Grasping at Straws

I think I can see a theme to the Democrats' emotional embrace of Hellery Clinton. All those seemingly bright people who really should know better are again being swayed by feelings ... not logic. Obummer was elected on feelings ... twice ... "Oh, wouldn't it be peachy if we had a 'clean, articulate black' (Biden's words) as president to prove that we are not racists and are sorry about that slavery thing." All these kumbaya voters cared not a wit about Obummer's shady past. He went to Harvard Law and briefly served in the Senate and that was enough for them. Forget that the important details of his past were under seal and ignore what damage he has since wrought on their country ... these same robots amazingly still give him a decent approval rating (unless the polls are biased, which is quite possible).

Hellery is playing off of this similar emotional appeal ... "Oh, wouldn't it be nice to have a woman in the White House to finally show that we are not a sexist country ... and we can make up for all the years when women did not have the vote." Such a mindless choice would bring at least another four years of self-serving governance in which the Clinton crime family would clearly cut deals, both domestic and abroad, that further diminished the United States' fortitude and rectitude. The mere thought of all the damage that she would likely cause gives me the shivers. Any country or miscreant offering material rewards to the Clinton Foundation would be given the keys to Fort Knox. She has no genuine patriotism or scruples  ... just imagine Obummer squared.

I guess the bottom line is this -- as things deteriorate in this country ... and most of us can sense it ... the solution that many Democrats seek is ... more of the same. I think that this is realistically called "grasping at straws." And, I will also confess, that voting for Trump unfortunately has a soupçon of "change at any cost" emotional rationale.

Calling the Kettle Black

I had forgotten all about these State Department fiscal lapses ...  mainly when Hellery was in charge. Apparently six billion dollars (with a "b") somehow is at risk as a result of "sloppy" contracting and records administration there ... see: Washington Free Beacon. The compelling question is: How can so much money be in jeopardy? Is this an indication of the inattention that Hellery paid to her department's operations when she was in charge? Or was she focused on other matters? The Clinton Foundation perhaps?  Can she be trusted therefore with our entire country's finances?

And Hellery is castigating Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies ...

Rigged

To use Donald Trump's words, "the system is rigged." There is more rigging in government ... and, in particular, this administration ... than on the biggest of clipper ships under full sail. One of the best examples of same is FBI Director Comey's partial exoneration today of Hellery Clinton in her private e-mail scandal ... see: FBI Document.

Again for those in a hurry, here are some key passages:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. 

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. 

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So Comey and Lynch will both be reappointed were Hellery to win in November. Hooray! And our mighty clipper ship of state will sail on ... fully rigged.

However, Director Comey didn't address in this release the possible public corruption of Hellery's office in how she solicited foreign donations for the Clinton Foundation in exchange for State Department favors. But, I think we all also know the probable results of this sewer cleaning.

Powder Puff Journalism

The New York Times has given the Hellery Clinton machine an opportunity to describe what her presidency might be like in her first hundred days. If there was ever a more fictionalized, self-serving, voting bloc patronizing collection of bribery (keeping Loretta Lynch on as AG) and pissant propaganda, then I have seldom seen it in the American media. Assuming you have not just eaten, then take a gander at this brown-nosing blather that the Times is trying to pass off as serious journalism ... NY Times Puff Piece.

If you don't follow hyperlinks, let me just here give you a small taste of this pathetic pandering puffery:

Should she win the presidency, Hillary Clinton would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party. 

In her first 100 days, she would also tap women to make up half of her cabinet in hopes of bringing a new tone and collaborative sensibility to Washington, while also looking past Wall Street to places like Silicon Valley for talent — perhaps wooing  Sheryl Sandberg from Facebook, and maybe asking Tim Cook from Apple to become the first openly gay cabinet secretary.

Former President Bill Clinton would keep a low public profile, granting few interviews and avoiding any moves that could create headaches for his wife, like his recent meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch during theF.B.I.’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email practices. 

Mrs. Clinton would even schmooze differently than the past few presidents have. Not one to do business over golf or basketball, she would bring back the intimate style of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson, negotiating over adult beverages. Picture a steady stream of senators, congressmen and other leaders raising a glass and talking policy in the Oval Office with her and her likely chief of staff, John D. Podesta, as her husband pops in with a quick thought or a disarming compliment.

The byline on this powder-puff piece is Patrick Healy. Mr. Healy wrote a similar piece on Donald Trump in May wherein the slant was decidedly mocking ... see: Trump's First Hundred Days. May I assume, if Hellery wins, this sycophant will be appointed Ambassador to Bermuda?

