Wednesday, May 31, 2017

BloggeRhythms

While nothing final’s been disclosed as yet, it’s still expected that the POTUS will announce his decision on the climate deal by the end of the week. 

As far as the outcome’s concerned, Julie Pace wrote @ap.org/dynamic: “President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, a White House official said Wednesday, confirming a move certain to anger allies that spent years negotiating the landmark agreement to reduce carbon emissions.

“Nearly 200 nations, including the United States under President Barack Obama's administration, agreed in 2015 to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat climate change. Withdrawing would leave the United States aligned only with Russia among the world's industrialized economies in rejecting action to combat climate change.”

Although the subject is discussed frequently in the media, underlying details regarding specifics of the issue are rarely mentioned.   

However, some web research shows that “out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent.

“During the natural carbon cycle, carbon is released into the atmosphere from various sources and absorbed through "sinks." For example humans and plants give off carbon dioxide through respiration, making them a source of carbon dioxide, while plants absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, making them a sink.”

In regard to the effect of regulations already in place without the Paris Agreement’s inception, or perhaps adjustments happening naturally in the atmosphere: “In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons (15.1 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents. This total represents a 7 percent increase since 1990 but a 7 percent decrease since 2005.”

Statistically, while being the world's second largest emitter of carbon, following only China, at 3.8 million square miles the U.S. is the world's third- or fourth-largest country by total area, third-largest by land area, and the third-most populous.

Other nations clamoring for the U.S. to remain in the Accord include Germany which comprises 137,847 square miles, about 85% the size of California. From north to south, Germany would stretch from Los Angeles to Redding.

The total area of France is 211,209 square miles, making France slightly smaller than two Colorado’s. France is smaller than the state of Texas at 268,820 square miles of area.

Italy’s total area is 116,350 square miles and the 72nd largest country in the world. Almost 40 per cent of that is mountainous territory. Thus the US is about 32.5 times the size of Italy. 

Then there’s the United Kingdom at 94,060 square miles, which is about 57% the size of California. From the southern tip of England to the northern end of Scotland would stretch from Los Angeles to the Oregon border.

Population-wise, China ranks first at 1,383,450,000 people. That’s
18.4% of world population.


India’s next with 1,316,570,000 inhabitants and 17.5% of the world.

The U.S. is next with 325,046,000 and 4.33%, respectively.

Indonesia follows at 263,510,000 and 3.51%.

Brazil, 207,563,000 and 2.76%.

Pakistan, 196,605,000 and 2.62%

Nigeria, 191,836,000 and 2.56%

Bangladesh, 162,532,000 and 2.16%.

Russia, 146,804,372, 1.96%

Japan ranks 10th with 126,730,000, 1.69% of world population.

While national size ranking tells us one thing, top CO2 emissions Per Capita illustrate another.

Qatar’s per capita emissions equal 40.3%.

Trinidad and Tobago are second at 38.2%.

Kuwait, 31.3%

Luxembourg, 21.4%

Oman, 20.4%.

United Arab Emirates, 19.9%.

Bahrain, 19.3%.

And then the U.S. ranks 8th at 17.6%.

Saudi Arabia’s ninth at 17.0, with Australia 10th at 16.9%.

Whereas we now know the U.S. falls far down the lists in terms of rankings relative to the size, population and per capita carbon emissions of other nations, we come to the most important category likely considered by those drafting the Paris Accord.  

The U.S. GDP is $17.95 trillion.

Germany‘s GDP is $3.356 trillion.

The U.K., $2.849 trillion, with France at $2.422 trillion.

Why all the prior statistics have so much importance can be seen in a Wikipedia description of how contributions to the climate agreement will be determined in the future.

“The global stocktake will kick off with a "facilitative dialogue" in 2018. At this convening, parties will evaluate how their NDCs stack up to the nearer-term goal of peaking global emissions and the long-term goal of achieving net zero emissions by the second half of this century.

“The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The outcome is to be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of member states. The stocktake will not be of contributions/achievements of individual countries but a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

And here’s the clincher: “The stocktake works as part of the Paris Agreement's effort to create a "ratcheting up" of ambition in emissions cuts. Because analysts have agreed that the current NDCs will not limit rising temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, the global stocktake reconvenes parties to assess how their new NDCs must evolve so that they continually reflect a country's "highest possible ambition."

“While ratcheting up the ambition of NDCs is a major aim of the global stocktake, it assesses efforts beyond mitigation. The 5 year reviews will also evaluate adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development and transfer.”

And then we find that: “Some specific outcomes of the elevated attention to adaptation financing in Paris include the G7 countries' announcement to provide US $420 million for Climate Risk Insurance, and the launching of a Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) Initiative. In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks." So far, the Green Climate Fund has now received over $10 billion in pledges. Notably, the pledges come from developed nations like France, the US, and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, and Vietnam.”

Which means that to date, the U.S. has already “granted” half a billion dollars to the fund, versus $10 billion in “pledges“ from other member nations. Leading to the question as to whether anyone really knows what the odds are on collecting on promises from France, Mexico, Indonesia and Viet Nam? 

And then, beyond providing financial pledges to the Accord itself, individuals goals are also becoming apparent as reported by James Delingpole @breitbart.com on Monday, as follows:

“If he were standing here, he would tell you that he feels much more knowledgeable on the topic today,” said Trump’s economic advisor Gary Cohn, referring to the president’s position on climate change and the Paris agreement.

“Well if that’s the case, it’s certainly no thanks to Cohn – whose advice on these matters is about as sound, reliable and unbiased as that provided by Grima Wormtongue – slippery henchman of the evil wizard Saruman – to King Theoden in Lord of the Rings.

“Cohn wants Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement. Of course, he does. As an ex-Goldman Sachs man Cohn is a fully paid up member of the $1.5 trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex. It was Goldman Sachs – along with Enron – which pioneered the carbon trading schemes that helped enrich enviro-troughers like Al Gore. If the global warming Ponzi scheme ever collapses – and it will – then many of Cohn’s friends and former clients stand to lose millions in crony-capitalist “investments” currently propped up by Obama-era regulation which Cohn and his cronies are desperate to keep in place.

“This also explains Cohn’s extraordinary recent attack on the coal industry – “coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock” – and his risibly dishonest claim that solar and wind power can help the U.S. become “a manufacturing powerhouse.”

“It’s extraordinary firstly because it is in direct and explicit contradiction of Trump’s election trail promises to bring back jobs in the coal industry.”

Thus, whether it regards funds provided by the U.S. to be distributed to other nations under the guise of a “Climate Accord,“ or the windfall hopes of investment bankers like 
Goldman-Sachs and its cohorts, the climate itself seems to have very little to do with any of it.

Which means that walking away from the Paris agreement and making some staff changes in the White House are both key steps in draining the swamp as promised by Trump all along.    

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

BloggeRhythms

The American Screenwriters Association should put together an annual event in honor of Robert De Niro. Because on Sunday he proved that without them, actors would not only sound like morons, but without others thinking for them they’d display how out of touch with reality they really are as individuals.  

