Friday, March 31, 2017


Each passing day adds to the obvious that the Democrat party has no positive agenda whatsoever with nothing much else to offer. As a result, they’ve chosen to predicate their approach on attacks, slurs and innuendos of wrongdoing on the part of their Republican rivals. However, events are proving that they can’t do that very competently either, more often than not winding up as the eventual wrongdoers themselves.  

Today, Kimberley A. Strassel a brilliant, perceptive writer, broached the subject of Democrat ineptitude in her column titled: “Dem spin can't hide evidence Nunes is right.”

Ms Strassel begins by writing: “California Rep. Adam Schiff may not offer much by way of substance, but give him marks for political flimflam. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was so successful at ginning up fake outrage over his Republican counterpart that he successfully buried this week’s only real (and bombshell) news.”

The way it worked was that “Schiff and fellow Democrats spent this week accusing Chairman Devin Nunes of carrying water for President Trump, undermining the committee’s Russia investigation, and hiding information.” The press complied by dutifully regurgitating the outrage, “as well as Mr. Schiff’s calls for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation into possible Russian electoral meddling.” 

Mr. Nunes, though, developed his own source who showed him “a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility.” 

The details included uncovering: “Dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Information that whatever those documents contained was not related to Russia. 

Although many reports did “mask” identities (referring, for instance, to “U.S. Person 1 or 2”) they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. And in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. “Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.” 

Ms Strassel summed the situation up by concluding; “Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.” 

Going further, Ms Strassel believes that Schiff’s “howls about Mr. Nunes’s methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well. Mr. Nunes has spent years cultivating 
whistleblowers and sources as part of his oversight responsibilities, and that network scored him information that has otherwise remained hidden.” 

As a result, Ms. Strassel correctly makes the point that: “If Mr. Schiff wants to be trusted with important information, he might start by proving he is trustworthy—rather than rumor-mongering that there is “more than circumstantial evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion.” 

Then, going further, she describes what’s needed from Schiff in order for him to attain any real credibility whatsoever: “He might voice some concern that a prior White House was monitoring its political opponents. He might ask whether Obama officials had been “reverse monitoring”—tracking foreign officials solely so they could spy on the Trump team. 

“Mr. Nunes has zero reason to recuse himself from this probe, because he is doing his job. It’s Mr. Schiff who ought to be considering recusal, for failing to do his own.” 

While Ms Strassel put the issue into clear and accurate perspective, readers too proved their awareness of the truth’s of the matter, regardless of MSM attempts to support the Democrat scenario.   

Reader James DiLorenzo wrote: “Do any of you Democratic posters or trolls here know that the WH yesterday invited members of Congress to come and see the evidence on surveillance and unmasking ? Do you understand it was a broad based surveillance that has nothing to do with the Russian investigation? Perhaps it would be good to have all the facts before you accuse Nunes of having nothing?” 

Jason Schnyders opined: “Instead of just regurgitating democrat talking points like most other media, Kimberly Strassels' articles share facts and educated opinions without partisan under tones. Its refreshing frankly in the current political and media climate. Obama Admin never had a shortage of political hacks willing to bend or break the law for partisan purposes. Anyone who cant see that is delusional.”  

Michael Wiley took the other side, writing: “The sources of Nunes "secret stuff" are both political appointees. 

“1) A Flynn appointee 

“2) A former Nunes subordinate 

“Trumpers looking at anything and falling short.”
Barbara Wade differed with Wiley, responding: “@Michael Wiley And?  You have proof of this or did you simply read the NYT?   lol, well DUH!  Just like the internet, if it's in the NYT it MUST be true, snicker.  Uh huh, whatever................."

And then Doug Schomberg put the Democrat premise into proper perspective by posting another retort to Wiley : “So what?  Ben Rhodes was a political appointee. So was Valerie Jarrett. And Susan Rice. As were all the staffers on obama's WH national security team. All of them had access to classified info. Gonna try to smear them too, mike?” 

The issue itself was addressed further by The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes who said yesterday on “Special Report with Bret Baier”  that the process of uncovering any Russian meddling in the U.S election "doesn't look good." 

Raising questions about the process, Hayes asked "did this come from the White House, was it presented to Chairman Nunes who then took it public and to the president and made a big deal about it. Was there an effort to spin this story to create some PR pushback for President Trump?"   

As a result, Hayes believes additional questions now surround the previous administration's involvement in the intelligence gathering process.   

"It's certainly the case that Chairman Nunes and those who are familiar with the material that he's seen believe there was real wrongdoing," Hayes said. 

While the Senate intelligence committee opened its first public hearing on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Hayes now said that if we see "this unmasking and the tasking for the unmasking has come from the White House or the NSC, the Obama administration, then I think that raises additional questions." 

All of which adds support to today’s premise, that by their continual push aimed at denigrating and vilifying their political rivals with very little to no real substance to bolster their claims of wrongdoing, the issues Democrats have chosen to date have all seemed to do nothing but boomerang. Despite all the help from the MSM.   

Even Fox News has, intentionally or not, added help to Democrats by leaving an outdated article on its website posted by writer Dana Blanton back on on March 15th, titled: “Fox News Poll: Trump approval slips, even as more feel economy improving.” 

Since that was more than two weeks ago, one has to conclude that despite all that’s transpired since, Fox management must have a particular purpose for reminding readers of Trump’s approval slippage. And that purpose certainly does not seem in any way like one intended to help the new POTUS. 

That's it for today folks. 


Thursday, March 30, 2017


On a very slow news day, new information arose concerning two ongoing situations; U.S. politico’s involvement with Russia and suspicion of the Obama administration spying on then-President-elect Trump. 

Item one comes from Daniel Chaitin, who writes: “John Podesta slapped the Daily Caller with a cease-and-desist letter on Wednesday after the conservative news outlet published a story about the former Clinton campaign chairman and Obama counselor.”

Back on March 26, “reporter Richard Pollock wrote that Podesta ‘may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014.’ 

To that, Podesta's counsel, Marc Elias, responded with a letter demanding  the Daily Caller "immediately cease publication of these false and libelous claims." It also demands that a correction to the story be published, clarifying that Podesta met his financial obligations.”

Most interesting about the issue is that there have been substantial numbers of implications regarding Podesta over time, many of them relative to his long and quite close association with the Clinton’s. Leading to the obvious question of why this particular one is different to the extent that legal action is called for. Making many think that this time around, a “smoking-gun” may very well have been found. 

Presently, 104 comments follow the article, virtual all of them hostile towards Podesta. Examples include:  

Reader Ferd Berfel writing: “We need to investigate the Podesta Hillary Obama Russian corruption. 

Dan Bushnell added: “AMEN! RIGHT ON!” 

Gary Almond confirmed this writer’s thought, posting: “Of all the heinous allegations against Podesta, it's interesting that this is the one he choses to fight.”

Bill Daniels who resides in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia opined: “Someone associates Podesta with pizzagate. Should look into it on you tube.” 

According to Wikipedia: “Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle. The theory, which went viral, claimed that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring. The false theory has been extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations and described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department.” 

Nonetheless, many readers still referenced the theory as if it were a valid concern at present, accentuating the hostility remaining toward Podesta and his relationship with the Clinton’s. 

Next is an item regarding Judge Andrew Napolitano’s return to Fox News this morning after being taken off air for several days. Where, according to Eddie Scarry also, he stood by his previous claim that British intelligence was asked by the Obama administration to spy on then-President-elect Trump.”