Being that the Times takes marching orders from the Democrat National Committee, I think that more hit pieces should be soon appearing in the pages of the Gray Lady ... smearing Donald Trump with the same gusto that penned these Hellery Clinton wet kisses.

And we thought that the age of yellow journalism was at the beginning of the last century.

Afterward: Powerline is in agreement ... see: Powerline Blog.

Twisted

Yesterday the FBI deposed Hellery Clinton for over three hours regarding her possibile criminal use of a private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State. How did Hellery characterize this consequential deposition using her predictably twisted Clintonian semantics?

She called it an "interview"!

This woman never disappoints ...

A Big Deal

It's a big deal ... a really big deal!

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-President Bill Clinton recently schmoozed in private for at least a half an hour in an "impromptu" but highly suspicious meeting on Lynch's airplane on the Phoenix airport tarmac ... clearly not an easy thing to pull off ... see: EarthLink News Item. It has been even suggested that this meeting was requested by Clinton. Lynch has averred that their conversation consisted of personal reflections about travel, family, golf, etc. and did not deal with Hellery Clinton's e-mail server investigation or her Benghazi problems. But she didn't include the Clinton Foundation in this denial. I wonder why?

AG Lynch talks a really good game ... but her recent actions are looking a lot more like President Nixon's AG, John Mitchell, as the political days pass. (Mitchell later spent some time in the slammer.)  In this case the appearance of Lynch's impropriety seems overwhelming.

And in a related development, the Department of Justice has just indicated that it won't release Hellery's e-mails that deal with the Clinton Foundation for 27 months ... well after the coming election ... see: Daily Caller Article. Coincidental?

Carl Bernstein, of that Watergate team of Woodward and Bernstein, yesterday said that AG Lynch should recuse herself from these Hellery investigations and defer to her career prosecutor ... see: Breitbart Article.

And former AG Mukasey under George W. Bush agrees that she should recuse herself from all of these Hellery matters ... see: Breitbart Article. Notice what he suggests in these comments about this meeting being requested by Clinton.

This morning AG Lynch indicated that she may not override any recommendations about these matters made to her by the FBI and her deputy prosecutor ... a very small step ... if we can believe her. (It was reported this morning by the New York Times, an apparent arm of the Democrat National Committee, that Lynch would not override such recommendations ... a huge difference.)

But it is clear that this contretemps is still growing more scandalous as the hours pass ... a gigantic deal.

Afterthoughts: 1) If AG Lynch appoints a Special Prosecutor in this matter, you'll know she intends to push things out beyond the election; and 2) I almost innocently titled this blog posting "Lynch Party" but then thought better of it.

Afterward: A reader writes that if Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are such close friends that they can converse about family, etc. for a half an hour, that this should have been enough to cause her to recuse herself in the first place.

"I'm a Baaaad Boy ..."

Abbott and Costello

Very few readers of this blog were probably alive when Lou Costello frequently mewled this on-screen apology after being caught by his partner, Bud Abbott, with his proverbial hand in the cookie jar. I guess Trump supporters are also expected by Hellery Clinton to mimic this humiliating retreat after she has accused them of xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia and many other "dog whistle" phobias ... see: Breitbart Article.

In typical Democrat play-book fear-mongering fashion, Hellery is once again trying to assemble all the hyphenated voting blocs in America into one diverse melange to prevail over generally open-minded conservatives. And she just might do this ... if we let her ... by admitting to or performing any of her phony phobic rhetoric.

Not me coach!

Blinders

I was on a Skype call yesterday with some college classmates and I was put in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why I am going to vote for Trump. To a man, my classmates, many of whom profess to be Republicans, were down on The Donald ... and I do understand their aversion ... because Trump has an uncanny way of sticking his finger in the eyes of the establishment. I won't say that they were looking down their noses at him, but they clearly weren't in awe. Nor am I ... but I still think I would prefer having a finger in my eye than a suicide vest going off next to me.

Maybe it is my humble background ... but I have never considered myself as refined. For instance, I still like Dick Cheney when most liberals ... and many conservatives ... hate him with a passion. For what? Because he showed a determination and uncanny competence in protecting us after 9/11. Our current president, Obummer and his presumptive successor, Hellery, refuse to show half the competence to protect us as both Cheney and Trump obviously engender. Those two elite Democrats, Hellery and Obummer, are wearing blinders to our grave dangers for reasons that confound me. Perhaps it is their predilection for globalism? Maybe it is their desire to hold on to power by not admitting incompetence? Maybe it is inherent anti-Semitism that has caused them both to be so pro-Muslim? Perhaps, it is just a Saul Alinsky style revolutionary fervor? Maybe it is all those things and more?

