The following article is a classic example of how the liberal left can look at evidence and immediately ignore the obvious:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/stopped-52-times-by-police-was-it-racial-profiling/ar-BBu75xK?ocid=spartanntp

The assumption is that Philip Castile was stopped 52 times because of racial profiling.  One should note that these traffic stops happened over a span of 14 years, so we are talking about 3 to 4 stops per year.  Of course there is no actual evidence of racial profiling:

No recent information is available on the racial breakdown of drivers stopped or ticketed by police in Falcon Heights, the mostly white suburb where the shooting occurred, or in other Minnesota towns. Minnesota is not among the handful of states that require police to keep such data.

This reminds me of how the New Jersey Highway Patrol was severely criticized for profiling black drivers.  This had to be true, because black drivers got more speeding tickets. Then someone did a real study.  The results were spectacular but odds are you don’t know that.  This study looked at cars that were speeding where cameras verified the race.  This showed that black drivers were routinely speeding more than white drivers.  When the original study was adjusted to show what percentage of drivers actually speeding got speeding tickets it turned out that whites were more likely than blacks to get a ticket.

That is the problem with the liberal media.  They start every article with an assumption, often incorrect, and then mold the facts to fit their opinion.  If you want to know why this guy was stopped so many times, ask any cop you know.  They will quickly tell you that they usually have a reason for pulling you over.  In some cases they may have had a directive from management to issue more tickets. There have even been cases where police were given a quota of tickets to issue.  But those cases appear to be rare.  In reality police pull people over because something brings this to their attention. I remember once riding with a police officer in a Dallas neighborhood about two o’clock in the morning.  He noticed a white guy driving slowing down the street.  He turned around, put on his flashers and pulled him over for not having a front license plate.  I asked him why he did that and he said:

“A white guy in this neighborhood at this hour is either lost or looking to buy drugs.  In either case, I want to talk to him.”  In this particular case, the guy was lost.  You can call this profiling if you prefer, but what is the option?  To pull a TSA and strip search everyone so you avoid appearing to profile the people most likely to be a risk?

What this article ignored was why this guy was pulled over in the first place.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/08/confirmed-philando-castile-was-an-armed-robbery-suspect-false-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/

It wasn’t because of a broken tail light.  This happened during broad day light. There is a video showing the tails working.  But more significantly we know why he was pulled over.  There is a recording of the traffic stop and the police officers told dispatch why they were pulling this car over.  There was a BOLO for an armed suspect who held up a store in the area two days earlier.  This guy met the description.

By the way, how many times have you heard that he had a CCW?  So far, no one has found any evidence that he had a CCW.  It appears as though liberals confused authorization to purchase a gun and a CCW permit.  Yes, they are that stupid.  If this is accurate, then he couldn’t have been reaching for his CCW permit because he didn’t have one.

By the way, if you look at the video which has caused so much outrage, you can see what looks like a gun in the picture.  The witness says he was reaching for his CCW permit which was on his left thigh.  That would be a silly place to carry a CCW, but a logical place to carry a gun.

At a minimum there is a lot more to the story, but the main stream media has already portrayed this as an unjustified killing of a black man.  Have you ever wondered about that?  Whenever a police officer shoots a black man, all the activists assume the officer is guilty and the black man is innocent.  Then they claim the problem is too many people assume guilt without evidence.  That is true, but so far it sure looks like cops are the ones most likely to be falsely accused.  Far too often police officers are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion in a rush to judgement with little or no regard to the actual facts.  It doesn’t help with the President of the United States weighs in with a patently false charge that we have an epidemic of white police officers killing black people without just cause. There is little evidence of that.  The real epidemic is black on black crime and now a dramatic increase in the murder of police officers.

The “victim’s” family has already raised huge sums of money and they are instant celebrities.  People are protesting all over the country and five police officers, from Dallas Texas, were murdered at least partially because too many black people really think cops routinely shoot black guys for no reason. Wow, that really does wonders for race relations in this country.

In case like this, the false narrative tends to live on while the truth is buried.  We still see signs at the rallies saying “Hands up, don’t shoot” even though that is based on a patently false eye witness account by a Michael Brown accomplice.  Unfortunately the video of this guy making these false charges  was broadcast everywhere and far too few people know that his story was so obviously false that even Eric Holder had to acknowledge that and he recommended no charges be brought against the officer who shot Michael Brown.