When asked if he plans to stick by the story, Napolitano said: “Yes, I do and the sources stand by it. And the American public needs to know more about this rather than less because a lot of the government surveillance authority will expire in the fall and there will be a great debate about how much authority we want the government to have to surveil us, and the more the American public knows about this the more informed their and the Congress' decision will be."

He added that "a lot more is going to come" on the issue. 

Napolitano’s suspension resulted from an appearance on Fox in which he referred to Obama, saying: "He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British intelligence-finding agency. So, simply by having two people saying to them president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on this."

At the time, the “claim was disputed by Fox daytime anchor Shepard Smith and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers has denied that U.S. intelligence had asked the British to conduct surveillance, and said that it would be against the law.” 

Although soon after that Fox suspended Napolitano, his reinstatement suggests that there’s far more about the issue yet to come out. It’s also extremely probable that what remains will support the Judge's long-held suspicions about Trump being a target of surveillance. 

And that’s because it’s almost a certainty that Fox conducted significant investigating of its own before bringing the Judge back knowing full well he’d continue his accusations on the matter.

Thus, what we have today are two separate situations each of which indicate that Trump will come out on top again. Making one wonder if there’s anything Democrat leadership ever gets right at all. 

That’s it for today folks. 


Wednesday, March 29, 2017


One day after Democrats were deliriously happy, believing the Obamacare repeal and replace attempts by their rivals had been defeated, those same Democrats now know the battle’s far from over.     

Aside from the continuation of health care tax revision, John Hayward covered seven other matters that serve to illustrate that Republicans in general, and the new POTUS in particular, are currently doing extremely well.

Mr. Hayward’s opens by writing: “Politics is one of those sports where the team playing defense doesn’t get to score many points. Democrats are working hard to keep President Trump on defense, using an even more aggressive version of the same playbook they run against every Republican president. They think the collapse of Speaker Paul Ryan’s Obamacare repeal legislation last week gave them a new first down. Here are seven signs the Trump agenda has regained a great deal of momentum in just one day.”

First listed was Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ crackdown on sanctuary cities and his strong criticism of those refusing refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He warned that “billions in federal funding could be jeopardized by continued refusal to comply with the law.”

Saying sanctuary cities are “making our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets,” the AG cited overwhelming support from the American people for turning illegal alien criminals over to ICE. He also “noted that many of the aliens shielded by sanctuary cities are guilty of extremely serious offenses, including rape and murder.” 

While Chicago and L.A. mayors defend sanctuary policies, Hayward writes that as Sessions noted, “they have 80-percent-plus support from the American people on the issue.” 

In Mr. Hayward’s opinion, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s claim that he has some kind of constitutional right to federal taxpayer dollars, even as he defies American voters by protecting illegal alien criminals from deportation, will benefit Republicans enormously as Emanuel becomes the face of Democrat city governance. 

Next: “Reining in madcap environmentalism and bureaucratic bloat is another issue where the Trump administration enjoys tremendous popular support. The president’s forthcoming executive order to roll back Obama-era climate change orders and promote energy independence will likely be another play made from a position of great strength. (It is important to note that at the time of this writing, the exact contents of Trump’s order were not known.)” 

Quite advantageous to the Trump administration is “pointing out how shoddy, self-serving, and doctored the data behind climate change initiatives has been. For example, it’s a killer point that the EPA knew its own expensive regulations would have no measurable effect on global temperatures. That kind of anecdote has a long shelf life. The administration can run a play like that over and over again, picking up a few yards every time.”   

Mr. Hayward then picked up on Trump’s critics accusing him of trying to change the subject by asking congressional investigators to look into connections between the Clinton machine and Russia. However, “whatever the ultimate outcome may be, it is unquestionably an example of the Trump team running an offensive play when it’s supposed to be permanently on defense.”

Highly praised is Trump’s reversal of past practice where critics called Republicans the “Stupid Party” often complaining about how easily they were put on defense. But now, “going back to the earliest moments of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has refused to assume a permanent defensive crouch, on nearly any issue. Many of the confident pundit predictions that his campaign was doomed, at various critical junctures, were born from the conventional wisdom that Trump would pay a heavy price for refusing to become defensive and apologetic. The conventional wisdom proved to be incorrect.” 

The importance of the change to aggressive tactics by Trump is of significant importance because while this particular play is still in progress and “it’s hard to say where the ball will end up. It doesn’t hurt to spotlight how Democrat opinion of Russia turned on a dime after the 2016 election. Also, the curious notion that Hillary Clinton is absolved of all offenses under some mythical “old news” clause of political law because she lost the election should be shredded, especially since we would currently be hearing loud demands to absolve her of all offenses if she had won the election.” 

Another item on the plus side is Ford’s announcement of three new plants in Michigan. “The next two elections will be very heavily influenced by how well the economy is doing. Good economic news will give Trump and congressional Republicans political capital to spend on other issues. 

Recalling Bill Clinton’s quote “It’s the Economy, Stupid,”  it will “be very difficult for Democrats to downplay good news from the automotive industry, given how much they made of President Obama “saving the industry.” A constant drumbeat of job creation stories from various industries has driven consumer confidence to a 16-year-high, according to a new report.

“Much of Trump’s agenda – including immigration, regulatory reform, and tax reform – is linked to his often-stated vision of a stronger American economy producing more jobs. Every part of that agenda becomes more difficult for Democrats to oppose if the economy is, in fact, stronger and producing more jobs.” 

Mr. Hayward then suggested that the “Trump Agenda may even be playing stronger offense than the Trump White House at the moment. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) has filed a one-line bill that would repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.

While Brooks intended to “burn away the fog” and “show American voters who really wants to repeal Obamacare, and who merely acted that way during election time,” the “simplicity of his bill was a slap in the face to Speaker Paul Ryan’s convoluted, ineffective, wildly unpopular, and politically tone deaf Ryancare bill that would have hurt Trump’s base more than anyone.” 

And then came a more subtle, but more than likely accurate indication of Democrat worries, when Mr. Hayward referred to “Chuck Schumer’s public meltdown.” 

According to Mr. Hayward: “If Obamacare repeal was a debacle that left much of the GOP looking defensive, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s embarrassing tirade against a Trump supporter at a Manhattan restaurant on Sunday is a sign that Democrats’ grip on the ball is none too tight. Schumer certainly didn’t act like he was brimming with confidence after an ostensibly catastrophic week for congressional Republicans and the White House.” 

And then, Mr. Hayward’s concluding paragraph presented a critically important point regarding voter perceptions, particularly among Independents who will continue to help the POTUS’s future efforts. 

“Average voters don’t follow the minutiae of Washington scandal wars the way pundits do. It’s an article of conventional political wisdom that Republicans went too far criticizing presidents Clinton and Obama at various junctures, alienating some persuadable middle voters. The same thing can happen with Trump, no matter how hard Democrats try to paint him as a uniquely divisive and objectionable president. Presidents have a great deal of power to go back on offense after setbacks, as we’re seeing right now.” 

In summation, the article itself certainly made the point that Trump has ridden out some potentially disastrous circumstances recently, at the same time leaving his rivals far short of what could have been attained by them politically. However, aside from Trump's return to stride, 4773 comments from readers followed the article with varying degrees of agreement on specifics as what needs to be done in the future. Most importantly, within that group the overwhelming majority appear to be fully supportive of Trump, while suspicious of Ryan and other Congressional Republicans who seem far too self-serving by their actions to date. 

All of which continues to keep Trump and his agenda above the fray of conventional politics, something he’s promised all along in his goal of draining “the swamp,” and certainly seems to be working quite well for him presently. 

That's it for today folks. 


