The Things You Don’t See

I didn’t mean to scare anyone with my plethora of medical appointments.  I needed to get blood drawn to test the adjustment on the thyroid meds.  I also arranged to have a vision test, because I find myself panicking behind the wheel and that either meant that my vision was gone wonky, or my head had.  And while I’d panicked before while driving, when my vision was bad, I’d never gone crazy that way.  Precisely.

Anyway, so I went to get my vision tested.  For three years it was a real problem getting any writing done.  I couldn’t focus, I couldn’t “be there” and I couldn’t think myself into the story.  Also, for the first time in my life, I had trouble thinking of the right word and sometimes had to approach it by spiraling towards the meaning.

Now writing is relatively easy and I’m enjoying it again, but there have been a lot of interruptions.  I thought.  Or maybe my attention is not as intense as I thought.

At any rate, that’s not why I went to get my eyes checked.  I went because of the driving thing.

Turns out my vision is completely messed up, and not only has my astigmatism got doubly worse, but I somehow have double vision horizontally.

So, now I have ordered new glasses, which should make the writing easier, and maybe allow me to drive.

Anyway, that’s what we don’t see.  When what you use to see with is off, unless it’s really obvious (and sometimes then) you end up not realizing what was wrong.

On the other hand, sometimes what we don’t see affects us.

This week, I had two things rubbed in my nose.  One was that some kids in a college (and I’m not sure where, but it was linked at instapundit.  Might even have been by me) I think Loyola, were complaining about an “America” themed party, which makes them feel “divisive and unwelcoming” or something.  Because American citizens, or guests, living in America, should not love America or celebrate the special place we live in because…  I got nothing.

Also driving down the highway, I came across someone with a bumpersticker that said “I made the dhs list” which, you know, reminded me of how people who have great attachment to the constitution are are considered a terrorism risk.

I have before said that the people from the sixties, propagandized by the soviet union into thinking the US was all wrong and responsible for everything bad, are now in charge of most institutions (and the further left they are, the more in charge they are) and raised at least a generation to despise their own country and be afraid to feel any love for it.

This is the sort of thing that happens to occupied nations.  As my friend Bill Reader says, the problem is we lost the war.  Not the cold war, the propaganda war.  The USSR turned at least one of our generations into occupiers, who then destroyed the very heart of patriotism and love for our country.

We didn’t do that to Germany or Japan after defeat.  But for the USSR that was the way to our defeat.

That tantrum the millenials are throwing?  They’re throwing it, because they thought everyone agreed with them that America was terrible and should be destroyed from within. Or maybe it’s because the poor bunnies don’t even understand that everything they want to do would destroy the good things about the system.

They don’t realize that on average they have the freest, most prosperous life of anyone but the very rich in the other nations.  They don’t realize that compared to the rest of the world, this is still the land of opportunity.

They’ve lived here all their lives, in the lap of luxury, so much that they don’t see it.  And so, they’ve allowed themselves to be propagandized and made to feel guilty, and convinced the rest of the world is poor because they’re well off, and that they have to destroy America so the world will be better and wealthier.

Of course that’s not what will happen. When America sneezes, the world catches pneumonia.  Which means if the US falls, the world loses its engine of wealth and innovation.

So these blind children led by the blind are trying to destroy the things they love, in the name of making it all better, which it won’t.

We must apply corrective to the nation as soon as possible.  And I mean right now.  Let’s  go work on it.


127 thoughts on “The Things You Don’t See

  1. “Or maybe it’s because the poor bunnies don’t even understand that everything they want to do would destroy the good things about the system.”

    This right here explains everything.

    1. I don’t think it’s quite that. I’d phrase it that they don’t realize the good things ARE part of the system. I think they are so used to the luxuries of our country that they don’t notice them the way a fish doesn’t notice water. I think they believe that after the Revolution they would of course continue to live in a four bedroom house with an XBox and wireless high-speed internet access because that’s the way things are and the way things have always been. They will of course continue to have three substantial meals a day and as many snacks as they feel like. They will continue to have the freedom to be either an atheist or a Buddhist or whatever sort of neo-Paganism floats their boat, because it’s unthinkable it should be otherwise.

      I don’t think the bunnies have any idea how abnormal their situation is.

      1. Some of the forums I frequent have SHTF (civil collapse) subforums. Theoretically they’re about survival techniques, but even a casual skim of the topics reveals that a large number of people think “zombie apocalypse” means “ATMs are down, and the stores are empty, but we still have electricity and cellular phones.”

        These people may have all the latest designer weapons and survival gear, but their mentality is somewhere between “stoop labor” and “food.”

