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

Just messin' witchoo
8.26.16

I was fiddling around in the 7.05.16 post correcting a typo and figured I'd post an update on my brilliant, insightful analysis of that topic. That topic was Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch just before the FBI "cleared" Hillary of any prosecutable wrongdoing in her e-mail scandal.

I wondered why in the world he would take that risk of looking like he was influencing an investigation when the outcome was certain anyway?

Well, maybe that's why. Maybe he did it because he knew she would never be indicted but he wanted to look like he was doing something sleazy, something that nobody could possible prove, just to make us scream "Scandal!" He's learned that the best way to get away with anything is to have the Republicans come after him. After 25 years of dealing with these people we still haven't figured it out.

In this column about karma for the Clintons David Limbaugh mentions that idea. "In a sense, the Clintons have benefited from the plethora of charges leveled against them over the years."

It's true. I've explained that as immunity through absurdity. (I think there's a better term out there for that, which I read, committed to memory, and immediately forgot.) The way to get away with something is to make it seem so outrageous that nobody will believe the allegations.

They mentioned a variation of that trick on Blue Bloods. They called it "Bunny ears." If the cops were having trouble getting a confession out of a suspect they would leave the room and come back wearing bunny ears. Then they'd beat the confession out of him. Then when the suspect got on the stand he'd say "A cop wearing bunny ears beat me up," and no one would believe a word he said.

The crazier the Clintons act the whackier we look when we talk about it.

So Clinton had to know how bad it looked. He certainly knew, and maybe that was the whole point. I like the connection Limbaugh made with other Clinton linguistics.

When asked whether there is at least an appearance of impropriety, he said, "I'm not responsible for anybody else's perception." . . . He's unctuously transitioned from "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" to "I can't be held accountable for your accurate perception that my wife and I are wholly corrupt . . ."

Then he talked about what I'm talking about.

When I first heard about the foundation's influence peddling, I had little doubt there was truth to it, but I had no expectation that anything would come of it. In a sense, the Clintons have benefited from the plethora of charges leveled against them over the years. After a while, these allegations -- no matter how credible -- become just noise and are easily characterized as another chapter in a decades-long partisan witch hunt.

Remember the spin matrix?

Hillary is evil and corrupt and crooked and . . . not enough room for all the adjectives, but she falls squarely in the lower right-hand corner of the matrix. Her trick is to transport herself into the quadrant above and appear the maligned victim.

So Clinton met with Lynch just to make us look like idiots screaming that he was threatening or bribing her. They probably really did talk about golf and grandkids.

I kinda' bought into this back in the 90s when the Internet was young. I probably still have a binder of stuff I printed off about it (Oh, great. Now I'm going to disappear.).

But I don't know if I believe that now (please bless that Hillary's goons read this far).

I remember seeing it on Snopes—I didn't look it up, just came across it. That's not something Snopes could really address. It's not a fact you can verify or refute. That's like asking them if the movie Hoff was accurate about where Jimmy Hoffa's body is. Their view on the Clinton body count was, "Well, everybody knows a lot of people who have died." Yeah, but that's a lot of people. "Well, the Clintons just know an awful lot of people." Yeah, but under such circumstances?

The point is I don't know if the Clintons have killed people. I'm inclined to think they haven't. I certainly hope they haven't; I hope I can retain my naïve ideas about America and the people who live here. I'm not certain they haven't, but . . . well, I can go on forever alternating between telling you I don't know if they have or haven't. You get the idea.

The point is, we look silly when we bring it up.

Which doesn't prevent me from bringing it up. The memes about this are hilarious, and I "like" them every time I see them. (That expression you get when you reveal a Clinton scandal) In a sense they take the sting out of it—make it seem more like a joke that no one is taking seriously. I view them as silly and I like them on that level.

I'm just saying that we shouldn't go there. We look like crazies and it helps the Clintons. If it's not true then we look like gullible conspiracy whack jobs. But what if it is true? Does it help us? Not a bit. Even if every crazy deal on the body count is true that's not going to bring one single voter over to our side, but it will scare some away from us.