Tuesday, March 28, 2017


Several items today serve to demonstrate that while pollsters still receive considerable attention, their results continue to prove so far out of sync with reality that they’re most likely worthless.   

Frank Newport reports that: “President Donald Trump's job approval rating fell to 36% for the three-day period of March 24-26, following Republican House leaders' failed effort to pass a new healthcare bill that would have replaced the Affordable Care Act. 

“Trump's three-day reading prior to Friday's events was 41%. His previous low point was 37%, recorded March 16-18. His highest reading was 46% in the week following his Jan. 20 inauguration, and he has averaged 42% for his term to date.” 

Newport points out that “Presidents George W. Bush (lowest approval rating: 25%), George H.W. Bush (29%), Ronald Reagan (35%), Jimmy Carter (28%), Richard Nixon (24%), Lyndon Johnson (35%) and Harry Truman (22%) all had job approval ratings lower than 36% at least once during their administrations.”

On the same day, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. while fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove. Which means that those polled by Rasmussen like Trump by nine percent more than those asked by Gallup and far more than both Bush’s, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and Truman at their lowest points. 

Aside from the polling data, practical realities continue to confirm that the new POTUS is delivering for his supporters by giving them still more of what they want.

This morning Ian Thibodeau and Melissa Burden reported via Drudge that nearly three months after Ford cancelled plans to construct a new $1.6 billion in plant in Mexico to build the Ford Focus,  the company announced in January it would invest $700 million at Flat Rock assembly and create 700 new jobs in Michigan. 

As a result, Ford’s present investment in U.S. manufacturing expansion summarizes as follows: “The automaker plans to invest $9 billion in U.S. facilities through 2019, resulting in 8,500 new or retained jobs, according to the 2015 contract. Besides the $700 million investment at Michigan Assembly for new products — the 2019 Ford Ranger pickup and the all-new Ford Bronco planned for production by 2020 — the contract outlines a $400 million investment planned for Flat Rock for Ford Mustang and Lincoln Continental production, and a $150 million investment at the Romeo Engine plant for engine updates. It is unclear whether Tuesday’s announcements go beyond those plans.” 

However, it isn’t only individual business development that shows growing confidence in the new administration, as reflected by additional survey data from the Gallup poll mentioned above. 

According to Gallup’s Lydia Saad last Thursday: “The Wells Fargo/Gallup Investor and Retirement Optimism Index shows: “U.S. investor optimism about the nation's investing climate jumped markedly in the first quarter, following steady gains throughout 2016. The Wells Fargo/Gallup Investor and Retirement Optimism Index stands at +126, up from +96 in the fourth quarter of 2016 and +40 a year ago. 

“Steady improvements in investor confidence over the past year have driven the index to its highest point since +130 in November 2000, toward the end of the dot-com boom. 

“The index reflects two aspects of investor confidence encompassing seven different measures:
  • investors' outlook for three personal financial matters, including their income, their 12-month investment targets and their five-year investment goals
  • their outlook for four aspects of the economy, including the stock market, economic growth, unemployment and inflation
“Investor optimism improved on all seven measures but rose the most on the stock market (with net confidence up 15 points) and economic growth (up 11 points). This likely reflects the market reaching a new record high in February, as well as the broader improvement in the public's attitudes about the economy evident since the presidential election.” 

Right alongside the vast improvement in overall investor optimism, Steve Goldstein, D.C. bureau chief writes: “Consumer confidence in March soared to the highest level in more than 16 years, according to data released Tuesday. 

“The Conference Board said its consumer confidence index leapt to 125.6 in March from 116.1 in February, coming in well ahead of the MarketWatch-compiled consensus of 114.1.” 

Given reasons for the upturn in consumer confidence include Trump’s election and the prospect of lower taxes and more infrastructure spending. At the same time: “Confidence has yet to be impacted by Congress’s inability so far to enact the president’s ambitions. The cutoff data for responses was March 16, before Republicans were forced to scrap a vote on repealing and replacing Obamacare.” 

Yet, other survey’s have shown that Trump has not been held accountable by his constituents, who’ve held the “swamp” in D.C. responsible for any setbacks that have arisen to date.   

Bringing us back to the positive side, today's Gallup poll also shows: “Consumers felt more optimistic about the jobs market. The percentage of consumers stating jobs are “plentiful” rose from 26.9% to 31.7%, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” decreased from 19.9% to 19.5%.” 

While positive indications continue to mount regarding jobs and the economy overall and tax reform promise fulfillment looms next on the POTUS’s agenda, it seems he’s had enough mud slung at him by the MSM regarding any kind of Russian entanglement. So, he‘s finally begun pushing back.   

An article by Jerome Hudson this morning says that: “President Donald Trump took to Twitter Monday evening and asked why aren’t congressional lawmakers probing the various deals, transactions, and connections former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have to Russia.” 

Trump’s first tweet asked: “Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech.” 

That was followed by: “…money to Bill, the Hillary Russian “reset,” praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!” 

Mr. Hudson then provides the details that: “Trump’s assertion that then-Secretary of State Clinton “allowed big Uranium to go to Russia” and Bill Clinton’s high-dollar “Russian speech” were allegations first reported by The New York Times (NYT) and based on research from the NYT bestseller Clinton Cash, authored by Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer. 

“The facts found in Clinton Cash, reported by the NYT, and deemed accurate by establishment media reveal how Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State coincided with the influx of tens of millions of dollars from foreign sources into the Clinton Foundation which resulted in favorable actions for Russia’s government. 

There’s significant detail in the article. Here’s a link:
All of which serves to remind the public that questions regarding possibilities of Trump involvement with Russia came from Democrat propaganda which has yet to be supported by any evidence whatsoever. But, on the Democrat side itself, much has been known for quite some time, regarding their presidential candidate and her husband’s highly profitable Russian relationships. 

Bringing up the question once more as to when, if ever, Democrats will learn to think before they draw, fire and aim. 

That's it for today folks. 


Monday, March 27, 2017


As the newly elected president neared the end of his campaign and continuing through the opening weeks of his first term in office, the point’s often been made here that very few truly understand his modus operandi. However, with the aborting of the health care tax revision, Trump himself has once again made significant progress. 

By demanding a vote on the bill on Friday, the POTUS forced disclosure that supporting votes were lacking, bringing the issue to a disappointing head for many in his party. However, what also happened is that leading House members are now compelled to take a much closer look at the detail and restructure of the legislation, without playing a purely political game for their constituents.

And then, at the same time, Democrat leadership realized that since the bill was going to remain unchanged, it’s continual failures and almost certain demise now remained their problem as owners of the legislation entirely. Resulting in another win for Trump himself.       

As reported by yesterday: “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday jumped at a chance to find common ground with President Trump on coming up with a solution to a new health care bill, as Trump’s aides opened the door to working with moderate Democrats on health care and other pressing issues.”

In his overture, Schumer also said that Trump “must be willing to drop attempts to repeal Barack Obama’s signature achievement, warning that Trump was destined to “lose again” on other parts of his agenda if he remained obligated to appease conservative Republicans.” 

Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week,’ If he changes, he could have a different presidency. But he's going to have to tell the Freedom Caucus and the hard-right special wealthy interests who are dominating his presidency ... he can't work with them, and we'll certainly look at his proposals.” 

However, since this is the first time Schumer has even hinted at moving away from totally objecting to anything involving Trump or his party, it’s likely that there’s far more acquiescence ahead in Schumer’s future.  