But whatever it is, they both are wearing blinders and Donald Trump, as crude as he comes across, isn't. He is a realist of the first order ... perhaps the reason why he has been so successful in business. That is why I will vote for him whatever are the ancillary risks. I do know that, if Trump is elected, he will do some un-conservative things that I won't like ... and he will blurt out some unpresidential zingers. (So I guess I can also be accused of wearing blinders.) But I am convince that he will do enough good things to help put our country back on a path toward renewed greatness.

Witch Hunt

The Benghazi Select Committee's 800 page report came out today and revealed that Hellary Clinton was the highest Cabinet officer in a real-time Situation Room meeting debating how to respond to the attack on our Benghazi Consulate and CIA Annex. Even after our Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta had given the order to send a rescue mission, this critical meeting not only kept this order from being carried out, but then spent two hours concocting the political red herring that it was an Internet video that sparked this assault ... not Islamic terrorism. The indecision coming out of this exercise in cover-up caused the rescue squad in Spain to sit on the runway for three hours ... changing their clothing back and forth from uniforms to mufti four times because of the vacillation coming out of this meeting.

Of course, that heartless Democrat currently running for America's presidency claimed that there was nothing new in this report even though she had obviously not read it. "Time to move on," she mewled. If Hellery either gave the stand-down order to Panetta's rescue directive ... or if she acceded to such an order coming from the White House ... she is clearly unfit to serve as our Commander in Chief. And her posse is claiming that Trey Gowdy has just concluded a $7 million witch hunt. Probably true ... but we all now know who the witch was who was instrumental in causing the death of at least two brave Americans.

Representative Gowdy has requested that reporters, politicians and ordinary Americans read this report before they finally form their conclusions on this affair. I kind of doubt that many will, but, if you are a seeker of truth, here it is: Benghazi Report. As a reader of this blog confessed yesterday, he doesn't want to deal with such complexities. I know that this is what our cunning Clinton crone is counting on.

Afterward: To me, the door is not closed on this Benghazi affair unless and until we know who gave the stand-down order to the Marine rescue team ... no way.

Pantsuit Aflame

Hellery Clinton has denied that her private e-mail server was ever hacked ... and has also denied that there were any materials "marked classified" on this server. Well, we know that this second statement is now "inoperative" and it is beginning to look like the first is a whopper too. We just were told that the Clinton Foundation, the Hellery Clinton Campaign, and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) have all had their computers hacked by the Russians ... see: Yahoo News Story. (Thanks to a reader, my son, for this reference.)

For an interesting example of what these Ruskies got from the DNC breach (Hellery's many requirements, other than her huge fees, for when she speaks at some event) see: Daily Caller Article. Notice that one of these demands is for a stenographer ... soooo she must have transcripts of her Goldman Sachs payola talks too.

Now, kind reader, if the Russians can hack into these three Hellery treasure troves, why would they not be able to do the same with her puny e-mail server? Someone's pantsuit is once again aflame ...

Sovereignty

There is a classic battle in governance between the amount of sovereign power that resides at each level of government ... local, state, national and on up to the ultimate, world government. The United States went through paroxysms during its founding regarding how to allocate powers between the states and the federal government. The solution was resolved in the Tenth Amendment stating that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What complicates this power give and take is how this sovereign power is achieved ... by a democratic process, by subterfuge, by the sword, or by the claim that God/Allah/etc. bestowed it.

Enter Brexit, this Thursday's vote in Great Britain as to whether this country will exit the European Union, an unelected quasi-government that has usurped many of the sovereign prerogatives that were once reserved for the British people. All sorts of liberals in the U.S. including Obummer and Hellery ... and even members of the Conservative party in Britain, including the Prime Minister, David Cameron, are urging that the Thursday vote results be "stay."

What insanity would cause peoples to give up rights and powers to a bunch of bloated bureaucrats in Brussels who are constantly trying to force immigrants upon them and onto their welfare roles? And for that matter, why would the American people allow any of our rights to be transferred to those truculant tsars on the East River in New York City, the United Nations? This failed attempt at world government has, as far as I can determine, done nothing significant for the betterment of mankind other than spending mountains of (mostly U.S.) money on five-star hotels and expensive meals.

