously doesn't know Corinthians from any other kind of leather upholstery.

Rush Limbaugh may well be a Christian, but he's not a religious man. Doesn't mean anything; doesn't mean Christians shouldn't listen to him or anything. Something I like about Rush is that he never claims to be. He is able to walk that balance beam.

Anyway . . .

The funny part was that the whole bit on Rush's show was—or turned into—the kerfuffle over Trump fumbling the scripture; trying to speak in a language he obviously was not familiar with. See, that's funny because . . . well, you know . . . pot calling the kettle . . .

It reminded me of Steve Martin with a pretty bad Italian accent in My Blue Heaven bagging on someone else's Italian accent ("Are you trying to say 'capiche?' 'Cause when you say it it hurts my ears.")

The funny thing was when Trump found himself in a hole he kept on digging. "Well, that's the way I've always said it [the one time that he did say it] That's the way my mother taught me to say it." Really? That's like a combover. The baldness isn't as shameful as your transparent efforts to cover it up.

There's 90 seconds of your life you'll never get back . . .

Bernie wants to be President.
Bernie thinks the President can just overturn SCOTUS decisions he doesn't like.
Bernie is a socialist idiot.

Don't be like Bernie.

I used to really look forward to Thursdays. That's when I got to read Ann's new column. Even after the 257th straight article on immigration I still found her insightful and making solid cases for things that you'd think were not viable. Even after she blindly supported Trump because he wants to get rid of Mexicans I still made it a habit of reading her column without fail.

I'll still read it when I get around to it, but the guy who's on top of things right now is Ben Shapiro, with things like this.

(Click on the link. Read it. It's good.)

What's there to say? It's always the same thing. No one needs me to analyze for them the disingenuous things they hear coming out of this guy's mouth. I should have written a commentary years ago and just re-posted it every year (like Ann Coulter does with her Kwanzaa article every Christmas).

So, you're looking and there's still more text down below, after I just said there's nothing to say . . .

Sorry.
:-/

I just can't stand that guy lecturing us. Really gets under my skin. Holy . . . I wish he were intelligent enough to appreciate the irony. "Those dirty worthless stinking Republicans are stupid and evil and I decree that they are hereby forever banned from ever participating in giving their opinion ever!"

Next sentence. "We have to change the tone in Washington and everyone needs to feel free to express their views."

It's like the fox standing outside the henhouse, blood dripping from his teeth "We must learn to get along with the hens!"

Then if you're Doug Wright you say "Bravo! You know, what the fox said is exactly true."

Okay, now I'm done. If you had the misfortune to listen to any of the drivel that fell out of that man's mouth you don't need me to portray the frustration of listening to a mentally ill maniac dictator.

So, just read what Michael Reagan had to say about it. He says it much better than I do.

This, children, is why we don't listen to KSL.

Back in the day KSL was the go-to station for Utahns. They represented the values and ideals of the residents of the state. Then . . . long story short, they became an ABC affiliate. The local people that work there are, for the most part, good God-fearing, non-communist, solid citizen types. For the most part. But they read the news that ABC hands them.

So this morning they had to read "Some of the states that oppose Obama the most actually benefited the most economically during his administration."

I'll give you a minute to think about that.

There are two ways that can be taken. The way they intended is "Those crazy conservatives. They whiz and moan about Obama's policies, but they are the biggest beneficiaries of those very policies! Pffft!"

So, let 's think about that.

I love this. I love this because it is a great demonstration how liberals twist around any fact to support their erroneous view. They always pervert the way things happen into the "You slammed your face right into my fist" angle.

So . . . back to thinking about it. What kind of ideology do states hold that oppose Obama (Praise-ed be His blessed name forever)?

Correct. Conservative.

So states who manage their affairs following a conservative Free Enterprise approach did better, during the same time that states did poorly who take the liberal/socialist approach that Obama advocates.

Liberalism always fails under scrutiny. Always.

Okay, one quick aside. States. No, never mind. I'll do a separate post.

Wow, can you get more fluid prose than right here? No, you cannot.

The greatest example of this ("this" being stating a fact that completely undermines your argument when you think it supports you) was, as you recall (because you read and memorize all of my epic posts) the time Glenn Beck had some legal expert on. Glenn was saying that one of the biggest problems in our health care system was all the malpractice suits that were always getting filed against doctors. The legal expert said that wasn't true. Glenn said, no, no that's a big problem with our system.