And, as far as Schumer’s “warning” about Trump’s “losing again” in the future is concerned, Trump wasn't the one who blinked first this time around. Which not only provides a quite clear indication of what Schumer’s baseless warnings are worth, but confirms that it’s Trump in the driver’s seat now and intends to stay there in the future.

On another, somewhat complex, subject Andy Kessler discussed the robotics revolution yesterday, offering Bill Gates perspective on the topic.

At the outset, Mr. Kessler compares Bill Gates to Ned Ludd, an 18th-century folk hero of anti-industrialists. In the 1770s Ludd “busted up a few stocking frames—knitting machines used to make socks and other clothing—to protest the labor-saving devices. Taking up his cause a few decades later, a band of self-described “Luddites” rebelled by smashing some of the machines that powered the Industrial Revolution.” 

The Ludd similarity seen by Mr. Kessler stems from an interview with the website Quartz, where Gates said it would be OK to tax job-killing robots. “If a $50,000 worker was replaced by a robot, the government would lose income-tax revenue. Therefore, Mr. Gates suggested, the feds can make up their loss with “some type of robot tax.” 

That, according to Mr. Kessler is “the dumbest idea since Messrs. Smoot and Hawley rampaged through the U.S. Capitol in 1930. It’s a shame, especially since Bill Gates is one of my heroes.”

Mr. Kessler went on: “When I started working on Wall Street, I was taken into rooms with giant sheets of paper spread across huge tables. People milled about armed with rulers, pencils and X-Acto Knives, creating financial models and earnings estimates. 

“Spreadsheets, get it? This all disappeared quickly when VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3 and eventually Microsoft Excel automated the calculations. Some fine motor-skill workers and maybe a few math majors lost jobs, but hundreds of thousands more were hired to model the world. Should we have taxed software because it killed jobs? Put levies on spell checkers because copy editors are out of work?” 

Coming to his point, Mr. Kessler wrote: “Mr. Gates killed as many jobs as anyone: secretaries, typesetters, tax accountants—the list doesn’t end. It’s almost indiscriminate destruction. But he’s my hero because he made the world productive, rolling over mundane and often grueling jobs with automation. The American Dream is not sorting airline tickets, setting type or counting $20 bills. Better jobs emerged. 

“Mr. Gates may be worth $86 billion—who’s counting?—but the rest of the world made multiples of his fortune using his tools. Society as a whole is better off. In August 1981, when Microsoft’s operating system first began to ship, U.S. employment stood at 91 million jobs. The economy has since added 53 million jobs, outpacing the rate of population growth.” 

And then, once again, readers illustrated their knowledge, acumen, and informed perspective in their astute commentary, as follows: 

Eric Hanly wrote: “Mr. Gates may be worth $86 billion—who’s counting?—but the rest of the world made multiples of his fortune using his tools. Society as a whole is better off." 

I'm amazed at how many readers can't understand this point.  Not only is "society" better off, but the government ends up taking in more tax revenue from "job killing" technology like excel and Word (not that more tax revenue should ever be our goal.)” 

Greg Balaze responded to reader Eric Hanly, commenting: “That's the thing people keep over looking. There will be an economic shifting as automation and Robotics enables much more that we can do. There will be some uncertainty at first, but we will discover new jobs we can do as the new economy progresses.”  

William Mullaney wrote: “Bill Gates got this one wrong.  Technical innovation creates more and better jobs than it destroys. This doesn't necessarily happen right away but it happens over time. 

“Many manufacturing jobs go unfilled today because workers often don't have the required technical skills.  But it is not difficult for workers to get these skills.  In fact they can often get the needed training in a matter of weeks.   

“The answer is not to throw up the white flag and decide that the future is bleak for blue collar workers.” 

And then, in responding to William Mullaney reader Tom Painter posted the comment that caused this writer’s interest in the subject to begin with.   

Painter wrote: “@William Mullaney "Bill Gates got this one wrong.  Technical innovation creates more and better jobs than it destroys. This doesn't necessarily happen right away but it happens over time. The idea that it should be a net jobs creator has in fact not, maybe not yet, occurred. Created many new kinds of jobs? Yes.  Created numbers of jobs in those new kinds of jobs, greater than the numbers of jobs eliminated?  Has not happened. Ignore the unemployment rate.  Just look at the labor participation rate.  Its decline did not start in the Obama era. It began in the mid to late '90s.” 

So, what we have here are several readers whom are examples of many that well understand technological advances taking place and offering positive thoughts regarding future values of innovation.   

And then one who, perhaps without realization, offered an opinion which isn’t really scientific but far more political in reality. Because the drop in the labor participation rate came from legislative changes, not automation. 

Guidelines in the health care tax reduced the work week to 30 hours, while environmental over-regulation caused significant industrial reduction or loss of employment completely as factories shut down. Additional jobs were lost as major businesses moved operations out of the U.S. due to some of the highest tax rates in the world. Even oil production limitations caused employment shrinkage, as rising fuel and energy costs shrank budget availability for other purposes.  

All of which, and more, caused the lowest labor participation rate since Jimmy Carter, as often noted here. Automation itself had almost nothing to do with Obama job losses whatsoever.     

That's it for today folks. 


Sunday, March 26, 2017


The defeat of the health care tax on Friday demonstrates clearly that many Republicans in Congress and certainly the entire Democrat party, still don’t understand how and why the new POTUS won the election. 

And that’s why he came out on top on the issue, while those like Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, the Freedom Caucus and the left side of the House lost significantly.

The way President Trump ran his campaign was to travel throughout Middle-America, making hundreds of whistle-stops and at each he simply asked voters what they wanted. And that’s why the health care tax became the first issue he addressed. Because so many were displeased with the increasing costs alongside loss of services and providers, while others got a free ride on the backs of hard-working citizens as a result of Obamacare.

So, what’s happened now is Trump has tried to fulfill his promise of making health care better as best he can under the system, but recalcitrants in his own party along with the unthinking left won’t let him. However, whereas the huge masses that put him in office realize clearly that 
 he wasn’t at fault, its those who opposed him who’ll suffer in future elections.        

An insightful synopsis came from Joel B.Pollak yesterday in an article titled: “Health Care Bill’s Failure: Just Part of the ‘Art of the Deal”

Mr. Pollak wrote: “Exactly two weeks ago, this author predicted the defeat of the American Health Care Act — and explained that it was a step towards the final, actual deal that will repeal and replace Obamacare.

“President Donald Trump faces three irreconcilable factions: the GOP establishment, conservatives, and Democrats. He must bring them together — to “deliver the goods,” a key rule in The Art of the Deal. But first he must show them “the downside” — and convince them they will fail on their own.

From there Pollak explains how Trump let the system run on its own, knowing full well that self-serving, short-sighted and politically-motivated types in Congress would more than likely never come together on behalf of those that put them in office. Something Trump will do himself somewhere in the future, when the time is right. 

The short article’s well-worth reading. Here’s a link:

Beyond the actual facts of the matter discussed above, it’s quite amusing to see how the MSM immediately employed the event as a major defeat for Trump, and perhaps a signal that he and his administration are doomed forever.

John Wagner, Damian Paletta and Sean Sullivan began their article “The stunning collapse of the Republican health-care bill now imperils the rest of President Trump’s ambitious congressional agenda, with few prospects for quick victory on tax reform, construction projects or a host of other issues in the months ahead despite complete GOP control of government.”

Farther along they wrote: “Trump and Republican leaders continued Saturday in their attempts to put a brave face on the health-care debacle. “ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE,” Trump wrote in a morning tweet. “Do not worry!”