        Extra points for the ones who brag about moving all their r “FRNs” (survivalist-speak for paper money) into gold. Because gold will always have intrinsic value, and can’t be artificially inflated like paper. Where is the gold? It’s in a secret vault in Ungabunga. How do they know they actually have any gold? They got a very nice PDF by email. And how will they get their gold after the apocalypse? They’ll email the gold company, who’ll Fedex it to them overnight.

        The mind, she boggle.

        1. And even if the gold is in your physical possession, how pray tell are you going to spend it. Mostly it’s in bullion or bullion equivalent coins. Here, I have this one ounce Krugerrand. I’d like to buy a loaf of bread, two cans of soup, and I’ll take the change in five pounds of silver.
          There’s value, and then there’s practical usable exchange value.

          1. Maybe the only value in a heavy metal is weighing a sock. Defensive weapon classic and enhanced.
            Or maybe the prophecy will again be fulfilled, and people will literally throw their gold in the street.

          1. One of the greatest line of the old Dr. Who was a query about weapons in the TARDIS that might apply in this case some.

            “Where are its armaments?”
            *The Doctor points to his head.*
            “They’re in here.”

            1. While there’s an element of true in that sort of statement, I can’t help but think that the Doctor wins because the scriptwriters are on his side. 😈

              1. Of courser the scriptwriters are on the Doctor’s side — they’re inside his head.

                That given, please repeat the invocation: “There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.”

                  1. What some call dangerous weapons, yes. What they would call dangerous weapons, no. Imagine a crappy gun that jams all the time and is utterly unreliable (the sort of thing you really would turn in at a gun “buy-back” event, just to be rid of the thing and not have another risk using it). That’s a dangerous weapon – the danger is that it will fail at a critical time.

                    1. Yep, there are weapons more dangerous to the users than anybody else.

                      But being a contrary sort-of-person when I hear “there are no dangerous weapons, there are dangerous men”, I think of an unarmed “dangerous man” facing somebody with a long-range weapon.

                      Maybe the unarmed man is “more dangerous” than the man with the rifle but if the man with the rifle is willing to kill, the unarmed man better find cover. 😉

          2. I constantly have to remind BitCoin fans that if it has any intersection with the real world, any government where that is can regulate it and tax it.

            1. I constantly remind them that if they keep using the word ‘currency’ for it and keep acting like they can spend it like money… well, the government might treat it as such.

      2. The bunnies tend to get into a snit when you point out that by any sane stadnards, we are living in a post-scarcity world. You can’t run a homeless shelter without amenities (deemed necessary to make it fit for human habitation) that kings and queens and emperors did not enjoy a couple of centuries ago, and if “charity cases live better than royalty” is not post-scarcity, nothing is.

        One went so far as to get into a snit at the “meme.” and hoped it would expire.

          1. There’s oceans of liquid hydrocarbon on Titan, and more materials floating around the solar system- materials people keep saying we need to stop from randomly floating around the solar system, mind you- than humanity has ever used. But finite resources!!!!

          2. Maybe it was someone here who pointed out that petroleum saved us from Peak Whale. (And if that head-explosion wasn’t enough: Whale oil is a renewable resource.)

        1. “I wanted to live in a country where the poor people are fat.” Indian immigrant on why he moved to the US.

          1. The bit left out of the “Kids Going Hungry” in the US is most of them that actually might miss a meal are often from families where someone is actually working, trying to get out of poverty, and therefore can’t get all the assistance the welfare cases do, or more usually, are not using that assistance they can get. The leftoid solutions to these issues tend to encourage people to not try, as opposed to ridding some of the burden those trying.

            1. And that the question is basically “have you recently had a time when you couldn’t get what you wanted to eat?” Since I like high fat icecream, prime rib, and hot buttered cornbread loaves from B*st*n Market, and two of the three are not found locally while the third is a wee bit outside my budget, by the Dept of Ag standards, I’m hungry.

              1. Aw gee … I’m on a low-carb high-protein diet because of Type II Diabetes and never get enough to eat. No fried rice, no french freedom fries, no pad thai or singapore street noodles, no baguettes, croissants, brioche or garlic bread.

                America is a terrible country!!!!!

              2. I looked at one of those surveys once, and my kids, who have never missed a meal in their lives (except when they had stomach viruses) are ‘food insecure’ because we grocery shop once a week and the day before grocery day is “leftovers day.” And some of them don’t like leftovers.

              3. That’s why we get that wonderful modern weasel word “food insecurity” . As one modern philosopher asked, “does food insecurity mean a kid might not have a pillowcase full of donuts to fall asleep on each night?”

          2. A lady visited here mother-in-law had not seen in years. She complimented her, saying “you’re fat.”

            Few in the US have ever seen real poverty.

        2. Yeah, yesterday I ran across a post by a perfectly good storyteller insisting that America is literally trying to starve poor people and Republicans think if you’re on welfare pasta sauce is an unreasonable luxury.


