skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Around four weeks from now, we are choosing our next president at the ballot box.
A tough choice this time around for many. If you are on the fence, and don't pay much attention to politics, likely you are looking at Donald Trump as a rich bully, a degenerate slob who treats women poorly and buys his cement for all of his buildings from mobster Fat Tony Solerno. But he says he will build a wall, make Mexico pay for it, and kick out all the illegals. Sounds good, right? Or if not all good, at least OK.
Or maybe you are on the fence looking at Hillary Clinton, who mishandles classified secrets but was exonerated by the FBI. Her hubby is not much different than The Donald, and has treated women poorly in the past but when he was president, things were going well in the country. Most think she's a crook, but has never been arrested.
Who to choose, who to choose. If you vote for Hillary, she could keel over at any moment and lapse into a permanent coma. Or if you pull the lever for The Donald and he wins, billionaire Mark Cuban says the stock market will collapse.
It must be tough being on the fence. None of your choices sounds good, do they? My advice to you fence sitters is to not vote at all. Leave these grown up decisions to those who actually pay attention to things around us other than 'Dancing With The Stars,' and 'The Voice.'
We'll all be better off.
...much less had any experience in business that would qualify her to even run a lemonade stand.
And this is the old crone that categorically states that Donald Trump is unqualified to be president. Hillary Clinton has no clue as to what it takes to meet a payroll, manage precious resources to maximize shareholder value or even hire and fire productive personnel.
And she declares that she alone is the only one in the race who knows what they are doing. What kind of idiocy is this? I drew this cartoon over 8 years ago, and nothing whatsoever has changed. Hillary Clinton is still the same stupid leftist Marxist socialist that she has always been.
If elected, she will drive our floundering economy completely into the ground.
You can take that to the bank. Assuming, of course, that there are any banks still solvent.
Chicago is now the proud owner of a national and international brand: a very dangerous city. You have a greater chance of getting shot in Chicago than you do in Afghanistan.
How did this happen? Chicago - home to the mighty Cubs, the mighty Blackhawks, the not so mighty White Sox and the not even close to mighty Bears. Simple: liberal Democrats have been in charge of the purse strings in Chicago since the days of Al Capone, and even before that.
Now, however, these liberal Democrats have turned this once proud city into a war zone. Close to 3,000 people have been shot so far this year, and around 500 of those shot have died. Murdered.
The word is out that a good place to avoid is Chicago.
Uber liberal Democrat Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel gave a speech yesterday, outlining his plans going forward to fix things: stay the course, and in the short term, hire more cops to control the chaos. No mention of changing anything that got the city to the state it finds itself now.
These are the steps that are needed to fix Chicago, and all are related to one thing: prosperity and the steps needed to bring it to a badly deteriorating city:
- Lower taxes. Chicago has one of the largest tax burdens of any major city. Reduce these taxes immediately, and by a lot. Rahm, a liberal Democrat, doesn't believe that lowering taxes is the way to go, he actually wants to raise them, on a city already staggered under a crushing tax burden. Businesses want nothing to do with Chicago, no businesses are moving to Chicago, and a butt load of businesses are leaving. That has to change, and the only way to change that is to change the animosity that Rahm has towards businesses. And that sadly will not happen.
- Arm the citizenry. In the short term, getting rid of the harshest gun laws in the country would go far in reducing violent crime. An armed society is a polite society. But Rahm will have none of that, he only wants guns in the hands of his guys, and nobody else should have guns. Other than criminals, of course, they don't listen to Rahm or anybody else for that matter.
- Reign in runaway public unions, to include police unions, fire fighter unions, teacher unions and public works unions. They are sucking the very life blood out of Chicago. But the mother's milk of Rahm's liberal Democrat existence lies with these unions and his support of them, and accordingly, their support of him. Not a chance he will do anything that these unions don't like.
- Round up the gangs. Just get them off the streets. Every gang member in Chicago is well know to the police and the public. Just go get them, or as Robocop would say, 'dead or alive, you're coming with me.' Slap them in jail, or gun them down if they give the police any guff. Simple, simple, simple. Just do it. Declare war on gangs, and go get them.
Will Rahm Emanuel do any of this? Anything at all that works? NO. Not a chance. He just doesn't have it in him to do what needs to be done, since he is a liberal Democrat to the bone, and everything liberals touch turns to complete feces. He has been the mayor for five long years now, and his liberal Democrat nostrums have driven this once mighty city into the ground.
I just wonder how she would look when she's not feeling well.
I drew this political cartoon over 9 years ago, (under my former nom de plume 'Doc S') at the height of the Iraq war 'surge,' which at the time was highly criticized by every sitting Democrat (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama among them). President George W. Bush sent 20,000 additional U.S. troops to this 'swamp' in 2007 to tamp out hot spots of terrorists, insurgents, Sadaam Hussein's scattered but persistent Baathists, and the upstart of what was later to become known as ISIS, led by at the time a young and charismatic jihadi named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. My take of these efforts at the time as you can see by my drawing above was of the dubious success of continued blood and treasure poured into this swamp, and has later been proven incorrect. Oh well, nobody bats 1.000, not even me.
Virtually everybody in retrospect agrees, to include both Obama and Hillary Clinton, that the surge was a success, and that al-Qaeda and its affiliates had lost virtually all influence in the region. The U.S. had this war won. This Iraq surge was so successful, that Obama in 2011 declared that the U.S. involvement in Iraq was concluded, they were a stable, sovereign country, and that no U.S. troops....none whatsoever, to the consternation of every military mind at the Pentagon...were needed going forward.