According to Oliver Gettell @ew.com, De Niro addressed a class of Brown University graduates, lamenting that “in movie terms,” the U.S. was once “an inspiring uplifting drama” but has now turned into “a tragic dumbass comedy,” according to the Associated Press.

Receiving an honorary doctorate of fine arts, he urged the graduates to “work to stop the insanity” and to strive to make the world a better place.

“The day before the commencement ceremony, the 73-year-old actor also called the current political climate “nightmarish” and referred to President Trump as an “idiot.”

“De Niro has long been critical of Trump’s political acumen, likening him to a car salesman with “a big hustle” in 2011 and describing him last summer as “totally nuts” and unfit to lead. A month before the election, De Niro said in an outtake for a celebrity endorsement video that he’d “like to punch [Trump] in the face.” (After Trump won, De Niro said he “can’t [punch him] now — he’s the president”.)

As far as De Niro’s own credentials are concerned, Marilyn Zelinsky-Syarto writes @bankrate.com he’s “been an actor since he showed an affinity for acting at 10 years old when he played the cowardly lion in a school production of “The Wizard of Oz.” 

“As a restless teen, De Niro took to running with street gangs in Little Italy before sneaking into acting workshops at what was then called the Stella Adler Conservatory. After playing bit parts and dinner theaters in the 1960s, he worked with director Brian de Palma on several films.” 

“In 1972, de Palma introduced De Niro to director Martin Scorsese at a party. That meeting was a turning point for the young actor. De Niro and Scorsese would go on to work together on many films that boosted their careers, beginning with “Mean Streets” in 1973. That was followed by “Taxi Driver” (1976), “New York, New York” (1977), “Raging Bull” (1980), “Goodfellas” (1990) and more.”

So, here we have a guy who’s never had an original thought in his life, critiquing another who built a multi-billion dollar business empire, went on to become POTUS and is in the process of turning the nation’s economy around. And at the same time, he’s revitalized the nation’s image in Europe, Japan and the Middle-East while beginning to get NATO’s funding back to satisfactory levels.

All of which begs the question that in the condition the nation was in last November, if anyone with an iota of intelligence was asked who they really though best to fix the problems, who do you think would be the better choice, Robert De Niro or Donald Trump, the query would be regarded as completely ridiculous.

Part of the basis for the irrationality of much of leftist thinking came from nationally syndicated radio host Dennis Prager who “believes it could take decades to undo the damage done to American universities by the institutional left, if it can ever be undone at all.”

Partnering with comedian and podcaster Adam Carolla on a new film, No Safe Spaces, Prager says “the two will explore and then pick apart the culture of political correctness — and the left’s suppression of differing viewpoints and open debate — that has metastasized on college campuses throughout the country.

“If Americans understand what the Left has done to the universities, it will understand what it is doing and what it will do to America,” says Prager, who graduated from Brooklyn College and went on to attend Columbia University and the University of Leeds in England.

“The university is first, and then the rest of the country follows,” Prager explains. “The suppression of free speech, the rendering of kids into immature creatures who have little thought of their own, who are given slogans rather than ideas — the university is the least morally acute place in the United States, as an institution.”

While Prager is certainly correct in his premise regarding leftist influence at the university level, today’s political conditioning begins far earlier than that.  

Last Thursday, N.J. Burkett titled a column @abc7.com/politics: “Half of 8th grade class from New Jersey refuses to pose with Speaker Ryan”

Burkett writes: “A group of middle school students from New Jersey caused quite a flap, after half of them refused to take a picture with Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan. It happened Thursday during a field trip to Washington.

“Reaction from the students' parents are as politically divided as the country.

"It's not just a picture," said Matthew Malespina, a student.

"Matthew says he couldn't go through with it.


“It didn't matter that Paul Ryan is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, or that he is third in-line to the presidency.”

Peter Jamison covered the same subject, writing @washingtonpost.com: “But a group from South Orange Middle School in New Jersey may remember their trip to the nation’s capital last week for another reason: It was the occasion for a pointed snub of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).

“Dozens of the 218 students on the trip refused to have their photo taken with Ryan when he briefly joined them outside the capitol Thursday.” 

However, while Thursday's snubbing of Ryan addressed a current occurrence, further research disclosed that political indoctrination is a concerted effort beginning quite early in the educational process. 

As reported by Eric Kiefer @patch.com/new-jersey: “Last week’s reported snub of Ryan isn’t the first time that South Orange students have participated in organized political dissent.

“Following President Trump’s inauguration, a large group of South Orange Middle School students — joined by their peers at Columbia High School in Maplewood — conducted an organized, “anti-hate” walkout at the school.”

Fred Smith and Anna Sandler took the subject even further @tapinto.net, reporting that South Orange Middle School (SOMS) students “began protesting inside the halls at about 12:15 p.m., with the walkout happening shortly afterwards. The protest, which was student-led and organized, was largely organized by eighth grader Harley Cenedella.

“SOMS students left the building chanting "love not hate" and met at the front of the school building where they continued with "we will overcome."

“Eighth grade student Alice Linkh explained, "we're all out here to speak out against Trump, who is not going to be the greatest for our country. He wants to do some things that won't be good for a lot of people, especially LGBTQ people. We need to have our voices heard." Linkh added that she is getting up at 4 a.m. to attend the Woman's March on Washington on Saturday.

“Eighth-grader Andrea R. said she participated because "Trump becoming President is not in the best interest for our country and I think children's views and voices should be noticed."

What also becomes apparent in the preceding is the similarity of word choice in participant's comments, suggesting that they were given to them to parrot when interviewed. 

All of which adds substance to the conclusions of observers like Dennis Prager, that “The suppression of free speech, the rendering of kids into immature creatures who have little thought of their own, who are given slogans rather than ideas — the university is the least morally acute place in the United States, as an institution.” Except, as the evidence now proves, the “rendering” starts far earlier than he’s apparently aware of. 


That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Monday, May 29, 2017

BloggeRhythms

On Drudge this morning is the link, “Jared who?” which connects to an article @bloomberg.com from December 31, 2014, by Josh Rogin who wrote two and a half years ago: “President Barack Obama's administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.”

The text continues: “This month, Obama's National Security Council finished an extensive and comprehensive review of U.S policy toward Russia that included dozens of meetings and input from the State Department, Defense Department and several other agencies, according to three senior administration officials. At the end of the sometimes-contentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine.

“I don’t think that anybody at this point is under the impression that a wholesale reset of our relationship is possible at this time, but we might as well test out what they are actually willing to do,” a senior administration official told me. “Our theory of this all along has been, let's see what’s there. Regardless of the likelihood of success.”

At the time, the plan included the then Secretary of State, John Kerry, who proposed “going to Moscow and meeting with Putin directly. The negotiations over Kerry’s trip got to the point of scheduling, but ultimately were scuttled because there was little prospect of demonstrable progress.”

“In a separate attempt at outreach, the White House turned to an old friend of Putin’s for help. The White House called on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to discuss having him call Putin directly, according to two officials. It’s unclear whether Kissinger actually made the call. The White House and Kissinger both refused to comment for this column.”

Kerry was chosen as “point man” on dealing with Russia “because his close relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represents the last remaining functional diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow.”