The guy said "Glenn, listen. Nineteen out of twenty malpractice suits that are filed are judged in favor of the doctors."

Glenn hemmed and hawed and said well, I . . . I guess I don't . . .well, maybe I'm wrong, I didn't know that statistic . . . moving on!

I was screaming at the radio. Screaming. Glenn! Did you hear what he just told you?! He just told you that 95% of the malpractice suits that are filed have no merit! They should never have been filed in the first place! Glenn! Wake up! He just gave you the greatest argument for your position that you could ever have!

Wow.

That's like sparring with a guy who drops his guard and rotates right into a southpaw stance inside you. Knock the sucker out.

Okay. Three guys walk into a buffet. They ask the host how much it is. The guy says it's $10 each. Cool. They each give him 10 bucks.

They get their food and go to the table. The manager asks the host how much he charged them. Host says $30. Manager says we're running a special today, 3 for $25. Gives their waiter five dollars to take back to them.

On the way to the table the waiter thinks, they can't split five dollars three ways. So he keeps $2 and gives them back $3.

Okay. So they each paid 10, but they each got back one, so they each paid 9 dollars. 9 x 3 is $27. Plus the two dollars the waiter kept. That's 29.

What happened to the other dollar?

They each did pay 9 dollars. And 9 x 3 is 27. But the $2 the waiter stole (he's probably a liberal and likely a Lakers fan) were part of what they paid. So you have to add the three dollars they got back, not the two they unwittingly paid to the waiter.

I love this, 'cause you can do the math all day and it comes out right . . . or wrong, since you're using the wrong numbers. The 2 dollar deal has nothing to do with anything, but you keep calculating it in. 9x3=27, then +2=29. Okay, how about we take the original 30 and subtract the 3, it still equals 27. Then add the 2 and it's still 29.

The math isn't broken, but you don't even stop to think about the 2 dollars. It just gets thrown out there and you accept it.

Like "Those dumb conservatives flourished in a time when states that supported Obama were struggling!" Oh . . . wait . . .

Remember I said that KSL used to be the go-to station for Utahns? Utah is a state.

What is a state? Where do you hear that word used? Think about it.

"Heads of state got together last week to . . ."

That's not governors of states. A state is a sovereign entity. Like the Greek nation-states. When you say something is a requirement of "the state" you don't mean like Virginia or Oklahoma or Ohio. You mean a sovereign government.

That's why we are the United States. The Articles of Confederation was just a loose confederation of separate "states," or sovereign entities. That was the original intent. But it turned out to be too loose. So The Constitution firmed it up, and now we think of states as more like provinces.

Before the War Between the States it was much more clear. People had more loyalty to their state than to the union that the states were a part of. In fact, that's why General Lee fought for the South. He had no particular taste for the cause, but his loyalty was to Virginia.

Today we see things a little differently. We are Americans first and then a resident of the state we happen to be in. Before the Civil War you were a Virginian--or whatever--first, and your state was part of a Union called the United States.

Here's my point . . . and not a moment too soon! The whole idea was that people congregated with people of like mind. If you wanted to marry your dog, you moved to Massachussets. If you liked guns and hunting you'd be more comfortable in Utah. You group with the state that has your viewpoint.

That's why the states that oppose the Beloved Dictator do better economically. Because we are sovereign entities and still have some control over our own policy.

That's what the whole 17th Amendment hullabaloo is all about.

So they captured Sean Penn's buddy El Chapo. Infamous drug lord.

Drug dealers are not nice people. They are, by definition, criminals. But try to get the people who live around where he lives to turn on him. You know they won't, because there are two kinds of people around drug dealers. Loyal protectors and dead people. Most people prefer not to be dead people.

But think about this, too. Drug lords (and other gangsters and mobsters) bring a lot of money into the community. They have obscene amounts of money, like crazy unimaginable amounts of money. Some of that gets spread around and actually benefits the community. Osama Bin Laden did this. He built schools and crap like that. So the people can justify him being there. Look, we keep our mouths shut and we get to stay alive, and we get all these other benefits. Maybe the guy built a water system for the region of Trashcanistan where one of his mansions is.

The price is that you do things his way. Every so often he has to kill someone who steps out of line. Or a few people. But you're thinking about this all wrong. Those people endangered his position, and the community benefits from his position. It's the greater good deal.

I'm not explaining this very well (I have a macro that types that in every post) but you get the idea. He decides what's best for the collective and they have no choice but to go along.