All of which brings up the thought that if a logical individual were to closely consider which of the two factions here had the highest probability of winding up as correct on the matter, would that turn out to be three writers from a leftist propaganda organ or the one who currently occupies the Oval Office? 

Along the same lines, the always disparaging Maureen Dowd wrote an open letter to the POTUS yesterday, summarized as follows under the heading : “Donald, This I Will Tell You”

“Dear Donald, 

“We’ve known each other a long time, so I think I can be blunt. 

“You know how you said at campaign rallies that you did not like being identified as a politician? 

“Don’t worry. No one will ever mistake you for a politician. 

“After this past week, they won’t even mistake you for a top-notch negotiator. 

“I was born here. The first image in my memory bank is the Capitol, all lit up at night. And my primary observation about Washington is this: Unless you’re careful, you end up turning into what you started out scorning. 

“And you, Donald, are getting a reputation as a sucker. And worse, a sucker who is a tool of the D.C. establishment."

From there Dowd begins referencing occurrences that illustrate how Trump sold himself as the “businessman who could shake things up and make Washington work again. Instead, you got worked over by the Republican leadership and the business community, who set you up to do their bidding. 

“That’s why they’re putting up with all your craziness about Russia and wiretapping and unending lies and rattling our allies. 

“They’re counting on you being a delusional dupe who didn’t even know what was in the bill because you’re sitting around in a bathrobe getting your information from wackadoodles on Fox News and then, as The Post reported, peppering aides with the query, “Is this really a good bill?” 

“You got played. 

“It took W. years to smash everything. You’re way ahead of schedule.” 

Then, after Dowd was through making her point that Trump is, in her opinion, an abject failure as a politician and POTUS with no hope for recovery, she closed with one of the most open-doored invitations for retribution in journalistic history. 

Dowd wrote: “And I can say you’re doing badly, because I’m a columnist, and you’re not. Say hello to everybody, O.K.? 

“Sincerely, Maureen”

To that, on Trump’s behalf, an appropriate response might be something like: Yes Maureen you’re right. You’re a columnist who’s been writing the same, repetitive drivel since 1974 and the Times op-ed since 1995.

I on the other hand, became a billionaire businessman and President of the U.S.

So, I don’t know about you, but I really don’t want to trade careers or resumes.


That's it for today folks.


Saturday, March 25, 2017


Those on the left, and the MSM in particular, are having a field day now that the health care tax repeal and replace effort by their rivals has failed. 

Nonetheless, the new POTUS is taking the loss in stride by treating the defeat as part of the learning curve, saying he’s gained from the experience.  

According to Stephen Collinson, Dana Bash, Phil Mattingly, Deirdre Walsh, Lauren Fox and MJ Lee, the president said: “This was an interesting period of time. We all learned a lot. We learned a lot about loyalty and we learned a lot about the vote getting process. And we learned about very arcane rules in both the Senate and the House. 

"Certainly for me it was a very interesting experience, but for me, it'll be an experience that leads to an even better health care plan."  

Then, at the same time, a different kind of measure of acceptance was found where it was reported that: “A series of controversies and a stalled legislative agenda might be a drag on President Trump’s approval ratings, but campaign finance records show Democrats have failed to cash in on the chaos. 

“Despite making a money pitch after every misstatement or errant tweet, the Democratic National Committee raised $6.4 million last month, compared to $9.5 million pulled in by the Republican National Committee, according to FEC reports filed Monday.”  

Republicans attained a record-setting $20 million haul in January,  doubling “the total raised by their Democratic counterpart in the first two months of 2017.”  

“To date, the RNC has outpaced the Democrats with nearly $30 million in total receipts, compared with nearly $11.5 million for the DNC.” At the same time: “Republican campaign committees have raised nearly $60 million, as opposed to the $36.6 million in receipts brought in by the Democrats,” also according to the FEC. 

“The lackluster showing by the DNC is made worse by the fact the party has $10.2 million in cash-on-hand, compared with $39.2 million in GOP coffers – despite the DNC spending $4 million more this year. 

“In addition, the DNC is carrying $2.8 million in debt, while the RNC has none.” 

All of which serves to validate that mainstream voters across Middle-America seem far less concerned with the pace of day-to-day legislative change than they are with insuring that Republicans attain and remain in office everywhere possible.   

As a practical matter, it’s also not surprising that Democrats are having trouble raising money when their leadership sounds like has-been’s and also-ran’s while whining like the sorest kinds of losers.   

A case in point illustrates that while it’s really not material that nominee Gorsuch got no Democrat votes because that was expected to begin with, of all the things that Schumer could have said about the nominee, his statement sounded both vapid and lackluster. 

Among five senators declaring their opposition Thursday, even before the Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination had ended, Schumer told Politico he would lead a filibuster against Gorsuch. 

While the filibuster may or may not happen, Schumer’s commentary was so out of sync with the particular Supreme Court candidate he sounded like Gorsuch’s testimony came from someone else.  

Schumer criticized Gorsuch as a judge who “almost instinctively favors the powerful over the weak, and that there’s been an almost seismic shift in the caucus [against] Gorsuch,” while “He did not win anybody over with his testimony.” 

.And then, Schumer said Gorsuch “would not serve as a check on Trump or be a mainstream justice,” which is precisely what Supreme Court justices (and all others) are supposed to do. Their commitment is to the original understanding of the constitution and the rule of law, without any kind of favoritism, predilection or other outside interests whatsoever. 

Which means that Schumer doesn’t really want a true “justice” of any sort on any court. What he’s really seeking is a controllable political hack in a robe.  

Up next is a short entry from Jordan Fabian that simply relates about a White House visit by FBI Director Comey yesterday. 

All that’s known is: “The White House said Comey visited to attend a “routine interagency meeting,” but did not say with whom he met. 

“No meeting with Comey was listed on the president's public schedule. Comey was spotted leaving the White House less than an hour later after television cameras showed him entering the West Wing.” 

While the article itself offers no real news value, reader’s responses indicate significant interest in the subject. 2,094 “shared” the article while another 1448 posted comments, one of which follows below: 

BecauseReasons commented: 

“Conspiracies begin! 

“From the Right: He's there to brief Trump on Obama's upcoming arrest.
From the Left: He's there to warn Trump on Trump's upcoming arrest.
From Russia: He's delivering Trump our check.
From Poland: Who is Comey?
From Mexico: How did he get over the wall?
From the Secret Service: How did he get over the wall?
From Wolf Blitzer (CNN): BREAKING NEWS! This just in! My coffee is cold!
From Fox News: CNN lied about cold coffee. It was hot. Also in a Happy Holiday mug!
From MSNBC's Maddow: after 15 minutes of set up.... it was TEA!” 

And in closing, after the heath care tax defeat Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Today was a victory for all Americans.” 

Which goes to reaffirm that she still understands little to nothing about what Middle-America really thinks. Because it’s certainly quite well-known that those whose health-care provision, and access to it, have diminished while costs have risen in multiples believe they are Americans too. 

That’s it for today folks. 


Friday, March 24, 2017


Regardless of opinions held regarding the new POTUS - pro, con or indifferent- it must be admitted by all that most often his promises and stated claims prove correct in the long run. 

In that regard, a huge boost to his credibility was gained yesterday when disclosures about his being spied upon served to vindicate Trump who was widely criticized for claiming he was surveilled by his predecessor.

James Rosen reported that evidence “purportedly seen by committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and described by him in vague terms at a bombshell Wednesday afternoon news conference, came from multiple sources, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News.”

Most importantly, “the intelligence corroborated information about surveillance of the Trump team that was known to Nunes, sources said, even before President Trump accused his predecessor of having wiretapped him in a series of now-infamous tweets posted on March 4.”

