BloggeRhythms

Although Howard Kurtz is more a gossip columnist than political reporter or analyst, he provided some significant insights @FoxNews.com this morning about the ongoing debate over President Trump’s immigration shutdown.  

First and foremost, Kurtz notes that reaction on the issue has been “emotional” and as a result, the need for better vetting to stop terrorists from coming into this country by posing as refugees or overstaying their visas is being overlooked. However, what Kurtz didn’t mention is that most of the hysterics have come from Democrats who simply refuse to take an intelligent approach to addressing an extremely serious, threatening situation.  

Then there's the fact that Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011 (though the parallels are not exact), “and that the seven predominantly Muslim countries covered by the order were identified by the Obama administration.” The orders also extended to green card holders, who after extensive review are deemed legal U.S. residents. 

So, here again Democrats will soon have to face another embarrassment whereas while the new POTUS is taking needed steps as protections against potential internal terrorist threats, leaders such as Schumer and Warren are tearing up and demanding unbridled entry by anyone,regardless.    

Further compounding the Democrats problem is that they’ve blown the situation significantly out of proportion, whereas: “On the Sunday shows, Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer made the point that 109 people were detained out of the 325,000 traveling that day.” 

As far as the method for implementing the ban is concerned: Trump tweeted yesterday that “if the ban were announced with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad ‘dudes’ out there!” 

As a practical matter, it would matter little what steps had been taken, because the left aided by the MSM, would have found grounds for complaint anyway. So it certainly looks like Trump took an entirely logical and effective approach to the situation.   

In that regard, National Review opined that: ”The instant backlash, which has culminated in thousands of protesters creating chaos at the nation’s airports, is the result more of knee-jerk emotion than a sober assessment of Trump’s policy.” 

Slate took the other side, saying the order “gravely threatens not only American values but also U.S. security interests…American armed forces, after all, are conducting military operations of some sort—from ground combat and airstrikes to special-operations missions—in all but one of those seven countries (Iran). The local soldiers they’re fighting alongside or advising—and the local people who are tolerating their presence—are likely to turn distrustful, possibly hostile, if the American president is telling them that under no circumstances will they be allowed to come into our country because they might be terrorists 
 
“In other words, with this order—which has come under major protest from citizens, judges, and many legislators—Trump is making it harder to defeat ISIS by telling the allies and main forces in that fight that they aren’t good enough to set foot in America.” 

However, Slate’s premise is not only ridiculous, it also takes the facts of the matter totally out of context. Because the ban isn’t forever, it’s only a ninety-day pause allowing for prudent evaluation of the risks to the nation and what can be done to eliminate them. Which is exactly what Obama did for twice as long. 

Thus, as time proves Trump to be correct, the left has painted itself further into their rapidly shrinking corner.  

Additional hints of Trump’s long-term probability of success can be found in an article by Nigel Duara, Contact Reporter, @latimes.com via Drudge. In his piece, Durara points out that citizens living in or nearby areas immediately affected by illegals, are more than pleased with the new president’s actions. 

While objectors like Schumer up in New York are incensed, those actually in the middle of the problem 120 miles from the border feel quite differently. “Arizona voters outraged with President Obama’s executive orders that welcomed the foreign-born to America are delighted with Trump’s first week in office, when his actions seemed to have done the opposite.” 

A young mother, 36 year old Tara Jenkins, acknowledged initial fear that Trump wouldn’t live up to “traditional conservative values” saying “I was, frankly, worried about what Trump would do.” 

Not knowing whether Trump would act on his campaign promises or simply change his mind after his inauguration, she’s been happy with his directives saying: “It’s everything he said he wanted to do, and that’s something we needed. 

And then she described the situation perfectly, saying that although she’s not sure yet whether Trump’s executive orders will immediately secure the border, and doesn’t want to see refugees in genuine need turned away from the U.S., she “wonders how it’s possible to tell which refugees are truly seeking asylum and which ones intend to do the nation harm.” 

And that’s what Trump understands clearly as crystal and is trying to find a way to resolve above all else.  

Another resident, Doyle MacCree, 84, of Goodyear, a conservative suburb west of Phoenix, and other voters here, feel that while Trump perhaps hasn’t yet gone far enough, they say give it time. They correctly boil it down to Trump’s having “uncomplicated solutions to what they see as uncomplicated problems.”

Additionally: “MacCree doesn’t believe Trump will stop at a wall. Such a promise was only the beginning of a new era in U.S. policy, he said, a projection of strength to countries that had begun to take America’s openness for granted.  

“It’s his law now,” MacCree said about Trump. “A wall will just stop [border crossers] a little, get in the way. 

“We’ll see what the next step is. I know he’s got one.” 

And that pretty much sums the Democrats problem up whereas while they immediately react negatively to any and all steps the new POTUS takes, the voters actually involved support Trump wholeheartedly.   

Above and beyond the support coming from those already in the new POTUS’s corner, additional backing came from a very surprising source, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz. 

Ian Hanchett reported @breitbart.com that last night, on CNN’s “Out Front,” Dershowitz reacted to “Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ announcement that the DOJ will not present arguments in defense of President Trump’s immigration order by saying Yates made a “serious mistake” and has “made a political decision, rather than a legal one.” 

“Dershowitz stated Trump should “just ignore” Yates and ask the court to appoint a special defense attorney to defend the order, because the president “has a right to have his actions defended. If I’m a judge, I’m going to say some of the statute’s unconstitutional, as it applies to green card holders, as it applies maybe to people who are in the country, but maybe not so much as it applies to people who are seeking visas, but may be in violation of a statute.

"These are hard questions, and we shouldn’t be treating them with a blunderbuss. We should be treating them with a scalpel.” 

And then, presenting a conclusion similar to many that have been offered here regarding Trump’s modus operando, Dershowitz said: “You respond to Twitter with nuance, and that’s why I think Sally Yates made a mistake. She played into his hands, instead of responding in an intelligent, sophisticated, calibrated way.” 

Which is precisely what’s Trump’s done all along to date. Knowing full well how Democrats, particularly ones like Schumer, Pelosi and Warren, will react he throws them something to fiercely object to.  

And while Democrats keep rounding up the troops, chasing their tails and running in circles of outrage, Trump and his people are quietly taking care of business in the background. Forcing the top Democrats to continue making blithering fools of themselves completely. 
 
That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

As the new president begins his second week in office, Democrat leadership, George Soros and the MSM are having a field day. That's because the POTUS has given them an issue to rally against, protest about, and in Chuck Schumer’s case, even shed some tears; the immigration ban.  

