Never Trust a “Cold-War Liberal”

October 7, 2016


Never trust a “Cold-War Liberal”
They are war-happy.
You can spot them by the repeated warnings they issue about Russia and China.
Mostly Russia.
Cold-War Liberals live in the past.
In a dangerous past.
But to them, in their old age, in their dotage, it is a glorious past.
They are elderly now and the past is all they have left.
It is who they are, because it is who they were.
They cannot look forward.
This is not a game.
The world needs new ideas and new plans.
The end result of the vaunted “thirty years of experience” Withers cite for their candidate is where we are right now.
The people who put us here, right here, where we are right now, did so deliberately and they will not change things.
Unless we got here by accident, in which case, that “thirty years of experience” means absolutely nothing.
And if you want to see change: YOU ARE A SOCIALIST TOOL OF PUTIN AND CHINA!!!!
You know you have heard this empty imprecation again and again.
So how can you expect change from someone who denounces change?
See how cold-war senility works?
They got away with that garbage in the 50s and 60s.
They saw their dead parents doing it.
So the Cold-War Liberals need to relive their youth.
But their youth has evanesced.
It is no more.
It is gone.
Elect a Cold-War Liberal aching to recreate her or his heyday of youth and potency, and there will be war, misery, and blood.
The day of the Cold-War Liberal is over.
THIS is what the exemplary Cold-War Liberal had to say about war:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge–and more.”
That means regime change.
That means war.
That is from a liberal hero.
55 years ago.
We step back to those days at our own peril.
The world is different now. We cannot attack with impunity.
People hit back.
Remember that:
People hit back.


Now the NY Times reports that Hillary Clinton, in a secret speech revealed by WikiLeaks, has announced her passion for SECRET WARS (click here).
She touts the joys of “covert-intervention,” to use the NY Times euphemism.
CoIntelPro was covert action
Installing the Shah as dictator of Iran was covert action
Killing Salvador Allende was covert action
Overthrowing Guatemala was covert action
The Bay of Pigs was covert action
The bloodthirsty School of the Americas was covert action
LBJ’s Operation Chaos was covert action
Sabotaging the Democratic Primary was TYPICAL covert action
Henry Kissinger is covert action personified
And Mrs. Clinton LIKES THIS?
Wants MORE of it?
Is she insane?
The Times writes: “Mrs. Clinton gave a tough-minded, realpolitik answer to the question of how to handle a problem like Syria. If the best chance of success was to act secretly inside that country, she made clear, she had no problem doing that.”
Oh… She has no problem doing that?
Unfortunately THE WORLD HAS A PROBLEM WITH YOU DOING THAT, you war-crazy maniac!
Mission Impossible was FANTASY.
I will not vote for more wars.
Especially secret wars. You know, like NIXON IN CAMBODIA which led to this:

This is a democracy, despite what this Cold War Neoliberal thinks.
As to the Times: saying her call to secret war is “tough-minded, realpolitik” is not journalism, it is editorializing. You are putting lipstick on that pig.

How much more NIXONIAN will Clinton reveal herself to be?
She may well take the White House, this bloodthirsty Cold War Neoliberal, but not with my consent.



Voter Intimidation Means WE ARE WINNING!

September 28, 2016

Those of us who will not vote for either of the media-selected elderly, unemployed millionaires have taken a lot of attacking for sticking to principles. But we ARE WINNING! Look at this from the President of the United States:

“If you vote for a 3rd party candidate that’s a vote for Trump,” Obama said during an interview on Steve Harvey’s radio show.


Look how frightened the neoliberals are!
If our “insignificant protest vote” is meaningless, then this would not matter to the President.
With this comment, Obama is saying is HE IS POWERLESS AND THAT WE HAVE THE POWER!

Here is what a republican says:
“So let me be clear: a vote for anyone other than Donald Trump in November is a vote for Hillary Clinton.” – Scott Walker

Isn’t it delicious that Mr. Obama is so frightened of you that he has sunk to the level of SCOTT WALKER?
They are both reduced to SCARE TACTICS because of YOU AND ME saying we will vote our conscience.
They both cannot be right… but they both can most certainly be wrong.

Keep it up, friends! If our votes didn’t matter Obama would never have said this.

And don’t let anyone smugly call your vote “a protest vote” as the Withers do. Voting for a candidate who is on the ballot is NOT a protest, it is a well-reasoned choice. Remember the freedom to choose? I thought “liberals” were big on that. Again, we see the wisdom of Phil Ochs, who sagely observed: 

“Liberals are 10º to the left of center in good times but 10º to the right of center when it affects them personally.”

