Is Trump deliberate in his chaos theory?

Maybe chaos theory isn't the right term. It seems like president Trump operates in a chaotic matter, but deliberately so. The tariffs are a prime example of his negotiation style - attack, retreat, attack, negotiate ad infinitum or at least until it lands where he wants. Another example might be the Elon Musk spat. It seems too sudden, too temporally coincidental with Musk's mandatory departure date from DOGE. 

Now they have a feud? Right at the end of the administration? That seems all too conveniently timed to me. I don't have a problem with it; he's moving the country in the right direction on so many fronts, why worry about his methods and whether they are the best way to do it?  If chaos is working at the moment, use it.

Trump is an expert at media manipulation and this Trump-Musk feud smacks to me of being planned. Musk just mentioned Trump is in the Epstein files. Now the Democrats are clamoring for it's release. Let's face it, they are so desperate to derail him that they'd grasp for anything, even if it means throwing Bill Clinton and any other Democrat they were formerly protecting under the bus, along with Trump. 

Getting Democrats to flip so radically based on one hearsay comment? Too easy. I mean, I could be wrong, quite easily. But the pieces for more Democrat self-derailment seem to be falling into place insanely well. The flip in attitude is crazy. And staunch Epstein story questioners like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino suddenly insisting that Epstein did himself in, also seem strangely timely. As if to lend credence to the notion that Trump has decided that he doesn't want the Epstein files released. It's bait. It's a ruse that Democrats are all too happy now, to bite on.

Flip-flopper extraordinaire

Is it excusable because it comes from a place of ignorance? Nope, she's trying to be everything to everybody (in the room at the time).

Want actually policies? Look to Trump

Trump keeps making policy proposals. Kamala Harris either copies Trump's, or copies Biden's . For her it doesn't matter because she flip flops so much putting something in writing isn't worth the effort.

This is obscene. This is offensive.

This also speaks to the phoniness of Kamala Harris. I call her Kamala Chameleon for a reason. And this is why you cannot trust her on her policy positions.  When she bothers to speak to them, it changes even faster than the changes in the video below, sometimes even within the same interview...

Kamala Harris values are consistent; she's a flip flopper

If your values are consistently inconsistent, you can claim you are being consistent(ly inconsistent) and then claim that is your values - to be inconsistent.  It's called pretzel logic. It's the perfect way to reach low information voters....

"No shame" Ed Krassenstein

Ed Krassenstein is an avid anti-Trumper and fraudster who is so blatantly a flip-flopper that it makes you laugh. 

Democrat flip flop from 2012 still matters today

In 2012 I shared a post about Democrats flip-flopping on their stance on Israel and Hamas. Back then the Democrats were tacitly trying to hold together a fragile coalition that included groups who apparently despise each other - to this day.

Here's an excerpt:

The Democratic National Convention, reeling from today’s chaotic fiasco surrounding the reinsertion of pro-Israel, pro-God language into the party platform, has announced that President Obama personally intervened to ensure that that language was revived. But Politico is now reporting that President Obama approved the original, Jerusalem-less, Hamas-less language less than a fortnight ago. He didn’t try to change the platform “until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem late Wednesday.” And his own party was clearly against it – the people on the floor of the convention probably didn’t even vote in majority numbers for the reinsertion of pro-Israel, pro-God language. They booed Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the DNC chairman, off the stage after he rammed through the measure on the third vote.

Their fragile coalition is fracturing finally. They can only hold the lies to both sides together for so long, and apparently that's about 12 years.

Flipped

Washington Post slanders Steve Bannon for supposed flip flop

In an article today, Washington Post highlights Steve Bannon's disavowal of white supremacists in a seemingly impromptu interview with progressive magazine The American Prospect. In the article, well below the topics of China and North Korea, came this;

“Ethno-nationalism — it’s losers. It’s a fringe element,” Bannon told the magazine. “I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, eh, help crush it more.”

“These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.