The best solution to any problem is to start with the truth.  Instead we are witnessing the tragic results when the main stream media helps promote a patently false narrative.  In reality police, including white police, are not the problem with regard to the devastating increase in black on black crime.  They are the solution.  This false narrative may pay huge political dividends but only at tremendous personal cost to the people these false prophets claim to represent.

TDM

.

I used to work for a Ford dealer in Plymouth, Wisconsin. One day I overheard him talking to one of his salesmen. He said: “If you are going to drink on the job, stop drinking vodka. I want people to know you are drunk, not stupid.”

The same advice should have been given to those people trying to defend Hillary Clinton. This is why this e-mail scandal is going to hurt her a lot more than Democrats will admit:

From http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/hoyer-clinton-had-no-intent-be-extremely-careless-classified-information

The question from a CNS reporter:

“FBI Director Comey said yesterday that Secretary Clinton and her colleagues ‘were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.’ Do you believe people who are extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information should have security clearances?”

Hoyer’s response:

“I think that Secretary Clinton as Secretary of State — and Comey clearly concluded — had no intent or thought that she was in fact being careless. I know that’s Mr. Comey’s conclusion.”

Although most people ignore CNS, sometimes with considerable justification, the question is spot on and Democrats better come up with a lot better response.

As a former linguist let me translate: Secretary Clinton is not a criminal, she is just incredibly stupid.

At some point the following will become obvious.  It doesn’t really matter if what Clinton did was criminal, what matters is that no one, and I mean no one, is pretending this is responsible behavior.  Hoyer didn’t actually answer the question because he has no answer.

But he did say something else that is a huge problem for Democrats and for Hillary Clinton:

“I think everybody agrees that Comey is a person of great integrity,” Hoyer said. “I don’t think that this is a question that he did this politically.”

The he added something that is really significant:

“Some of it was – as the previous question indicated – critical,” Hoyer said. “And others of it concluded that there was no intent here – apparently no damage – I mean he didn’t mention any damage had occurred.”

This is why people like Judicial Watch and others are desperately trying to get their hands on those e-mails.  It is why Comey’s decision to not recommend prosecution may create serious problems for Hillary because it is increasingly difficult to justify withholding them from the public.   As soon as they are available an army of analysts will seize the day and start looking for “damage.”  If they find serious damage to national security it will be difficult, if not impossible for senior Democrats to continue providing cover for Hillary Clinton.

TDM

A lot of people are wondering why James Comey decided that he would not recommend criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton. The initial response was disbelief that Hillary Clinton escaped the jaws of justice, again. However, after watching the statement by James Comey, I believe the opposite is true. Comey told us why he did this:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-fbi-director-comeys-statement-on-clinton-emails-2016-07-05

I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.

In other words, this is really bad, this is really important and the American people deserve the truth. I think Comey knew the fix was in. That is why he didn’t bother to inform the DOJ that he was making a statement. He didn’t want to give either Barack Obama or Loretta Lynch a chance to stop him. He called their bluff. He knew if he recommended indictment, Loretta Lynch would immediate seal the findings and assign a team of prosecutors to review. No decision would be made until after there was time for a thorough review which wouldn’t possibly be completed until after the election. So indictment would actually help Hillary Clinton buy desperately needed time.

By saying he would not recommend indictment, Comey was able to deliver a devastating public indictment of Hillary Clinton. It was a beautiful thing. I watched CNN while this was going on and they were visibly shocked. No one was expecting this. The initial reaction, by both sides, will be totally wrong. Republicans are assuming that Hillary got away with it again. They are wrong. Democrats are assuming that Hillary can just put this whole mess behind her. They are wrong too. Hillary Clinton has been exposed by a very public spotlight and the result is a very ugly picture.

“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation–including people in government–but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.”

Comey got it right. Only facts matter and now everyone is confronted with the cold hard truth. Nothing could be more damaging to Hillary Clinton.