          1. Idiots. I could live very well on the “assistance” because we have gone through a lot of periods of spending way less than that on food. (Because we didn’t have it. See first two years of Robert’s life, where a tiny slice of meat seasoned veggies and rice. Yes, we gained tons of weight, but that’s because our metabolism is effed up. Stupid hunter gatherer ancestors.)

            1. Yes, but now we aren’t hunter gatherers. A radio hostess once said “We modern women don’t have to store up fat in our behinds in case the men don’t get the mammoth. Now we have 7 – 11.

              1. Jerry, I completely get this, but my idiot metabolism doesn’t, forcing me to keep my carbs to a minimum. 😀
                Hope you had a wonderful thanksgiving, and I was glad to see from Alexander’s FB post that Roberta is recovering.

          2. There remains a distinction between “deliberately trying to effect a result” and being indifferent to the results of one’s inaction. The folks really trying to starve poor people are those dedicated to keeping them impoverished by denying them self-actualization achieved through gainful employment, imposing absurdly high regulatory overhead on jobs.

            Democrats think if you’re on welfare kale and arugula should be recognized as necessities (as is a quality inexpensive white wine.)

          3. … Pasta sauce goes for about 50c a big can, if you are buying the basic stuff. Also fills a “veggi” slot. I buy it by the flat, when it goes on sale I buy two and donate one.

            Guessing someone objected to the $2.50 a small bottle pre-made sauce that I rarely buy as a treat? (Less for pasta than to make a chicken dish…it’s nicer than cream of mushroom soup.)

      3. I think it was Bill Whittle who pointed out all the people doing stuff “behind the scenes” that let the scenes happen at all. “If they stopped to watch the show, there wouldn’t be a show.”

  2. It is always a problem to see what is right before your eyes, to see that which has always been there and is taken for granted.

    Though they are first to ridicule Marie Antoinette* they are also first to emulate her.

    *I know – it’s a bum rap and she never said it. But hardly anyone would recognize an accurate citation.

  3. Eyes … tend to change so slowly it is easy to miss the fading vision. My incremental deterioration had to reach the point when I realized that by the time I could read the street sign I had missed my turn. Then I got glasses and was amazed at the clarity of textures in the cat’s fur when he settled into my lap for his pettings.

    1. RES, I just got to have that experience after cataract surgery in September, both eyes. I went from having trouble shopping for groceries because I couldn’t read the signs in the aisles to 20/20 both eyes, no astigmatism. The biggest change? realizing that I’d been putting in brighter and brighter light bulbs for the last three years and hadn’t noticed.

    2. Ran into that when I got my every other year eye check. (It should be yearly, but it’s my out-of-pocket, and my eyes were pretty stable since cataract surgery 4 years ago.) Surprise!

      The right eye was OK, but trying to read text with the left was futile. When did that happen? Some bulges caused the doc to give a quiet O-shit and a referral to the retina specialist west of the Cascades. Some interesting tests (I rather bemused by the fluorescein dye test that made for chrome-yellow pee the rest of the day.) and bright lights and some fascinating technology–this engineering geek doesn’t get scared if it’s interesting. At least, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

      The result is that I have a slow-growing, but fixable film that’s distorting the retina. I also have clouding of the membrane behind the prosthetic lenses, but I suspect the fix for the membrane should wait until they muck with the retina. The good news is, it’s slow, the bad news, I probably can’t afford to have it fixed for a year, when my medicare kicks in. Meanwhile, my stereo vision is slightly better than Cyclops…

      I’m doing self checks with a grid card, and I’ll see the doc next spring for another check. The procedure sounds rather like using a leaf rake in my eye, but I’ll dwell on the technology…

    3. It was amazing, for years, whenever I got a new prescription and far distant things would suddenly snap into focus. Again. But I had missed their going out of focus.

        1. I went to see about new glasses, and discovered that one eye corrects to 20-20 with my present glasses, and the other corrects to 20-70 and the old present glasses are as good as I’m going to get. So next spring it’s cataract operation time. I am anticipating that with decidedly mixed emotions. Meanwhile, I read better with one eye than I do with both. Fun trying to adjust to that.

          1. Jerry, I just went through that for both eyes, and it’s wonderful. My mother also went through it a few years ago, and the surgery time and the implant options are better than what she had. I was able to correct to 20/20 and no astigmatism. I did have to pay extra for implants that would give me both distance and relatively close (computer screen distance, about 18 inches) vision.

            1. My dad postponed the cataract removal until it became impossible for him to drive, because his mother had had it done in *her* seventies, and it effectively blinded her. I occasionally still see him kicking himself (figuratively) for not getting it done sooner. Apparently medical technology had advanced, just a bit, in the intervening four decades.

              1. I knew a blogger who had the operation recently who went from “legally blind” to “seeing double.” He had to work at it, crossing his eyes until the images superimposed and then staring at it until it clicked that they were the same thing.

                Still, even seeing double is better than not at all.

  4. OK, so you have a thyroid problem, and your vision is funky. You might need a CT or MRI of the pituitary to make sure there is not a tumor there causing all of the above.

    1. I agree. Our lovely hostess needs to visit a neurologist.

      Presumably the eye doctor did an “automated perimetry” test, the one where you stare into a goggle machine and press a button every time you see a flicker of light. If not, she needs to find an eye doctor to do it soon. A pituitary tumour often presses on the optic nerve, and this is a cheap test to find that problem.

    2. If TSH is elevated when not under treatment, it’s almost certainly not the pituitary.

      However, longstanding hypothyroid, once it progresses to Hashimoto’s, can lead to parathyroid tumors which cause all the same symptoms as low thyroid (with the sole exception of elevating blood calcium levels). So if adequate thyroid dosage (T3 in upper third of the range) doesn’t fix the problem, that should be looked into.

      1. t3 seems to still be low, despite suplementation. I don’t seem to have tumors (mom does.) And I’ve probably been hypothyroid for 15 to 18 years. BUT what is happening in my case is my autoimmune attacking the thyroid output itself.

      2. My wife calls her (former) parathyroid tumors her “seeds of evil” because they caused her all manner of mood problems.

        They were diagnosed because she went to a new doctor, and he did a battery of blood tests. When he discovered that her blood calcium levels were high and said “Go see a endocrinologist. They’re likely going to want to do surgery.” They did do surgery, and her mood is so vastly much better.

        Encouraged by this, I went to see the same doctor. He drew blood for the battery of tests and when the results came back he said “you need to lose weight.” I responded “Can’t I have the surgery?” Apparently not.

        I wasn’t aware of the connection between hypothyroidism and parathyroid tumors. You learn something new every day.

  5. Yes, some of them (not all, certainly not around here in East Tennessee) are throwing tantrums. But it’s our responsibility to not be enablers of their tantrums. They have to learn about life and the real world sometime, and the sooner the better (for them). So if nothing else we need to make it clear to them that their tantrums aren’t going to get anyone to accede to their demands or to placate them in any way, and are much more likely to have exactly the impact to what they desire.

  6. BTW – this constituting a second post of the day I hope you will take tomorrow off (perhaps repost a vintage Thanksgiving day post or make it an open thread.)

    Spend time with the family or just with good books.

  7. That tantrum the millenials are throwing?  They’re throwing it, because they thought everyone agreed with them that America was terrible and should be destroyed from within. Or maybe it’s because the poor bunnies don’t even understand that everything they want to do would destroy the good things about the system.

    Not even a lot of Millenials– just the ones that are use to being coddled by the progressives that were given authority over them, telling ’em feel good lies.
    I’ve got Gen-X cousins doing the same thing, and we’ve seen the folks old enough to be grandparents doing it. Heck, family friends that are your age are doing the Freak Out.

    Spoiled brat Syndrome. The college age kids (youngest third or quarter of Millennials?) just have some kind of a justification.

    1. Perhaps just because I have not had breakfast yet, but I have this mental picture of the cry-babies being carefully decanted from egg shells into coddling cups and then gently lowered into a warm-water bath.

  8. Just because they are wailing and getting noticed doesn’t mean they are significant. Note well who is doing the reporting, the grey Grima Wormtongues of the media. Also note how (comparatively) few are doing the wailing. Sure, the Intersectional Ecological Studies majors are out there in strength, but they have hardly anything to study and they all decided (in a voice vote) that grades made them feel threatened. Meanwhile, all the STEM types are too busy to even keep track of the days of the week, let alone protest about the gendered nuances of power plugs.

    Seriously, we need renegade reporters who will put that kind of information in their articles (and have a kill switch if they are edited)– “x protesters waggled signs demanding the extermination of punctuation at $somecampus (y% of the z total student population).” Every time.

    1. How would a “kill switch if they are edited” work? Would it be something like “If they edit that out of the article, I post the original version on my blog”? I could easily see the reporter getting into trouble for copyright violation if he did that, given that his writing was almost certainly a work-for-hire and therefore copyright would be owned by the media company rather than him. And since the media company almost certainly has the final say on how it chooses to edit things, rather than the reporter having the final say, I don’t see any practical “kill switch” that would work. But maybe you have an idea I haven’t thought of.

