web analytics

There sure are a lot of unlikely suspects facepalming over Trump’s irresponsible bullshit:

Radio host Hugh Hewitt sparred with Donald Trump on his radio program Thursday morning, pressing the Republican presidential nominee on his claim that President Barack Obama was “the founder of ISIS.”

“Last night you said the president was the founder of ISIS,” Hewitt said. “I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.”

“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” Trump replied. “I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Hewitt pressed Trump, explaining that Obama has not been “sympathetic” to the terrorist organization, “hates them,” and is “trying to kill them.”

“I don’t care,” Trump said. “He was the founder. His – the way he got out of Iraq was that – that was the founding of ISIS, OK?”…

An exasperated Hewitt responded by saying he’d “just use different language to communicate” the message.


Even perennial champion of “both sides do it” journalism Ron Fournier has had enough.

I’m not a mind reader, so I don’t know what Trump meant to suggest when he said, “maybe there is” something Second Amendment supporters can do to prevent Clinton from picking judges.

But it almost doesn’t matter what Trump meant to say, because of the truth in this maxim about leadership: What you say isn’t nearly as important as what people hear you say.

What did people hear?…  They heard Trump say there is nothing a gun-rights advocate can do to stop her from appointing liberal judges.  They heard him say, wait—maybe there is something you can do…

If Trump meant to incite violence, he should be in jail. If this was an accident—if Trump doesn’t understand the danger he loaded into his language; if he doesn’t know how to measure his words—he should not be president.

(Yes, he did throw in a weak bit about a vaguely similar incident in the 2008 election but even he granted that it wasn’t a very apt.)


I don’t really have much interest in relitigating the record of Henry Kissinger–even his defenders can’t really deny that he enabled any number of military coups, civilian deaths as well as the odd genocide, they just defend him in convoluted ways that I usually cannot follow–but you really do have to ask yourself what precisely is the human rights content of liberal hawkishness/”humanitarian” intervention if its main standard-bearer so intently desires to connect herself to 20th Century America’s greatest opponent of human rights in foreign policy. I mean, you can certainly argue Truman was worse because of the bomb, and obviously the buck stopped with Nixon on what Kissinger did, but nevertheless. You read this and you realize that maybe Clinton is the one who truly will bring down the Washington power structure by simply applying their worst, most closely held ideas without restraint or wisdom.

{ 1 comment }
Lev filed this under: ,  

I don’t 100% agree with all the analysis here (the comparison of likes to dislikes begs for a baseline comparison), but it makes a pretty strong case that garbage corporation Sony hoodwinked feminists and progressives into turning a middling-at-best remake of a not-as-good-as-you-remember ’80s movie into a culture war battle on purpose just to sell tickets. You might say it’s our Passion Of The Christ. I think we just got played.

Enjoy all those sequels, people!

Lev filed this under: ,  


I’m not too worried about this but I find it a bit amusing that the new genetically modified Supermosquito that may help combat Zika is being released in an island community named Raccoon Key.  As fans of the Resident Evil video game series might wonder, is Raccoon City not ready for testing yet?  No word on whether the new GMO mosquito was engineered by the Umbrella Corporation.


I don’t really see the upside to all this “rigged election” business. For one thing, saying it so far back in the polls and so early in the election looks weak and desperate rather than strong and commanding. The most likely impact is that it depresses Republican turnout, since why would you bother to vote if you think it won’t matter? And sure, to the extent that it helps turn America into a chaotic, ungovernable mess, it fits into their overall objectives, but only to a point as they want to still be able to govern it. Too much chaos and it might just convince people to abandon the current Constitution that heavily advantages their cause by making change so damn hard.

Lev filed this under:  

How do you deal with stupidity this severe?

The Trump backers I sampled at random all thought the election could be stolen… Connie Jagger reasoned that a Trump defeat would necessarily mean a stolen election because Trump’s crowds are bigger than Clinton’s.

This fallacy – that the winner is determined by crowd size rather than the 125 million ballots cast — makes Trump backers think a legitimate Clinton victory is impossible. “Trump in trouble? 10,000 people in Jacksonville!!!!” somebody named Eric Swenson emailed me Thursday. “Pathetic media, corrupt to the core.”