Friends, the condescending dismissal of a rational, thoughtful vote as “protest” is odious on many levels. Not least of which is that America was founded on protest.
Protest is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. The Withers reveal their fascist, anti-American attitude every time they denounce protest. In short: screw ’em. They are not what America is about.


Reading The Riot Act… Fair Warning, Withers.

September 8, 2016

There is a historical basis for the expression: reading the riot act. The act, known as “An Act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters,” was enacted by Parliament in 1715. Before arresting persons under this law, the law had to be read aloud, allowing people to disperse and to assure that they knew they were in violation of the law.

People talk of the death penalty being in the bible as a justification for capital punishment. But how was the biblical death penalty enforced back then? It was only invoked after a series of requirements were met – chief among them the criminal had to have been told in front of two witnesses that what he was about to do was indeed punishable by death.

People have to know before being held culpable.

Even the mythical Jesus of Nazareth said, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Well I am putting Withers on notice: If you are With ➡︎HER then you side with murder and death on a global scale.

Hillary Clinton’s stated Raison D’être, from her own mouth, for being the president is to be able to launch war to ATTACK and DESTROY countries she sees as led by “bullies,” a mind-numbingly jejune attitude for an elderly woman to have. It reeks of the schoolyard she must have dreaded as a child.


As Secretary of state, Clinton’s bloodlust and eagerness to fight anyone she perceives as a bully led to the massacres in Libya, and Syria, and Honduras. And she refuses to acknowledge it. Worse, she DEFENDS it.


This is who Hillary Clinton is. A neocon warrior who will plunge the world into more wars. Neocon Republican Robert Kagan said to the NY Times in 2014: “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
This praise is from the neocons who planned her run for years while you Withers were not paying attention. As the NY Times discovered in 2014. The people who needlessly invaded Iraq and Afghanistan – where America STILL wages war to this very day are WITH ➡︎HER.


She is a neocon. Why do you suppose almost all the G. W. Bush team endorses her? Because they like change and peace?

Where Hillary Clinton gets her deep need to fight and destroy, whence her fixation with seeing bullies under her bed, I leave that to the psychiatrists she should have had treating her over the course of her life. But there is a clear sickness there. And for the world, there is stark  danger.

As the late-Christopher Hitchens cogently noted in 2008: “As for Mrs. Clinton, as for all she’s done for us and after all she’s suffered on our behalf, she feels she’s owed the presidency and who could possibly disagree? Her life is meaningless if she doesn’t get at least a shot and one can only sympathize. Unless you think, as I do, that people should be distrusted, who are running for therapeutic reasons,” said Hitchens. “Because the Presidency doesn’t calm those demons, as her husband has already proved.”

Hillary Clinton NEEDS war. Fighting is central to her stated image of herself. Fighting defines her. She is a HAWK who quotes Reagan at every opportunity.


Last night in a softball TV interview on being Commander-in-Chief, Clinton said she will destroy Syria through air power.

Vote for her and you support that.  Period.  There is no wiggle room.


If you support Hillary Clinton, you support wars.

And more wars.

Your vote will say it is just fine with you. Hillary will use YOUR vote to claim a mandate. Then she will attack.

And the blood of innocents will be on your hands.
Not mine.
I will never support any conservative war-hawk.
You have been warned.
You have no excuse now.
This is the Riot Act.

People have to know before being held culpable.


A Summer in the City Memory

August 11, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 8.09.56 PM

File this under: The World Moves On, Dept.

For me, as a child in the city, if my parents couldn’t send me to camp for the summer – and we didn’t know from year to year if that was possible – summer meant spending all day with “the gang” roaming Riverside Park or Central park with friends. Of course I use the word “gang” in its loosest possible sense. Crime didn’t enter into it. All that much.  We’d hit the park each toting along a canteen, generally filled with Tang, and a compass, and that most indispensable of exploration gear – walkie-talkies. We may have been in the park, mere blocks from home, but in our adventures we explored Mars! The Moon! We formed an elite commando unit moving through the growth to rescue The Boys trapped on a Pacific Island… we went everywhere and did everything. Not bad for city kids whose Boy Scout Troop met in what would shortly become Plato’s Retreat.


There was a time – could it have been so long ago? – when low power, 100mw, walkie-talkies were so popular that every hit movie or TV show issued a set to go with the entertainment. 007, Batman, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., Lost in Space – all had walkie-talkies. G.I. Joe had an “official” set! And the frequency they used crackled and buzzed with intrigue and derring-do, all punctuated by the calls of, “Can you still hear me?”