      1. Oh, that’s purest wishful vaporware on my part. 😀 I do know there are such things as kill fees for freelance articles (and newspapers are relying more and more on wire services and freelancers vs. their own reporters). It might be fun to try and come up with a workable clause that would a) activate the kill fee and b) prevent ANY of the article being published if editors wanted to remove “crucial statements of fact” (such as the percentage of the student body actually protesting in the example above.) Such crucial statements to be highlighted or otherwise indicated, and the article writer would guarantee their factual nature with financial responsibility, or something like that. There must be some legal redress even now that prevents editors from removing crucial modifiers that would turn a mild article into libel, right? At least I hope so…

  9. The people I know that are freaking out aren’t stupid, they’re ignorant. They haven’t had the challenges, asked the hard questions nor journeyed to find true truth and beauty.

    They are the vegans that have never farmed. The first person shooter addicts that have never been in the military. The liberals that have never lived in a slum. The casual drug users that haven’t lost multiple family members to addiction. The communication majors that don’t listen. The humanities graduates that are experts on every technical subject. The search engineer users that know everything, but understand nothing.

    They are children.

    1. “The first person shooter addicts that have never been in the military.”

      Heck, most of them have never fired a gun or realize that when they run out of ammo there’s more to putting more bullets in than walking over them.

      1. Heck, most of them have never fired a gun or realize that when they run out of ammo there’s more to putting more bullets in than walking over them.

        One of the annoyances of real life. 😉

        1. Yeah. Once the family was tearing apart a novel over the dinner table, and you could tell our interests. My older sister thought that no early modern woman, even a prostitute, would jump to adopt blue jeans, as they are shockingly immodest. My yougner sister and I grumped about the way it treated the ideas of religious tolerance and democracy as self-evident, so absolute monarchs conducting wars of religion had only to hear them to be converted. My father objected to the way they never worried about ammo.

  10. A comment I saw on another blog

    Democrats haven’t been this upset since Republicans took away their slaves.

    1. I chuckled for a second, there, David. Then realized that there are all too many calls for the white sheets to come out again (or pink, or green, or whatever color the “superior people” choose this time around).

    2. Are they also talking about vote fraud, now? There is a news article here about some experts in something or other saying so in an article on New York Magazine, and how Clinton should ask for a recount ASAP in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They think the electronic voting machines may have been hacked.

      Right. The comments are funny though. Seems at least a lot of those Finns who comment online are not taking the claim all that seriously. Maybe there is some hope for my people yet.

      1. Some are blaming the Russians for tampering. Oddly, often the very same ones who belittled those who made claims the electronics were too open to tampering.
        It’s been often said that the only way to get rid of most of the vote fraud was to prove a Republican got voted in by it. Even one winning despite of it might be enough to lessen it, if we can get them to think it was because of the opposite.
        I don’t hold high hopes there, though.

        1. Reportedly these brainiacs found a 7% disparity in ballots cast between precincts using machines and those employing paper ballots.

          I cannot cite the source*, but apparently once adjustments for demographics are made the “unexplained” disparity is “zero.”

          *Time permitting, later today I will try to provide.

          1. Obviously a sign of tampering because they know they should have had enough fraud towards their side to offset the demographic?
            Well, these are the same folks who kept “finding” ballots in car trunks, all for Franken, until they got him a win. And saw nothing wrong with a district in Milwaukee voting at 110% of the population over 90% of that going for 0bama

              1. I don’t think they can with the numbers I see, nothing was close enough to fudge the electoral numbers after MI went 10,000+ to Trump.
                all they could maybe do is give her more in states she won, and maybe make a few closer, but he would still have the Electoral. and then she gets hammered for Super Delegates, which means even more likely the “Civil War” solution. But I can’t say I’d put it past them to try.
                leftoids is schtupid

                1. This is less about reclaiming the election — Hillary’s waaaaaaaaay behind on the transition, eh?

                  This kind of nonsense is about 2020, gearing up the base on dreams that “We wuz robbed!” and stoking nostalgia for their “glorious cause” — something the Dems know hot to do very very well.

                    1. The latest tactic is Elijah Cummings and Elizabeth Warren calling for the GAO to investigate Trump’s transition team because of “chaotic”.

                      Sounds like Sarah Palin Ethics Charges 2.0.

                    2. The Demmed, they do not like “chaotic” — that is why they conspired arranged to prevent it in their primaries.

                      Chaotic might enable the wrong people to move up. That would be deplorable.

              2. A recount would probably indicate that Hillary did not win even the popular vote; since it’s pretty easy to show that she got some strange vote totals in California; and of course there’s Illinois, where JFK got more votes in one county than there are registered voters, but Eisenhower forbade Nixon to challenge it. But that was in a different time, and besides, they’re all dead.

                1. According to this, almost her entire “popular vote lead” comes from California. Yeah, I’d call that “pretty strange,” too . . .