The remarks were startling coming from Bannon, who spent more than four years running the far-right website Breitbart News before he was tapped to join Trump’s campaign.

Bannon, the site’s former executive chair, has called the Breitbart “a platform of the alt-right.”

The alt-right, by some definitions, is a small, deeply conservative movement that seeks a whites-only state. It was his strategy to use the site to channel white supremacist support for Trump and provide a mouthpiece for his populist message during the 2016 election, a move that helped secure him a senior role in the administration.

Bannon states exactly how he, and most conservatives feel about white supremacists. It's  not a flip flop, it's positionally consistent.  It's the last paragraph above that irks. They have taken the alt-right definition (they even 'say by some definitions') that suits their narrative. Breitbart has never espoused a whites-only state. To be clear - the alt-right is not equal to white supremacists. That is outright slander. Bannon is exactly correct - it's a fringe element and the media has played it up to make it seem that it's only racists who support Republicans. In doing so they have completely alienated half the country who mostly vote conservative values for economic or value or social sorts of reasons. It's a self defeating approach for the left and for the country.

So it's not only Bannon that gets slandered, it's half the country's voters. But Bannon is the focal point of the article and the Washington Post article and it's Bannon who should take the WaPo to task and set the record straight on the alt-right label on behalf of everyone who has been slandered. 

Just as there are communists in the alt-Left, there are white supremacists in the alt-right (and possibly the alt-Left too). More importantly what many on the right would consider the alt-right are conservatives who do not espouse the go-along-to-get-along, country club, establishment Republican niceties. They prefer to fight back and are not afraid to get rough and tumble rather than sit back and take it. It's Bannon or The Rebel, or Breitbart or Milo Yiannopolis rather than Mitch McConnell or Charles Krauthammer or even razor sharp Ben Shapiro (some of whom still have our admiration and respect). That's the real alt-right, not white-supremacists or Neanderthals. But the left and the media will not relent on their narrative. In the end they are likely doing themselves a disservice, but only time will tell. Meanwhile stories with slants like this one need to be called out for what they are - misleading at a minimum or possibly even slander.

Kentucky Woman...Not.

Make no mistake, the Young Turks are socialists.  They don't like Hillary because they like the further left Bernie Sanders.

But they are correct on this West Virginia faux pas.  And it will carry on into today's Kentucky primaries, which she just might not win.

Warning - some language.

Obama shifts strategy, again

A bunch of ill-conceived and disjointed attacks on Romney from the Obama campaign (and liberal pundits invested in his re-election effort) over the course of the year, have proven that the Obama campaign doesn't have a consistent message for voters other than "please ignore the economy, foreign policy and everything else, and focus on the fact that Romney is a bad guy. 

The messages they've put forward are incongruous: Mitt Romney - flip-flopper.  Mitt Romney - right of Attila the Hun.  Mitt Romney - not a serious contender.  Mitt Romney - flip-flopper.  Mitt Romney - right of Attila the Hun.  Yeah, let's go with that one this week.

I was right: Obama was behind Dems flip flop on God

Earlier I posted my thoughts on Obama being behind the removal of God and Jerusalem from the Democratic party platform party platform for personal electoral reasons.  I said he was behind it all. It turns out I was right at least about him being behind it.  

Via Big Government (emphasis added):

The Democratic National Convention, reeling from today’s chaotic fiasco surrounding the reinsertion of pro-Israel, pro-God language into the party platform, has announced that President Obama personally intervened to ensure that that language was revived. But Politico is now reporting that President Obama approved the original, Jerusalem-less, Hamas-less language less than a fortnight ago. He didn’t try to change the platform “until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem late Wednesday.” And his own party was clearly against it – the people on the floor of the convention probably didn’t even vote in majority numbers for the reinsertion of pro-Israel, pro-God language. They booed Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the DNC chairman, off the stage after he rammed through the measure on the third vote.

That was fast.

RNC also catches Obama's flip flop

Republican National Committee sees what everybody else sees (including me) in Obama's about face on Solyndra [Note to Romney - if you are the GOP nominee, you can outdo Obama on the flip flop accusations.  Remember that.]:

Obama bashes Super PACs - until he needs them.