Okay. So don't go there. But what about the other corruption?

Bill and Hillary are insanely corrupt. Just . . . well, you know. If you don't, I can't help you. They are as sleazy and slimy and grubby as you can possibly get.

So go there, right?

No.

Have we not learned anything? They are beating us up wearing bunny ears. They are obviously and blatantly corrupt, but every single time we go after them, they win. Don't go there, either.

That's my advice to you. I'm going to go there all the time. It's fun. It's entertaining. It's low hanging fruit. Seriously, this is southern cops in silly movies breaking tail lights kind of material. I'm going there all day long.

I'm just saying . . . it's not helpful. It doesn't hurt them and we look like crazies.

You do. Nobody sees me. So I can do it.

So you get from really evil (body count) to evil (Clinton corruption—their scandals will be next to their name throughout all history . . . unless Clinton wins and kills everyone and purges the record. Then it will just be a picture of her in a third world country general's uniform.). Then you get to just bad. Hillary is just a despicable human being.

I'm talking about how insufferably annoying she is. Screeching. Yelling. Out of control temper. Just a horrible person.

So leave alone the whacked out body count. Leave alone the corruption. But what about her awful, horrible, insufferable personality.

Leave it alone, too.

(You guessed it. I'm not going to. Way too much comedy gold there. But I advise you to leave it alone. Not helpful.)

Finally . . . moving along the continuum from grisly appallingly evil to criminally evil to just bad. What's left?

Wrong.

My point (and not a moment too soon!) is that we don't need to go further into the evil that is the Clintons than "wrong." There is more material in Clinton's bad and misguided policy than we can ever exhaust. There is no need to wander into territory that can't do us any good. (You. Not me. I'm waving to you from deep within that territory) When there is so much ripe material for the picking in her horrible policies, why would you (you—not me) wander into those dangerous fields with so much left to harvest here?

You know what I'm talking about (you quit reading five minutes ago (imaginary reader)). She is just plain wrong on almost every position. She thinks it's a good idea to force businesses to offer profit sharing. Okay, let's say it's a great idea for businesses to do that. Let's say it's almost essential. It is none of the government's freaking business! Just appalling that she would even bring it up, and even more horrifying that anyone in the audience cheered the line.

She blasted Trump for talking about getting rid of the death tax. She said it was a bad thing to quit stealing money from the families of dead people. Well, you know her record on families of dead people. But what made blood shoot out of your eyeballs is when she said we could use that money. She said we could use it (the stolen money) to pay off every student loan in that state.

If you didn't just scream take a minute to think about that. Someone borrowed money and promised to give it back. Hillary proposes that the government use money stolen from dead people to pay off commitments others have made. She said that. And people cheered.

Barring a miracle of Biblical proportions, Hillary is going to be the next President. We are so completely screwed.

Okay, here's the deal on the body count. This is why it makes us look silly.

First, it's likely mostly fake, which makes us look like idiots for believing it. It's certainly exaggerated. It's like the whacked out liberals at snopes say. Yeah, they know a lot of people, and some of them are going to die. The ones that really did die that really were Clinton associates could fall into that category.

What about the really bizarre circumstances under which they died?

I'm betting that a lot of that is made up. I'm not talking about Vince Foster and McDougal and those (although sinister elements of those could be made up). I'm talking about Harry P. Rockechester who never existed and someone made up a story about the one-car accident on the dark road the day before he was going to meet with a prosecutor.

Others are just twisted all out of shape. Yeah, this guy did live and he did die, but he was 103 years old and died in his bed and wasn't really pushed off a building in Little Rock (or stumbled around in the Serbian jungle after a plane crash and was found with a bullet hole in his head).

You read stuff and you're conditioned to believe it. It sticks in your head. Wow, that's pretty shady circumstances! Yeah, it would be, except it didn't happen that way.

I'm blessed to work with a crazy conspiracy theorist. That makes me hear everything in a different way than I normally would. I've heard him tell stories I was personally involved in and he gets all of the facts wrong.