                  And now I see that California lefties are trying to start up a secession movement. I’ve got family living near Lake Almanor in Plumas County – on the sane side of the Sierras – who’d just love to see Cali’s coastal lefties leave because they and their neighbors really, really want to go back to living in a red state. Mind you, I imagine that holds true for a lot of other Californians outside Sacramento, LA and the SF/San Jose Googleplex . . .

                  Perhaps those three metro areas could simply be designated independent city states? 😛

                  1. I don’t know about “pretty strange”. I found a site with this year’s vote totals (Clinton got about 3.8Mil votes more than Trump this year, or 61.9% vs 32.4%), and it also has a comparison of the Dem margin vs Rep from 2012 and 2016, as well as vote totals for both years. Total votes went down slightly in Cali this year by not quite 70k votes, and Clinton’s margin of victory was 29.5% to Obama’s 23.1%.

                    Making a SWAG at the “other” votes (5.8% this year), and guessing it at 5% last election, then using the 23.1% margin, that would put Obama at just under 3 Million votes over Romney, while Clinton got just under 4 Million more votes than Trump. Not really that hard to believe for California.

                2. The latest thing (from some attorney in the Bush Admin) is that if Trump doesn’t have a fire sale divesting every business he owns, he’ll be in violation of the Emoluments Clause, because he does business with non Americans, the moment he takes the oath. Therefore, it is the duty of the electors to refuse to vote for him because he’s ineligible.

                  Not a peep out of these scum about the fact that Hildebeeste was in violation of that clause both as a Senator and SecState from day One.

                  1. of course not, the Clinton Foundation is just a nonprofit that just happens to pay both her and her husband multimillion dollar salaries and accept payments from foreign nationals in order to conveniently meet with her when she was SecState.

                    1. just happens to pay both her and her husband multimillion dollar salaries

                      Okay, I have to challenge that. I dn’t think they do pay Bill & Hill “multimillion dollar salaries” because that would be both unnecessary and bad tax management. The proper way to go about that while maintaining minimal tax liability is for the Foundation to pay the Clintons negligible salaries commensurate with their status while picking up the tab for all credible* expenses.

                      For example, the Foundation pays all travel expenses not picked up by the party paying for a speech. It also provides a non-taxable clothing allowance to ensure that the Foundation’s principals have wardrobe suitable to their role as representatives of the Foundation. The Foundation can also provide stipends or meal allowances to cover ordinary expenses commensurate with their duties as agents of the Foundation. Further, the Foundation can own all residences used by the principals, maintaining those facilities in order to enable the representatives to fulfill their duties on behalf of the Foundation. All of those “personal living expenses” become expenses of the Foundation.

                      I am sure Hillary is well aware of such dodges intricacies of tax law as she employed them when Bill was “the lowest paid governor in all fifty states” with a measly $35K annual salary accompanied by free housing, state-provided security, day care, housekeeping and maintenance staff and a $100K entertainment budget. On top of which she claimed generous tax deductions for donation of Bill’s “used” undershorts to charity — donations which were likely never audited by the IRS and certainly not by the Arkansas Department of Revenue..

                      *The boundaries of credibility can withstand considerable strain in such cases.

                    2. No, I was marveling at the wonderful claims one can make when highly confident that a) a tax return is highly unlikely to be audited and b) if audited it is highly unlikely that any assertions made will be determined to be anything other than a good-faith misunderstanding of the code and certainly nothing worth a fine or penalty.

                      Shucks, everybody knows the tax code is much more difficult to understand that policies for proper handling of secure information and it is unthinkable that a Liberal Icon would deliberately act to reduce their taxes paid.

                  2. That should be an easy one to debunk.

                    go look at the founding fathers and the early presidents

                    Did George Washington sell his plantation when he was elected?

                    did his plantation not sell it’s products to non-americans?

                    repeat for every one of the early “Virginia” Presidents.

                    Not that they will let facts get in their way….

                    1. This is the logical extension of the ethics complaints (not one sustained) they used to hound Sarah Palin out of the Alaska governor….. and then labeled her a “quitter” because she wouldn’t bankrupt her family defending them.

                  3. If he is in violation of the Emoluments Clause let them impeach him. Yeah, that’ll go over well!

                    The Electoral College is not going to anoint Hillary.

                3. Eisenhower forbade Nixon to challenge it.

                  My understanding is that Nixon realized a) challenging Chicago’s votes could not have been done without also subjecting downstate* IIllinois votes to review, b) probably have taken two years to litigate, leaving the US essentially without an Executive for far too long at a time when the USSR was pushing us hard and c) the real fraud probably occurred in Texas, thanks to “Landslide” Lyndon’s being on the ticket.