This gives me an idea. Can we, here in America, have a vote to exit the U.N. which, after a little research, I find was not mentioned in our Constitution? It would seem to me that the surrender of any of our inalienable rights to these mostly third-world hangers-on should have required a democratic process ... namely an amendment to our Constitution ... which I don't recall happening.back in October of 1945. Maybe we should have this seemingly Constitution-required  vote now?

Ignoble Laureate

I know ... I know ... Donald Trump is a scumbag and he fleeced hundreds of students who wanted to become real-estate moguls like The Donald ... and he is being sued by some of them. And Trump has accused the judge in this case of being biased.

However, did you know that, not to be outdone, the Clintons also had their own pedagogical slippery scam going ... making Trump's grift seem like penny ante? In exchange for about a $55 million gift from Hellery's State Department, Laureate International University kicked back to Bill Clinton $4 million a year for the position as Honorary Chancellor ... plus a donation to the Clinton Foundation ... all for a total of $16.5+ million of soap-suds covered lucre.

Rather then ship you now off to this revealing news story, I've decided to quote most of this heretofore under-reported blockbuster New York Post story here:

For all the hundreds of stories on Trump University, nothing’s been written about the huge payments over 2010-2014 to the potential future first gentleman to serve as “honorary chancellor” of the vast for-profit education firm. 

Nor about the $55 million that Hillary Clinton’s State Department sent the way of groups run by Laureate founder Douglas Becker — who happens to be a major donor to Clinton campaigns and the Clinton Foundation.

One Laureate component, mostly-online Walden University, even faced its own class-action lawsuit. In that, as Turley notes, “Students alleged that they were repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to secure degrees, leaving them deeply in debt.”

Perhaps it was all on the up and up — though “honorary” jobs rarely pay $4 million a year, and Bill did quit just before Hillary began her latest presidential run.

Now I am sure that the Clintons will have their riposte talking points mimeographed and distributed to their Praetorian guards by this weekend. Watch and learn how the Aegean stables can be cleaned and sanitized in short order. (If the Clintons bother to respond to this story at all since the media usually has their backs). To read the full original Jonathan Turley scoop see: NY Post Story.

But I won't let this story go. Watch for more on this miasma in the future.

Afterthought: One more instance of the lesser of two evils ... Trump

Magic Words

No, they're not "hocus pocus" nor "abracadabra" ... they're "radical Islam." Now, both Hellery and Obummer have coordinated their message, sarcastically saying that the phrase that the president was forever loath to utter was somehow magical and, if said, would solve our terrorist problem. "Is there a military strategy that is served by this [phrase]?" Very clever ... very political ... very Clintonian ... to take a long-standing negative and turn it against Trump and the Republicans (myself included) ... see: The Hill Video.

Now, this phrase, which the president first used in this political turn-about, is no longer a refusal of our president to identify our enemy, it is now an indication of the pettiness of his opposition. How wily ... yet how very insidious. If the president now says these words, it will be to mock his and Hellery's opposition ... it will not be to take the first step toward rallying the country against our enemy.

How low we have sunk ... and how very dangerous things have become ... when our enemy is elevated by this political legerdemain by Trump's opposition. Such a snide identification of our mortal enemy as mere "magic words" says nothing more than we should not consider them as our enemy ... but as evidence of misguided paranoia on the part of those who would resist.

I realize that this logic is somewhat circuitous  ... and may not register with many (the reason why it as so diabolically clever) ... but nevertheless it is real ... and causes me more than a modicum of concern for our collective willingness to resist those forces which are clearly coming over the hill.

I agree with Trump ... when the president and presumptive Democrat candidate feel that they can belittle him for suggesting a first step in defeating the radical Islamists is to call them by name ... "there is something going on here." I also agree with Trump when he says that Obummer seems more angry toward him here than he is toward the Orlando shooter.

Afterward: See also: Powerline Comments.

How Generalization Works ...

in the liberal mind:

One "weapon of war" (the latest focus-group tested phrase that Hellery is now echoing) is used to kill people in Orlando and elsewhere ... therefore all such guns are evil and should be outlawed.

One Muslim goes on a killing rampage shouting "Allah hu Akbar" (actually multiple instances of this sad event) ... does not mean that such evilness can be attributed to the Islamic culture.

(This basic observation is not original to this blogger ... it came from a caller to a radio talk-show station today.)

The Answers

What is the solution to increased Islamic terrorist attacks inside the United States?


- Not being willing to identify the motivation of the terrorists?

- A mad dash to allow more unvetted Muslims to immigrate into the U.S.?