It was specifically noted at the time that Kerry and Lavrov “meet often, often without any staff members present, and talk on the phone regularly.”

So, obviously, attempts to establish a viable connection with Russia have long been acceptable at the nation’s highest levels. Until current Democrat leadership turned the seeking of a strategic relationship into some implied subversive tactic. However, an article by Stef W. Kight @axios.com today, provides insight as to why Jared Kushner might very well be the best available for the task.

Referring to Kushner as “The shadow secretary of State,” Kight explains: “While Rex Tillerson fills the official duties of America's top diplomat, Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law, has a parallel foreign policy role that was on full display during Trump's first foreign trip last week.

“Why it matters: Kushner is viewed internally as the official most capable of gathering competing viewpoints and translating/presenting the policy to Trump. That's why Trump has put him in charge of issues as big as Middle East peace, and why he has served as point person on the U.S. relationship with China. But he's facing new scrutiny amid reports he tried to set up secret communications with the Russians (to discuss Syria strategy, according to the New York Times).

“A White House official told Axios that Kushner was the one who helped plan and oversee the first part of the trip — to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Italy — with the theme of speaking to 3 of the world's biggest religions. During the Saudi Arabia stop, an arms deal Kushner reportedly helped negotiate was finalized.”

Kight then lists “What Kushner's been up to:”
  • Helped negotiate the $100+ billion arms deal that was unveiled during Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia
  • Was closely involved in NAFTA discussions and calls from the presidents of Mexico and Canada to Trump (although the exact order of business between Trump and Trudeau is disputed, both versions of the story involve Jared Kushner).
  • Helped facilitate the February meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who he has known for years, and Trump.
  • Helped smooth relations between Trump and Mexico's President Enrique Nieto through his personal bond with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray. The two share mutual friends.
  • Had a hand in organizing Trump's meeting with China's President Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago in April (Kushner has a good relationship with China's ambassador to the U.S., Cui Tiankai).
Kight then provides a “Bottom line:”

“So far, Tillerson and Kushner seem to be working together smoothly. Tillerson lets Kushner take the lead on Mexico, the Middle East and even China, while Tillerson handles Russia, meets with other world leaders, participates in foreign councils and forums and gives the public briefings. Trump likes that Tillerson is discrete and doesn't elevate himself above the president, and Kushner has told associates he appreciates that there have been few leaks out of State.”

All of which serves to strongly indicate that the Democrats attempts at creating some kind of case regarding Trump/Russia collusion will not only go nowhere, but if guilt is indicated in any way, far more of it will be found applying to the Obama administration. 

As far as Trump himself is concerned, his highly probable innocence was confirmed once again yesterday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, appeared saying ”in regards to evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, he is yet to see any “smoking gun” evidence.

According to Trent Baker @breitbart.com, Clapper told host Chuck Todd: “[F]rom a theoretical standpoint, I will tell you that my dashboard warning light was clearly on, and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned about the nature of these approaches to the Russians. If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically are almost genetically driven to coopt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique, so we were concerned.

“I have to say, at the time I left, I did not see any smoking gun certitude evidence of collusion. But it certainly was appropriate given all the sign, certainly appropriate and necessary for the FBI to investigate.”

Thus, as information continues to develop, the American public is now learning that establishing relationships with other nations, hostile or not, is part of sound, intelligent, governance. Which means that if Trump is able to accomplish some kind of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, it will be one more home run for him in a situation where his predecessor struck out as usual.  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Sunday, May 28, 2017

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday’s focus concerned what the MSM contends is the POTUS’s intention to announce support of the Paris Climate Agreement next week.  

In response, this author wrote: “I don’t spend the bulk of my days researching, gaining education and putting those results in print to support one who’ll bow to political pressure and nepotism like any other self-serving politico. Which is why, if the Paris Agreement stays in place, I’m gone too.”

And now today, Michelle Moons reports @breitbart.com that: “On Saturday night, Axios reported the news based on “three sources with direct knowledge” that “U.S. President Donald Trump has informed multiple individuals, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he intends to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, according several sources.”

6,299 comments followed the article, not only illustrating the magnitude of interest in the subject, but the fact that all of those scanned fully favored U.S. withdrawal from the agreement as well. 

Donna wrote: “Thank you President Trump the Paris Climate Agreement IS nothing but a tax scam the American public cannot afford.”

838 others agreed with her. 

big b wrote: “That's what making America Great Again is all about!! I'm not sure I agree that it is a scam though...more like a scheme of Soros and his Bilderberg Masters, to continue their worldwide globalization of this planet...boy is our President throwing a monkey wrench into their nefarious plans!!”

Another 410 “liked” that one.

CreatioExNihilo wrote: “Sure hope this report is correct. If so: The Donald is taking a major step to build a true legacy and distinguish himself as on of the greatest presidents, most loved by the people.”

374 more agreed here. 

Reno Rivera wrote: “Everything bad Barack Hussein Obama got America into, Trump undoes....that's Trump's legacy alone.

“Kind of makes it easy for Trump. Just undo Obama's messes”

jimmbbo_the_deplorable wrote:  

“Famous quotes from failed science history -
* "The Earth is the center of the universe!"
* "The Earth is flat!"
* "The science is settled!"


Neuro Mancer wrote: “From American taxpayers straight to EU socialist programs."

As far as the Agreement itself is concerned, the probability is that for most other nation’s, their primary interest in having the U.S. remain stems from the desire for the funding involved. Developing countries, for example, expect $100 billion in new money to be invested by others.    

Furthermore, as reported by Lucy Hornby of the Financial Times, back on April 11, 2017: 

“Climate ministers from Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa have gone to Beijing in recent weeks, hoping to sustain momentum from the Paris talks despite the Trump administration’s dismantling of US regulations meant to limit American emissions. But discussions have quickly run up against the issue of financing.  “Developed countries have not met their commitments. In their reports a lot of their commitment is in the form of development aid. That doesn’t meet the commitment to contribute to new funds,” China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, told a briefing on Tuesday.”

Thus, once again, the world fears aren’t really so much about climate change, but instead the loss of the deepest pockets on the planet if the U.S. departs. 

In a similar circumstance, New York Congressman Peter King posted the following on Facebook yesterday: “President Trump deserves full credit for the straight talk he delivered to our NATO allies when he confronted them at NATO headquarters in Brussels yesterday and demanded that they finally start paying their dues. Of the 28 member NATO countries only 4, besides the United States, spend the required 2 percent of GDP on defense. (Those countries are Greece, Great Britain, Estonia and Poland.) 

“The President further pointed out that not only are the delinquent 23 failing to pay their current dues, they owe "massive amounts from past years. Over the past 8 years, the US spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined." While our President spoke, a number of the European leaders were seen glancing awkwardly at one another in annoyance and embarrassment. They should be embarrassed. It's about time we had a President who lays it on the line. 

“Americans should be proud to have a President who asserts leadership on the world stage. What is so disappointing -- but not unexpected -- is the smug, antiTrump, elitist echo chamber response from so many in the media and the foreign policy establishment. Sadly their inveterate, visceral opposition to President Trump knows no bounds, even at the water's edge. 