                  I am not sure Eisenhower had legal authority to forbid Nixon, but if he had publicly declared Kennedy the winner a Nixon challenge would have cost his presidency all legitimacy.

                  *Downstate was doing pretty much the same as Daley but erred by “showing their hole card” before Chicago.

            1. Hah! Found it at Instapundit:

              FIVE THIRTY EIGHT: Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results. “According to a report Tuesday in New York Magazine, a group of computer scientists and election lawyers have approached the Hillary Clinton campaign with evidence they believe suggests the election might have been hacked to make it appear that Donald Trump won the Electoral College when Clinton really did. The hacking claim appears to be based on concerns about tampering with electronic voting machines. We’ve looked into the claim — or at least, our best guess of what’s being claimed based on what has been reported — and statistically, it doesn’t check out.”

              Doesn’t matter, it’s just agitprop to keep the base angry.

              Posted at 7:30 am by Glenn Reynolds

        2. They don’t like tampering unless it’s the tampering they approve of because the correct tampering gets them what they want and let’s not forget that if ‘the correct people’ do the tampering it’s OKAY WITH THEM. But evilbadnono for ‘Republicans to do it because they’re supposed to be better than us on that score.’

      2. I’m old enough to remember when talk about “rigged elections” was inflammatory and irresponsible.

      3. My general belief is this, and take it with a HUGE (yuuuge?) grain of salt since it is pure observation of their attitudes. I’ve been thinking about it for some time actually. (This is ALL mere speculation on my part.)

        Hillary et al behaved throughout the entire campaign as if they had it completely in the bag. In fact, they were supremely unconcerned with Trump and when he became something of a threat to them, they unleashed the sexual allegations (irony since actual sex impropriety didn’t bring down Clinton, setting the tone for today’s ‘who cares’ attitude about extramarital sex and sexual predation), but in general behaved as if they had nothing to worry about. There were videos of one of Clinton’s campaign managers who admitted outright that they weren’t doing the elections ‘fairly’ but doing a lot of faking. I’m certain that given their unconcerned attitude persisted that this wasn’t the only thing they were doing to ensure that she’d end up in the White House. Their real ace in the hole was something that wasn’t visible in people’s eyes. The question is: what was it? What other than vote fraud? (and there was, from I recall, stories on the alternative news that there were ballots being addressed to people who didn’t exist at actual addresses.) Clinton’s campaign guy had more on that sort of thing as well. But it had to be something that couldn’t be easily traced.

        My guess now is, with the allegations of hacking being leveled at Trump’s win, that hacking (during collection of votes is my guess, not during the actual poll-taking) was their ace in the hole. (Remember, projection – if you want to know what they are/were up to/planning, see what they accuse their opponent of). They were unconcerned when typically red states went Trump, as if they knew that was to be expected.

        So I started wondering: how would you interfere with the voting machines after they were declared clean? How not to raise an immediate outcry? By not messing with the result until after the result is shown to the voter – e.g. the voter who votes Trump sees the actual poll they put in, but the one either saved or counted later (after the polls have closed) is altered. The only way you could do something like that is through hacking.

        Now I have no idea how votes are actually counted. By county, is my guess; but actual ‘how’ is unknown to me. Do you look at each ballot machine’s collected votes, or are they sent to a commission of election counting center? Either way, the Clinton campaign was sure that they had it in the bag, and you wouldn’t need to tamper with all the machines, just some. Their certainty tells me they were expecting specific things to happen, and their shock tells me that whatever hack they were expected to have to give them the White House didn’t work, or didn’t implement for whatever reason.

        I’m hearing that Clinton didn’t even have a concession speech prepared, thats how sure she was.

        For whatever reason that ‘gift wrap and present on a silver platter’ moment did not happen. Instead the vote was overwhelmingly Trump.

        Now, it’s easy to just attribute it or dismiss that her certainty was because she was sure that the universal hectoring of people was going to keep people away. She may have been confident that the ones who were going to refuse to vote Trump were definitely not going to vote for him, even if they didn’t vote for her. Or because they were so sure that having voted Obama in nobody would DARE not give her the Presidency, on account of being a woman. Demographics may indeed have been her downfall, as well as her arrogance, but I don’t think you get that arrogant unless you have a backup plan, an ace in the hole, a cheat code.

        They’re arrogant, but no arrogance comes without knowing about the power they have access to and wield. I would guess (and yes, I know, everything here is pure speculation, but eh. I said so from the start) that whatever they’d done this time had worked before, to give them that confidence. (Speculation: 2012) But if it had worked before, what changed between then and now?