- Increasing the number of gun-free zones? (The Pulse nightclub was one ...)

- Running vanity shots of the killers on the covers of Rolling Stone magazine?

- Continuing to slow-walk the defeat of ISIS?

- Disrespecting Israel?

- Disallowing undercover surveillance inside Mosques?

- Closing Gitmo and sending many internees back to the Mideast?

- Giving Iran, the chief sponsor of world terrorism, $150 billion?

- Closing down "see something, say something" FBI investigations because of PC concerns?

- Increased government funding of CAIR and other such organizations?

- Inviting the Muslim Brotherhood back to the White House?

- Electing Ms. Benghazi, Hellery Clinton, as our next president?


In other words, more of the same is going to fix things ...

Transomania

Elizabeth Warren

A blue-eyed female white Senator self-identifies as an American Indian. An obviously Caucasian woman claims she is black. A former male Olympic champion self-identifies as a woman. And on and on.

Is it possible that this current transomania (ability to self-identify as anything your very little heart desires) has opened the door to utter mayhem?

- Can I self-identify as a double PH.D. and become a professor emeritus at Harvard?

- Can I self-identify as impoverished and get an EBT card and an Obamaphone?

- Can I self-identify as a Medal of Honor winner and be buried in Arlington Cemetery?

- Can I self-identify as Meryl Streep and claim some Oscar statues?

- Can I self-identify as Sully Sullenberger and fly a 787?

- Can I self-identify as a Puerto Rican and pay no personal federal income taxes?

- Can I self-identify as an illegal immigrant and not have to get a driver's license or car insurance?

This is fun ... perhaps I will claim them all ... and you can't stop me ... otherwise you are a bigot and transophobic! And, of course, Hellery and Oprah will denounce you and Bruce Springsteen will never play another concert in your state! So there!

Annoying vs. Dangerous

Now that Hellery Clinton is the presumptive Democrat candidate, it seems an appropriate time to draw another comparison between her and The Donald:

Donald Trump, when he shoots from the lip, is annoying ... sometimes very annoying. And, if he really means some of the things he says, yes he could be dangerous. However, those of us who will hold our noses and vote for him, do expect that a lot of what he says is mere bluster.

Hellery Clinton, on the other hand, often says, with a few bizarre exceptions, only focus-group tested phrases that appeal to the widest audience. However, anyone who knows anything about her modus operandi knows that she is an extremely dangerous, self-serving woman. She absolutely always has and always will place her own priorities ahead of those of her country's ... us in the U.S.

How is it that the political system in this sophisticated  United States offers up such a puny choice of candidates for president?

Something else is bothering me ... a number of prominent principled Republicans have understandably condemned, even castigated Trump over his out-of-bounds comments about the judge in his Trump U. case. Yet I have not heard a single Democrat even deign to criticize Hellery for her dangerous me-first roles in the Clinton Foundation payoffs, her private e-mail server or her Benghazi failures. Why is this? Are most Democrats willing to elect this evil woman just because they are all Democrats? And actually, this dichotomy more than bothers me, it half frightens me. There seems to be no morally outraged Democrats anymore.

As Trump is currently pointing out, the system most certainly seems rigged.

Aunt Bee

Remember when Opie Taylor's Aunt Bee (Madeleine Notatalbright) was Secretary of State under Slick Willie ... perhaps I should rephrase that? Well anyway, she did vouch for her predator boss when he was accuses of sex crimes ... and she did recently say that there is a "special place in hell" for a woman who doesn't vote for this sex criminal's enabler, Hellery Clinton. And now this once diplomatic czar has said a very undiplomatic thing ... that e-mails never killed anyone. What? This pin-wearing pin-head said that "nobody is going to die because of what happened on e-mails"? See: Daily Caller Video.

Yes, Aunt Bee, just like books never killed anyone ... say like Mein Kampf or Das Kapital?

Tending Trump

When Donald Trump skipped the Iowa Republican debate, he held a rally which collected money pledged to support our veterans ... something like $6 million. These pledges went into a Trump personal foundation and were slowly distributed to various veterans' groups. I have said I was going to monitor the progress of these donations previously in this post: Unvetting. Now it seems all of these contributions have been properly dispersed with the addition of an extra one million dollar personal donation from Trump ... but it took a fine follow-up story by the AP for this to be done ... see: AP Story.