Now, virtually everybody in retrospect agrees, with the exception of Obama and Hillary Clinton, that his pull out was a disaster of epic proportions, created a power vacuum which has been filled by terrorists and general undesirables from Iran, Syria and other rogue nations and has directly led to the establishment of the world-wide scourge of ISIS as is constituted today.
My, how things change over the course of 9 years. And then again, how little they change. Iran and Syria (or what's left of Syria) continue to pump poison into Iraq swamp, and now that Dubya has left the building, seemingly nobody is trying to bail out this swamp.
And the swamp has spread from where it was contained within Iraq to Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Turkey, and now many parts of Europe.
And now we want to hand the title of Commander in Chief to one of the main architects of this spreading swamp?
I hope not.
In the last few years, there have been far too many videos emerge that show police, those sworn to protect and serve, behaving in ways that outrage all of us. Time and again, I am told that there are always bad apples in any population, and the figure I get is that less than 1% of all police men and women are bad apples.
Statistically speaking, I would call this estimate a pie in the sky wishful dream. We have in the U.S. today far more bad cops than anybody hopes would be in uniform. Here are the stats:
Ten known police officers responded to the Laquan McDonald incident in Chicago, Illinois in 2014. Two of them were Cook County sheriff's officers who arrived after McDonald was shot and killed. The other 8 officers on the scene were Chicago city policemen and women.
In a recent news release, 5 of these 8 Chicago City police officers have been recommended for termination for criminal behavior, and one of them is Jason Van Dyke who has been charged with the murder at the scene. The other 4 officers recommended for firing are Janet Mondragon, Daphne Sebastian, Ricardo Viramontes and Stephen Franko. The remaining three Chicago cops who were at the scene remain unidentified, and have subsequently retired before they could be fired. All eight of these officers filed false reports regarding the shooting, and all 8 claimed that Laquan McDonald attempted to kill a police officer, when the several videos clearly show this was not the fact at all.
Filing a false police report is the basis of all bad cops, who are trusted to do the right thing and report their activities truthfully. Those who don't are obstructing justice, a felony. Good cops don't commit felonies. Only bad cops do this. As an aside, not one of the Chicago City cops mentioned the arrival of the two Cook County Sheriff's department officers at the scene of the shooting. Not one. These two sheriff's department officers departed the scene and filed their own reports, which did not include specifics on the actual shooting since they had arrived after the fact.
What are the statistical odds of 8 bad cops showing up at the scene of a situation if only 1 in 100 cops in the universe of all cops are bad? Assuming this 1% figure is correct, the math here suggests that the probability of 8 bad cops showing up simultaneously at any single point in time is (.01) to the power of 8, or 1.0 x e-18, or .000000000000000001%. Or in other terms, statistically impossible.
This Laquan McDonald murder statistically debunks that stupid, wishful Utopian figure of .01% of bad cops in the U.S. The statistical figure based on this one episode suggest 80% of all cops are bad apples, and they are all employed by the City Of Chicago. Of course, that 80% figure is skewed as well since an 'n' of 8 is too low to apply to the U.S. nationwide, and would be considered statistically anecdotal, but the number of bad cops among the general police population in the U.S. is certainly way, way, WAY higher than .01%. How much higher is subject to debate, but in my mind this fairy tale figure of no more than .01% of bad cops throughout the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is complete bunk.
I would conclude that statistically our country is lousy with bad cops.
Do the math.
Polls consistently suggest Hillary Clinton (D-Hell) leads Donald Trump in her quest for occupation of the White House. These polls persist in suggesting Hillary's lead despite the constant drip drip drip of scandal, malfeasance and skulduggery which has followed the old crone ever since she became a national political figure 25 years ago.
With the left continually displaying tendencies towards violence in their tactics such as the Black Lives Matter movement, anybody who wears a Donald Trump T-shirt can expect to get slugged in the face and bloodied for display of this support at the hands of the criminal left. Nobody in the Obama Justice Department is interested in the least in prosecuting any of this violence, if it furthers the agenda of the left.
If you have the nerve to indicate to the Internal Revenue Service that you support conservative values, you invite an audit. If you enter a polling place in Philadelphia with any indication that you don't support the left, you are intimidated by thugs with billy clubs at the door, and nobody in the Justice Department is in any way going to stop this intimidation. They actually support it.
Accordingly, to express support of Donald Trump is to invite violence upon the expressee. Who in their right mind would tell pollsters that they support Donald Trump, and then the next night find a brick thrown through their front window with a threatening note tied to it? I myself will in no way put up a Trump campaign sign in my yard or a Trump bumper sticker on my truck, not a chance. And invite some nut job lefty to place a bomb under my vehicle?
I am solidly behind Donald Trump. And I am going to vote for Donald Trump. But I am in no way going to tell a pollster about my preferences. I suggest that I am not alone in this perception. I would wager that something akin to 'The Bradley (or Wilder) Effect is in play here. This 'effect' was seen in the 1982 polls in Los Angeles, when African American Democrat Tom Bradley was way ahead in the polls leading up to California gubernatorial election day, and then lost to a white George Duekmejian despite lopsided polls to the contrary.
The mainstream media are carrying the water for Hillary Clinton in a big way this election cycle. They will support any and all means to discredit Donald Trump, to include violence. I am of the opinion that Donald Trump has way more support than polls suggest.
We'll see how this works on on election day, won't we?