Their only problem is that the majority of voters who put him into office generally believe that Trump's actions are correct and appropriate for the situation at hand.

Laila Kearney writes @reuters.com: “Many of President Donald Trump’s core political supporters had a simple message on Sunday for the fiercest opponents of his immigration ban: Calm down. 

“The relaxed reaction among the kind of voters who drove Trump’s historic upset victory - working- and middle-class residents of Midwest and the South - provided a striking contrast to the uproar that has gripped major coastal cities, where thousands of protesters flocked to airports where immigrants had been detained.” 

As an example of acceptance, Jo Ann Tieken a 72 year old woman from a St. Louis suburb, “characterized the president as bringing reason into an overheated debate”, saying, “Somebody has to stand up, be the grown up and see what we can do better to check on people coming in. I’m all for everybody to stop and take a breath … Just give it a chance.” 

And there, we have the difference. Because once again, Trump has taken practical reality's into consideration and then come up with a solution to a major problem. And while the problems that have arisen can all be fixed in time, the few temporary setbacks are far better than wide open, unbridled entry into the nation by anyone from anywhere.   

That’s probably why political analysts said that “allegations of operational or administrative blunders may do little to dampen enthusiasm for a president who rose to power on a populist and protectionist platform.” 

“Louise Ingram, a 69-year-old retiree from Troy, Alabama, said she forgave the new administration a few "glitches," such as widespread confusion over treatment of green card holders, as it moved to protect U.S. citizens from attacks. 

"I'm not opposed to immigrants," she said. "I just want to make sure they are safe to come in." 

According to a senior Trump administration official, political considerations had little to do with the executive orders at all. Instead they’re a reaction to the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California; the Boston Marathon bombing; and multiple attacks by radicalized groups in Europe. 

Another Trump official said: “The reality is that the situation that exists today in parts of France, Germany and parts of Belgium is not a situation that we want replicated inside the United States.” Which is an acutely logical reaction to what’s been unequivocally causing death and destruction within the European nations mentioned. 

Public acceptance of Trump’s actions were further confirmed by University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato who said the  “weekend protests over the executive orders would not hurt Trump politically. His base is as firm as ever. What he’s lost in the very early polls is the Republicans who were never Trumpers and ended up voting for Trump.” 

On the other extreme, as reported by Caitlin Yilek @washingtonexaminer.com, Chuck Schumer called for the executive order to be reversed "immediately" and suggested that a bipartisan group of lawmakers could introduce legislation to overturn the immigration ban.
"If we get a few more Republicans, I think we might be able to pass legislation," he said.

And if that actually happens, Schumer and whoever joins him, will have handed Trump talking points that might very well help pave his way to reelection although he’s barely started his term in office. 

Because while trying to score political points with his shrinking base, what Schumer's really saying is that he and his compatriots don’t care who enters the nation, where they come from or what their intentions are, friend or foe. And what’s more, no one should bother to check.  

At the same time, Schumer's also ignoring the desires of all those who voted for Trump, leaving no middle-ground while simultaneously insulting and demeaning everyone who dedicated themselves to entry via the nation’s immigration policy’s, rules and regulations.       

Thus, its no wonder that most of Middle-America wants no part of Schumer, his party or the danger he willingly exposes them to simply to please his voting base. 

In terms of the actual trends presently occurring, a definitive acceptance of the move toward a more conservative general public came from Carlos Greer @pagesix.com via Drudge today. 

Greer writes about media insiders “buzzing” that Andy Lack,  chairman of NBC News and MSNBC, wants NBC to become “the next Fox News” after poaching Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly from the network. 

A source said: “He believes he’s building MSNBC and NBC into the next Fox. It seems the network wants to take a more conservative tone.” 

Meaning that, after continual attempts to print and broadcast leftist propaganda, an experienced media leader finally acknowledges that the majority of public opinion not only believes otherwise, but now wishes to attune his network to their thinking. 

It’s also highly likely, now that NBC News is breaking away from the left in its coverage, that there will be more to follow. Which is another clear indication of the self-defeating aspects of political throwbacks like Schumer, who insist on ignoring reality while appeasing an ever-shrinking base. 

On the other hand, after getting himself elected against overwhelming odds, Trump may wind up bringing the MSM into the real world too. Provided they truly want to remain in business.  

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios  

BloggeRhythms

Although barely a week’s transpired since the new POTUS took office, an interesting and amusing pattern seems to be emerging regarding his methodology in conducting business. 

For most good strategists, an important element of winning is maximizing advantages gained from opponents weaknesses. That's especially beneficial when one’s offering s are superior to begin with. Another critical factor is insuring that whatever's presented will prevail in the test of time. 

In the POTUS”s case he’s been given a tremendous advantage from  two major rivals, the Democrat party and the MSM, whereas they’ve both decided that regardless of the issue or subject, they’re going to take an opposite stance, no matter. Thus, since the POTUS is delivering what the majority of voters desired as fast as possible, his opponents are willingly placing themselves on the wrong side in every case, every time they object.  
    
And the more important the issues are to the nation, the worse objector’s make themselves sound and look.

A case in point is the negative eruption over the temporary freeze on immigration. Because while Republicans want to take some time to insure that proper steps are taken to insure the safety of the nation and its citizens, dolts like Elizabeth Warren are screaming to let anyone in regardless. Which in time will make her look like the reckless, unthinking, political vacuum tube that she is. 

As far as the media’s concerned, on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” on Friday, Eric Bolling said to Newt Gingrich: “Uh-hm. And also, the difference is the media coverage as well. 

Gingrich replied: “Well, look, 80 percent or 90 percent of the media is the opposition party. I mean, let’s be honest about it. These aren’t reporters, these are propagandist. There was one panel on journalism in the age of Trump in which I don’t think a single member of the panel voted for Trump. They’ve learned nothing, they were wrong during the primaries, he won. They were wrong in the general election, he won. They’ve been wrong about his cabinet, it’s a great cabinet. They were wrong about covering the inaugural, which is truly a historic inaugural, hearkening back to Lincoln’s first inaugural in 1861. They miss it every time because they’re so far to the left and of so out of touch with every day Americans.”

And as a result, Trump has unlimited opportunity to pursue fulfillment of voters wishes. Because his opposition has nothing to offer, choosing instead to whimper, whine and object in ways that make them look like the childish complainers they are. 

At the same time, another heartening occurrence took place yesterday as the Koch network announced plans to spend between $300 million and $400 million in the next two years, intensifying its nationwide efforts in the initial years of Trump's presidency.