"Media hysterics aside, President Trump explicitly thanked NATO for invoking Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks and said "the NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO's eastern and southern borders." Our President has recommitted the United States to an even stronger NATO. Now it is time for all NATO countries to make a similar commitment.”

Therefore, what’s becoming glaringly clear is that the nation now has a leader who not only understands what commitments are all about, but fully expects others to honor theirs. And if that means walking away from agreements when others don’t comply as promised, he’s fully prepared to do it.   

It also may be why back on March 27, the British newspaper "The Sunday Times" reported that the POTUS “handed German Chancellor Angela Merkel a bill for more than $300 million (277.6 million euros) for Berlin's failure to meet NATO's defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP,” according to an unnamed German government official. 

Which means that when each situation is sorted out, be it the Paris Climate Accord, NATO’s future or practically anything else, America’s money always seems to be at the core of them.  

On a very slow Memorial Day weekend,

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Saturday, May 27, 2017

BloggeRhythms

The tone for today’s thoughts is set in part by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer’s speaking positively about the POTUS’s visit to the Middle East on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” @FoxNews.com.

While certainly no fan of the POTUS, Krauthammer said: “I understand the theme, the three great religions, trying to tie them all together to make it look somewhat nonpolitical. But the real story is not the Vatican. It’s not even the Israeli trip. It is the realignment of American policy over Iran, getting the 50 Sunni nations lined up with Saudi Arabia, behind us. This is a new day in the Middle East, and it’s going to have reverberations for many years. That’s the story. It’s a new Middle East right now. America is back. That’s the story, and the consequences are going to be immense.”

Thus, in one paragraph Krauthammer acknowledges that in his opinion Trump's become not only worthy of the office he now holds, but that the nation itself is once again the leading world power it’s been in the past.  

What’s of great significance about the remarks, however, is that they come from one who has never liked Trump, nor held the slightest respect for him. And that animosity has been quite apparent throughout, as reflected in the reader’s comments that follow:      

maxedgar wrote: “It had reached the point when he'd come on - I'd mute him. Was so tired of hearing him. The one time he has something positive to say about Trump - I'm not even watching and if I had been - I'd have missed it anyway - muted. ;)"

SamsaraGuru responded: “Look on the bright side; think of the other 99 times out of 100 you didn't have to endure him droning on inanely. I'd say overall you are well ahead of the game.

“I used to like Charles - even read - most of his book - got bored about 3/4 of the way through.

“Now it seems like virtually all he can do is grouse about things and doesn't have anything either positive to say or worth hearing.”

While only 23 others took the time to post comments, virtually all of them carried the same theme regarding Krauthammer’s irrelevancy to them. 

And it’s those reader’s awareness of what transpires around them that leads into the next subject, because they and those like them are the one's that put Trump into office. 
  
Angus Mackinnon reported @yahoo.com/news that: “President Donald Trump said Saturday he would decide next week whether the United States would abide by the 2015 Paris agreement on cutting global carbon emissions.”

The article centered on the G7 leaders “voicing frustration at the president's failure to commit to the deal aimed at stemming global warming.

"I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!" Trump tweeted.

“The meeting's final declaration reflected a stalemate between the US and the six other participating countries, who are all strongly committed to the Paris accord.

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticised what she called "a very difficult, not to say very unsatisfactory" discussion with Trump on the issue.”

Regarding Merkel specifically, Tyler Durden wrote @zerohedge.com: “Needless to say, Merkel who had hoped to leave the Saturday summit with the G-7 agenda endorsed by everyone, including Trump, was furious at the US president.

“The whole discussion about climate has been difficult, or rather very unsatisfactory"  German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters Saturday. "Here we have the situation that six members, or even seven if you want to add the EU, stand against one. That means there are no signals until now whether the U.S. will remain in the Paris Agreement or not. We have therefore not talked around it but made clear that we the six member states and the EU remain committed to the goals of the agreement.”

French President Emmanuel Macron struck a more positive note, saying the talks had been useful. "I think there was progress and there was a real discussion and exchange of views," he said, voicing hope that Trump would decide to keep his country within the Paris framework.
Other delegates concurred that it was "six against one" at the gathering of leading democracies spanning North America, Europe and Japan.

Gary Cohn, Trump's economic advisor, “on Friday said the president had told his G7 colleagues that he regarded the environment as important.

"His views are evolving, he came here to learn," Cohn said. "His basis for decision ultimately will be what's best for the United States."

While the U.S. is the world's biggest carbon emitter after China, Trump had said he would listen to what US partners have to say at the G7 before making a decision on how to “'Make the right decision.”

In this case, readers once again not only demonstrate their awareness of what transpires around them, but confirm why they chose to support Trump’s election in the first place

Daniel commented: “No more world apology tours!”

Scott wrote: “European Union does not practice free trade with America ,,, try finding American products in Europe ,,, European tariffs on American products are too high and they discourage American products ,,, same thing in Japan,, That is why German and Japan have such a high trade imbalance with America."

Samuel wrote: “Hallelujah! We elected President Trump to stop the globalism the last several presidents had headed us toward. We are the United States. We need to look out for what is best for the United States. Not Bangladesh, or any other country. This is why polls show Putin is a better president than Obama. Putin puts his country first, while Obama put all but the US first. Make America Great Again!”

Christopher wrote: “Finally we have a President that thinks for himself. Too bad libtards can never do that.”

Scott wrote: “Thank You Trump! Its all out war with the Socialist welfare nations and the enemy world & US Press. The Demoncraps and Socialists should be body slammed once again.”

Shaggy wrote: “Wow, a president who will do what is best for our country. We haven't seen that in a long time. Possibly not since Eisenhower.”

4-Square wrote: “Stormy Climate" = President Trump acted in the best interest of the United States citizen and refused to be scammed like a dumb lemming (i.e. Obama) by bunch of globalist shills.”

Thus, it becomes quite obvious that the POTUS’s typical supporters are quite well-aware of what comprised his campaign and platform. And as a result, should the global-warming scam be supported by him, the backlash will likely be enormous.

In fact, on a personal note, I don’t spend the bulk of my days researching, gaining education and putting those results in print to support one who’ll bow to political pressure and nepotism like any other self-serving politico. Which is why, if the Paris Agreement stays in place, I’m gone too.       

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Friday, May 26, 2017

BloggeRhythms

From the time that the new president’s taken office, it’s been vividly obvious that the Democrat party has nothing productive to offer to anyone. Thus its taken to planning, plotting and scheming to undermine Trump’s administration in any way possible. 

While Chuck Schumer’s the one who’s taken the leading role in anti-Trump vilification, he’s not been heard from in the past few days. However, Nancy Pelosi's now spoken up, as reported by Kyle Olson @theamericanmirror.com, who wrote today: “Has Nancy Pelosi completely lost her mind? Or does she just have to complain about everything President Trump does?

“During a press briefing on Thursday, the House Minority Leader criticized the president’s choice of visiting Saudi Arabia first during his inaugural foreign trip.

“I thought it was unusual for the President of the United States to go to Saudi Arabia first. Saudi Arabia!” Pelosi said.

