Trump is Bat Guano Insane

Not an hour ago, a grown man, who happens to be the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party for President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, said this:


What does one even say? I’m utterly speechless.

Kevin Williamson at NRO, a favorite writer of mine, summarizes the book on one Donald J. Trump’s manifest unfitness for any office of public trust. I could not agree more. Enjoy.


This Election Is Not an A/B Test
‘Not Hillary Clinton’ isn’t good enough
By Kevin D. Williamson — May 6, 2016

As soon as it became clear that game-show host Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee, the usual radio ranters and Fox News mouths began the inevitable litany: If you aren’t for Donald Trump, then you must be for Hillary Clinton — it’s Himself or Herself.

There is more to this than A/B testing.

“If you aren’t for Trump, then you’re for Clinton” is a cheap rhetorical ploy. I’d write that any thinking adult would be ashamed for falling for that kind of sixth-grade debater’s stratagem, but a Republican electorate capable of choosing Donald Trump as its standard-bearer is incapable of shame.

The angry insistence — him or her! — is, for the moment, mainly an attempt to forestall further criticism of Trump. That criticism consists of stating a fact that is not a matter of degree but a binary proposition, a yes/no question. It is not that Trump is less mentally stable than Mrs. Clinton (probably true) or that he is more dishonest than Mrs. Clinton (difficult to say) or that he might do even more damage to the republic, or any other point of comparison between the candidates.

The issue, instead, is this:

Donald Trump is unfit for the office.

He is unfit for any office, morally and intellectually.

A man who could suggest, simply because it is convenient, that his opponent’s father had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy is unfit for any position of public responsibility.

His long litany of lies — which include fabrications about everything from his wealth to self-funding his campaign — is disqualifying.

His low character is disqualifying.

His personal history is disqualifying.

His complete, utter, total, and lifelong lack of honor is disqualifying.

The fact that he is going to have to take time out of the convention to appear in court to hear a pretty convincing fraud case against him is disqualifying.

His time on Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Island, after which he boasted about sharing a taste with Epstein for women “on the younger side,” is disqualifying.

The fact that he knows less about our constitutional order than does a not-especially-bright Rappahannock River oyster is disqualifying.

There isn’t anything one can say about Mrs. Clinton, monster though she is, that changes any of that.

Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president. He is not fit to serve on the Meade County board of commissioners. He is not fit to be the mayor of Muleshoe, Texas.

If he indeed is the Republican nominee, Donald Trump almost certainly will face Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election. That fact, sobering though it is, does not suddenly make him fit to serve as president, because — to repeat — the problem with Trump isn’t that he is less fit to serve in comparison to Mrs. Clinton, but that he is unfit to serve, period.

Paul Ryan is right to withhold his support, and those who have suddenly discovered that attending the Republican convention conflicts with their cat-shampooing schedule — both Presidents Bush, nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney — have in this matter chosen the better part, while former Texas governor Rick Perry has shown poor judgment. Trump, who long claimed (falsely) that he was self-funding his campaign and therefore was beholden to no one, has just named a hedge-fund boss and former Goldman Sachs partner to raise money, but donors are walking sideways away from him—as they should.

“Unite the Party” talk ignores the question: “Unite with what?” The answer, in this case, is a coddled, petulant, celebrity megalomaniac leading a small movement of cable-news-inspired populist drama queens whose motto is “Eek! A Mexican!” It is shallow, but celebrity is the most powerful force in American culture, more powerful than money and certainly more powerful than argument. Those of you joking about Kanye West running in 2020 shouldn’t laugh too hard.

But celebrity isn’t all-powerful. Trump had a smashing victory in the New York Republican primary, but he received far fewer votes than did second-place Democratic finisher Bernie Sanders, and barely half of Mrs. Clinton’s votes. The idea that a Trump candidacy is suddenly going to put into play states such as New York and New Jersey is fantasy. Those crying “Unite the Party!” might want to think about how closely they wish to be united with a candidacy that may very well lose 35 states and hand the Senate over to Chuck Schumer, who is of course another recipient of Trump’s many generous donations to progressives.

Those shouting “If you don’t support Trump, you’re for Clinton!” do not wish to speak or think very much about what the Trump movement and its enablers, from Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter, have done to the Republican party and to the conservative movement. They’re going to want to think about that even less as the months go by, and by January there’s very likely to be an outbreak of convenient amnesia. But the rest of us should be frank about what has happened.

The Republican party is preparing to nominate for the presidency a man grossly unfit for the office.

— Kevin D. Williamson is the roving correspondent at National Review.

###

Obama, Explained, in ONE PARAGRAPH

Here it is.  You ready?  Because this is Obama, thus the insidious cancer of Progressivism, explained with the most sparkling clarity & brevity as I have ever seen.  Via Kevin D. Williamson at NRO, from whom I always learn something (the highest praise I can offer any writer) Bold text is my addition:


Barack Obama isn’t a policy guy; he’s a personnel guy. An underappreciated aspect of Barack Obama’s politics is that he has been trying to convert the Democratic party from a party that lives in Congress to a party that lives in the White House. The Democrats owned Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, in the postwar era, with unbroken control of the speakership from 1955 to 1995. Until Newt Gingrich came in with the 1994 tsunami, the last Republican speaker had been a man born in 1884 who rode into office on the coattails of Calvin Coolidge. Except for a few brief interludes (January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949; January 3, 1953 to January 3, 1955; January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1987), the Democrats ran the Senate, too, from the Great Depression until the Gingrich years. That version of the Democratic party was a lawmaking party. (It made a lot of bad laws.) Barack Obama’s Democratic party, the one he is giving birth to, is a different animal. He didn’t give a hoot what was in his signature health-care law — just so long as it empowered him to start putting his people in positions to make health-care decisions. His patron saint is Roy Cohn, who proclaimed the gospel ‘Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.’ Barack Obama doesn’t want to write laws — he wants to appoint judges. He doesn’t want finely crafted legislation — he wants ‘The secretary shall issue.'”


Parenthetically, Mr. Williamson also illuminates why we are $18 trillion in debt. Democrats had the purse at the dawn of the Great Society and did not let go until 1996. That’s not to say Republicans don’t own some of this disaster; they most certainly do. But it wasn’t conservatives who ushered in the welfare state and support it to this day. That’s on progressives. And that’s why we’re $18 trillion in the hole. Every social welfare program they have supported from the New Deal through the Great Society to Obamacare is not just broke, it’s breaking the back of the Republic.  Everything they touch turns to sh*t.

Everything.

I heartily recommend your read the entire thing, here.

True Gov't Spending Topped $11 Trillion Last Year, Treasury Says

Jeffrey: True Government Spending Topped $11 Trillion Last Year, Treasury Says | CNSnews.com.

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

If you look at the historical tables attached to President Barack Obama’s latest budget proposal, they say the federal government took in $2.165 trillion in revenues in fiscal 2010 and spent $3.720 trillion, leaving a federal deficit of approximately $1.555 trillion. This looks like a horror story, of course. Yet the true story is more horrible. To find that story, you have to look at the financial statements quietly posted by the U.S. Treasury on the website of the Financial Management Service.

These documents show the actual accounting for the federal government in much the same way your bank statements show the actual accounting for your household. The Daily Treasury Statement [3] published on Sept. 30, 2010–the last day of fiscal year 2010–itemized all the revenue the government received in that fiscal year and all the money it spent. True federal spending for fiscal 2010, the Treasury statement said, was $11.5 trillion ($11,537,305,000,000.00).

Now, how can the White House budget claim federal spending was only $3.720 trillion in fiscal 2010, when the Treasury says it was $11.5 trillion? The biggest reason is because the spending tables produced by the Office of Management and Budget to accompany the White House budget do not count the money the Treasury is obligated to disburse in any given fiscal year to pay off old Treasury securities–that is, old loans–that come due in that year. In fiscal year 2010, according to the Treasury statement, $7.207 trillion ($7,206,965,000,000.00) in loans came due. Paying off old loans is by far the greatest annual expense the federal government faces. After the $7.207 trillion the Treasury spent paying off old loans in fiscal 2010, the next two greatest expenses were federal entitlement programs. Treasury spent $571.5 billion paying Social Security benefits, and $513.7 billion paying Medicare benefits. The fourth greatest federal expense was paying defense contractors, who earned $399.1 billion for the year. So, where did the government find $11.5 trillion to pay its bills?

The vast majority of it did not come from taxes. During fiscal 2010, the government brought in $2.038 trillion ($2,037,686,000,000.00) in tax revenue, including all individual and corporate income taxes, all payroll taxes, all excise taxes, and all estate and gift taxes. At the same time, according to the Treasury, the government paid out about $467.9 billion in tax refunds, leaving net federal tax revenues at about $1.5697 trillion. If you also subtract that $467.9 billion in tax refunds from the government’s disbursements, that leaves a little over $11 trillion in spending. That means the federal government’s expenditures of a little more than $11 trillion in fiscal 2010–not counting tax refunds–were about seven times the federal government’s net tax receipts of $1.5697 trillion. Where did the Treasury get the additional money it needed? It borrowed even more than the $7.207 trillion in loans it paid off. In fact, according to the Treasury, the government took out $8.6492 trillion ($8,649,171,000,000.00) in new loans in fiscal 2010, by selling new Treasury securities in that amount. Now, if you think that is the end of this horror story, you are wrong. It is only the beginning.

Just as important as the dollar amount of these loans are the dates on which they will come due. Of the 7.207 trillion in loans the government paid off in fiscal 2010, $6.220 trillion were short-term Treasury bills that had matured in one year or less. Another $795 billion were Treasury notes that had carried terms ranging from two years to 10 years. Of the $8.6 trillion in new loans the government took out in fiscal 2010, about $6 trillion were in Treasury bills that will come due in fiscal 2011–that is, before September 30 of this year–and another $2.2 trillion were in Treasury notes that will come due in the next two to 10 years.

Our federal government is an exhausted man desperately treading water in a deep sea of debt. Erskine Bowles, a Democrat who served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and as co-chair of President Barack Obama’s National Commission Fiscal Responsibility, stated the plain truth to the Senate Budget Committee last month. “I think we face the most predictable economic crisis in history,” he said. “It may be two years, you know, maybe a little less, maybe a little more,” said Bowles. “But if our bankers over there in Asia begin to believe that we’re not going to be solid on our debt, that we’re not going to be able to meet our obligations, just stop and think for a minute what happens if they just stop buying our debt.” Maybe then they will shut down our government whether we like it or not.