El Chapo is a liberal.

Remember when Algore and Bill Clinton (pardon my language) got caught cheating in the 1996 election. Algore said that it was okay, because "their message and mission was so important they had to do whatever it took to keep it going." Translation: the voters don't know what's best for them, so good thing we're here to tell them.

Obama is doing the same thing. His little doggy on a leash Loretta Lynch is taking steps to make sure their Republic-busting political machine can't be dismantled in case some non-corrupt person with an actual soul takes the office after him.

Again, horrible job of explaining, which is probably pretty traumatic for the two readers that will see this in the next twenty years. But the idea is: they know best. They've got a system and they will force it on us for out better good, because we think we know, but we're wrong.

Well, what if they're right? What if they really do have a better way?

Doesn't matter.

(Wow, this was so much more eloquent in my head.)

What if the Clintons and the Obamas are right and Americans are incapable of knowing what's good for themselves and their families? What if they really are smarter and have a better idea?

It's still wrong. It's wrong whether Obama is the dictator or Donald Trump. The whole deal with America is that a tiny group of people doesn't get to corner all the power for themselves and tell everybody else what to do.

What's that? You say the acronym is SOTU? Oh, my mistake. I figured since it was Obama, it was a STFU speech, like all his others.

Anyway, they keep saying his last State of the Union speech is tonight.

Not true. This won't be his last speech.

Today is January 12. Inauguration Day is, what? Next January 20th?

I know, I know, traditionally you allow the incoming President to give that speech. That's a gentleman's agreement. But Obama is not a gentleman. He's a crybaby. and a whiner. And a juvenile celebrity. And a poopy caca. And probably a closet Lakers fan.

Most Presidents do let the successor give the speech. Even Clinton (pardon my language), who is as sleazy as any humanoid shaped pile of protoplasm can be, ceded to the next guy. But Carter didn't. And Obama is just Carter without the old man sweater.

Obama is going to give one last "Blame Bush" speech before he leaves. Especially if a Republican wins. Bet on it. Well, don't bet on it if Hillary wins. It's only 50% likely then. But I'll give you 20:1 that he will if a Republican succeeds him. Watch and see.

I still don't think Trump will be the nominee. I have a lot to say about the Trump phenomenon, but honestly it's nothing everybody else isn't already saying better.

But I will say this:

Obama gave us Donald Trump.

A socialist dictator who wants to squash any speech he doesn't like gave us a loudmouth who says whatever he thinks at the moment whether it's true or not or how offensive it is.

In the same way labor unions were a response to oppressive employers the Trump candidacy is a direct response to a dictatorial Obama Presidency.

I have spoken.

So, Obama just started implementing his plot to take away everybody's guns. How do I know it's a plot to take away everybody's guns? He told us himself!

Whenever Obama says something, you can bet the farm, the house cat, and your last can of WD40 that he's wrong.

So that happened.

Then . . . and maybe this isn't fair, to judge a whole party by one insignificant blowhard that nobody has ever heard of . . . Martin "Nobody" O'Malley came out in support of Obama's shenanigans.

Then he said "Cruz [someone who actually has a chance of being in a general election] actually says that the answer to gun violence is more guns. Senator, the answer to cancer is not more cancer, the answer to poverty is not more poverty, and the answer to gun violence isn't more guns."

I'll let you finish screaming . . .

First of all, that's just stupid. Just plain stoooo-pid. Just meaningless words falling out of some cretin's mouth.

Now, not only are guns not the cancer (you moron), "gun violence" is not "guns" any more than a marine biologist is a Marine (you moron). Seriously.

Let's think about this . . . you know, on an intellectual level. Even though I really like calling mindless nimrods dumb and stupid (and jackasses and nincompoops and poopy cacas). Whatsisname, you know, that Martin "Polling at less than 1%" O'Malley dipschlack, seems to think that gun violence is caused by guns. Did I mention that he's stupid? But let's just say for a minute that it is. (Next topic, we'll investigate how to harvest the green cheese from the moon.)

What do you propose we do about that? Shall we get rid of guns? Shall we make it illegal to own guns? Great idea! Then people who want to kill people won't dare own a gun, because that's against the law, and you know how murderers respect the law. Maybe Moron O'Malley has a magic flashy thingy that will make humanity lose the ability to formulate explosive chemistry that can accelerate a projectile down a tube.