According to Steve Peoples of the Associated Press @yahoo.com via Drudge: “The investment, backed by the organization's extensive nationwide network, positions the billionaire industrialist family to play a major role in the debate over several Trump priorities — even those they oppose.”

The focus will be on re-shaping the federal health-care system and eliminating federal regulations — two priorities in alignment with the new president. They sharply oppose, however, efforts by the Trump administration to interfere with free trade.

Trump, however, isn’t specifically attempting to “interfere with free trade,” but instead trying to level the playing field such as the TPP which he calls a “total disaster” that will let China come in “through the back door.” Instead he’d rather make "individual deals with individual countries.” 

According to economist.com: Before the election, Trump’s senior trade adviser, Dan DiMicco, described seven items his candidate would put in action in his first 100 days, including sitting down with NAFTA countries, China, and even the World Trade Organisation. “He wants to say, listen guys, this has been one-sided for too long.” 

He will also demand the renegotiation of existing trade pacts or would threaten to pull out of them. “Every future trade agreement, from TPP to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe will be put on hold. “Whether they go forward depends on whether we can return to balanced trade, and whether they add to GDP growth,” Mr DiMicco said. “The era of trade deficits is over. It will be, ‘Let’s talk, but otherwise we put tariffs on.’” 

Indicating that much like the immigration issue, Trump feels evaluation, discussion and analysis are needed before proceeding. Much like the formulative efforts that should be taken preceding any worthwhile business deal. And certainly common-sensical.   

Coming back to the Koch weekend conference, 550 donors also attended “each willing to donate at least $100,000 each year to the various conservative political and policy groups backed by the Koch brothers.” Much of which is also the Trump agenda. 

All adding up to a significant counter to opposition such as billionaire Tom Steyer and his clean energy economy goals. Particularly since Mother Nature is solving global-warming for free by lowering temperatures herself, thereby totally refuting Steyer’s argument altogether.

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

As the new occupant of the Oval Office continues to implement his agenda at an extremely fast pace, two of the nation’s foremost business idols are softening their formerly hostile attitudes towards him.   

According to Reuters reporters Jonathan Stempel and Jennifer Ablan @yahoo.com via Drudge, yesterday Bill Gates and Warren Buffett spoke to students at Columbia University, expressing optimism that the U.S. “will move ahead as a nation, even as it works through political differences and gets used to the new Trump administration.”

As President Trump unwinds the work of his predecessor via executive orders, and critics raise concern over what the actions mean for Americans and their place in the world, Buffett said: “I am confident that America will move ahead." 

Along the same lines, Gates said the desire for innovation and support for research are "strong" and "largely bipartisan," despite differences on how to accomplish and fund both. 

And that: “This administration is new enough; we don't know how its budget priorities are going to come out," but there is much intensity to ensure that the executive branch and Congress encourage "amazing things."  

While the newly gained support from the two may be due to a genuine change of heart is certainly possible, there may be another, far more important, stimulant to their optimism.

Noah Kirsch reported @forbes.com: During Donald Trump’s first week as President “Warren Buffett enjoyed the biggest gain of any person in the country; his net worth climbed by more than $2.5 billion to $74 billion. He is currently the planet’s second-richest person, according to FORBES' real-time rankings of the world's billionaires, trailing only Bill Gates ($85 billion).” 

During the meeting at Columbia, Buffett said: "It's very hard to have politicians think of something that's wonderful for the country 20 years from now" if the short-term impact might cost them reelection, with their decisions often tainted by too much money, which he called "bad news." After which he stressed the importance of immigration, a central issue for Trump. 

To that, reader Plain Truth responded: “Again when will people get it. The immigration issue is for Illegals NOT Legal immigrants and its an issue for illegals who commit CRIMES in the US. Stop the Generalization of immigration as a whole. Someone brings up immigration and all of a sudden you think the everyone is blocked from coming in the US regardless of ethnicity or origin.” 

While Plain Truth is certainly correct in noting how the MSM distorts reporting in its effort to promote its anti-Trump agenda, another reader, notjustanotherdroid, made a far more valid point, commenting: “Why anyone cares what Buffett and Gates think about world problems, or even politics, is a complete mystery to me. Both of these men are, essentially idiot savants - brilliant at what they do, and completely without wider vision or even common sense understanding.” 

Thus, once again its readers who’ve filtered the facts and reached valid, perfunctory and well-earned conclusions regarding both Buffet and Gates. 

Despite the efforts of traditionally left-leaning idealists such as Buffett and Gates to promote their causes, the general public seems to be increasingly availing itself of information readily found from alternative sources other than the MSM.  

In that regard, Orit Coty posted the SimilarWeb Ranking for U.S. Media Publications @similarweb.com. 

The leader in number of viewers is espn.com with 2,205,261,000. Next came msn.com’s 2,079,402,000 followed by drudgereport.com at 1,732,988,000. Which means that after establishing itself as extremely helpful to Trump and Republicans in general in the past election, Drudge continues to draw almost 2 billion hits a month.  

As far as the most widely used News and Magazines app’s are concerned, Fox News scored 22.12% of active app users.

cnn.com came in at just over half of Fox at 12.41% while nytimes.com produced a dismal 7.13%. 

All of which serves to underline the self-inflicted harm of the Democrats decision to refute and obstruct the new POTUS every chance they get. Because the viewership trends clearly indicate that the voting public’s interest in whatever leftist causes are means less and less to them as time goes on.   

And then, following up on yesterday’s mention of Britain’s Theresa May’s visit to the White House, Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent for Dailymail.com and James Tapsfield, Political Editor for Mailonline write that Trump reminded a reporter that he was in Scotland at his Turnberry golf course at a ribbon-cutting ceremony the day after the historic Brexit vote.   

Trump said: “I said Brexit is going to happen and I was scorned in the press for making that prediction. I was scorned. And I said I believe it's going to happen because people want to know who is coming into their country and they want to control their own trade and various other things, and low and behold, the following day it happened and the odds weren't looking good for me when I made that statement because, as you know, everybody thought it was not going to happen.” 

He went on: “I think Brexit's going to be a wonderful thing for your country. I think when it irons out, you're gonna have your own identity and you're going to have the people that you want in your country and you're going to be able to make free trade deals without having somebody watching you and what you're doing.” 

While the Brexit “Leave” vote reflected the majority opinion of a majority of British citizens, it also illustrates that the aims and desires of the left are no longer inevitable, regardless of how hard the MSM helps push that agenda. And, what’s more, leftist manipulation in the media is further vulnerable because leaders such as Trump and May make their cases directly with the public. 