Let me give you an example of the things I hear. Let's say someone tells you his sister had her leukemia cured by a chiropractor with magnets. Wow. That's amazing. And it's true, he does have a sister who did get magnet treatments from a chiropractor and she is leukemia free. Wow. So, the bone marrow biopsy showed leukemia but she chose not to do the chemo treatment the doctor recommended? Oh, no. The doctor never admitted she had leukemia.

What?

I wish I were smart enough to make this stuff up.

She went to the doctor sure that she had leukemia. For some reason the doctor wouldn't give her a diagnosis of leukemia. She went to a chiropractor and today she is leukemia free!

If I were smart (or had an internet connection) I would know the name of the category this kind of delusion falls into. The same person that told me that story sent me an e-mail about Obama saying he'd never met Rod Blagojevich. The e-mail had several pictures of Obama and Blagojevich together. Geez! That dirty rotten lying sack of . . . right there is photographic evidence that he's met them man multiple times!

It's absolutely true that they did meet (she really is cancer free!) but he never said any different. Just like his grandmother never said he was born in Kenya.

Honestly, this is not isolated. Another guy told me he had been struggling with either MD or MS for years. I felt really bad for the guy. asked how it was that the doctors couldn't narrow down the diagnosis. He say "Awww! Those darn doctors won't admit that I have it." He said that.

Over the last year I've had to travel back from the big city late at night many times. George Norry is what's on the radio that time of night. People make crap up. It's a blessing that I know that. Things fall out of peoples' mouths that have absolutely no basis in reality. None. Like I said, we are conditioned to accept; to think that there must be some basis or the person wouldn't say it. Nope. Not the case. People just say stuff that is not true.

What's that? Yep. I'm going to talk about Larry Nichols.

Larry Nichols was some bodyguard or hired hitman or something for the Clintons. Look it up, I don't care enough to do it. He's also a crazy insane person and a liar. If the Clintons are smart they are paying him to say the crap he is saying. 'Cause after hearing him talk about the ridiculous things he says the Clintons have done, you will doubt that she's ever returned a library book late. Ludicrous doesn't begin to cover what he says.

Okay, I can believe the Clintons would have people killed. I don't know that, I don't even really think that. But I could believe that. What I can't believe is what Larry Nichols says, that the first time he met Hillary she was wearing a lanyard with her credentials as a member of the communist party. Just beyond ludicrous.

And she had BO and her legs were hairy and she was wearing a mu-mu, at a state dinner—'cause you know how those mu-mus show off your legs. He said that. Just completely ridiculous. George Norry crap. I seriously can't capture the texture of him narrating how he approached and saw the lanyard and got closer and it was a membership card for the communist party. Wow. I'm not going to soil my sacrosanct blog by linking to the YouTube video.

Why are people on our side so stupid? So freaking stupid. Are they liberal plants just trying to make us look like idiots?

Okay, one more (since you, dear imaginary reader, quit reading long ago.)

Someone told me the story about how he was hunting and got out of breath and thought he was going to die. He somehow made it off the mountain and it turns out he had 85% blockage of the arteries around his heart. He started taking some magical network marketing juice, and a few months later the blockage was down to less than 10%.

That's really cool. I was interested in the kind of test the doctor used to determine the blockage—because most doctors admit you for a stint or bypass after they find something like that. Oh, he didn't go to a doctor. He determined that himself. I am not making this up. He somehow, without any medical equipment, measured the percentage of blockage around his heart.

Maybe I'm the crazy one here. Maybe there's some sort of test where you take your pulse and run and take your pulse and time the recovery, or stand facing the Mayo Clinic and look at the moon, or some reliable test to determine that at home. I don't know. I'm just sayin' . . .

This is the same guy who's grandfather avoided a replacement knee by eating pigs feet. And he's the one who went to someone who was selling a different network marketing juice, and they hooked him up to a fancy test machine they had, and who knew! He was suffering from the exact condition their expensive juice would cure! And he bought in.

I am not kidding.

And he's the same one who says I'm naïve because I don't believe the e-mails from random people about the CFR plotting to build concentration camps for American citizens.

Oh—one more (having no readers is so liberating).