TDM

The Bill Clinton meet and greet with Loretta Lynch has set off a political fire storm. If the plan was to intimidate Lynch into backing off on the numerous investigations involving the Clinton’s, it back fired big time. The casual accidental meeting about golf and grandkids doesn’t even pass the smell test by the ever biased main stream media. Does anyone really think Bill Clinton would travel to Phoenix, Arizona to play golf in late June? Please!

The Clinton protective shield is showing major cracks and appears ready to collapse. Loretta Lynch caved almost immediately and publicly said she would “probably” accept the recommendation of the FBI. She couldn’t walk that back now if she tried. Suddenly it is impossible for anyone, including the main stream media, to pretend the e-mail scandal is just partisan politics. It doesn’t even matter if the FBI indicts her or not, the damage has been done. Now the longer this drags on, the worse it looks for Hillary. The only thing that could save her now would be for the FBI to exonerate her and that does not seem remotely possible.

Hillary met with FBI investigators today for 3 ½ hours. It is quite possible they began the meeting by giving her a Miranda warning. It would be political suicide for her to refuse to answer questions by pleading the 5^th amendment. Yet if she answers questions she is walking into a perjury trap. She has clearly lied on several occasions, so no matter what she says today, it will either be self-incriminating or another lie.

Odds are extremely high that the top secret DNC double probation committee is holding secret meetings fueled by fop sweat. It would be suicide to go into a general election with Hillary Clinton as the candidate with this huge cloud hanging over her head. A cloud that is so enormous that even MSNBC, ABC, CBS and CNN will find it impossible to ignore. There could easily be so much focus on Hillary’s predicament that the problems with Donald Trump will fade into oblivion. Expect panic. .

Almost anything is possible. The only hope for Democrats, at this point, is to find something so horrible about Donald Trump that even this mess seem insignificant. So far, Trump has been the ultimate Teflon candidate, but that doesn’t mean they will stop trying. Bringing down Downs Trump is no longer enough to save Hillary, but it might save the Democratic Party.

It is always refreshing to see truly corrupt people get what they deserved. But there is little to celebrate here. The sad reality is that Democrats would have never considered replacing Hillary Clinton just because she is incompetent, hopeless corrupt and a serial liar. They were more than willing to put her in the highest office on earth as long as she kept them in power. They will dump her, but only because they now know she not only cannot win, she will take them down with her.

TDM

Sometimes a lot can happen in the blink of an eye. We may have witnessed this once again with the decision by Attorney General Loretta Lynch to hold a private meeting with former President Bill Clinton on his plane. It is now impossible for ANYONE to trust Loretta Lynch’s judgement regarding the numerous Clinton scandals. John Coryn nailed it when he said the following:

“Lynch & Clinton: Conflict of interest? An attorney cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of a conflict.”

Bingo! Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a strong Clinton supporter, admitted this looks bad. He is not alone. This private meeting is enough to justify demanding that Loretta Lynch recluse herself from making any decision regarding the numerous investigations of Hillary Clinton. But, since she is the Attorney General, the only realistic alternatives are for her to resign or to appoint a special prosecutor. If (when) that happens it will shake the Presidential race to its core. Even if the Clintons get this postponed until after the November election, the damage will be done. This just may be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

This will impact more than Hillary. It will also impact Donald Trump. If Hillary goes down in flames Democrats will launch a full scale war to take Donald Trump down as well. They will find a lot of support from senior members of the Republican establishment. Even though the conventions are less than a month away, it is entirely possible that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump will get the nomination.

I am not surprised at the blatant attempt by Bill Clinton to influence Loretta Lynch. I am never surprised by corruption in both parties. I am just stunned by the incredible stupidity. Loretta Lynch may be this dumb, but Bill Clinton is a lot smarter than this. He had to know that this was a huge risk. It has the look and feel of desperation. This begs the question: what does Bill know that we don’t know? Whatever it is, it must be more than bad, it must be devastating.

Loretta Lynch had a 30 minute chat with Bill and that may have just changed everything.

TDM

Democrats are throwing a hissy fit in congress screaming for gun control. Liberal Democrats never fail to seize the day to exploit any tragedy to further their political agenda. Perhaps it is time we explain to our liberal friends why so many people oppose wonderful sounding things like preventing people on a watch list from being able to buy guns. The answer, sadly, is because we simply cannot trust liberals to administer such a program ethically and responsibly. In fact, we cannot trust liberals to administer any program ethically and responsibly.