In that sense, Trump got some help regarding the attempts to tie him to Vladimir Putin during the past election. Because: “In her speech to the Republican Retreat convention, Mrs May added: “There is nothing inevitable about conflict between Russia and the West. And nothing unavoidable about retreating to the days of the Cold War. But we should engage with Russia from a position of strength. 

“And we should build the relationships, systems and processes that make cooperation more likely than conflict – and that, particularly after the illegal annexation of Crimea, give assurance to Russia's neighbouring states that their security is not in question.” 

Warning Trump to 'beware' of Russian president Vladimir Putin , she evoked “the memory of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher during the Cold War,” saying 'When it comes to Russia, as so often it is wise to turn to the example of President Reagan who - during negotiations with his opposite number Mikhail Gorbachev - used to abide by the adage 'trust but verify'. With President Putin, my advice is to 'engage but beware'.  

Which, again, is much like President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy strategy and advice that it’s wise to "speak softly, and carry a big stick." And that looks like what Trump and May are going to be doing a lot of together in the very near future. 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today’s one wherein the goals and objectives of the two major political party’s couldn’t be clearer. While it will be up to voters to determine which one they’ll prefer in the future, at this point the choice seems to be between having a desire for common sense and practicality in government versus irrational obstinance.    

A step toward resetting the nation’s important relationships takes place today as the POTUS meets with British Prime Minister, Theresa May.  

Conservative Party politician Iain Duncan Smith,  who served in former prime minister David Cameron's Cabinet, summed up the British side saying: “We have always had a strong relationship with the United States, but under the last president (Barack Obama) there's been a sense over here that it wasn't as strong as it could be. Obama appeared to spend the first four years in office forging relationships with everyone else. Now we have an opportunity to reinstate what we once had." 

Trump and May are expected to discuss terrorism, ending Syria's civil war, relations with Russia, NATO cooperation and a bilateral trade deal once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, probably by 2019. Trade between the two countries is worth about $187 billion, and the United States is the largest single investor in the U.K. 

According to Kim Hjelmgaard and Jane Onyanga-Omara @usatoday.com, there are those who are already drawing comparisons to the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who were ideologically and personally closer than any U.S. and British leaders since Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill during World War II. Both were free-market, anti-Communist skeptics of government bureaucracies agreeing on issues ranging from the Soviet Union to Northern Ireland. 

Despite the similarity’s, Conor Burns, a Conservative Party lawmaker, believes it’s too early draw too many comparisons between Reagan-Thatcher and May-Trump whereas: “We won’t know what the chemistry will be. I have no doubt that both Trump and May are going to come out of this meeting and say everything is wonderful because they are both quite lonely out there at the minute.” 

The article’s authors then went on to include commentary from Quentin Peel, a political expert at Chatham House, a London think tank, who said "She has few friends because of her determination to push ahead with Brexit (Britain's withdrawal from the European Union). And Trump is also, quite deliberately, alienating the world with his 'America first' talk." 

"Can they be best mates? Well, they need each other," Peel said. "May wants to be able to say that Brexit isn't the disaster everyone is saying it is. Trump, too, wants a trade deal with the U.K. so he won't be presented as this 'terrible protectionist' who only wants to pick fights with people." 

And this is precisely where the MSM continues to reflect its profound bias. Because despite the article's authors mention of caution and negative suspicions from Burns and Peel, Trump and May have not only both vowed to revive the closeness of their countries during the Reagan-Thatcher years, there’s been significant public acceptance of their actions to date.   

Although Peel’s stated that May “has few friends because of her determination to push ahead with Brexit,” in the referendum vote held on June 23rd “Leave” won by 52% to 48% with a turnout of 71.8% and more than 30 million people voting.   

In the breakdown, final results showed England itself voted for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%, as did Wales, with Leave getting 52.5% of the vote and Remain 47.5%. Scotland and Northern Ireland both backed staying in the EU. Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% Leave.

As for Trump, he received 304 electoral votes compared to 227 and 3,084 of America's 3,141 counties versus just 57.

Therefore, the bias in reporting in the MSM is not only evident, it borders on purposeful negligence.

The MSM is not alone however in making itself irrelevant due to its refusal to accept political reality as seen in a comment from Washington’s Governor, Jay Inslee, who said today: “They were entitled to a grace period, but it was midnight the night of the inauguration to 8 o'clock the next morning, when the administration sent out people to lie about numerous significant things. And the damage to the credibility of the presidency has already been profound. They were entitled to a grace period and they blew it. It’s been worse than I could have imagined, the first few days."

Added to that is information found in an article by Gabriel Debenedetti @politico.com, who illustrates that Governor Inslee’s certainly not alone whereas: “That mind-set has permeated every outpost of the party from governors' mansions to Congress. Whether it’s in statehouses or the offices of state attorneys general, the Democratic National Committee or the constellation of outside left-leaning political groups, Trump’s benefit of the doubt is gone. 

“At a forum this week for candidates running to be the next DNC chair, the very idea that the party should try to work with the new president was dismissed as absurd.

When New Hampshire party Chairman Raymond Buckley was asked whether the Democratic Party should try to work with Trump where it can find opportunities, he replied: “That’s a question that’s absolutely ridiculous.” 

In confirmation, TV commentator Jehmu Greene offered: “If you saw the millions of people who marched in the streets this weekend and participated in it, they are looking to the Democratic Party. We have an opportunity as a party to be that place of resistance. So we have to form a solid resistance as a party. And no, it is not about working with Donald Trump.” 

And by taking that stance, the Democrats have positioned themselves in what very well may be a shrinking corner. Because, as mentioned here several times in the past few days, they leave themselves with no way to recover if Trump is successful as POTUS. What's more, early indications suggest significant voter approval of not only his first few days in office, but his “style,” attitude and plans for the immediate future.     

Responding to a different article, reader JefftheK summarized the situation this way: “Dems vow not to work with Trump and are applauded. 8 years ago Republicans did the exact same thing yet we were criticized for it. Democrats had everything going for them. 

“So time shall tell if the tactic works. In 8 years, we gained the House, Senate, 1000+ state seats, now POTUS (and SCOTUS to follow). Hopefully, Americans see our POLICIES are better for America, and we keep the majority.” 

Thus, although the new POTUS has barely finished his first week in office, if he maintains his positive pace and voter-pleasing results, Democrats not only need a new strategy for the future, they should seriously consider suicide counseling.   

 And now, here’s the last of the list from Steven Wright:   

“21 - Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
22 - What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
23 - My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder."
24 - Why do psychics have to ask you for your name
25 - If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
26 - A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
27 - Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
28 - The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.
29 - To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.
30 - The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
31 - The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
32 - The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is required to be on it.
33 - Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.
34 - If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
35 - If your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work?” 