"I don't know if you've heard . . . " Whenever he starts out you find something to hang onto. He showed up one Monday morning "You won't believe what your government is planning for you!"

He ran into some gal at church that he hadn't seen in a long time, how you doing? Great. How's your husband? Doing good. Is he still doing welding? Yep. What's he working on? Oh, right now he's got a job welding shackles in rail cars.

The government is going to chain us all in rail cars and haul us to concentration camps!

Again. Not making this up.

Shackles, as you know, are the rings in rail cars and in trucks and I imagine on boats, that you chain load locks to.

(I'm going to feel pretty silly when I'm chained to the wall of a boxcar. 'Course, my conspiracy theory buddy, with all his foreknowledge, will be chained to the wall right across from me.)

The difference between fact and fiction is that fiction is believable.

You remember, dear imaginary reader, the reasons someone would not do something evil. I explained this in the context of demorats committing voter fraud.

1. They are morally above doing it.
2. They are morally low enough but not physically capable of doing it
3. They are depraved enough and capable, but do not want to get caught

It's mind, body, spirit—or in this case, spirit, body, mind. And it does go in that order. Usually the reason people don't do bad things is because they are good and the things are bad. But someone can be bad and just doesn't have the ability to do the bad thing. That's the level that the gun control people work on. Don't let the bad guys get the tools to do what they want to.

And finally, to complete the deal, if you are willing and able your mind may prevent you because you don't want the consequences that will come if you get caught.

I honestly don't know if the Clintons are evil enough to kill people. They are very, very evil. They are certainly corrupt. But I honestly don't know if they . . . who cares? Ask snopes. Are the Clintons evil enough to have people killed?

They certainly have the money and the shady connections to get it done. But it's not that simple. Bill is a fairly skilled political operative. But is he skilled enough to maneuver in that world without the consequences of number three, getting caught? So far he's gotten away with a lot of stuff, but the fact that he's never been proven to have killed someone doesn't mean he has done it and has skillfully avoided getting caught. If no one has proven you've killed someone that could also be because you never have.

I don't know . . . the Clintons are horrifyingly evil, but I honestly don't know if they could consistently work through all three of those levels.

Again, the point of all these ramblings today is this—what matters is how stupid we look pursuing it.

The conspiracy guy I was telling you about told this great story about someone who knew about Monica Lewinsky before the story broke, and someone else, I'm not clear on who, was trying to get the name out of him. "Tell me the name of the intern that's having sex with the President." No, I won't tell you. Tell me. No, I won't. C'mon, just tell me. I will not tell you. Just tell me, why won't you tell me?

Okay, I won't tell you her name, but her first initial is "M."

That's your Larry Nichols moment. That's your carrying your communist party credentials deal. 'Cause, you know, adults who know incriminating secrets about government officials always play school yard games telling initials of people.

So in the next week five White House interns whose names started with M were murdered. That's the coffee shop story, where all the employees were murdered but everyone was shot once except the White House intern, and she was shot five times or something. It's all made up, so insert whatever numbers you want.

Again, I can believe five people got murdered in a coverup—it's a stretch, but I'll accept that. But somebody saying "Okay, okay! I'll tell you the initial of her first name!"

That's just stupid.

Note: If you diligently plow through all of this crap you'll be rewarded by a brilliant analogy at the end of the next post down. Without spoilers let me mention that it also mentions head shots to bad guys.

I have never held my nose to vote for a candidate. People said they were going to do that with McCain. I didn’t feel that way. Even though his campaign didn’t ever deliver on the promise of what was a great speech at the convention, my vote for McCain was not as the least of two evils.

And I’m still furious over those, best represented by Glenn Beck, who characterized Romney as barely the least of two evils. Just this morning he was explaining again how bad Romney was. Romney. The best candidate we’ve had since Reagan.

Understand that before the 2012 election Glenn Beck actually apologized for being so hard on Romney earlier, and said that he had been wrong and had realized what a phenomenal candidate he was. That’s why I think that part of what Beck is saying now may be the revisionist deal I’ve flapped my gums endlessly about. The day after the election the very same "experts" who were telling us that Romney could not possibly lose given his strengths and the mess Obama had made, were explaining to us why Romney lost and why he was such a weak candidate.

You know the deal—it’s against the rules to even state why Romney lost the election. So we—check that! They—keep finding ridiculous alternate explanations for what happened.

Anyway . . . point is, if I vote for Trump it will be the first time every I’ve had to hold my nose to vote for a candidate. And I may have to, even in Utah. In 1992 I proudly voted for Ross Perot, the man whose candidacy gave us Bill Clinton (pardon my language). I’m proud because I was able to vote my conscience, and my vote helped Clinton (pardon my language) come in third place in Utah. I may not have that option even in Utah this time. Trump is so awful that Republicans with a conscience are looking for an alternative, which is why Hillary sees Utah as in play (I have to throw up now).

It’s a logarithmic Richter scale thing—if Trump is a 5.0 for awful then Hillary is a 7.0. That makes her 100X as bad as he is.

Speaking of math, that’s what this post is about. It’s simple math. You have two and only two viable candidates. One of them will win based on the votes of a fixed number of voters. It’s simple math.

This whole post is just because I found an old (old!) note about an article that I don't think I've ever posted. So this post is four such articles making a very good case of why you should vote for Trump.

I actually thought that I did post this one, but I couldn't find it in the thirteen seconds I allocated to look for it. Kurt Schlichter tells us why we need to suck it up and vote for Trump.

Donald Trump is a vulgar clown posing as a conservative, unmoored to any coherent ideology. He has generated unprecedented opposition and the contempt of people across the political spectrum. He is unbound to any principle other than his own appetite for adulation. And those very factors that make him so appalling also make him America’s only hope.

The rise of the radical left (brilliantly orchestrated by running an inept radical candidate that everyone had to vote for, for reasons having nothing to do with his suitability for the job) is what caused the rise of an insurgency in the form of Donald Trump. (Well, the rise of the radical left compounded by the inability of the wimps in the RNC to effectively combat their lunacy).

Kurt Schlichter (who is quickly becoming one of my favorites (filling the vacuum left by Ann Coulter’s spiral into insanity)) nails it in describing that the things that make Trump so despicable are the very things that make him so appealing.

So the radical left is why we have a Trump, but the paradox is that having a Trump guarantees the perpetuation of the radical left. Donald Trump may be the only person in America who could lose an election to Hillary Clinton.

If I went to the trouble of sprinkling excerpts of salient points in giant colored font throughout this article, that would be one.

Donald Trump may be the only person in America who could lose an election to Hillary Clinton.

The mathematics of this thing (Not to be confused with arithmetic—the logical layout and architecture of this) are extremely interesting. A causes B which supports A. A positive feedback control loop.

The next column is Dennis Prager explaining basically the same thing, but in a more Dennis Prageresque (and somewhat less Curt Schlichterish) way.

Next, Mark Davis tells us It is a time for choosing.

And finally, somebody I've never heard of lays out this fairly extensive case for why voting for Donald Trump is the morally good choice.

I'll repeat what I heard on the Glenn Beck show when a rabbi was talking about voting for Trump because of the simple mathematics of the race. Pat said "What about voting your conscience?"

Response: "That is my conscience."

Brilliant. My conscience compels me to make the best choice in a real world of hard choices as opposed to a futile gesture of principle.

As long as I’m bashing on my good friend Glenn Beck, I'll get into more of the futility of gestures of Principle in a real world. In Beck's defense he has said over and over again that he’s just saying how he feels and he doesn’t condemn anyone for holding the other position—voting for Trump to keep Hillary out. (He just cuts them off.)

A teacher asked the kids in her class "If you have three sheep in a field and one gets out through the fence, how many sheep are left in the field?" Little Johnny said none were left in the field. The teacher said "Johnny, you don't know your math."

Johnny replied "All due respect, Teacher, you don’t know your sheep."

If you have two parties, and you split one of them in two, how many parties do you have?

One.

You split the Republican party and you are left with an unopposed democrat party. That's just the way it works.

Here’s how a third-party candidate works:

It’s like having a couple of whacked out Islamic terrorists up against a couple of hundred unarmed citizens. If enough citizens charge they can easily overpower the terrorists.

But nobody will charge. That’s because each individual knows that even if he charges, none of the rest of the crowd will, and nobody wants to get wasted for nothing.

That’s how a third-party candidate works.

Of course that analogy only works in blue states. In red states the story ends with 20 concealed carry holders arguing about who got in the head shots.

You remember about a hundred news cycles ago (8.09.16) when Trump stepped in it with his “joke” about Second Amendment people taking care of Hillary.

"If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Hillary and her little minions were quick to start screaming that Trump called for Hillary’s assassination.

That’s absolutely absurd.

The Trump people (including my former girlfriend Ann Coulter) claim that he was talking about the power of the vote to prevent justices from tampering with the Second Amendment.

That’s absolutely absurd, too.

Stuff falls out of Donald Trump’s mouth. Do you know how dumb you seem when you try to analyze it? “Trump’s strategy was to . . .”

Oh, bullcrap. Trump has no strategy. Trump is that loud mouth in the lunch room that’s always trying to be funny and pops off without thinking. Clearly he was making a horrifically thoughtless joke about gun owners shooting Hillary, but he wasn’t calling on them to do it.

Side note: the more disquieting part of this that gets glossed over is the way Trump referred to “them” as this remote group that he has no part of. No surprise. Nobody believes that Trump is a Republican.

Anyway, Rolling Stone (God forgive me for linking to that collection of craziness in this sacrosanct blog) said that Omigosh, Trump’s dog whistle call for Hillary’s assassination is even scarier than you thought!”

Stochastic terrorism . . . means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."

Predicting any one particular individual following his call to use violence against Clinton or her judges is statistically impossible. But we canpredict that there could be a presently unknown lone wolf who hears his call and takes action in the future.

Stated differently: Trump puts out the dog whistle knowing that some dog will hear it, even though he doesn't know which dog.

Take out the specific references to Trump knowing (give me a break!) the effect of his “call for her assassination” and I totally agree with the concept. You’ve heard me flap my gums about that concept. You know, the tweak here and there, the effect of a car slamming on its brakes on cars a half mile back. It’s like a hobby of mine. Bayesian algorithms. Statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. That’s how elections are won, just a little tweak in the right region. Like a swing—a tiny bit of energy with the legs at just the right time and pretty quick you’ve got all this energy in a pendulum.

Okay, so for the purposes of this argument let’s accept wholeheartedly the premise (including the ridiculous, absurd, stooooopid proposition that it was a conscious tactic on the part of Trump). The piece goes on to present a gameplan outlined by somebody named Valerie Tarico (who undoubtedly plagiarized it from Michelle Obama).

1. A public figure with access to the airwaves or pulpit demonizes a person or group of persons.
2. With repetition, the targeted person or group is gradually dehumanized, depicted as loathsome and dangerous—arousing a combustible combination of fear and moral disgust.
3. Violent images and metaphors, jokes about violence, analogies to past 'purges' against reviled groups, use of righteous religious language—all of these typically stop just short of an explicit call to arms.
4. When violence erupts, the public figures who have incited the violence condemn it—claiming no one could possibly have foreseen the 'tragedy.'

Who does that sound like?

If you answered Barack Obama you are correct! Barack Freaking Obama.

I’ll stipulate that Trump set off a dog whistle for crazies that one time (but I will never concede to the absurdity that it was conscious). That on the condition that you’ll apply this concept you taught us to the hundreds of times your boyfriend Barack Obama has done the exact same thing!

Barack Obama is directly responsible for the murder of multiple police officers. His long history of comments about how abusive the police are and his support of groups who call for violence against police . . . does that not exactly fit the game plan that Rolling Stone columnist describes?

Oh! Oh! And to continue in the same vein with regards to stuff that falls out of Trump’s mouth, by Rolling Stone’s argument Barack Obama is the founder of ISIS.

I’m soooo long-winded. I apologize. Let’s try this:

Someone from Rolling Stone posted a piece explaining how dangerous what he called Donald Trump’s “dog whistle” call for the assassination of Hillary was. He explained the effects of repetitively demonizing a person or group of people then condemning the violence he causes.

You’ll recognize this as exactly what Barack Obama has done which has resulted in the continuous stories about violence against police officers.

The end.

You heard about the “charitable contributions” the Clintons claimed on their tax returns. Something like 94% of it was money they gave to themselves.

Just . . . I can’t even . . .

You remember me flapping my gums about how ridiculous it was for Obama to talk about the requirements of a potential President. He said Trump is "unfit," which I actually agree with, but for Obama to say it is like a gopher bloviating about a chicken not being able to fly.

(Dude, I'm all " . . . gopher bloviating about a chicken not being able to fly . . . ")

Maybe there is something to this 140-character culture. Nobody read what I said because it was long and boring … oh, and hidden in this blog. But Mike Spence nailed it in a … whatchamacallit … tweety dealy.

"Trump “unfit?” Obama entered office without any successful executive experience. Eight years later, he’ll leave it the same way."

The Obama administration paid $400 million in ransom to Iran for the release of four hostages Iran never should have had.

Of course, some uptight people got all upset when they found out just because it was against the law and dangerous to all Americans traveling abroad and a blatant violation of US policy going back 240 years.

So the President held a press conference Thursday where he said he had announced the whole thing back in the January—told everybody exactly what was happening. He made it sound like Josh Earnest had spelled it all out in a press briefing.

"Some of you may recall, [sounds like me and my imaginary reader] we announced these payments in January, many months ago," the president said at a news conference at the Pentagon. "There wasn't a secret; we announced them to all of you. [White House Press Secretary] Josh [Earnest] did a briefing on them."

The entire press conference was a ridiculous lie beginning to end, but I thought it was weird that Obama would tell such a verifiable lie. Not unusual, but weird. So I looked for the White House briefing where that happened. And looked. And looked. And looked. And never found it.

Because it didn’t happen.

Okay, I know that not finding something is not evidence it’s not there, but I think we can be sure of one thing: It didn’t happen. You know it didn’t happen because Obama said it did

But I did finally find what he made reference to.

Obama’s “announcement” was a sentence in this incredibly long, incredibly boring statement that vaguely spoke about money. It could have meant anything, but he did say money and Iran in the same sentence. So there you have it.

This has shades of his “declaring unequivocally” that the Benghazi attack was terrorism on the day after (and then declaring for two weeks that it was because of a video). “If you look closely early in the speech there is a ‘T,’ then two sentences later there is an ‘ER,’ and then an ‘R’ in the next paragraph, and an ‘OR’ later in the speech. It’s right there in the speech!”

This was going to be a quick post pointing out what a ridiculous liar the Presidebt is . . . and then it became … something else. A long, boring post like you expect (faithful imaginary reader).

I know there has to be a name for this: A scenario with two starkly contrasting explanations that both exactly fit the observed scenario.

Thirty years ago I framed the concept as a man standing over a body holding a bloody knife. He says that he found the man stabbed and was trying to help. Which is exactly what he would say if he had stabbed the man.

So Barack Obama paid $400 million in ransom money to terrorists, in blatant violation of US law and policy. Then he explains it away with a ridiculous lie. Actually, a confusing series of ridiculous lies. And blasting anyone who thinks something nefarious happened as seeing ghosts.

What if he was actually trying to help the stabbing victim?

If I really am a victim of FOXNews and my deeply seated racial hatred, am I going to be able to accept an honest explanation? Wouldn't I be the paranoid conspiracy theorist doubting it was a complete coincidence that it happened the same day the hostages were released? Am I going to be open to why cash, and why a mix of foreign currency, and why pallets flown in secret in the middle of the night?

Or maybe all of that cloak and dagger stuff is a lie, and I really am a victim of an information machine that is dedicated to stopping the paragon of virtue Barack H. Obama. How would I know?

The people who believed every word of the press conference are as certain in their views as I am in mine.

What if Barack Obama really is the Second Coming of the Messiah? There were people back in the day who didn't recognize the first coming.