When you have an administration that deliberately allowed guns to be sold illegally and smuggled into Mexico, why would we trust you?

When you have an administration that covers up everything they do, from Benghazi to the Clinton e-mail scandal, When you have a government that was caught deliberately misleading the American public with regard to the Iran Nuclear deal, why would we trust you?

When you have a government that allowed the IRS to deliberately target conservatives and you continue to cover this up, why would we trust you?

When the top Democratic candidate for President has a life long history of deception why would we trust you?

When the top Democratic candidate for President has been receiving millions of dollars in contributions from foreign countries, including potential 20% of funding from Saudi Arabia, why would we trust you?

We have a DOJ spending limited resources on teaching North Carolina how to decide who gets to use a restroom rather than trying to stop terrorists, why would we trust you?

When you have a Director of Homeland Security who literally said that right wing groups are just as much of a threat as Muslim extremists, why would we trust you?

When you have a Democratic Attorney General in California prosecuting people for videotaping Planned Parenthood while the violent crime rate is skyrocketing, why would we trust you?

When the Democratic candidate for President refused to use a secure server to protect vital national security correspondence, why would we trust you?

Gun control isn’t the problem. You are the problem. We don’t trust you. We don’t trust your ability to use common sense. We don’t trust your willingness to do things fairly and ethically. We don’t trust your willingness to tell the truth. We don’t trust you willingness to obey the law. We don’t trust you to protect national security. Sadly, we don’t even trust you to do the responsible thing even when national security is at stake. If you told us tomorrow would be sunny, we would seriously consider buying an umbrella. We don’t trust you.

TDM

This is already the weirdest Presidential election in our nation’s history. It is hard to imagine a worse scenario than having to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But then I realized that with a couple of minor “changes” this could get even more exciting. At some point Donald Trump is going to be looking at some really bad poll numbers. He will be able to expose Hillary and her character flaws will become all too apparent to ignore. But it won’t matter, because she is a female and the liberal left longs for the first female President. They will be too busy planning her coronation to notice unnecessary distractions.

At this point, Donald may realize something very important. Thanks to liberal Democrats it is now incredibly easy to just switch your sex. All a fellow has to do is put on a wig and announce he feels like a female and he can use the ladies room or even the ladies locker room. No surgery or even hormone treatment is required. No physician has to be involved. So, Donald can just get up one day and announce that he is transitioning to female and he now wants to be known as “Donna Trump.” It would be easier for him than most, because he already has the hair. According to Marco Rubio, he already has small hands that would add credibility.

This would cause the liberal left to go nuts. If you think the first female President would be great, imagine the historical moment of the first transgender President. One gets all gooey inside just thinking about. If anyone dares criticize “Donna” for being a fake transgender, “she” would remind them of the need for tolerance and understanding.  The beauty about this is that after the election, Donna can change her mind and morph back into Donald. Since “she” would no longer “feel” she is a female, she wouldn’t be transgender any more.

Perfect.

TDM

If Donald Trump didn’t get up each morning on a mission to self-destruct by delivering idiotic and unnecessary insults, Hillary Clinton would be in full self-destruct mode. I sometimes think if we could just send Trump on an extended vacation for about six months, with no access to the internet, he could actually win this thing. I remain convinced that Donald Trump is one of the very few people in this country capable of losing this election to Hillary Clinton.

The following interview of Hillary by Brett Baer should be a fatal blow to her campaign:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-doesnt-remember-signing-nda-handling-classified-material/

Her defense is that she did not remember signing the NDA. In reality, that also doesn’t matter. The Secretary of State is one of a handful of people in the United States Government who are authorized to designate information as classified. This reminds me of the rather famous incident involving Braxton Bragg. He was both Company Commander and Quartermaster. As Company Commander he requested supplies. As Quartermaster, he denied the request. As Company Commander, he resubmitted the request with additional information. As Quartermaster, he again denied the request. Then, as Company Commander he appealed the quartermaster’s decision to the post Commander. The response, according to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant was:

“My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!”

In addition to being quarrelsome, this was also incredibly stupid.