The timing is of significant interest because although the “FBI hasn’t been responsive to the House Intelligence Committee’s request for documents, the National Security Agency is expected to produce documents to the committee by Friday. The NSA document production is expected to produce more intelligence than Nunes has so far seen or described – including what one source described as a potential “smoking gun” establishing the spying.” 

And all of this follows FBI director Comey’s denials of involvement which, according to Bob Unruh yesterday, have now led the lawyer who founded Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, Larry Klayman, to send a letter to Representative Nunes asking him to look at a whistleblower’s evidence of “systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, again including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly.” 

“That spying was done, Klayman’s letter contends, by the FBI. 

“It’s become a major issue following President Trump’s assertion that he and Trump Tower were spied upon by the federal government, and the subsequent denials by intelligence and law-enforcement officials, including FBI Director James Comey, who famously cleared Hillary Clinton on accusations she mishandled classified information as U.S. secretary of state.”

So, we’ve now come full circle again, to the extent that Director Comey may well be involved in another instance of questionable activities.  

Bill Gertz took the subject further, adding that: “Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, indicated that the administration used its foreign intelligence gathering authority to spy on the discussions of Trump and his transition team by improperly unmasking the identity of Americans who were swept up in foreign electronic spying. 

"What I've read seems to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal, but I don't know that it's right and I don't know if the American people would be comfortable with what I've read," said Nunes, who uncovered the reports. 

“The full extent of the improper spying—including the improper unmasking of Americans whose identities were to be hidden in reports of foreign communications intercepts—is expected to be disclosed Friday, Nunes said.” 

And here again, the article includes references to possible irregularities whereas: “The explosive reports uncovered by Nunes contradict public testimony Monday by FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers. 

“Comey and Rogers stated during an intelligence committee hearing that they had no information to support Trump's claims in a series of tweets that he had been placed under electronic surveillance by President Obama.” 

Yet, despite the frequency and magnitude of denials to date by government officials, as stated above, Trump has most often proven to be correct in his claims and suspicions. Clearly suggesting that it’s only a matter of time until he’s shown to be right about this one too.   

On another subject, Doug Schoen, Democrat political analyst also at, often offers opinions regarding party leaders performance. While quite supportive of Trump’s handling of his presidential campaign he made sure to state before the election: “I cannot vote for Donald Trump as his world view and mine are very different.” 

Back on November 9th Schoen wrote: “The November 8 election result is the rejection of the left of the Democratic party that calls for the redistribution of wealth, free college, a $15 minimum wage and embraces unions to the exclusion of ordinary people. Americans sent a clear signal that they are looking for our nation to project strength in foreign policy, a marquee issue for Donald Trump.” 

And now, today, he explains that Trump rode a populist wave through November, managing to allay concerns about himself and then win the election “in a remarkable upset victory.” 

Yet, after presenting the background and rationale for Trump’s deserved victory, Schoen writes: “Today, however, the Republican postponement of the American Health Care Act signals not only that Trump is still unable to unite his party, but that his ability to lead and deliver on his many promises is in serious jeopardy.  

“Given this postponement, the Republicans are now forced to delay tax reform, delay any and all plans for infrastructure investment, and, of course, delay repealing and replacing Obamacare with a new healthcare program, which in the President’s words would provide, “insurance for everybody.”  

“As a result of this log-jam, the favorable economic data and stock market rallies Trump has frequently cited as early successes may very well screech to a halt too.” 

So, here we have Schoen, critiquing from the sidelines about Trump, who managed to attain the Oval Office, although the office itself has been held for all of nine weeks. 

Despite the short time elapsed, though, Schoen can still tell us with what surely sounds like a good degree of certainty that Trump not only is “still unable to unite his party, but that his ability to lead and deliver on his many promises is in serious jeopardy.” Which has to be one of the most pompous, presumptuous snipes ever offered by one with no personal competitive track record whatsoever. Making one wonder where the credential comes from regarding critics with zero similar accomplishments of their own.      

In an interesting contradiction to Schoen opining that Trump’s ability to deliver on his promises is in serious jeopardy, Ben Lefebvre writes “The Trump administration will approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline by Monday, reversing one of former President Barack Obama’s most politically charged environmental decisions, according to two sources with knowledge of the plan. 

“The move by the State Department comes 16 months after Obama blocked construction of the 1,200-mile pipeline.”  

While Secretary of State and former Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson recused himself from the process: “The approval, while long expected, will hand Trump a political victory and follows his promise to quickly approve the $8 billion project that developer TransCanada has sought to build for nearly a decade.” 

Adding this new success to what’s already transpired positively for Trump, leads right into an article by Louis Nelson yesterday recapping event s of the new presidency, as follows: 

“In a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, President Donald Trump defended his controversial statements on wiretapping, voter fraud and an array of other issues, claiming he has ultimately been proven right time and time again. 

“Trump was unapologetic about one of his most outlandish claims, made during the GOP primary, that Sen. Ted Cruz’s father had been involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He was similarly unwilling to back away from claims made by the White House citing Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano, who has been pulled off the air by the conservative network following his allegation that the British government surveilled Trump Tower at Obama’s behest. 

“Trump told Time he had only been “quoting highly respected people from highly respected television networks.” 

And then, Trump offered a typical conclusion that not only applies to the particular interview, but could be said to Doug Schoen as well: “That’s the story,” Trump said as the interview ended. “Hey look, in the meantime, I guess, I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not. You know.” 

That's it for today folks. 


Thursday, March 23, 2017


While Democrats continue their futile attempts to defame and discredit the POTUS, he’s established once again that with time, the vast majority of his claims regarding others actions against him prove to be correct. 

Regarding a current issue at hand, the headline of an article at by Cody Derespina says it all: “Trump basks in Nunes surveillance news: 'So that means I'm right'”

According to Mr. Derespina: “Several individuals on the Trump team were eventually “unmasked” and had their identities “widely disseminated,” despite the information being of limited intelligence value, Nunes said. The bombshell news conference appeared to partially back up Trump’s assertion earlier this month that former President Barack Obama had “wiretapped” him. 

The source of the revelation is one that certainly has impeccable credentials regarding inappropriate handling of information whereas Devin Nunes is chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Mr. Derespina went on to relate that while reading another outlet’s article about the Nunes news conference Trump told Time magazine “Wow … so that means I’m right.” 

Content that his claims had been supported by Nunes’ news conference, Trump went on to say: “And a lot of information has just been learned, and a lot of information may be learned over the next coming period of time. We will see what happens. Look, I predicted a lot of things that took a little bit of time.” 

Considering Trump’s being proven correct once again it’s truly remarkable that media types, even friendly ones, continue presenting summations, suppositions and opinions that ultimately prove to be erroneous. 

Yesterday Chris Stirewalt proposed that “Trump, who is obsessed with winning, and conservatives, who are obsessed with policy, are both acting in what they believe to be rational ways for their own interests.”

And then, in making his case Stirewalt states that Trump “is an unpopular, divisive figure, who has also seen his young administration perpetually marred – whether you think fairly or not – by scandal.”

From there, Stirewalt projects that “A high-profile loss on TrumpCare would not just diminish his perceived power in Washington, but also likely set off a panic among investors who to this point have been irrationally exuberant about the chances for sweeping economic reforms. Surging stocks and consumer confidence would come tumbling down.” 

So, here we have a highly opinionated columnist telling readers unequivocally not only what the future holds if Trump continues pursuit of his health care revision goals, but that he’s also “unpopular” and “divisive.” 