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today’s another wherein the new POTUS continues to implement the agenda promised while campaigning. Which by itself is unusual, whereas campaign promises are rarely fulfilled that quickly, quite often amended, adapted, adjusted or abandoned altogether.    

One of the benefits of Trump's "taking care of business" as promised approach was noted by New York Representative Peter King on Facebook this morning.

Whereas little media coverage appeared regarding yesterday's White House meeting between President Trump and the leaders of America's largest construction unions, King posted his belief himself that  the get-together was  “in many ways historic and creates the real possibility of putting together a coalition that would work for America and put Americans to work.”

While not agreeing on “everything,” King feels the “reality is that unions such as the Carpenters, Steamfitters, Ironworkers, Laborers, Plumbers and Sheet Metal Workers share many Republican values and beliefs.” Including safe neighborhoods, good schools and also stand with the police and the military. “They also know the importance of a strong economy and good jobs.”

Although the union members are extremely independent, King believes that Democrats took them for granted for too long, which is why Trump “defeated Hillary Clinton and won the Presidency by winning pro-union states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.”

Furthermore, during the meeting it was obvious that Trump is very comfortable and relaxed with union leaders, King related “partly because the President grew up in Queens but mostly because of his years dealing with building trades unions in so many construction projects in New York City. The President deserves great credit for calling this meeting as do the union leaders for having the guts to be there. Now it's time to go forward and create the jobs America needs so much. Make America Great Again!”

And apparently, King isn’t alone in believing things are moving again in the right direction as evidenced again by today’s Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday which shows: “59% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove."

In the breakdown, 44% Strongly Approve of Trump’s performance while 31% Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +13. 

Rasmussen also summarizes the week’s executive orders, including the crackdown on illegal immigration that’s begun, the adding of thousands of Border Patrol agents, “starting the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and cutting federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law. He also has imposed a temporary ban on refugees from and visas for citizens of several Middle Eastern countries until the U.S. government can do a better job screening out possible terrorists.”

According to Rasmussen: “Stopping illegal immigration has long been voters’ number one immigration priority. 

“Most also support Trump’s plan for temporarily restricting immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and for testing to screen out newcomers who don’t share America’s values.” 

And the Rasmussen approval results clearly indicate voter’s satisfaction with Trump’s performance to date.  

On the other hand, for comparison purposes an article by John Merline yesterday @investors.com, begins: “As President Obama left the White House, the mainstream press was falling over itself proclaiming how popular he was. 

"Obama leaving office on a very high note," was a typical headline. 

However a final a Gallup report released last Friday shows that over his eight years in office, “only three presidents scored worse than Obama since Gallup started doing these surveys in 1945: never-elected Gerald Ford (47.2%), one-termer Jimmy Carter (45.4%), and Harry Truman (45.4%). 

“Obama even did worse overall than Richard Nixon, whose average approval was 49%, and was less popular overall than George W. Bush, who got an average 49.4%.” 

As Gallup notes: "After his first year, he received sustained majority approval only once more during his first term in office," and "shortly after his second term began, his support dipped back into the 40s and did not return to the majority level again until his final year in office."
While the public had high hopes for him when he came into office, and liked him when he was largely irrelevant in his final months, “while actually governing, the public consistently disapproved of the job he was doing.” 

Although re-elected “he did so with 2 million fewer votes than he got in 2008, against a weak Republican opponent, and aided by a fawning media. Obama's approval ratings fell again almost as soon as the election was over.” 

Mr. Merline concludes, as does an ever-growing segment of the public at present, that the true story never got told, “because for eight long years a smitten press desperately tried to avoid covering anything that made Obama look bad.”

Coming back to Trump, he continues to maintain the rapid pace of agenda fulfillment, meeting with British Prime Minister, Theresa May, tomorrow to lay the groundwork for a U.S.-U.K. trade deal. 

Today May will address the Republican lawmakers gathered in Philadelphia, telling them: “As we rediscover our confidence together –- as you renew your nation just as we renew ours –- we have the opportunity, indeed the responsibility, to renew the special relationship for this new age. We have the opportunity to lead, together, again,” as reported by Robert Hutton and Margaret Talev @bloomberg.com.
 
Her repetition of the word” renewal” certainly sounds like a typically British polite rebuke of what’s transpired over the past eight years wherein the relationship between the two nations greatly suffered. Primarily due to neglect and indifference on the former POTUS’s part.

As far as the future’s concerned, Trump seems eager to “cement relations and nail down a U.K. trade deal too -- for his own reasons.” 

A close relationship between the nations would prove that neither nation is turning inward after Trump’s “America First” campaign and May’s taking Britain out of the European Union after last year’s Brexit referendum. Trump would also “like to further drive a wedge into a fractured Europe and strengthen at least one trade relationship as he exits the Trans-Pacific Partnership and prepares to renegotiate Nafta.” Creating a win/win situation for both nation’s and their new leadership’s. 

In conclusion, Cal Thomas @FoxNews.com today listed Trump’s actions to date as extremely positives steps. After presenting his rationale for what’s been accomplished so far, he listed his expectations of things to come. 

Included are, “a nominee to the Supreme Court, action on school choice, which allows poor kids to escape failing schools, a new and more successful approach to fighting terrorism, immigration reform that, for starters, expels criminal aliens, properly vets those coming into the country and significantly reduces the flow of illegal immigrants. Who knows, we might even get a credible foreign policy that puts American interests first and no longer tries to impose American values on nations that have no foundation in democracy or religious and political pluralism.”

Thomas closed by stating: “So far, I’m feeling good.”

After considering what’s transpired since Trump took office, then adding the items Thomas listed as future expectations from Trump, putting politics aside completely, how could any American citizen truly find fault with the logic of the intentions? In fact, true disagreement is irrational. 

And then, a Facebook friend posted this one this morning:

“My cousin has two tickets to the 2017 SUPER BOWL, both box seats. He paid $2,500 each ticket, but he didn't realize last year when he bought them, it was going to be on the same day as his wedding. If you are interested, he is looking for someone to take his place. It's at St. Joseph Church, in Westbury at 3 p.m. Her name is Amanda. She's really sweet, 5'2, about 130 lbs, and has a beautiful smile. She's a good cook, too. She'll be the one in the white dress.”

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The past two days entry’s have included mention of differing perspectives of the new POTUS which became argumentative on Facebook.
 
What was found upsetting by several on the left was my commenting that the reason Trump had a lower turnout for his inauguration than did Obama, was because “most Trump supporters had jobs and were working, therefore they weren’t able to attend.”