Yesterday, while basking in the afterglow of becoming the first female to be nominated to become President, Hillary said the most influential person in her life was her mother. This, of course, would be the same mother who named Hillary after Edmund Hillary because of his heroic achievement in climbing Mt Everest. Hillary’s mother must have had remarkable foresight, since Edmund Hillary didn’t actually climb Mt. Everest until Hillary was six years old. After reading this interview, I am convinced that the actual person who had the most influence in developing Hillary Clinton’s leadership style was Braxton Bragg.

If I were in charge of Donald Trump’s campaign I would just run the same ad, over and over again. It would be a picture of Hillary Clinton with the slogan: “I’m With Stupid.”

TDM

The other night we discovered that a mockingbird, in search of love and romance, had relocated to our back yard. He was having a great time, but he annoyed the heck out of us because his beautiful music was keeping us awake. Fortunately he either found true love or moved on to greener pastures. That is the problem with mockingbirds; they tend to make people want to kill them.

When I heard that mockingbird, I couldn’t help but draw the obvious connection with Donald Trump. He is the ultimate mockingbird. While I have serious concerns about him being the next President of the United States, it is hysterical to watch him take on Hillary Clinton. This is the ultimate mismatch. Donald is all about personality and Hillary can’t even spell personality.

It gets worse. Hillary has managed to escape scrutiny by the main stream media for decades. Now, because Donald has ruffled her feathers, she has is making wild accusations about him, some of which are actually true. That creates a huge problem, for her.   For the first time, the press is actually doing some Clinton research and they are finding lots and lots of garbage. Donald has gone where no man dared go before and this has the potential to destroy the Clinton myth.

This does not mean that Donald is suddenly more acceptable as a candidate for President of the United States. This just reminds me that in a war, there are always casualties on both sides. Perhaps the real question is in how much damage Donald will do to himself in his quest to destroy Hillary?

For example, it has been obvious for some time that the DOJ has sufficient grounds to indict Hillary Clinton. They have not done so because of her political protective force field. But if it becomes obvious that Hillary is destined to lose big time to Donald Trump, we should not be surprised if that protective force field disappears overnight. If Hillary is indicted there will be incredible pressure on Democrats to indict Donald Trump, for something. It is possible that the Trump University case has already provided them with an opportunity to seize the day. Keep in mind that Democrats already have a history of indicting Republicans they consider to be a threat. Just ask Tom Delay and Rick Perry.

I firmly believe that if Donald Trump succeeds in destroying Hillary Clinton, Democrats with the full support of the main stream media will do everything possible to return the favor. Democrats, unlike establishment Republicans, are not exactly good losers. I am absolutely certain that a high percentage of them would rather burn down the entire system than let Donald Trump win. Based on what we already know, they won’t exactly have a problem obtaining ammunition. I am far from certain that this will work, but they are sure going to try. They are far more dangerous than Trump’s Republican opponents because they won’t be deterred by minor distractions like facts or ethics.

What does it take to kill a mockingbird? We may soon know.

TDM

Most of us are aware of the huge wildfire in Canada. It turns out that a lot of people are concerned that the wildfire might be considered an “act of God” by mean and nasty insurance companies so they can deny claims. I am pretty sure this is coming from liberals who frequently believe things that are simply not true. There is no “act of God” exclusion with regard to property insurance. The only time I have seen “act of God” used to deny a claim is when someone a tries to blame a natural disaster on imaginary negligence. This is like when Al Gore tried to blame hurricanes on global warming caused by oil companies.

Of course liberals are already complaining that insurance companies routinely look for ways to deny claims. In reality, the opposite is true. The people in Canada who have insurance are likely to be paid quickly and fairly so they can rebuild their homes and their lives. Those who have to wait for the Canadian equivalent of FEMA, not so much. If you doubt that, check out the homes in New Orleans still waiting for that coveted check from FEMA.

And what about people who don’t believe in God? If there was an “act of God” exclusion, would atheists be exempt? Perhaps we could replace “act of God” with “Mother Nature,” “El Nino” or maybe just “Karma.” Of course this would discriminate against people do don’t believe in these things either.

The good news is that a court case in Britain defined “act of God” about 150 years ago in a way that works even for mentally challenged liberals.

“Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which humanprudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them.”

For example, voting for liberals.

TDM