Yet, on the very same day, according to Henry C. Jackson “President Donald Trump helped to raise more than $30 million at a dinner for House Republicans' campaign arm — a record for the event — while pressing the case for GOP unity during a speech Tuesday. 

“Trump hit broad, familiar talking points at the National Building Museum in Washington while arguing that voters wanted Republicans to act boldly after electing him last year.”

So, in this situation, Stirewalt’s conclusions about Trump’s positions being problematical were absolutely refuted, whereas Republican donors are providing record financial support of his efforts.     

And then, adding further evidence of the worthlessness of information relied upon by political pundits such as Stirewalt, is an article by John Crudele regarding polls, as follows:

“Trump’s approval rating sucks — according to polls. 

“These are the same polls that said Hillary Clinton would be in the White House right now. Not only that, but they said Clinton would easily win the presidency. 

“Pollsters must love these between-election polls because they can report anything and not be proved wrong. It’s when there is an election coming up that they really stick their necks out.”

And then, Mr. Crudele arrives at the critical point regarding commentary whereas: “The media, of course, are complicit in the pollsters’ scam. Without the press, the polls would go unnoticed. 

“So whether Trump’s approval rating is 39 percent or 93 percent, take the numbers with a pillar of salt.” 

Which is the whole point because, as cited above, regardless of what those in the media tried to sell to the public about Clinton's sure win, voters across the nation put Trump in office by record numbers.  

Bringing us to an item that can be kept on the back burner for a while, until some more congressional maneuvering takes place. But, in the meantime, Jerome Hudson wrote: “Citing investigative reporting by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and advance reporting by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group, Rep. Louie Gohmert is calling for a congressional investigation into the connection between Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman, John Podesta, and Russia. 

“Podesta sat on the board of the Putin-connected energy company alongside Russian officials who received $35 million from a Putin-linked Russian government fund, Breitbart News reported last August, as revealed in a 56-page GAI report titled “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism.” 

“Now Gohmert, the Texas Republican firebrand who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, says Podesta’s role in the Russia-funded firm “certainly needs to be reviewed to see if there really is something nefarious going on with these activities.” 

“Podesta also sat on the executive board of an energy company, Joule Unlimited, which also received millions from a Putin-connected Russian government fund. The longtime Democratic operative owned “75,000 common shares” in Joule, which Podesta had transferred to a holding company called Leonidio LLC. 

There’s much more to the complicated story. Here’s a link:

So, while Democrats counter their lacking of an effective political platform with attacks on their rivals instead, those rivals have some quite valid targets as well. Which leads to the distinct possibility that most leftist politico’s will not only remain unelectable, but some of its top leadership may very well leave the scene in handcuffs. 

That’s it for today folks. 


Wednesday, March 22, 2017


As mentioned here previously, the new POTUS has come up with another superlative choice by selecting Neil Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Yet, beyond the impact of Judge Gorsuch’s selection itself, the confirmation hearings are exposing the Democrats as a politically weak and confused group desperately grasping to find any morsel upon which they can make a rational point. However, to date, they simply cannot.     

In that regard, yesterday Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier” that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch “beautifully” evaded tough questions from Democrats during his confirmation hearing which is exactly what he should be doing."

Krauthammer went on to say: “Refusal to answer questions. No supreme court nominee answers questions who has any hope of getting on the court. The whole idea is not just to be calm and collected and knowledgeable, but to be nimble. This is an exercise in obfuscation.”

When heavily pressed by Democrats on abortion, guns, campaign spending and a host of other issues Gorsuch explained that it was improper to discuss subjects that might come before the court in the future, “including whether or not he would overrule the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.”  

According to Krauthammer: “When democrats complain about not taking stands you go back to Ruth Bader Ginsberg who made it a principle of her nominating process that she would not in any way telegraph where she would stand on anything. Ever since the Bork nomination and the fiasco of the attacks on him it’s understood your job up there is to dance, to express a fealty to the constitution. You will say you will be independent and that's it and he did that beautifully.” 

While Krauthammer’s assessment of the confirmation hearings is factually accurate, his description of Judge Gorsuch’s handling of answers make the judge sound like someone purposefully evasive and trying to avoid presenting factual reality. However, that’s clearly not the case, whereas the judge is a consummate, well-credentialed and certainly worthy candidate which, once again, readers confirmed in their comments.   

ralph5 wrote: “Never take anything Charlie says seriously.  He was outed by O'Reilly how much he hates Pres. Trump and will do/say anything to discredit the President on anything/everything.  His ego has gotten totally out of control.” 

BobEngineer1 opined: “Gorsuch did not evade critical or any questions. A good judge looks at the law and the evidence without predetermining the case or having an established bias. The two federal Judges that have placed an injunction on Trumps increased constraints on countries that do not provide sufficient or reliable information on immigrants is a legal travesty. These judges once overruled by Supreme Court should be sanctioned or disbarred.” 

DC2NM2 added: “Evading questions is not the purpose of these hearings.” 

While readers established again that they are well aware of what transpires on major issues, Rush covered the topic too, offering his conclusion that Democrats involved in the hearings are overwhelmed and unable to present substantive opposition to the judge at all.      

Rush said: “There’s no conversation taking place. The senators on the Democrat side are not discussing the law. They’re asking gotcha questions, and Gorsuch is at least two times as smart as any of these Democrats, at a minimum, on the committee."

He went on: “It has been amusing, satisfying, pleasing to watch a little bit of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice nominee Neil Gorsuch, because the man really is coming across as Jimmy Stewart — calm, kind, mannerly, brilliant, untrickable, and committed. And the Democrats on the committee have been reduced to simply reading questions, obviously written for them by their staff. I swear. I watched Senator Dianne Feinstein; I don’t think she understood half of what she was asking.” 

Rush then presented an example of Feinstein’s political questioning where she asked: “Um, y’know, President Bush tortured and President Trump has said that he likes torture and he thinks torture works.” And Gorsuch said, “Well, Senator, the law of our land currently proscribes of use of torture.” (stammering) “Y-y-yeah, I know, but — but do you think Trump’s right? Did — did — did — did — did you have to promise Trump anything? Did you have to promise anything before you were picked?” 

“I didn’t speak to President Trump before I was chosen.” “Well, what about the circuit? What did the circuit…? Did you promise anybody?” “No, Senator, I was not asked anything prior to being selected to be on the circuit, appellate court, or the Supreme Court.” “What do you think about…? What do you think about Plessy v. Ferguson and the precedent of stare decisis?” “Senator, the law is my client. I do not do what you do. We on courts do not do what you do. We judges are not equipped to do what you do. We simply follow the law.” 

As a result, Rush was particularly impressed with the judge’s ability to sift through what he’d been asked by Democrats and then respond particularly as his job relates to the interpretation and upholding of the law as it is written. Most importantly, he is certainly not a politician nor does he think like one.   

Next, Rush presented the judge’s explanation that there are no little guys, big guys, rich guys, poor guys in court. “Well, of course the Democrats, they don’t think that. They think when you’re a judge, you automatically rule against big corporations just because you do. And you automatically stand up and rule in favor of the minority, because that’s just what you do. And Gorsuch said, “No, I don’t even see that, Senator. I see a litigant. 

“I see a person with a case — and my client, Senator, is the law. As a judge, my client is the law. And I owe my client the best deference and honesty I can provide.” And then he said — and this just shocked ’em. They were dead silent. There was not a Democrat that had a word to say for at least five seconds. He said, “Equality…” This rings true because this is… Folks, this is right out of my own heart, I have to tell you. “Equality before the law was the most radical thing in the world when it was incorporated here in the United States.” 

All of which comes down to the judge having placed Democrat panelists in the position that if they find him unacceptable, what they are really opposed to is what’s written in the U.S. Constitution and all other laws that citizens live by. Which is a lose/lose situation for them altogether. 

On another subject, Hannah Williams, Reporter in the UK covered a study that “found that 42 percent of UK consumers believe their job is likely to be replaced by a robot in the next 30 years, while 25 percent think that this could happen within the next 10 years.”

Considering today’s opening topic, political aspects of Supreme Court nominees, “the surprising, or not-so-surprising (depending on your opinion of politicians) findings from the report reveal that consumers would entrust the running of the country to robots. 66 percent of UK citizens expect that robots will be working within the government by 2037, with 16 percent believing this could happen in the next one to two years. 

“A further finding which may cause concern for Number 10 is that one in four think robots will make better decisions that elected government representatives, mainly in regards to the economy. However, a further 35 percent of UK citizens say robots would not be able to assess the cultural aspects when it comes to decision making.” 

Thus, although roughly a third of UK citizens say robots would not be able to assess cultural aspects of government, today’s theme applies again. Because, the laws that citizens live by aren’t necessarily “cultural,” but the agreed upon standards that apply to all, regardless.

And then, the new POTUS gained another solid endorsement, this one coming from a truly surprising source. 

According to Jeff Poor this morning: “[O]n MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former Obama administration Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said that although he was “concerned” about President Donald Trump’s tweets, he believed Trump has the potential to be a “great president.” 

“I actually believe that Donald Trump — and I told him this when I met with him in December,” he said. “I actually believe Donald Trump has the potential to be a great president in sort of the Nixon goes to China way or Reagan goes to the Soviet Union way. If he can find a way to rein in some of — some of the more unhealthy impulses, listen to his staff, bring on a full complement of political appointees who will help him govern.” 

So, here we have a different kind of proof that the coalition amassed by Trump has broad-based appeal as opposed to the traditional party-line overall approach taken by most politicians. Which is another reason that Democrat hostility is dampened because independents make up the difference in numbers. 

And as far as Jeb Johnson’s worries about Trump’s tweets are concerned, whereas Johnson’s a Democrat himself no one would expect him to grasp the concept of Trump’s 
electronic strategizing whereas it’s simply too complex for his mentality. Nonetheless, Johnson’s endorsement is surely appreciated regardless of his minimal IQ. 

That's it for today folks. 


Tuesday, March 21, 2017


Yesterday was another in which Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt confirmed that he’s one of a very few that actually understands President Trump’s methodology and style. 

Stirewalt wrote: “Say what you will about President Trump’s claims that his predecessor was spying on him during the 2016 campaign, they have been a remarkably effective distraction.” 
Having a chance to publicly interrogate FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers about Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential campaign, “a topic that should be an absolute field day for the blue team, Democrats instead devoted much of their questioning to disproving Trump’s apparently baseless claim.”

In all, Democrats were able to coax Comey into revealing unambiguously that Russian interference was aimed at harming nominee Clinton and that “the Kremlin had a distinct preference for Trump in the election.” However, accomplishing that “took up an enormous amount of time.“ 

Coming to his point, Stirewalt went on: “As one senior Republican aide on Capitol Hill put it to Halftime Report about Trump and his distractions: “You never know if the guy is crazy or an absolute genius.” 

In that regard, Stirewalt still  believes that “it was pretty crazy for Trump as a sitting president to throw out an unsupported accusation against Barack Obama of such magnitude. Reckless, even.” However, “the genius part was revealed today as Democrats continued to chase the red herring through much of Comey’s and Roger’s testimonies.” 

From there Stirewalt makes the point that Comey’s public declaration about the existence of an investigation means that in the probably near future there will be findings released. When that happens: “Either Trump and his associates will be given a clean bill of health, or criminal charges will be laid. And finally we can have some resolution.” 

However, until that finding’s released, “it’s all about shaping the precious narrative. And in that game Trump’s either intentional or accidental misinformation about Obama turns out to be very useful to the new president. Which is because, as Trump most certainly knows: “Many of Trump’s supporters no doubt readily believe Trump’s claims, despite debunking. Trump’s critics, meanwhile, have been busy chasing their tails trying to disprove the disprovable.”

All of which goes to not only support the conclusions reached here some time ago regarding Trump’s skill at misdirecting and preoccupying his opposition, but was described by Stirewalt using prescisely the same metaphor often posted here that Trump has his critics constantly “chasing their tails.”   

In terms of the new POTUS’s maintaining popularity, “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.”

While that’s substantially higher than at any time during the presidential campaign, components of the poll demonstrate that fulfillment of his individual promises all along are received by voters quite positively, as follows: 

“The president is proposing major cuts in foreign aid. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters believe the $42.4 billion the U.S. government is slated to give in economic and military aid to other countries this year is too much.” Meaning that, although voters would like to see even less spent in this vein, the POTUS is certainly on the right track with them. 

Similarly, while Trump’s proposed foreign aid cuts will help fund a big increase in defense spending and the repair and replacement of infrastructure nationwide, most voters also agree with his idea that “any new spending must be offset by budget cuts elsewhere.” 

On a completely different matter, but one concerning the refuting of a leftist ideological premise: “Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans think when it comes to team sports for children, it’s more important to reward the winners than to make sure everyone is recognized for participating.” Raising the proposition that perhaps loser Clinton might feel much better if she was sent a plaque acknowledging her competing in the presidential election she lost to Trump.   

And then, in a surprising turn of events, according to Stephen Battaglio, Contact Reporter via Drudge: “Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is being kept off the air indefinitely amid the controversy over his unverified claims that British intelligence wiretapped Trump Tower at the behest of former President Obama.” 

Beginning on March 4, when Trump first tweeted the accusation that Obama ordered his “‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory,” the judge quoted unnamed sources, as saying that: “British foreign surveillance agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, “most likely” provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s recorded calls.”

In a column on, the Judge wrote: “By bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access," to those calls.

And this is where the situation gets interestingly complex because: ”White House press secretary Sean Spicer cited Napolitano’s charge last week when asked why President Trump continues to stand by his initial claim. The British spy agency sharply denounced Napolitano’s allegations, saying they are “utterly ridiculous and should be ignored." 

“You shouldn’t be talking to me; you should be talking to Fox News,” said Trump, who described Napolitano as “a very talented lawyer.” 

So, here we have a case where the Judge’s comments give Trump an out, regardless of what any Congressional investigation concludes. Because both the Judge, and Fox, provided the rationale for Trump's claims of Obama’s involvement in surveillance results.        

While “Fox News gives its analysts much more latitude than correspondents and anchors in regard to what they can say on the network,” the network claims to be concerned about Napolitano saying on one program that "Fox News has spoken to intelligence community members who believe that surveillance did occur, that it was done by British intelligence.”

Nonetheless, Fox Host Shepard Smith told viewers Friday: “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-president of the United States was surveilled at any time, in any way.”

Napolitano himself defended his comments in a statement read on the Fox News program “MediaBuzz” on Sunday, saying he “reported what the sources told me, reported it accurately and I do believe the substance of what they told me.” 

So, if things remain consistent regarding both the new POTUS and the judge, it’s highly probable that both will prove correct in the long run. Because they've consistently done so in the past. However, whatever the outcome derives to be, the chances are the left will come up short again in their accusations of Trump's wrongdoing. Because, they’re virtually always incorrect, regardless of the topic involved.   

That's it for today folks.