The rationale for continuing the theme today is that after only five days in office, considerable evidence mounts that there’s a growing national acceptance of Trump’s “taking care of business” approach already. And if he actually proves good for the nation, how will those on the left who offer nothing but obstinance and ridicule defend their refusal to even consider him worthy of the job he now holds?

One subtle indicator of trends toward Trump's public acceptability is evidenced by the The Hill’s report that ratings for Tucker Carlson, who took over the 9 p.m. primetime slot from Megan Kelly this month on Fox News “are up 95 percent when compared with Kelly File ratings from January 2016.”

“According to Nielsen Media Research, TCT is averaging 775,000 viewers per episode in the key 25-54 demo, while Kelly’s program drew an average of 398,000 viewers in the demo last year.” Carlson is also reportedly up 37 percent in total viewership with an average of 3.73 million total viewers, compared with Kelly’s 2016 average of 2.72 million viewers.

This correlates with today’s premise regarding Trump’s growing appeal because Kelly and he don’t get along very well. While not offering specifics, she’s accused Trump of threatening her and during one of the presidential debates asked about his reputation for calling women names like "dog" and "pig." 

Carlson, on the other hand, has hosted news shows on CNN and MSNBC, later founding the conservative news website The Daily Caller. After replacing “Fox News anchor Greta van Susteren in the 7 p.m. hour after she left in November to host a new show on MSNBC. Martha McCallum replaced Carlson as the 7 p.m. anchor with a new show, The First 100 Days, after Carlson was moved to Kelly’s former time-slot.” 

So, here we have additional confirmation of a changing move toward conservatism supported by comparative statistics, much like what transpired in the past election.  

At the same time, the new POTUS continues to rapidly fulfill campaign promises, this time instituting of a media blackout for the EPA, banning press releases and social media posts on official agency accounts, according to FoxNews.com. 

The Washington Post reported Monday that an email was sent within hours of Trump’s inauguration ceremony to employees of the Office of Acquisition Management to temporarily suspend “all contract and grant awards.” 

The agency also moved to “delay implementation of at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of President Obama’s term, a potential first step to seeking to kill the regulations.” 

Whereas staffers in EPA’s public affairs office are now instructed to forward all inquiries from reporters to the Office of Administration and Resources Management, one of them said: “Not the most inspiring time at EPA right now but we're fighters.” Which seems to be a confirmation that to much of the existing staff, a bureaucratic approach and continual regulation regardless of true necessity remains paramount.       

Nevertheless: “The Trump administration has also ordered what it called a temporary suspension of all new business activities at the department, including issuing task orders or work assignments to EPA contractors. The orders were expected to have a significant and immediate impact on EPA activities nationwide.” 

Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute director, “who oversaw the EPA transition for the Trump administration," told ProPublica that the move isn’t unprecedented. “They’re trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don’t want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first. This may be a little wider than some previous administrations, but it’s very similar to what others have done, he said.” 

And in that way, another stumbling block to business development and operation is being curtailed or eliminated, helping pave the way to growing the GNP to 4% or greater ASAP.  

Reader Danny Noonan2014 offered a comment reflecting thoughts of many others: “Not the most inspiring time at EPA right now but we're fighters,” the EPA staffer, who would only speak on condition of anonymity said." 

“Translation: Leftist activists, who make up the EPA, will continue to push the lies of man-made global warming, while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money and stifling industries.” 

While “experts’” pundits and theoreticians on both sides of the political aisle postulate about Trump’s opening gambits, actual evidence comes from the major stock exchanges current performance.   

Erik Holm @wsj.com wrote this morning: “The Dow Jones Industrial Average just powered through the 20000 level for the first time ever, setting an all-time intraday high three trading days after the inauguration of Donald Trump. Moments after the open, the Dow shot up to 20033.77.” 

In all, stocks have been rising for much of the past three months, adding to one of the longest bull-market runs in U.S. history since Election Day. Closing under 18000 on Nov. 4, they’ve risen 12% since then. 

In recognition: “The rally has been dubbed the 'Trump bump,' as most of the run higher has occurred since Mr. Trump was elected president on Nov. 8. Investors have been bidding up stocks on the belief that he’ll ramp up infrastructure spending, cut corporate taxes, deregulate industries and give the economy a boost. 

“The broader S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite have also set several records since the election, and are both flirting with fresh highs again Friday.” 

Putting the market’s performance in context with today’s theme of leftist denial of any and all positive accomplishment by Trump, one has to wonder again as to how those deniers will counter whatever success he achieves during his term in office. Because they are leaving themselves with no leverage whatsoever in their all or nothing approach.     

An example can be seen in a comment from reader, Mike Lavender, who wrote: “I just saw Christine Romans come on CNN to make sure the viewers know that the Stock Market is a measure of "Corporate profits" and has very little to do with ordinary Americans.” 

Yet, the truth is, according to David Kostin at Goldman Sachs': “Households directly own 38 percent of the US equity market. However, the total effective household ownership is closer to 80 percent when combined with indirect ownership in the form of mutual funds (20 percent), pension funds (16 percent), and insurance policy holdings (7 percent)." 

So, once again, the leftist media refuses to accept reality, preferring to mislead and misguide their shrinking audiences. Raising today’s question once more: What will they say or do in the future if Trump continues to prove them consistently and unequivocally wrong? 

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday’s opening mentioned my responding to a woman who’d worked for our organization some years ago that posted comparison pictures of the National Mall, showing larger crowds for Obama’s inauguration than Trump’s. At the time, I responded that the difference is that most Trump supporters had jobs and were working, therefore they weren’t able to attend. 

My response was meant as humorous, but evidently ardent leftists don’t grasp fun as a concept whereas another individual took me to task as a “dishonest man.” That was because I did not marvel at the apparently overwhelming importance of Bill Clinton’s wife’s accomplishments, which he presented as “a law degree. A mother. A secretary of state.”  

He followed her resume by adding: “If those are not accomplishments then what ever u have done in your life is a total failure.” And then, after personally denigrating me he went on to write: “I don't like the women but at least I know what I get with her.

He added: "Trump is a loose cannon that only has billionaires his mind.
He's a businessmen that what they do.”

And in that sentence he presented the perfect illustration of those who formulate conclusions without adequate process, information gathering or unbiased research on a subject. 

In this particular case, throughout the presidential campaign countless blogs of mine gave Trump no chance at all. To this day, I still can’t comprehend how one with so many significant business failures and four bankruptcy’s can be a “ billionaire.”  I also doubted the seriousness of his “conservatism,” and felt quite certain that one of the three final contenders, Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, would ultimately become the Republican nominee. But, that didn’t happen.