“It wasn’t even alphabetical. I mean, Saudi Arabia.”

Whereas Pelosi’s comment makes no sense whatsoever, Mr.Olson went on to note that: “If Trump were to begin visiting foreign countries by alphabetical order, he would first visit Afghanistan, followed by Albania, Algeria, Andorra and Angola.

“Is Nancy Pelosi really advocating for a Sesame Street strategy to boost foreign relations?”

As for the POTUS himself, according to Franco OrdoƱe @mcclatchydc.com, although terrorism tops Trump’s agenda, “European leaders keep pressing him on climate change and the environment.” 

“French President Emmanuel Macron worked on Trump during lunch Thursday, urging the U.S. president not to ditch the 196-nation Paris Agreement on climate change before getting on a plane to Sicily, Italy. 

“My wish is that the United States takes no hurried decision,” Macron said Thursday after meeting with Trump in Brussels.

“Trump arrived to this seaside community late Thursday for the Group of Seven conference where allies will talk about a series of issues from trade to Russia. But Trump’s position on the Paris accord—particularly his pledge to leave the accord—is one of the most urgent matters for European leaders, who are committed to keep the Americans involved.” 

European leadership’s pressure on climate-change is remindful of the posting here two days ago, that said: “Doing some quick research quickly disclosed why those nations would most certainly be concerned about the U.S. possibly withdrawing from the agreement, whereas according to Wikipedia: “In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks.”

“Which means that if the U.S. really leaves, the deepest pockets of the bunch whose checks will never bounce is what’s really lost. Because, when it comes to the actual climate, Mother Nature will take care of it, just like she always does.”

And then, some astute readers posted their reactions as well.

John Mattaboni commented: “Global warming is a scam that steals money and power. I'm sure the governments of Europe would LOVE to steal more money and power. Trump should just say the treaty needs to be ratified by Congress and let them kill it.”

Pete Morris wrote: “Could this be the reason Europe is in turmoil? They think (stupidly) that global warming is more dangerous than Islamic terrorism? I'm glad I moved here 30 years ago!”

Barry Forster Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) wrote: “By all means, my European friends, let us save the whales, save the snails, save the trees, save the seas, save the worms, and save the germs for population control. And let us carbon tax all the greedy capitalists into bankruptcy under one world government at the UN for the greater glory of Gaia.” 

Real Men Don't Need Guns took a more amenable tack on the topic, while still finding the urgent emphasis on warming versus terrorism ridiculous, as follows: “While Conservatives and the GOP are in outright (“the earth is flat”) denial mode when it comes to MM global warming, given the terror attacks in Europe, the focus on climate change is, to say the least, bizarre. Terrorism, like any gaping bleeding wound that’s putting life in immediate peril, should be the top priority; the slower growing cancer of climate change should come next.”

And then, on another subject, anyone doubting FoxNews shift to the left need only to scan their website where they’ll still find an article from April 26, a month ago, titled: “Fox News Poll: President Trump's first 100 days getting mixed reviews”

Dana Blanton wrote: “A Fox News Poll taken as the Trump administration nears its 100-day milestone gives mixed messages to the president.

President Trump’s job ratings are underwater by three percentage points. Currently 45 percent approve of the job he’s doing.  That’s down slightly from the 48 percent approval he received when he first took office -- and far below Barack Obama’s 62 percent approval and George W. Bush’s 63 percent approval at this same point in their presidencies. 

“Trump’s victory came from voters’ desire for change -- a big part of which was “draining the swamp.”  Yet only 43 percent think the president is succeeding in bringing real change to Washington.  More, 50 percent, say he’s failing.”

While there may be some other reason for keeping the aged article on their website, it certainly appears that the Fox objective is to prolong the POTUS in the most negative light possible for as long feasible.   

The same subject, polling, was addressed today by Fox’s Howard Kurtz who writes about what he calls “big time backlash” he received after reporting about a Fox News poll that came out the other night. 

According to Kurtz, he offered no analysis or commentary, “just a few numbers” showing “Trump’s approval at 40%, down from 45% last month. 53% say his agenda is coming apart; 44% say he's shaking up Washington.”

“Well, you’d have thought I had called for the president’s impeachment,” Kurtz wrote.
“I practically got buried under an avalanche of angry tweets.

“Most of them didn’t seem to want to engage in an actual discussion. They just attacked me, Fox, and polling in general”

Kurtz then provided a sampling of tweets he’d received, all of them similar to the following: “The way Fox is headed. This poll is wrong. I talk to people from all over the US everyday. Trump is still tops. No one unhappy. All cool.”

In support of his belief in Trump’s decline in popularity, Kurtz wrote: “The Fox poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people with a 3-point margin of error, was hardly an outlier. In the last two days, Gallup has Trump’s job approval at 39 percent, Quinnipiac at 37, Ecoomist at 40 and Reuters at 37. The exception is Rasmussen, which puts Trump at 48 percent.

“The everyone-I-talk-to argument betrays a lack of understanding of how scientific polling works.

“For the record, the final Fox poll before Election Day gave Hillary Clinton a 4-point lead, overstating her margin, but keep in mind that she won the popular vote. Trump is president because he won key Electoral College battlegrounds.”

However, by taking a purely arithmetical approach to justify his premise regarding Trump’s poor poll performance at present, Kurtz is making the same mistake as most typical mainstream media journalists who discredit the mass of voters residing in flyover country. Yet, those voters gave Trump 304 electoral votes.      

And then, Kurtz compounds his own losing argument as he writes: “The troubling thing here is that we no longer agree on a common set of facts. Conservatives and liberals are increasingly in their own silos, turning to their own opinionated media sources and constructing their Facebook and Twitter feeds the same way.

“If everything is fake news, then the role of news in fostering intelligent debate is decimated.

“And I don’t need a poll to be sure of that.”

And it’s in that thought stream that Kurtz, most likely unintentionally, clearly identifies what’s caused the demise of the mainstream media he finds so troubling. Because it isn’t the role of news to “foster intelligent debate.” The job of news is to report the five “W’s” of: What happened? Who was involved? Where did it take place? When did it take place? and Why did that happen?”

Opinions belong on the editorial page, not in the daily columns.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Thursday, May 25, 2017

BloggeRhythms

Several items today advance the premise that the concerted efforts of the mainstream media to denounce and defame the POTUS have reached a stage where they may not only backfire, but enhance Trump's image in the process.       

One subtle indication of potential future problems comes in a brief item about Fox News host Sean Hannity who came under fire for fueling a conspiracy theory about a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer, Seth Rich.

According to Michael Calderone yesterday @huffingtonpost.com, Hannity said: “There is an attempt, at this moment in time, to absolutely shut down the Fox News Channel and render it, frankly, a shadow of its former self. I’m like the last, sole remaining person there from the old guard.”

The core of Hannity’s observation likely arises from the channel's definitive trend toward the left as can be seen in an article by Judge Napolitano @FoxNews.com, headlined: “Is Trump in real trouble?”