        My observation would be, if it was a hack or intercepted or altered digital records (I know that such things do occur and are possible but rather difficult to do, never mind en masse but not the technical HOW), was that technology had changed in a way that prevented their hack from working. I don’t know for certain, since my aptitude with technology is end user at best, but I know that security for a lot of hardware has changed or increased (Which, honestly is something we do have to keep track of, given my situation, even if it’s just ‘keep our own network secure and avert potential problems’.) HOW this change affected this hypothetical hack to get Clinton the Presidency is an exercise of speculation and theory for the more computer inclined than I am.

        My observation is the behavior. And Clinton was too certain, her team too certain, in fact, not bothering to hide their surety, to not have done something to ‘ensure’ that she got the presidency, only something happened and it failed, and whatever that thing was, it was not something they anticipated. Given the allegations now of ‘hacking’ being thrown by the supporting camp, my theory is that it was a hack of some kind.

        Any other ‘reason’ is probably likely too.

        1. ” stories on the alternative news that there were ballots being addressed to people who didn’t exist at actual addresses.”

          You mean like this one from Issa’s district (and not alternative)?

          Quote: The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment.

          “I think this is spooky,” Mosna said. “All the different names, none we recognize, all at one address.”

          His wife, Madalena Mosna, noted their 89-year-old neighbor lives by herself, and, “Eighty people can’t fit in that apartment.”

          1. Or like the house we moved to, where we got a neverend of ballots the first year we lived there. There were only four people there for decades before we bought. They all had the same last name. I no longer remember how many ballots we got, but I think it was something like 20.

      4. Ummm… Projection much?
        I wonder how many votes over 100% population this year in the Rio Grande Valley…

    3. “I haven’t seen the Democrats this mad since we freed the slaves!”

      – apparently a tweet from Rob Schneider, who became conservative in 2013

    1. only if they have to struggle at some point. If they move out of school into a high paying job where their only question is how many cars/houses to buy (like so many in the tech sector), they won’t learn

      1. Depends. I moved out of school into a high paying job where the only question was how fast could I pay off my student loan by shoveling my salary into its gaping maw (turned out the answer was three years, even with nine months’ unemployment in the middle of that period). But then, I was already a conservative before I left college.

      2. Yep. A huge bunch of the folks I know bemoaning the election and passing all sorts of theories are all bay area techies.

    2. But they don’t. They’re taught that after bio-parents take care of them, gov-parent will take over and it’s their right to never have to sweat or strain again.

        1. Short version: no.

          Longer version: they get taught Keynesian economics. So the short version of my answer was basically correct.

          And since it’s never the wrong time to post this:

        2. I’m not sure economics was ever taught across the board. My school, back in the late 70s/early 80s didn’t (or else it was an elective), and even though some schools were leaning towards progressivism even then, I live in a backwater that is 20-30 years behind the times.

  11. “Also driving down the highway, I came across someone with a bumpersticker that said “I made the dhs list” which, you know, reminded me of how people who have great attachment to the constitution are are considered a terrorism risk.”

    Of course they are. They’re the ones going to fight back first when the Constitution gets repealed. Given the -massive- freak out by the media, I would say they were thinking about doing that. It certainly is inconvenient for would-be tyrants to have term limits, free speech and armed civilians.

    There are continuing freakouts on campuses and in big cities because propaganda works.

    Personally I’m waiting for the Friday when all the welfare checks bounce and those food stamp cards stop working. That’s going to be your zombie apocalypse right there.

    1. That’s one reason I’m glad I got out of Kansas City a couple of years ago and moved back to the Ozarks. In my neck of the woods, poor people in need of assistance will be able to fall back on family, neighbors and churches, while the rest of us are sufficiently well-armed to, if necessary, deal with the few local members of the professionally impoverished-angry-and-entitled.

      And the racist, feral welfare mobs of inner KC and Saint Louis will have to run a 150-mile gauntlet of heavily-armed rednecks if they want to get to me.


      1. It is a much forgotten fact that most cities have an armoury downtown. The reasons they were downtown and not out on a nice spacious farm somewhere were many, but one of the big ones was insurrection. The wealthy people of the town wanted troops available in case the hoi polloi might decide they were hungry and come to the rich part where the food and the money is. They spent big money on those armoury buildings.

        The modern construction of cities is such that you can’t even get away if something happens. Pictures of the LA Freeway yesterday, a solid bar of white one way and a solid bar of red the other, are instructive to the thinking man. Were I in NYC for example, I would have an inflatable boat in my bug-out kit, and a drysuit. If the WTC attack showed anything, it showed you can’t get off that island if the SHTF.

        Chez Phantom (my armored redoubt from which I plan world domination with Pinky and the Brain) is over a day’s walk from town. Only the really determined zombies will make it this far, and there are lots of directions to flee in.

        For the most determined zombies, we have winter-resistant crocodiles and a heated moat. One does lose the odd postman now and again, but the peace of mind is worth it.

Comments are closed.