That was then. This is now. A flip flop of convenience.

Why are you voting for Romney?

How does this make any sense to you?  Check out this video for Ron Paul, that gets it right on Flip Romney.  Please watch the whole thing.

McCain trashing Romney

A mere four years ago, the McCain primary campaign put this ad out about Mitt Romney - the same candidate McCain is now inexplicably endorsing.  A pair of flip-floppers if ever there were ones.  Seriously, do not put this guy up against Obama.

Just a reminder.

Obama's transparency flip flop

Researching stuff for posts often reminds one of the promises The One made back in the early days of his candidacy and the shocking  terribleness of his actual record.  I'm more than happy to share some of the reminders.

Obama's lobbyist flip flop

I just posted on Mitt Romney flip flopping on climate change, and I don't want to contribute too much to the idea of the GOP eating their own - not when president Obama does his own flip flopping and is deserving of far more criticism.

The president's purity on lobbyists falls far short of his political rhetoric and what's worse, it appears that the White House is deliberately trying to skirt the president's promises.

Shocking, or just par for the course?

Say Anything Romney becomes a climate warming skeptic

Flip-flop alert!  Flip-flop alert!

People are entitled to change their minds.  People learn from experiences and learn from what goes on around them, so changing an opinion is not a bad thing.  But in the span of a few months, a change this dramatic is a change of convenience.  Mitt Romney has gone from climate change believer to climate change skeptic in short order.  This is politics of convenience.  It's say anything politics at its worst.

Patriot Act Hypocrisy

More hypocrisy from Democrats, this time on The Patriot Act. The amount of all-over-the-place on the issue is bewildering.

While the Patriot Act was passed by a margin of 98-1 in the Senate in 2001, and amongst Democrats in the House, by a margin of 145-62, and the intervening years have seen a big parade of Democrat vilification of the act.



Democrats, in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome vehemently opposed the Patriot Act when Bush and Republicans favored it. Now they don't seem to mind it so much.

There is some tricky territory to navigate around the act. It's not really a conservative versus liberal issue, despite how it is portrayed in the media. It's an issue of safety versus privacy and liberty. There are plenty of conservatives on both sides of that equation. As for liberals, frankly, it isn't really clear where they stand. It seems like 'if today is Tuesday, then I must be against it', is the rationale.

From the LA Times in September 2009;

As a senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was a critic of the Patriot Act. Last week, however, the Obama administration asked the House and Senate to extend the three provisions. "The administration is willing to consider . . . ideas [for modifying the law], provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities," Assistant Atty. Gen. Ronald Weich said in a letter to Congress.

Then there's a lot of just anti-Patriot Act sentiment on the left.

No one read it? Then why did you vote on it?

I've spoken before about the fact that it seems pretty logical a place to start is to differentiate between citizens versus non citizens in terms of treatment under the Patriot Act. The act seems to make that distinction, although I certainly haven't read most of the Act because, I have a life. In any case, that's not where Democrat thinking is at. Even though President Obama extended the Patriot Act again, he also wanted a court trial for KSM, instead of a military tribunal. The administration is all over the map. That sort of disconnect comes from the top down.

Irate over Guantanamo, Democrats find that it is still open. Disconnects exist all over the place. That's not universally true. There is one Democrat who has consistently argued against it - progressive Russ Feingold in 2006. Wow. Check out the agenda at 2:13.



And NOW? Where is everyone at?

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counter terrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

-Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

-Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

-Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

Hmmm...315-97 and a Presidential signature over the weekend when people might not notice. Go figure.

END NOTE: Sure, it had to be signed before today to extend the Act. But it couldn't have been done during the news cycle on Friday? Of course not. The President is all about optics, and the substance is either missing or just doesn't match his words. Democrats seem to be continually beguiled by dazzling candidates and never get that style-over-substance leads to bad leadership.