Sometimes, for SUPER-SECRET tasks, we used Morse Code. Some walkie-talkie sets had a copy of the code printed on the front of the “transceiver,” as we called them with Popular Science bravado. But most of the neighborhood kids memorized the code. That was then… So “Twentieth Century.” Does anyone now in these sophisticated, Hi-Tech days, use Morse Code?

I still have a pair of “toy” walkie-talkies, circa 1981; late in the cycle to be sure, but just the same as they always were, right down to the bleating Morse Code key on the side. Today, my erstwhile passport to adventure serves a more mundane purpose. Like when one of us has to go to the tenement roof to adjust something, or stay in the apartment while someone investigates that leak in the basement… Where is the fun in that? Who needs dots and dashes for a leaky roof?


A few afternoons back, I took out one of my vintage “toy” walkie-talkies to take a listen. 35-40 years back, in summer this gadget would have been a wall to wall mishmash of pre-teen messages flying through the ether among kids out at a hard day of play. Today? What did I hear? Static.

I suppose the fun of this kind of thing has been rendered passé by text messaging and cell calls… Or maybe kids just don’t go out on adventures when at home they have an XBox to play with rather than the real world… Do they know the fun they are missing? How does an old-timer explain it?


As kids we had great fun with these – and we did some wild stuff – including a few adventures we all swore to secrecy. I will still never admit to those didoes and escapades even under torture. Now, instead of fizzing and buzzing with the sounds of kids exploring the moon, or raiding the enemy over the hill… these frequencies are silent.

I still get the urge now and then to take one out to listen. Sometimes I send messages to… to nobody. They all grew up and the magic is gone…

Have you got a set of these? Maybe one summer day you too may give in to the urge and dust them off, stick in a 9v battery and listen. If you find yourself in or around Hell’s Kitchen, you may hear me breaking the silence… and who knows… I may hear you and answer back.

Supreme Court Hysteria… Don’t Buy It!

August 5, 2016

So many people who have only a sketchy idea of how our government operates are quivering in fear over “losing” the Supreme Court. And when that happens ALL OUR RIGHTS WILL BE REPEALED!!!!!

First of all… look at my earlier posts here about FEAR.

People who instill fear in you are playing you. They are manipulating you. They are causing you to FEAR simply to further their own political agenda. There is a word for people who use fear to promote political change: TERRORIST!

So if you are one of those frightened people, take a deep breath and read, because your fears are toothless… BEHOLD:

This may shock some of the people only now paying attention, but the US Supreme Court does not have the final say in anything.

What they do can be undone or even superseded. For over two centuries, our government has had an effective set of CHECKS AND BALANCES which temper radical changes, and prevents any one branch from controlling things. Ask President Obama, who – although wildly popular – cannot get his new right-wing Supreme Court nominee a Senate hearing, and who has had much of his “legacy” tossed out by the courts as unconstitutional.  Those are our checks and balances in action.

You fear: SUPREME COURT WILL ELIMINATE…… whatever your pet cause is…
Well, the court almost never hears cases they have already decided and even Clarence Thomas (put on the court by Democrats!) has often said that they will not reverse “settled law” including Roe v. Wade. To do so would bring utter chaos.

But… what would really happen if they did? Suppose a radical court just decided to reverse all manner things? 

To see what would happen, let’s look at a recent time when the Court actually did eliminate something:

In 1972 the Supreme Court voided all death penalty sentences.
And we have not had a person put to death in America since… right?
Here is how it works.
The court only says that something violates the constitution, in their majority opinion. Not whether it is good or bad, right or wrong. So let’s say they opine that Same Sex Marriage is unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.
Then the laws get re-written. Or, and here is something lawyers know but most citizens do not: Local jurisdictions CANNOT give fewer or less legal rights than the Federal Government does but they CAN give MORE rights than the federal government.
So even if Same Sex Marriage is rejected by SCOTUS, your state and all the states can do it anyway.
And going by the decision that threw it out, the states will tailor the law to survive a court challenge.
Then it will be allowed.

Just as they reintroduced the death penalty.

But it takes… Work.

Hitting the streets. Lobbying. Organizing. And yes, many people worked hard for the right to kill people. Can you work that hard for life-affirming laws you support?

Remember: The Supreme Court is but one PART of one of THREE co-equal branches of our government.
They do not have the final say. Not by a long-shot.
Ask anyone on death row.