Now Donald Trump is a fast and loose operator and doesn't always cross the "T" in Trump. But the good news is that, with media follow-up, he does what he promises ... as opposed to that pretender in the pink pants suit. If Trump is elected president, will he still be so diligent? Hopefully, but clearly only if our national media keeps him honest through good reporting ... which would be out of character for them. As Ben Rhodes recently pointed out in his disclosures of how he hoodwinked the media about the Iran nuclear deal, our media tends toward lassitude and often just copies White House press releases. They are, in essence, just stenographers (as Rush Limbaugh used to say.)

So, given that Trump might be elected in the Fall, our national media will have their work cut out for them. They will have to tend Trump's promises to make sure he delivers ... and, given their natural animosity for The Donald, this might just energize them to the point where they will do their jobs. Of course this will be an adversarial relationship and Trump will do a lot of griping ... but it might just work for getting more of the right things done.

If Hellery is elected, the media would obviously be a lot happier. Then they could go back to sleep.

The Cultural Entropy of the Liberal Mind

The easiest definition of "entropy" is "lack of order or distinctions." For those of a scientific mind and who want a more precise definition please go to my meanderings on this subject in my naive science blog: Junkier Science. But for this current exercise in fuzzy thinking let us stay with "lack of order or distinctions." "Cultural entropy" would therefore be social sameness or winding down.

Reading another blog yesterday I was struck by the bright line that might be drawn between liberal and conservative thought ... how one can almost predict the stance that these two political persuasions will take on any subject ... for instance Brexit. Why does the Left want Britain to stay in the European Union and the Right want it to leave? (I will deal more with this later.) The answer that dawned on me then was one's predilection for order versus disorder. Conservatives cherish distinctions or order and Liberals, disorder or even chaos. Then I realized that this distinction might be carried over to many of the modern-day debates ... some of which I will try to inspect here.

The Yin and Yang of the human experience suggest that an individual is never fully liberal or fully conservative.... but that the preponderance of ones preference might be predetermined by the political wiring of one's brain. How this wiring gets accomplished is beyond the scope of this discussion, but, I suspect that it is a tribal phenomenon ... and not necessarily genetic. So, let us start in this investigation of the cultural entropy of the liberal mind.

Race Relations -- When I was but a lad, my family was briefly living within a liberal household in Washington, DC. The doyenne of this enclave had a notion of how race relations would eventually sort themselves out. She believed that, at sometime in the distant future, all mankind would become, due to crossbreeding, a light coffee brown color ... racial entropy ... at which point there would be no distinction between the races and thus no strife. This struck me, even as a child, as idealistic and rather improbable. Was this the beginning of my conservative brain wiring?

Globalism vs. Nationalism -- This Washington doyenne was also a big proponent of world government ... political entropy ... as, it seems, are most liberals. This brings us back to Brexit. The European Union was an early liberal step in that direction ... misguided as it was. To me, and most conservatives, giving up any part of one's national sovereignty to some unelected Brussels bureaucrats is the height of insanity. The consequences of this insanity are finally being realized in the mass movements of mostly Muslim immigrants through the opened borders of old Europe. And the current election in the United States pits globalism versus nationalism. Hellery Clinton, in the world-government tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, promises to erase our national borders within her first hundred days as president ... whereas Donald Trump will build a "beautiful high wall" to stop illegal immigration. (An interesting paradox -- is a worldwide caliphate a liberal or conservative notion?)

Economic Equality -- Socialism and Communism are manifestations of economic entropy. The uber-left want all economic strata to be extinguished ... except for the ruling class that is. To everyone according to one's needs creates fiscal chaos as we have repeatedly seen ... the latest example being Venezuela. Politicians, such as Bernie Sanders, keep establishing rights beyond "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which too often infringe on these three "natural" rights. Now, higher education, universal health care, automatic citizenship, etc. are our new supposed "free"doms. Such political disorganizations as Communism and Socialism, not surprisingly, most always are the ultimate objectives of the liberal left.

There are numerous other examples of cultural entropy: transgenderism (the unwillingness to distinguish between the sexes), same-sex marriage (the forced sameness of all family units), the liberal dipoles of  "Diversity and Inclusion" (a naive attempt to create a smoothie of all our American subcultures), global warming (an irrational fear of normal climate extremes), and even that old lefty experiment, Esperanto (an attempt to erase all language differences). I am sure that there are numerous other examples of how liberals come down on things differently from us conservatives, but that would be a PHD thesis that no bevy of Ivy League professors would permit.

Therefore, I will stop this righty rambling and return to more palatable social endeavors ... such as thinking about a non-controversial third-party candidate.