As a result, Trump’s now in the Oval Office and thus, deserves more than blind hostility or knee-jerk biased, unfounded, classification as a “loose cannon” with only “billionaire [in] his mind.” Those he’s chosen for his cabinet have proven their capabilities as evidenced by the financial rewards they’ve received for superior performance. That’s far better than indigent political zealots needing to learn how to fulfill the needs of their jobs while performing them.     

As far as “what businessmen do,” the most successful one’s determine objectives first then seek the personnel and resources most likely to result in satisfactory, or better, accomplishment of the tasks involved. Therefore, it would be totally illogical and self-defeating to have access to the finest available talent in the world and not avail oneself and the nation of those resources. Regardless of one's political persuasions.   

And apparently, significant numbers of others agree with what Trump’s done in only four days whereas the “Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President-elect Trump’s job performance. Forty-three percent (43%) disapprove. 

“The latest figures include 42% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 33% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +9."

Beyond his rising approval numbers, Trump has immediately reached out to those who helped him break traditional lines of voter loyalty. Tyler Durden reports today @zerohedge.com, about “the dramatic pivot by the US labor unions, historically stalwart democrat supporters, who have suddenly emerged as big supporters of Trump policies.
AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka said TPP withdrawal is "a good first step toward building trade policies that benefit workers." 

While nearly all major unions endorsed his rival during the presidential election campaign, they now appear to be shifting their allegiance. 

Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa remarking about Donald Trump signing an executive order to formally withdraw the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership, said: “Today, President Trump made good on his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With this decision, the president has taken the first step toward fixing 30 years of bad trade policies that have cost working Americans millions of good-paying jobs. 

“The Teamsters Union has been on the frontline of the fight to stop destructive trade deals like the TPP, China PNTR, CAFTA and NAFTA for decades. Millions of working men and women saw their jobs leave the country as free trade policies undermined our manufacturing industry. We hope that President Trump’s meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Jan. 31 opens a real dialogue about fixing the flawed NAFTA. 

“We take this development as a positive sign that President Trump will continue to fulfill his campaign promises in regard to trade policy reform and instruct the USTR to negotiate future agreements that protect American workers and industry.” 

As a result, Axios points out, "Trump and top advisers like Steve Bannon see an opportunity to destroy traditional political alliances. Their theory worked in the election: They peeled white working class voters (and many union households) away from the Democrats. Now, they believe that delivering major items for this constituency — watch also for a confrontation with Big Pharma — could further wreck the Democrats' hold on organized labor." 

And then, to keep today’s momentum going, Trump will sign two executive actions “to advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, an administration official said, rolling back key Obama administration environmental policies in favor of expanding energy infrastructure. 

“U.S. oil production boomed in recent years and has resulted in fewer foreign imports of crude oil.” 

So, while Trump continues to fulfill campaign promises all of them intended to increase America’s ability to grow and return to prosperity as intended by the Founding Fathers, one has to wonder why leftists find fault with that. Or perhaps, rather than bringing billions back into our economy, perhaps they feel the funds should be going to the Clinton Foundation in support of themselves and foreign nations instead.    

That's it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

On Facebook this morning, a woman who worked for our organization some years ago posted comparison pictures of the National Mall, showing larger crowds for Obama’s inauguration than Trump’s. 

She and some friends post anti-Trump items quite frequently, all of which I normally ignore. However today, responding out of frustration I explained to her that the difference is that most Trump supporters had jobs and were working, therefore they weren’t able to attend. What’s more, Soros and moveon.org won’t pay $50.00 a day to Republican voters who show up at leftist causes, such as Obama’s inaugurations.

As far as Trump himself is concerned, he got down to business first thing this morning, meeting with a dozen American manufacturers at the White House. 

As reported by Reuters’ Roberta Rampton @yahoo.com via Drudge, he pledged to slash regulations and cut corporate taxes, while warning of taxes on imports if production is moved outside the U.S.

Taking a managerial approach, he asked “the group of chief executives from companies including Ford, Dell Technologies, Tesla and others to make recommendations in 30 days to stimulate manufacturing."

Saying he’d like to cut corporate taxes to the 15 percent to 20 percent range, which will require cooperation from Congress, those present told him that reducing regulations is even more important. 

Trump replied: "We think we can cut regulations by 75 percent. Maybe more. When you want to expand your plant, or when Mark wants to come in and build a big massive plant, or when Dell wants to come in and do something monstrous and special – you're going to have your approvals really fast,” Trump said, referring to Mark Fields, CEO of Ford, who sat around the boardroom-style table in the Roosevelt Room. 

What comes through quite dramatically is that aside from the potential benefit to the nation’s economy from results of the meeting, a definitive precedent ‘s now been set. Because, a “taking care of business” attitude has become the mantra to be followed in the future. 

A perfect summation came from a reader J S, who wrote: “Whaaat, he doesn't have a golf game planned followed up with an evening fundraiser? Isn't that what a President’s supposed to do?” 

In that regard, strong evidence of effective business decision-making came through when reading about Trump’s direct, hands-on style of management. Particularly as it relates to images perceived by others. 

Something learned during a long career in commercial financing is that financial statements, tax returns, business reviews and projections don’t always tell the whole story of how any particular business is performing at present, or will in the future. 

Management, personnel, their conduct and attitudes comprise a critically important part of the picture. Most often, a lax approach taken by employees reflects acceptance by those at the top. And certainly, the reverse is true. Because it’s always the model created by those in control that all else follows. 

Which is why it’s a pretty good bet that if the boss is always on the golf course or planning his next vacation, business issues will take a back seat. However, if the focus throughout is finding the best solutions to maximize success, there’s a far higher probability of that occurring. 

And, most importantly, if the “boss” works as hard and long as everyone else, there’s very little room left, if any, for anyone else to lose focus, slack off and still stay employed.  

That's it for today folks. 

Adios    

BloggeRhythms

Much is being made of the new POTUS’s continuing to infuse his communication in person, or still active Twitter account, with references to those individuals or groups he finds unfriendly. At the same time, however, factions such as the mainstream media continue to spew whatever disparaging items become available in support of their open hostility towards him, prompting the reaction.
       
An example of typical media bias appears today in an article by Susan Chira and Yamiche Alcindor @nytimes.com, regarding the progressive movements organized anti-Trump marches on Saturday. In their quest they’ve “broadened the platform beyond longstanding women’s issues such as abortion, equal pay and sexual assault to include immigrant rights, police brutality, mass incarceration, voter suppression and environmental protection."

Early on in their treatise the authors state that the marchers “were confronting a president who has appointed just a handful of women to his cabinet and inner circle, and who has pledged to nominate a Supreme Court justice who opposes abortion rights and to dismantle a health care act that covers contraception.”

Yet, in the 21 combined cabinet posts and cabinet rank positions, Trump has named 5 women. That compares to a total of 7 women in the two terms of his predecessor. One of which was Bill Clinton’s wife and another, Kathleen Sebelius, oversaw Obamacare's creation while serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

What's more, the article also says: “Yet women did not protest — or vote — as a bloc. About 53 percent of white women voted for Mr. Trump, according to exit polls, and many said his demeaning comments about women mattered less to them than their belief that he had the independence and business experience to bring about change, restore well-paying jobs and protect America’s borders.”

On a similar premise, Alex Smith, the national chairwoman of the College Republicans, said in an email: “The women’s march clearly doesn’t represent all women,”  noting the exclusion of anti-abortion women’s groups from the event. “It is precisely this type of dogmatic intransigence that voters rejected.” 

And although celebrity performers attended, some had appeared at campaign events for Clinton, including Madonna, who gave a speech and said toward the end of of the march. “I have thought a lot about blowing up the White House. But I know that this will not change anything.” Which is something all the attendees should be quite proud of. 

As a result, the detail presented above was remindful of the two businessmen mentioned here yesterday who were totally unaware of Trump’s platform, intentions, or how beneficial he’ll most likely be to their own enterprises in the future. Because, while these marchers were protesting vehemently against him, Trump’s position seems to indicate far less rigidity on abortion than their vitriol indicated.    

Debate excerpts posted @ontheissues.org do indeed confirm his position as strongly anti-abortion, however, he also feels the subject should be determined by the courts and not himself. And despite his intention to appoint like-minded Supreme Court justices, he believes the issue ultimately belongs at the state level and closer to the people themselves. 

Here are some excerpts from the debates: 

“Q: Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes -- in fact, states -- a woman's right to abortion? 

“TRUMP: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states. If we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that's really what's going to be. That'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination. 

“CLINTON: [On partial-birth abortion]. Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I do not think the US government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. 

“TRUMP: If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, Hillary can say that that's OK. But it's not OK with me, because based on what she's saying, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that's not acceptable.

“Q: Is it the government's business to be in that decision? 

“TRUMP: Honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said, doing that, as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth. Nobody has that. 

“TRUMP: As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life. I'm totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn't fund it. I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3%. But I would defund it, because I'm pro-life. But millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.”

As a result, what we have here is not an outright rejection of Planned Parenthood, but instead a concern over one issue that seems negotiable with some concession by the other side. Whereas Trump told Bloomberg News in January that “he believes abortion should be banned at some point in pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother.”

In addition, in 2011 “he explained to the Christian Broadcasting Network that he had changed his mind on the issue. In "The America We Deserve," Trump then wrote that he supported a woman's right to choose.” 

So, once again, with Trump in the White House only a day and a half, it seems somewhat early for protestors to rant, rave and carry on before even having a discussion. Yet, with Soros probably paying $50.00 a head plus expenses for those who showed up to support Madonna’s desire of “blowing up the White House,” it must have been quite a profitable afternoon for them.  

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios 

BloggeRhythms

Regardless of anyone's individual preferences, a new era began at noon yesterday on the west front of the U.S. Capitol Building, when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

Taking a step back, however, a most amazing scenario took place the previous evening at a favorite local establishment where two 40 or so businessmen were sitting within earshot.  As they viewed their laptop screens, conversing about their software development endeavors, one turned to the other and said he’d found a website listing the goals and objectives of the incoming POTUS.

"Look! Look! he exclaimed loudly, according to Trump's site, he expects to lower taxes, bring back billions of off-shore funds and grow the economy. I didn’t know that, but it sure looks like it’ll be good for both of us.”    

From there, the two continued searching for additional information whereas what was going on around them regarding Trump was totally new to both. 

Next, they were considering ideas as to how to contact prospects and existing customers in order to gain as much advantage as possible quickly from their new-found discovery that a pro-business advocate was moving into the White House. 

The occurrence raised the question for myself, as to how many other closed-minded, uninformed leftists will be shocked and awed as the economy really begins to boom, taking them along on the rising business tide. And in that respect, they’ll be just as confused as the MSM which refused to accept what was transpiring around them either. It’s surely going to be interesting to watch them chasing their tails in wonderment.

As far as the now POTUS himself is concerned, his brief speech following his swearing-in set the tone for the future in a clear, concise plan for giving the nation back to its people. 

He began with one short paragraph reiterating his cornerstone campaign promise: “Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.”

From there he went on to postulate about how: “For too long a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

“ Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered — but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself. But not the citizens of our country. 

“Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land."

After setting the premise, the POTUS drew his own “red-line” in the sand, saying: “That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment; it belongs to you.

“It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day, this is your celebration, and this — the United States of America — is your country.”

Then came the crystal-clear admonition to others around the globe: “We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first. 

“Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. America first!” 

While the pomp and ceremony took place across the nation’s capitol, at precisely noon Friday pre-prepared policy changes became effective. One of which must be mentioned, whereas it’s been a topic highlighted here for the past seven years: the global-warming farce. 

Marc Morano covered the subject @climatedepot.com, writing: “A climate of change! Perhaps the most stark contrast between the Obama administration and the Trump administration is on “global warming”. The climate differences were visible today as the White House website was scrubbed of all references to “climate change” at exactly noon today just as President Donald Trump was sworn in. 

"Climate Depot statement: 'Climate skeptics are thrilled that one of the very first visible changes of the transition of power between President Obama and President Trump is the booting of “climate change” from the White House website. Trump is truly going to make science great again and reject the notion that humans are the control knob of the climate and UN treaties and EPA regulations can somehow regulate temperature and storminess. Welcome to the era of sound science!'

And then, what may be one of the most powerful endorsements of Trump’s presidential ascendancy came directly from none other than Mother Nature at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

According to Ashley Lee @hollywoodreporter.com: “The festival locale sank to below-freezing temperatures ahead of Thursday's opening-night film An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, Al Gore's climate-change follow-up to 2006's An Inconvenient Truth.

“Sporadic snowfall is expected throughout the duration of the fest, while temperatures may dip as low as 11 degrees Fahrenheit during the Utah event's first few days, according to the National Weather Service.”

But not to worry about AlGore, because rumor has it that if the global-warming scam is really over, he's opening an Edsel dealership. 

In closing, a Facebook friend posted this one. 



That’s it for today folks.

Adios