How To Decide Anything…

August 1, 2016

Mardi Gras readings

In my work as a Tarot card reader, people frequently asked me how they can best select a personal reader for themselves.

Many factors go into this decision, but I do have one bottom line: if you feel worse after a reading than you did before the reading, never go back to that reader. A reader who fills you with anxiety and fear is preparing to fleece you. An ethical leader helps you.

The same can be said of choosing a political candidate. If you listen to a candidate or see their ads, and you come away feeling scared, that is not the person to vote for. I don’t care what party they may be in, for their age or their gender. One thing is perfectly clear: Inducing fear in you is a way to stop you from thinking rationally. Fear puts us into the Fight/Flight mode and curtails thinking. That is the only reason to put anyone in a state of fear.

You can see the fear technique in full display here:

Whether it be a Tarot reader, to whom you tell your deepest thoughts, or a politician in whom you put your deepest hopes, avoid anyone – and I mean anyone – who deliberately scares you. There is money and power in fear. It’s your money and your power that gets taken.

Speaking of The Music Man, that show is set in the year 1919. That’s the same year in which a very important book on the subject of fear appeared: Unmasking Fear by Lloyd Kenyon Jones. To read more about that book, and a new edition for which I provided the introduction, click this image:

Click this Image To Rad About The Book

Click this Image To Read About The Book


The Last VP Who Took Gifts As Governor…

July 23, 2016

Washington, DC: Vice President Agnew, left, held a last-minute meeting with President Nixon at the White House, September 10, just before departing on a week-long, six-state swing to campaign on behalf of the Republican candidates. Agnew's trip is regarded as the first part of an intensive campaign, which should keep the vice president on the road frequently until election time, in a Republican effort to capture the Senate and House and retain control of the state capitols. --- Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

Anti-Democracy “Liberals”

June 19, 2016


The frustrated Withers have turned from gloating to mocking. They simply cannot admit to themselves that a little-known senator went from 60 points behind the “inevitable” candidate to SUCCESSFULLY STOPPING HILLARY CLINTON FROM GETTING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.
He and his supporters did it!
Now, as the next step in the nominating process approaches, the Withers want that next step to just… go away.
As President Obama said last week: “Bernie Sanders has earned the right through what he’s done in this campaign season to end this campaign on his own time, on his own schedule.”
And rather than end now, which he doesn’t have to do, Sanders has decided – AS IS HIS RIGHT – to go to the convention.
The Withers HATE THAT.
Yet, this is DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, and it is galling to these “liberals” because – as Phil Ochs noted: “Liberals are 10º to the left of center in good times but 10º to the right of center when it affects them personally.”
They LOVE, LOVE, LOVE democracy – until it fails to give them what they want WHEN they want it. Then they denounce democracy.
That is what every call for Sanders to drop out is doing.
Each such call is a demand to END FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
This anti-democratic attitude does not bode well for a potential Clinton Administration.
Vote your conscience, not your fears.

Why Does Hillary Need Sanders To Quit?

June 12, 2016

     Despite the media spin, after his meeting a few days ago with President Obama, Bernie Sanders clearly stated that he is in this race through to the convention. The video is barely 5 minutes long. See it if you have not seen it yet.
Sanders’ insistence that he will continue irritates the hell out of the Clinton contingent.
Sanders is talking democracy, and the Clinton crowd calls it sexist, egomania, insanity…
It is democracy. And even Pres. Obama, through his press secretary, said that Sanders has “earned the right” to make his own decision on whether or not to stay in.
So why is this a problem for the Clinton wing of the Democratic party?

Why, if Mrs. Clinton is the “official” Democratic nominee, does she even need Sanders to drop out?

What difference could his staying or going possibly make? This begs examination.

     Simply put, If Clinton has the required number of delegates, as she claims she has, then what’s the fuss?  All that will happen is that the convention will hold ONE public round of voting and she will be the nominee.

Cue the deluge of Red, White, and Blue balloons!

🎵 🎵 Happy Days Are Here Again! 🎵 🎵

Blow those horns! Shout! Scream! Cop a feel from the delegate nearest you!

     But if this is what will happen, because Clinton has it locked up (right?)… why must Sanders drop out? Isn’t it worth it to the furious “Withers” to humiliate Sanders by making the grumpy sexist egomaniac sit through the whole Megillah, festooned with Clinton’s victory balloons? Does he not have this coming?

     Let’s try to find out what is really back of this bizarre demand that a person who has lost… should quit. To that end, I will entertain an exercise in ratiocination.

What is it that is looming in the near future that Sanders will be involved with but that worries Clinton?

Certainly not the DC primary on June 14th. Piffle!

Is it the final California count, which is inching to a close?

These are minor things.

It simply has to have something to do with… the convention.

Something about the convention isn’t quite going “With Her”… What is it?
Let’s Examine the options.

Let us say that – as was the case with candidates in the past – Mrs. Clinton, thoroughly convinced that she will be the next president, views the televised convention as the first big, splashy public moment in that presidency – rather than the simple insider nominating process it actually is.

     In this case, the convention would assume a larger place in her mind than such a routine process actually holds. It will become crucial as part of  a larger plan.

Clinton, clearly, sees an urgency in stage-managing the convention to salve her own needs, not the needs of the party and not the needs of the system.

     A well-oiled coronation will provide Clinton with a Niagara of adoring video clips and sound bites for the coming general election, which in her mind she also has locked up, just like she locked up the nomination. But slick advertising will always be needed – and what is better than images of a cheering, weeping-for-joy throng at the convention?

     So what, as things stand now, will the Democratic convention look like?
     The delegates from the 50 states and the several territories will place names into nomination and then pledged delegates will be given alphabetically, state by state, territory by territory. You know the drill:

Each state/territory will have its moment in the sun, on national television:

“The great state of Wyoming, gateway to… Wyoming. Home of… Wyominganians… The state that Milt Kamen said does not really exist, DOES exist and casts its delegates – CLINTON 43 (cheers) SANDERS 55, (sustained cheers)!”

Oops. That doesn’t look so good on TV for Clinton, does it.

And on it will go. State by state, territory by territory.

will ring out time and again, from each delegation because the democrats didn’t have a “winner take all” primary system (which you can bet the farm they WILL have by 2020).

At three minutes for each geographic location and its delegates, plus interstitial applause and spontaneous cheering, this first round of voting should take no less than three hours. On TV.

SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! will be repeated over and over, as will the spontaneous peals of BERNIE! from the crowd.

For Hillary, who has already claimed the nomination and treats it as a fait accompli, this democratic process will not be just poor optics, it will be the death by a thousand cuts – even if she wins. But she won’t win because:

One by one, the states and territories will mete out delegates and after all that time – Clinton will have gathered more than enough pledged delegates to be declared, under the DNC rules, a “WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.”
Not the nominee. But a “WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.”

Yes, after the first ballot, Hillary Clinton will go down in the history books as the first American woman to ever be declared, by a “Major” Party… a WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.


More than three hours of this on international television, beamed around the world and even up to the International Space Station, and at the end of the voting Hillary Clinton, “presumptive” nominee will not have won.

No Balloons… and Happy Days Are not quite here yet.

At this point, Clinton’s claim to have the nomination all sewn up will evanesce, as it is revealed to be premature, at best – and arrogant for sure, since Hillary Clinton arrogated the convention’s responsibility by assuming the mantle of nominee, as though it were a $12,500 Armani coat.

And then following that first round of votes… but after an interminable break for talking heads all over the TV spectrum to say over and over what lousy optics this is for Clinton and how un-leaderly it seems – another round of votes will ensue.

Only, not right away.

More time. A meal break, during which Clinton will avoid the media – something at which she excels considering that as I write this in June of 2016 she has not had an open press conference since December 4, 2015. She will chew on a burger, and chew out her staff in one of her notorious fits of anger. You know what it is like if you saw Clinton bite the head off a Greenpeace representative who asked her a simple question.

    For at this stage of the process, after the first vote and with no nominee selected, the Super Delegates we have heard so much about will vote. This is their moment. This is what Super Delegates were created for: To reevaluate the qualities that led the front-runner to be such a weak front-runner that the nomination is could not be given out on the first ballot.

These Super Delegates, there to protect the party from a weak candidate who only manages to scrape together a small majority, have the power to vote for whomever they deem strongest against the Republicans – and you can be sure that the cheering and demonstrations for each candidate seen during the initial vote will influence the process. It is meant to. That is participatory democracy at its finest. Liberals LOVE democracy and free speech right? Right?

And now, the arm twisting and horse-trading will commence. None of this will look good for the “presumed” nominee around the globe – or in outer space – ON TELEVISION.

Clinton may emerge as the nominee at this point, but only after floor fights and demonstrations and maybe with a smaller margin than she had imagined possible given her “inevitable” status.  But get this part perfectly straight: if there is any screwing around with the process all hell will break loose, as it damn well should. Remember, despite unbelievable obstacles, Bernie Sanders has won the support of HALF OF THE DEMOCRATS. The other half loses sight of that at their own peril.

But the convention process – an open and democratic process – apparently does not assuage Clinton’s personal need to seem inevitable, a need so clearly evinced since last year when the DNC named Hillary and Hillary alone as their choice.

Long before a party nominee is selected, the process will show Clinton for exactly what she is: A WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.

Unless, DRUMROLL, Sanders retreats. Throws in the towel. Capitulates. If he does, then the convention becomes the Hillary Show, unfettered by democracy and untainted by the opinions, beliefs, and principles of half the Democratic party. Good luck with that in November. Keeping Sanders in may be bad for Hillary’s grandiose vision of her place in the world, but it is good for democracy and will be needed to maintain the goodwill of half the party.

And the hypocrisy is…  after quashing democracy (if Sanders quits) or having failed to quash it (as seems the way it is going for her) and going the long way around, Clinton will speak of unity as though she were a Great Healer (the speech is already written, you better believe)

This is why, to Hillary, Sanders has to go. And why, to America, Sanders has to stay.

Hillary’s optics, arrogance, ego, neediness will do her in sooner or later.

For her, it is not enough to win. Everyone else has to be wiped out. Now, where have I heard that before?




The Sting, Part Three…

June 4, 2016

See all those LIKES? All those SHARES in the post above? All is going exactly as planned… planned by Trump.
And the posting group makes the claim that “this so needed to be said”?

Yeah. That’s Trump’s sentiment in a nutshell. He needs this constant media coverage.

Just keep posting articles about him. Keep talking about him on CNN. That kind of media coverage is how Trump wiped out all competition in the primaries. But you weren’t looking because you were reading how he was a buffoon doomed to fail.

Don’t these media saps know that Trump says all those “insane” things PRECISELY so he can suck all the oxygen out of the room? Or, as he said it, “I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.”

The LIKES and SHARES and COMMENTARY on the post above? Just what Trump wants.

To repeat: “I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.”

Don’t people constantly say TRUMP IS A CON MAN? We all know he is a con-man, yet look at all the press he generates.

He knows what every successful con man knows: when the marks are blown off, they should not even know they’ve been played. This is why so many Trump University suckers ARE SATISFIED.

Now look how PROUD the marks who posted the story above are… for what? For just having posted this.  They got stung, they don’t know it, and I assure you they will come back for more.
(And no, I shared an image NOT the link. Sharing these links is for saps.)

Listen: Concerning all the web links on Social Media to items like SHE TAKES DOWN TRUMP AND IT’S AMAZING!… no it is not amazing. IT IS PUBLICITY and that is precisely what Trump counts on.
Didn’t you read this explanation of HOW HE DID IT?
“I’m going to walk away with it and win it outright. I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.”

And that is exactly what Trump’s “The Judge Is A Hateful Mexican” ploy did, with an assist from FOX/Megyn Kelly. Before that, people were talking about the California Primary. Now they are talking only about Trump. And that works to his benefit.

Trump won the primary contest that way and the only thing that I find AMAZING is… people still fall for it.

Until the AWESOME SPEECH, Everyone was talking about Hillary and Sanders meeting up in the California primary, but now the lights are all on Trump. ONE MORE TIME: “I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.”
All the people gloating over his EPIC TAKEDOWN are a species of ripe marks such as Barnum never imagined.

Yes, the Withers are all agog over Clinton’s EPIC TAKEDOWN of Trump, but is that speech enough for a campaign? Think Hillary’s speech is a winner? Well, she cannot run on that. Sooner or later Hillary will have to answer questions.
Kinda takes the bite out of calling Trump a coward. But, hey, she has that speech.
“Remember that speech I gave in June?” will not make a successful campaign.
As she herself knows, and said in 2007…

The Democrats need a strong candidate. One not under a cloud for violating security laws and violating the Freedom of Information Act. Just when the Republicans have their worst candidate in 50 years, the DNC anoints Nixon in a Pants Suit. Brilliant move.
When the convention comes about there will be a choice because no matter what the Withers say, nobody gets the nomination on pledged delegates with fewer than 59% of the total. And Hillary isn’t going to get that.

The Super Delegates will have to decide which democrat is stronger.  The numbers? This is the number the delegates had best pay attention to… Trump is WAY more trusted than Clinton. Get a strong, TRUSTED candidate or else Trump wins. We have to do better than THESE TWO: