"During my long journey through the world of evil, I had discovered three sources of power: the power of an individual's inner freedom, the power of a free society, and the power of the solidarity of the free world."-- Natan Sharansky, "The Case for Democracy"

Buy "The Case for Democracy"

View NASA picture

The Sticker

jk [at] threesources [dot] com
AlexC [at] threesources [dot] com
JohnGalt [at] threesources [dot] com

AlexC Bio
jk Bio
Johngalt Bio
LatteSipper Bio
Cyrano Bio
Ellis Wyatt Bio
Comment HTML

Maybe the world is ThreeSources -- add a #3srcs hashtag to post your tweets

September 29, 2016

Dueling Transition Teams

ThreeSourcers are well familiar with my reminders that the presidential election is about who is in the candidate's potential administration, more than who sits in the big chair of the Oval Office. And my equally frequent reminders that Trump's economic team is lead by Kudlow, Moore and Laffer.

Today I found another big clue as to who will play roles in other aspects of the Trump Administration, as well as - perish the thought - the Clinton II Administration. This Politico article about the differing approach of the two transition teams reveals that Chris Christie leads the transition team and Forrest Lucas, of Lucas Oil fame, is a leading contender for Interior Secretary in a Trump cabinet. Meanwhile, Hillary's White House would consist of a rogue's gallery of progressive statists, drawing heavily from the Center for American Progress and even a specific ally of "Fauxchahantas" herself.

Almost as interesting as who Trump is considering is who he is not -

Despite the Trump transition's efforts to reach out to key Republicans, some former administration officials are still waiting by the phone.

"There are lot of W people who are looking forward to working in another Republican administration," said Republican strategist Ronald Langston, referring to his former colleagues in the George W. Bush administration, where he worked in the Commerce Department and helped with Bush's much-lauded outgoing transition effort. Langston keeps track of a broad network of former appointees from both Bush presidencies in person and over social media, "and I know they haven't been contacted."

The piece makes no mention of the Gary (another "Aleppo moment") Johnson transition team - for an obvious reason. Equally obvious is that the US federal government will be in the hands of one or the other of these two teams next January.

September 28, 2016

can a dirty goverment make clean energy?

I can't resist echo'ing that one around! The article is here, the bon mot comes from the bottom part of Goodwin's column that is highlighting the very good article by Ken Girardin, and notes

questions arise after upstate companies, including an energy company, allegedly paid bribes to Cuomo associates to win state business and approvals.

Clean energy with dirty money? Ivanpah, I say! (yes, gesundheit).

And I've been dying to get this gem into a post (yes, me the "wind weenie") about how egregious over-subsidizing spanish solar trashed the economy, slashed jobs and near-bankrupted a utility. In other news, the biggest RE subsidy program in this hemisphere, Ontario's FIT, is now gutted (according to a source in the know), whereby the only story I could find would only say

Contract prices offered today reflect the Province's commitment to drive down costs and are lower than forecasted in Ontario's 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan.

Oh, and Ivanpah caught on fire? When Wired piles on a "green" energy project owned by Google... theyz a losin' it. Wow, reminds me of the joke from the Holy Grail about the castle that

burned down, fell over, THEN sank into the swamp!

Posted by nanobrewer at 11:46 PM | What do you think? [0 comments]

Today's RCP Electoral College Map - "No Tossups"

With Colorado now at "Trump +0.5" in the RCP polling average as of 9/25 (likely, among other state races changed as well) Trump's path is becoming less perilous. A change as simple as flipping Florida puts him in the Oval Office.

It's looking more and more like 2000 every day.


Blog brother jk's analysis [fifth comment] may be more accurate than he imagines.

The first 30 minutes were focused and Trump was in great command.

It is difficult to imagine that a lot of "undecideds" tolerated much more, so Mister Trump may have won the debate by winning the first half hour.

Newt Gingrich sez:

Secretary Clinton is also a Yale-educated lawyer. She combines Ivy League polish and arrogance with verbal smoothness and four decades of political speak.

Trump is a blunt, let's-make-a-deal, let's-get-the-building-built, let's-sell-our-product businessman.

The first debate showcased a blunt, plain spoken businessman and a polished professional politician.

Of course the Intellectual Yet Idiot insiders would pick Hillary. They share her passion for words without meaning, analysis without facts, and promises without performance. They are more than for her. They are her.

In fact, it is worth looking at a list of online polls to understand the gap between the elites and the vast majority of Americans. This list is long because I want to show you how willfully out of touch and dishonest the Intellectual Yet Idiot class is:

Time: Trump 55 Clinton 45

Fortune: Trump 53, Clinton 47

N.J.com (New Jersey): Trump 57.5, Clinton 37.78

CNBC: Trump 68, Clinton 32

WCPO Cincinnati: Trump 57, Clinton 37

Variety: Trump 58.12, Clinton 41.88

Slate: Trump 55.18, Clinton 44.82

WKRN Nashville: Trump 64.58, Clinton 35.42

Las Vegas Sun: Trump 82, Clinton 18

Fox5 San Diego: Trump 61.45, Clinton 33.69

San Diego Tribune: Trump 65, Clinton 35

If you go to the Daily Mail, you can see that the list goes on and on.

Clinton won a handful of liberal sites with liberal audiences but she lost virtually everywhere else.

This isn't the only such analysis, including Scott Adams saying that Clinton won the debate while at the same time, Trump won the election.

UPDATE: Add New York Post's respected Michael Goodwin to this list:

In a change election where both candidates have historically high negative ratings, many voters could make their choice for secondary reasons.

Voting against the other candidate is the most likely option, while voting against the media as a proxy for voting against the establishment is emerging as another.

In that case, the news media could be more than part of the story. They could be the story.

September 27, 2016


I'll let two quotes describe my reaction:

Such a Night! -- Mac Rebennack

The other is from former State Senator Shawn Mitchell, one of the best Facebook follows out ther:

Strongest lingering perception of last night is how many blown opportunities, with just a modicum of preparation, Trump, could have blown Hillary off the stage.

"Did you just say you're very concerned about cyber security? And you won't let foreign nations go after our sensitive intelligence? Really? Do you think we all slept through the last year? Have you no shame?"

"Did you really just blame the 2008 crash on free markets and deficits from tax cuts? That's not serious. The 08 crash was financial, driven by bad government policy pressuring banks to make bad loans that people couldn't repay. And then government agencies Fanny and Fred bought those loans and bundled them up like dynamite and held them till they blew up. That wasn't free markets. That wasn't Bush's fault. That was your husband's fault for pushing banks to make bad home loans. The crash had nothing to do with deficit spending, or your administration's much bigger deficits would have incinerated America long ago."

"You think the economy's not working? And inequality and lack of opportunity are big problems? Well whose fault is that? Who do you think has been in charge for 8 years? I know your boss has been on the golf course,but did you support his policies or not? Did you give him input about your big ideas to reform the economy? "

And on and on all night. She led with her jaw a dozen times and he was too busy talking about himself and all his properties and what a great, fantastic businessman he is, and how Sean Hannity will vouch for him that he really, really wasn't for the Iraq war. Sean, Sean, wherfore art though?

Among the disturbing -- and I'll confess there's a lot of disturbing on both sides -- things about Mr. Trump is a questionable work ethic. His business success does not necessarily disprove this.

2016 Posted by John Kranz at 10:10 AM | What do you think? [8 comments]
But nanobrewer thinks:

I had to stop after the first 1/2 hour. Kudos to the very nice venue provided (and their beer is excellent) by the fine folks at Liquid Mechanics.

Trump's bluster and Hillary's crocodile smile just outweighed the cackling lonely-heart ladies that made up a good part of the audience.

"I'll release my tax returns when you turn over those eMails!" ... oohh, the horror. They both deserve to lose so badly....

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 27, 2016 10:44 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Questionable work ethic? I didn't see that one coming. Maybe "too inexperienced to follow advice of his professional campaign advisors" or something like that, but the guy who is constantly flying from swing state to swing state and has taken his race from a farce to a dead heat in, what, 6 weeks, can hardly be accused of being lazy or "low energy."

I don't believe Trump is a master strategist, but he does seem to keep "lucking" into good outcomes. By not attempting to "blow Hillary off the stage" or "close the deal" as I've heard others say it, in the first of the three debates, Trump has managed to accomplish several things simultaneously: Not appear to be a bully; actually appear to be at least as "presidential" as his opponent and, last but not least, get an army of talking heads talking about how bad Hillary is for days after the election.

I expect he will be more on the offensive the next time, and in the true "reality teevee" tradition, save "closing the deal" for the season finale of "Master Persuader-Presidential Edition." As the linked article explains, Trump is certainly a master of something, even if it's not political strategy. But that's okay because, really, isn't that Hillary's forte?

Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2016 11:11 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Okay, I will admit to being slow-witted but I'm not stupid. I just realized how jk and my darling bride have manipulated me into becoming such a tireless Trump promoter - by repeatedly exclaiming how deplorable, err, "embarrassingly" awful he is! This forces me to think about all of the ways that he is actually the best candidate - probably ever - for Republicans, albeit with plenty of work left to do. And that's the sort of reframing that diffuses political tension.

And you two are persuasion geniuses.

Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2016 11:17 AM
But jk thinks:

We planned it weeks in advance.

The insipid lefties on my Facebook feed and in media have had the same effect on me. Watching their false attacks fail would ameliorate my losing forever the party I have spent lo, these three decades and four supporting.

I am not backing down on work ethic. He likes flying State to State and feeding off the roaring crowds. As the great political strategists, Atlanta Rhythm Section said "Lovin' the life we're livin', playin' that Georgia Rhythm. Makin' music and movin' on down the line..."

But debate prep is more like practicing your scales in the basement. A lot more guys have the ethic to play than to practice.

(To complete the autobiographical arc: on the Quinella album, they have realized "Rhinestones lose their glitter, cowboys let you down. And Luckenbach is just another town.")

Posted by: jk at September 28, 2016 1:14 PM
But jk thinks:

Bad news, nb, you saw the crème d'la crème of the debate. The first 30 minutes were focused and Trump was in great command.

It is difficult to imagine that a lot of "undecideds" tolerated much more, so Mister Trump may have won the debate by winning the first half hour.

He became a bit more disjointed for the last 60.

Posted by: jk at September 28, 2016 1:19 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Oyy, he got more disjointed?!? The guy I was watching couldn't put 3 linked sentences together. Gawd, his speaking style is so awful, it's downright ugly... a "disaster" some would say ;-) 'Course I was also horribly put off by the disjointed, dysfunctional and dystopian slant taken by all three liberal Nor'Easters when they tried to discuss matters of economics.

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 28, 2016 11:38 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

My last comment: I was distressed by reading Mr. Adams's column. God in Heaven; if HE can't make a joke of this we're all doomed....

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 28, 2016 11:41 PM
But johngalt thinks:

And I was listening to Trump's economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, on Ross Kaminsky's show this morning. Ross asked him what he thinks of Trump's economic plan and he said, "It's very good, if I say so myself."

Kudlow has a new book out that I think we'll all be interested in: 'JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity.' Follow the link above for a link to the book.

Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2016 11:36 AM

September 26, 2016

Debate Greatst Hits

We shall run out of "Oll" by 2011:

Hat-tip: Miss Liberty

September 23, 2016

All Hail Taranto!

I shared the übersmug Joss Whedon "Important" PSA on Facebook. Tsk, tsk...

James piles on:

September 21, 2016

Trump is a WHAT?

A political revolution is an inspiring, yet disorienting, thing to live through. It is a powerful force that creates all sort of unpredictable events, like a former Republican POTUS planning to vote for a Democrat successor, rather than the nominee of his own party, or yours truly quoting Piers Morgan:

Hillary Clinton, as she normally does, tried to be all calm and collected.

This is not a war against Islam, she insisted. We can't blame all Muslims for what's happened, she declared.

She's right, it's not and we can't.

But what neither she nor Obama offers the American people is any kind of plan to combat such attacks.

They talk of how awful it all is, but studiously avoid advocating any real action for fear of upsetting or offending people.

The President doesn't even like using the phrase 'Islamic terrorism', which is utterly absurd given that's plainly what it is.

In the face of such apparently weak, insipid, mealy-mouthed and frankly meaningless rhetoric, it's hardly surprising that Trump emerges as a non-PC, no-nonsense voice of reason to many Americans.

His anger is THEIR anger.

It's real.

I've been down to places like Florida and Texas recently and heard with my own ears many people ranting about the abject failure of their government to tackle ISIS.

In Trump, they see someone at least prepared to say the unsayable, even if it ruffles a few feathers.

Just another reactionary loon, that Piers Morgan. As is anyone who would conclude, or even suggest, that Trump has become "a non-PC, no-nonsense voice of reason to many Americans."

But johngalt thinks:

For readers whom "voice of reason" doesn't get the job done as a description of Donald Trump, what follows might be more to which you're accustomed (and, by now, comfortably assume to be true):

Donald Trump's a monster.

A vile, hideous, bigoted, nasty, ignorant, deluded, psychotic, ruthless, preposterous, demented buffoon on a collision course to steal the White House and destroy the planet.

Oh, and he's a sexist, racist, homophobic, misogynist pig too, and every other word ending in '–ist' you can think of for that matter.

Actually he's even worse than that; in fact, Trump's the new Hitler – a man who, you may recall, ordered the slaughter of six million Jews.

I know all this because I've been reading those exact descriptions about Trump for weeks in the US media, from a whole phalanx of intelligent, experienced journalists, broadcasters, politicians and pundits.

That from the same Piers Morgan piece. You're welcome.

Posted by: johngalt at September 21, 2016 5:56 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Heh, that's the Clinton News Network chiming in with what they term "news" eh? don't buy it!

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 22, 2016 11:30 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Not just CNN, nb, but "a whole phalanx of intelligent, experience3d, journalists, broadcasters, politicians and pundits."

And they MUST be right - they're on the TEE VEE.

Posted by: johngalt at September 23, 2016 4:09 PM

September 19, 2016

All Hail Taranto!


Too Close to Home

Well, it is the Western Slope, so this is not geographically close. But it is Colorado where this insidious den of iniquity is located:


I mean -- look at that dilapidated crackhouse! Why they clearly have not applied their late-summer feeding to the lawn yet -- and it's freaking September!

I irritated my blog brothers with multiple posts of SWAT raids where great damage and terror were done, but little or no drugs were found. The parents and children of this lovely home were woken at 5:30 AM by 15-20 armed officers crashing into their home.

"As is standard protocol when probable cause has been developed that illegal or dangerous activity is occurring, and armed with the signed search warrant, officers forced entry into the home, using a breaching tool," the press release says. "During entry into the residence, several windows of the home were broken." Fortunately, the cops did not toss any flashbangs while entering the house, but they terrified the occupants, who included five children ranging in age from 3 to 12. "Ultimately," the cops say, "officers contacted the residents inside the address, and determined that they were not the suspects that officers were looking for."

The phrase "contacted the residents" is an anodyne description of a much scarier reality. "Waking up to guns in my face, I consider that the beginning," the father of the family, Sean Armas, told KJCT, the ABC station in Grand Junction. "That's how it was, all my kids had guns on them. It was out of line....It's a dangerous situation they put my family in, and for my kids, it just keeps playing through their minds."

Five kids terrorized -- mistakenly -- in a well groomed suburban home on a "tip from an informant." How would you feel if those were your kids?

But johngalt thinks:

Okay, this thread is entirely too quiet. Our regular blog communitarians must be busy this week so I'll start the row.

Once in a while police make a mistake. From time to time one of them even shoots someone. Sometimes that gunshot victim is a black male. Nobody seems to have much concern for policing errors that fall outside of that narrow category, at least between now and November 8th.

Posted by: johngalt at September 26, 2016 3:19 PM
But jk thinks:

You'll be happy to hear then, that I have a libertarian-utopia solution for both.

Before I get there, where they differ is scale. Statistics are wide ranging for both, but not on a log scale. There are an estimated 20,000 - 40,000 no-knock raids a year and 400 - 1140 people killed by police (first page of both in Bing®)

The two magnitude difference is the problem. An officer firing a weapon has limited number of choices in a volatile situation. The alternative includes great harm to law enforcement and bystanders.

The SWAT raid is always a choice. The gear and tactics were developed for instances where they are preventing harm in a hostage or shooter situation. But there are not 100 of those a night. These tactics are routinely used to "catch" a lawbreaker. I say the risk is too great for any purpose but amelioration of grave danger to innocent parties.

My solution to both? Promise to let this one sit awhile -- it is odd if you have not heard it. I have been thinking much about it and ask a fair hearing.


We change the police model to match the Fire Department: they come when called. If your boyfriend (or your neighbor's) is threatening you (or your neighbor), if a car is driving so recklessly as to be a present danger -- you get the idea -- you call the cops and they show up.

What the constabulary does not do is set up checkpoints for DUI, pull over a car on suspicion, or flash grenade a toddler's room to find painkillers. If a taillight is out, the officer takes a photo and it is processed like red-light cameras and HOV lane violations. If a car is pulled over the officer asks whether they would like assistance.

This is libertarian utopia overnight, even with he same stupid-ass rules in place. And how many protests have you seen against the Fire Department?

Posted by: jk at September 26, 2016 4:45 PM

Don't click this. Comments (2)