And as long as we're talking about tubes, you can't get the toothpaste back in that one.

Guns are here. That technology is not going away. It's just like idiot democrats. No matter how much you wish they didn't exist, that's a messiness you just have to deal with.

So now it becomes a question of who has guns.

Gun violence is not caused by someone having a gun. Gun violence is caused by one person having a gun when no one else does. Imbalance. If you walk into a theater to shoot people and the people kill you instead, your plan didn't work. In fact, if you know there's a pretty good chance that a fair number of people in that theater have guns, you don't even plan to walk in there and shoot things up. The only way you do that is if there's an imbalance, and the way there's an imbalance is if you have a gun and other people don't.

So—and I don't expect idiots like Martini-brain O'Malley to understand this—Ted Cruz is exactly right. The answer to gun violence is in fact more guns.

You moron.

Gun violence may well be a cancer. But gun violence is very different from guns. Does he think . . . oh, the answer to that is no . . . but if he did think, would he think that we need to ban drinking water whenever someone drowns in a flood? Moron. Or not allow doctors to use sharp instruments because people get killed by knives? Idiot.

I'm starting to really like Ben Shapiro. Now that I can predict what Ann Coulter is going to say, after her 196th straight column on immigration, I may have to move on and hero worship him instead.

Read this great article of his about how Obama's fake tears make everything okay because he can't be a tyrant if he has emotions.

Hillary Clinton is counting on the fact that most of the people who are going to vote for her have no memory of when her he-whore husband was President. I remember.

At the outset let me state—again—that the worst crime Bill Clinton (pardon my language) committed against my country was not sexually assaulting a young intern. That tells you how bad his crimes against my country were, because sexually assaulting a young intern in the Oval Office is pretty bad.

Back when that happened the demorats were saying "You're thinking about this too simplistically, like just dismissing all sex in the Oval Office as bad out of hand. It's much more complicated than that."

Some Republicans were getting caught up in the game. "Oh, no, it's not having sex in the Oval Office that we object to. It's a matter of trust . . . or something."

I didn't play that game. Hey, I'll straight up tell you, yeah, I have a problem with the President of the United States sexually assaulting interns his daughter's age in the Oval Office.

But the point is, that the demorats were saying that we had a simple-minded approach. Black and white. You can't just say all sexual assault on young girls is bad. That's too simplistic.

Then Jean Ke-RREEE when he was running for President, again brought up the art of nuance. His position on everything was wrong, so he had to play the game of well, maybe defending ourselves against bad guys isn't always the right thing to do. He and his people made a campaign of trying to paint Republicans as not being able to think in "nuance."

What does that tell you? Say it with me. That's exactly what they are guilty of.

Sorry, this went a whaleuva lot longer than I expected. The point is that 2+2 does not equal 4 when it's convenient for them, but they have no problem making simplistic statements that appeal to people who don't think. Sex is not sex, that's too simple. But "Gun violence cannot be cured by more guns!" It's that simple.

I think Obama is an idiot. I haven't seen him do one thing to support the idea that he's smart.

Some people disagree. They try to say that he's smart. Even when he does stupid things, he's so super smart that us mere mortals just can't understand him, he's that smart. See the above post on nuances. Oh, but no, see it's much more complicated than it appears. You've got a group of terrorists in the Middle East, only someone who thinks simplistically would think they need to be stopped.

You know why they do that. They voted for the guy. They voted for the guy for reasons having nothing to do with his ability to do the job, but now that he's in they look pretty stupid if he looks stupid. So if he's for socialism, they're all for socialisms. Or gun control or gunning down cops or whatever. They get pulled into supporting the idiot's policies because they have to support the idiot. "Sure, of course, I support that. I voted for the guy, didn't I?"

Okay. My point: You can debate about whether Obama is smart. But there is not a single person who can believe he is wise.

Read this.

And, I'm really liking John Hawkins. He's not afraid to tell it like it is.

Read this article listing the 20 most annoying liberals of 2015.

Then read this listicle of 20 ways to tell if you might be a liberal.

Did Hillary give any thought at all to this? "ISIS is using videos of Donald Trump to recruit!"

Wow. Really? How do you know that? That's interesting that she has such insight into what's going on in the inner halls of Isis. Maybe her strategy is to make us thing that's a trait that could come in handy as a President!

But whatever her deal is, that old bitty really seems to have a thing with Islamic terrorists and their video motivations.