The Judge opines in his piece that: “The bad news for President Donald Trump keeps coming his way, notwithstanding a generally bravura performance on the foreign stage this past week in Riyadh, Jerusalem and Vatican City. Yet while he was overseas, his colleagues here in the United States have been advising him to hire criminal defense counsel, and he has apparently begun that process. Can the president be charged with obstructing justice when he asks that federal investigations of his friends be shut down?”

Then, after explaining the legalities and exposures facing the POTUS, the Judge goes on to state: “Most legal scholars agree that the president cannot be prosecuted while in office and that the appropriate remedy for presidential criminal wrongdoing is impeachment.

“What is the case against President Trump?

“The short answer is: So far, nothing.”

And from there, the Judge divulges his own political preferences, writing: “Though I did not vote for Trump and though I differ with him on many issues and on his tone and manner of governing, he is the president, and I want him to succeed in shrinking the government and liberating the free market. Nevertheless, there are forces at work inside the government and elsewhere that have leaked a disturbing series of private communications involving the president. This leaked information can fairly be characterized as painting a picture of a president fearful of a criminal investigation, long underway by the FBI, and determined to impede it.”

All of which means that the Judge, like virtually all others on the left, readily admits that to date there is no case whatsoever against the POTUS. Yet he uses his expertise in legalese to place Trump in the worst light possible.

The theme was also picked up by columnist Charles Krauthammer who stated on Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” that while no one can find the crime in the Trump-Russia investigation,  the president “acts as if the there is everywhere.”

Krauthammer said, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where nobody can locate the crime. There are all these accusations, collusion is thrown around all the time. We’ve had a year of investigations. We’ve had opportunity after opportunity for some official to say, here’s what happened. And there’s been none of that. Now there may be, we could get an avalanche of evidence of collusion. But so far there is none.”

And then, after presenting an almost perfect concurrence with Judge Napolitano’s conclusion that no illegalities have taken place, Krauthammer continued, “The president insists that there is no there there, but he acts as if the there is everywhere. And that, I think, is the origin of what’s happened here. He’s trying to get people — I can understand sort of the motive. He says, I didn’t do anything, so let me get the people who are in charge of some of these agencies to come out and say, as yet, we have no evidence. 

“I don’t see that as obstruction," Krauthammer continued, "but I think it is improper. It’s something you shouldn’t be asking these people to do. And that creates this firestorm. Up until now, it’s entirely self-created, and we could end up with an enormous issue, and it’s going to dog Trump and all of his associates, who are now lawyering up, even the president himself, until the end of time because, as you say, Mueller has an endless mandate, and he cannot be fired. That’s omnipotence and omniscience at once. He’s Godlike.”

Thus, here we have two major personalities from the formerly quite conservative Fox News channel going much farther than what would have been done in the past toward any Republican. And certainly not in regard to a newly elected president. 

What’s interesting, however, is that for the second time in a week Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward came to the POTUS’s defense again. This time addressing what he referred to as “smugness” in the press.

Pam Key writes @breitbart.com that Woodward said: “Yes. I think that is a giant problem. On television particularly, you will see a White House correspondent deliver a report and then say ‘the Trump White House said…’ and then there’s a kind of smug smile, which is the correspondent undermining what the White House says. And there may be grounds for that, but it should be reported. It should be straight.”

He added, “I think there are so many people that are treating the Trump presidency as if it’s a tryout—as if it’s provisional. I was reading a column this morning that said Trump half won the presidency because he did not get the popular vote. He is president. Odds are he is probably going to be president for a full term, four years and maybe even more. There is hyperventilation. There is this kind of sense of too many people writing things like—when is the impeachment coming, how long will it last, will he make it through the summer, and so forth. No, there may be stuff that comes out, but it has to be hard evidence. I worry for the business and I worry for the perception of the business by people, not to just Trump supporters, but people that see that kind of smugness that they are talking about. You know, he was elected, the Constitution says he gets a full term.”

Which means that Woodward’s one of a very few who sense, as does this writer, that not only will Trump remain in office for his full term, or more, but that it may be the left that’s facing a troubled future. 

And once again Rush may also be picking up on a theme much like the one underlying the left’s loss of the White House, despite their certainty of a win last November. 

Talking to a caller yesterday, Rush said: “Look, the way to address this, my buddy Andy McCarthy posted a piece at National Review today advising Republicans on the committee how to deal with what Brennan is up there testifying, and the Democrats and the attempts they’re making at establishing a connection between Trump and his campaign to Russia. And he’s like a lot of us, he’s frustrated, there’s no push-back, maybe a little from Trey Gowdy. But there’s no push-back. Andy wonders why aren’t these guys asking Brennan about the collusion between Russia and Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

“And he’s suggesting a number of different ways the Republicans could get in this game and defend Trump and go after the Democrats much the way the Republicans are being sought by the Democrats here, turn the tables on ’em. But he’s seeing none of this happening. 

“I’ll tell you something else. There’s a legitimate reason to investigate any collusion between the Obama Department of Justice and the Russians in trying to affect the election. All this talk about collusion between Trump and the Russians? It was the Obama DOJ that was out there surveilling the Trump campaign — and then the unmasking and investigation into the leaks and the unmasking, which Comey said, “Oh, no, no, no! We’re not interested in that,” which really ticked Trump off. There’s all kinds of ways the Republicans on Capitol Hill could be returning fire here.”

And in that way, it’s highly likely Rush will keep the drumbeat going as well he should. 

Because, as regular readers know, there’s a mass of information available regarding the Clinton/Podesta/Russia connection. Much of it mentioned here in the past. Which may very well be what Bob Woodward sees coming for the left in the future.

Meaning that, it’s a virtual certainty that not only is this story far from over, but Trump’s probably not the one who needs a lawyer. Making one wonder if Bill Clinton’s disbarment’s expired. 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

BloggeRhythms

There are several more indications today that Democrat leadership may finally be accepting the fact that believing their own hype and smoke isn’t going to help them much towards winning elections at any levels.

While they’re trying to promote biased anti-Trump poll results with support from the mainstream media, factual evidence is evidently beginning to sink in for them.  

In that regard, “Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.” That’s a full two-point increase from yesterday, with three more days of travel yet to come for him.  

Whereas irrational behavior, such as continual pursuit of unfounded claims about misbehavior on Trump’s part, seems to be a fruitless effort for Democrat leadership they’re now trying to slow calls for impeachment as reported by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns @nytimes.com

According to the authors: “Most congressional Democrats are still wary about calling for Mr. Trump to be frog-marched out of the West Wing. The expectations of their base, they believe, are outrunning what is feasible as long as Republicans control both chambers of Congress.

“The fear, Democratic officials say, is that they will invite the sort of backlash from their base that Republicans got for overpromising about what was possible while President Barack Obama was in office. They argue that methodically building a case — obtaining and revealing any memos or White House recordings, for example — is the soundest approach if they are to bring Republicans along.” 

However, while the Times presents a rationale for easing-off based on the Democrats determining that Congressional Republican majority’s are too difficult to overcome without amassed incriminating evidence, that isn’t likely the situation at all. Because, as the individual Democrat witch-hunts unfold, it’s Democrat's themselves who are being discovered as guilty party’s.     

As written by John Solomon and Sara Carter @circa.com/politics today: “The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

“More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.” 

The normally supportive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court  court “censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an ‘institutional lack of candor’ and that the improper searches constituted a ‘very serious Fourth Amendment issue,’ according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017. 

While the "admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans,” officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.” 

Despite the official's denials, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) told Fox News “there was an apparent effort under the Obama Administration to increase the number of unmaskings of Americans.” 

"If we determine this to be true, this is an enormous abuse of power," Paul said. “This will dwarf all other stories.” 

“There are hundreds and hundreds of people,” Paul added. 

In addition: “The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.” 

All of which adds to the growing mass of information compiling toward proving Democrat culpability in cases which they instituted to implicate Trump, and as many other Republicans as possible. However, virtually all of those attempts have begun to implode as the underlying truths continue to surface. None of which would have happened if the Democrat presidential candidate had been elected. 

And then, Andrew O'Reilly wrote @FoxNews.com about the upcoming G-7 Summit in Taormina, Sicily where: “Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom – are all strong supporters of the Paris [Climate] Agreement, as are the other 188 countries that have signed it, and the idea of the U.S. withdrawing from the accord has become a global concern. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide and its adherence to the emissions-cutting deal penned under the Obama administration is seen, by some, as vital to keeping other nations in compliance.” 

Doing some quick research quickly disclosed why those nations would most certainly be concerned about the U.S. possibly withdrawing from the agreement, whereas according to Wikipedia: “In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks.” 

Which means that if the U.S. really leaves, the deepest pockets of the bunch whose checks will never bounce is what’s really lost. Because, when it comes to the actual climate, Mother Nature will take care of it, just like she always does. 

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

BloggeRhythms

Anyone still doubting the political bent of the majority of the media ought to give some consideration to polling data published in the past two days.

The consistently accurate Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll posted today shows that “46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.” 

Not surprisingly, “seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans approve of the job Trump is doing versus 82% of Democrats who disapprove."

However, at the very same time, others having political differences with the POTUS post strikingly different results.  

William Steakin writes @ aol.com: “While President Donald Trump is overseas on his first foreign trip as commander in chief, the heap of recent negative polls has continued to pile up.

“The latest, a survey from Reuters/Ipsos, shows Trump with 38 percent approval rating, which represents a sharp drop as well as his lowest rating since Inauguration Day when he entered the White House with historically low numbers.” 

Similarly, Contact Reporter David Lauter @latimes.com reports today that: “President Trump’s standing in national polls has consistently declined since the end of last month. His approval rating now sits at the lowest point of his presidency. 

“The percentage who approve of Trump’s job performance is now below 40% in the two major polling averages, done by Real Clear Politics and the Huffington Post. He’s at the lowest level of his presidency so far and far lower than any previous president at this point.”

Then comes Jonathan Easley @thehill.com who writes: “In the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Trump has a 39.6 percent approval rating and 54.7 disapproval rating.”

But then, farther down, Easley adds: “On the upside, the poll shows that most of those who voted for Trump are sticking with him.

“He is holding on to 90 percent of his voters and his ratings are still above approval ratings for both the Democratic and Republican parties,” Mark Penn, co-director of the Harvard-Harris survey said. 

“Among all Republicans, Trump’s job approval is at 85 percent. A Reuters-Ipsos survey released last week showed signs that Trump’s base might be cracking, with only 75 percent of Republicans saying they approve of the job he’s doing.” 

While pollsters continue to produce questionable statistics, the POTUS himself proceeds with his quite productive overseas trip about which Rush offered another insightful comment, saying: “Trump did another first on this trip in Israel today. He made history. He’s the first sitting president to visit the Western Wall. Now, other presidents have been there as candidates or after they retired, but none before Trump ever, as a sitting president. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Hussein O all visited either when they were candidates or as private citizens. And none of them were accompanied by the Israeli prime minister. Now, an interesting thing about this. Trump and Melania went to the Western Wall today, and men and women go to different areas of the wall.”

Then Rush took the possibilities further, building on the POTUS’s having said he was “deeply moved by his visit to the wall, thanked the Israeli people, spoke of the unbreakable bond of friendship with Israel and America, and expressed his desire for Israel to have peace.”

Addressing Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia where he said “many things can happen now that could have never happened before, Rush focused on King Salman’s expressing his strong desire for peace and the leaders in Saudi Arabia pledging to help eradicate terrorism and work on the peace process too. 

All of which led Rush to propose: “Wouldn’t it be funny, wouldn’t it just be…? 

“You know me; I don’t think Middle East peace is possible without somebody surrendering. I just don’t. This has been going how many thousands of years. Peace in the Middle East? I just never believed doctors, nurses, clean water, Red Cross units, and negotiations are gonna solve this. But what if (laughing) the most progress ever made toward peace in the Middle East happened with Donald Trump as president? Can you imagine? It is gonna be unacceptable to these people that some clunky outsider who doesn’t know right from wrong, boorish from polite — somebody so unsophisticated — can come in and command the respect of both sides. 

“We’ll wait and see. 

“Time will tell.” 

And then, Rush went into one of his trademark narratives where he put the practical realities of current ideological persuasions into true perspective. 

Rush said: “We ought to have somebody start that narrative, get that meme floating around, get some people to start tweeting that out: Donald Trump could be a one-man U.N. You know how that would drive ’em crazy out there. It would literally drive ’em crazy, ’cause then Trump would come out against climate change as a one-man United Nations. Here’s… 

“No, Trump will never get the Nobel Prize! If Trump ever actually oversaw a legitimate peace, a laying down of arms between the Israelis and Palestinians and everybody else, they still would not give him the peace prize. There’s no way. How dare you ask me? Do you think he’d get the Nobel Peace Prize? There’s no way! If they give it to a guy just three months after he’s been inaugurated — if they give a guy like Obama a peace prize on the come — and here’s a guy who expanded every war we’re in, who did not close Club Gitmo (scoffs), and they give him the peace prize? They ought to demand it back. But they won’t.” 

While Rush’s analysis certainly has significant merit, Trump’s attaining acknowledgement of accomplishments may not be as insurmountable as in the past. And that’s because the voting public continues to access other sources of information outside the range of the mainstream media.   

Today Content Marketing Manager, Daniel Sevitt, posted the following chart @similarweb.com, showing the US Media Publications ranking for April. 

 msn.com                   1   1    0  1764.4 M
espn.com 2 2 0 1393.4 M
drudgereport.com 3 3 0 1248.2 M
news.google.com 4 4 0 1165.8 M
cnn.com 5 6 1 841.0 M
finance.yahoo.com 6 5 -1 827.9 M
sports.yahoo.com 7 7 0 741.4 M
foxnews.com 8 8 0 671.4 M
nytimes.com 9 9 0 538.0 M
buzzfeed.com 10 11 1 481.4 M
washingtonpost.com 11 10 -1 446.1 M
huffingtonpost.com 12 12 0 351.4

The results show that Drudge is well over the billion mark in total pageviews with none of the MSM sites coming close. And it’s a sure bet that those logging on to Drudge for access to news reports all day long, aren’t searching for links to leftist media outlets. And those are the kinds of things that ought to be giving Rush and his listeners great hope for the future.

That's it for today folks. 

Adios

Monday, May 22, 2017

BloggeRhythms

There’s a political shift taking place in the U.S. that the left certainly doesn’t understand at all, while many Republican columnists haven’t grasped it’s full extent either. Several items today serve as examples of the changing tides in the nation. 

On the Democrat side, Susan B. Glasser writes @politico.com about ranting and babbling from John Podesta who’s still disputing the results of the election his candidate lost.  

Podesta claims: “Donald Trump is “unfit for office,” a president whose actions are often “absolutely crazy” and whose White House has “a complete disregard for the truth.” His firing of James Comey as the FBI director was overseeing an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and whether Trump’s advisers colluded with it amounts to “close to an obstruction case” against the president. 

Nonetheless he says not to expect “impeachment proceedings anytime soon,” because Republican congressional leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have chosen to “Velcro their own political fate” to Trump’s and won’t pursue allegations against the president of their own party unless forced to do so by a 2018 midterm election debacle or further revelations. 

“It is clear to me that Republicans on Capitol Hill are not going to begin to turn on him at this point,” Podesta says. 

And then Ms Glasser adds that Podesta said: “if those 70,000 votes had gone differently in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, … we would have all been geniuses.” Which brings back Cowboys quarterback, Don Meredith’s canard: “If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.” 

However, while Podesta prattles about the POTUS’s unfitness for office and “absolutely crazy” actions, Kyle Olson adds totally opposite realities @theamericanmirror.com, writing: “President Trump is continuing to defy his detractors at home by wooing more world leaders in the Middle East. 

“During a Sunday meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sisi told the American president that he is “capable of doing the impossible.”

Proof of the king’s expectations was seen as: “Israeli ministers have approved measures aimed at improving the Palestinian economy and facilitating crossings, rare moves said to be at Donald Trump’s request hours ahead of the US president’s arrival. 

The results of Trump's efforts are now so obvious that even the highly biased CBS News personality Bob Schieffer “reacted to President Donald Trump’s speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, praising him for sounding “presidential” while calling for Muslim countries to unite in combating terrorism.” 

Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Schieffer told fill-in host John Berman: “You may agree or disagree with what he said, but he sounded like a president. He laid out his vision, he called for help from those in the Muslim world — it was a much different kind of presentation.” 

Later,  Schieffer added, “He didn’t sound like the guy at the end of the bar popping off. He sounded like someone who had actually thought he was going to say before he said it.” 

Although Schieffer may be coming to grips with the depth of Trump’s capabilities, long-time supporter Michael Goodwin @nypost.com still isn’t quite comprehending what’s presently bring accomplished.    

Mr. Goodwin writes today: “Reader Freda Barry objects to my view that President Trump’s errant words and deeds are testing the faith of his followers. She writes: “No, supporters of President Trump are not losing faith. We are, however, totally dismayed by the unrelenting attacks on our president from the corrupt media! 

“Please don’t give up on us or the president we VOTED into office. We still pray that he will NOT give up, even under continuous assault.” 

“Her plea is obviously heartfelt, and others also invoked prayer in delivering similar messages. 

"But while I haven’t given up on Trump, I am concerned about the state of his presidency.”

In support of his premise, Mr. Goodwin opines that: “Democrats have been rewarded for their wild accusations that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to meddle in the election. The “resistance” has morphed into wider calls for impeachment, including in Congress, without evidence that any crime was committed, let alone by Trump.” 

Noting that the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel raises the case to consideration as “a criminal probe and the White House has no control over where it goes,” Mr. Goodwin believes that “even the GOP advantage in Congress will be neutered because criminal investigations take precedence over hearings.” 

“That gives Democrats ­leverage and opportunities unthinkable just four months ago. Having demanded a special counsel, they will use the existence of one as proof that Trump must be guilty of something and noisily drown out any discussion of his America First agenda. 

“Any honest analysis would say the Dems are off to a decent start. Already, the repeal of ObamaCare, tax reform and a military buildup have to be regarded as less likely now than they were just weeks ago. They’re not dead, but the odds are going in the wrong direction and congressional Republicans seem paralyzed.” 

And it’s at this point where even a writer as skilled and perceptive as Mr. Goodwin joins most others unaware of how skilled  business-negotiators approach complex, competitive and delicate transactional situations. And that’s because there are no hard and fast rules to the working-stage process. There are also no reliable models to draw on, whereas each “deal” is unique. No rigid time-frames exist either, despite outside pressures from others having their own interests for whatever reasons. (Such as those on the left and the press.)      

And from there Mr. Goodwin, perhaps unknowingly, refutes his own argument about the POTUS’s rate of progress to date by writing that: “It is true, as Trump says, that he has major accomplishments already. Business and consumer confidence are up, illegal immigration is down and he is working on better trade deals. 

“His push to shrink regulations will spur job creation and his support for law enforcement and school choice represent key reversals of misguided policies he inherited. Neil Gorsuch was a superb Supreme Court choice. 

“The president is also making strides in repairing the damage Barack Obama’s worldview inflicted on our global standing and our allies. One area of agreement in the Mideast is that both the Israeli and Arab leaders Trump is seeing on his trip felt betrayed by Obama. 

“The bottom line is that some pieces of a successful presidency are in place, but the progress is fragile and could be swamped by the Washington circus. Trump’s goal must be to avoid any more hint of scandal and ­instability so he can earn enough support to finish the revolution he started. If he can do that, everything is still possible.” 

While it’s certainly true that if the POTUS can do all he’s promised “everything is still possible,“ something else can be done as well. If Mr. Goodwin goes back and rereads his own column about Trump's accomplishments to date and at the same time, learns all he can first-hand about negotiating and successfully closing mega-deals, there’s an outside chance he may figure out how and why all that’s being worked on now will happen successfully over time.
 
And then, Rush offered a few very appropriate insights today. 

“Trump gets off the plane in Saudi Arabia, gets off the plane in Israel, and is overwhelmingly respected and welcomed and appreciated. I have to think that it's not all just because he has the title of president. I think it's a stunning contrast. How can these two completely different characters exist: The Donald Trump of Washington and the Donald Trump of this trip?” 

“Consider the Trump that you have seen and watched in Saudi Arabia and now in Israel. Contrast that with the president you see and hear reported on in Washington. The two men don't even look remotely similar. This trip should not be possible. The news coming out of this trip should not be possible based on what everybody is saying about Trump in Washington.”

"How about these judges who issued stays on Trump's travel order 'cause he hates Muslims? How does that wash with this weekend?”

Reader Don Moyer Jr. commented: “Funny thing how foreigners care more about our country than the liberal leaning leftists and their never ending hatred for someone who is truly working hard to get this country back on track. So sick of the Obstructionists that have the gall to call themselves Americans.”

Thus, despite the continual effort of those on the left and their MSM accomplices, everyday successes and accomplishments totally belie their purely political anti-everything Trump agenda. Particularly because a robust economy and Middle-East peace are two primary Trump promises they all voted for in Middle-America. Even Bob Schieffer knows that.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios