Much of the items in the news today concern the POTUS's snubbing of the White
House Correspondents’ Association dinner to hold a campaign-style rally in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, attended by a roaring, appreciative crowd of
supporters.
And if one regards how that group he cold-shouldered, and the MSM in general, demean and belittle him, Trump’s avoidance of their get-together was a proper
decision indeed.
Evidence of press hostility can be seen in an article by Gideon Resnick
@thedailybeast.com, who can’t keep negativity toward the POTUS out of a
simple report regarding Trump’s Pennsylvania visit.
Resnick headed his article: “Donald Trump’s Spell Hasn’t Worn Off—And It
Might Never,” followed by the subtitle: “His rapturous show kept fans enthralled
on Saturday night as the populist hero came to speak to his people.”
However, after setting the premise of the POTUS’s popularity among his
“people,” Resnick begins with a quote from the end of Trump’s nearly hour-long speech when
he read a 266-word sonnet by Al Wilson called “The Snake.”
According to Resnick, Trump “yelled” the words “‘Take me in tender woman,
take me in, for heaven's sake. Take me in, tender woman,’ sighed the vicious
snake.”
From there, Resnick presents his slant on Trump’s verbiage, writing: “This
iteration of the campaign-show favorite was dedicated, as Trump put it, to
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. If the subtext wasn’t evident enough,
it’s about the deceptive nature of immigrants and the risk that they pose to the
security of the United States. And if you’re inclined to believe so, it could be
about the president himself.
“Donald Trump has been president now for 100 days, and in that time he has
had two travel bans blocked by the court system, failed to deliver on the repeal
and replacement of Obamacare, and not started building the wall at the
U.S.-Mexico border. It’s a short timeframe, but until recently, it was the one
upon which Trump was basing his successes.
“But none of this was particularly relevant, because the fake news media had
done a bad job accurately portraying the freshman politician’s methods of
running a country and Trump was there to preach the message on the
mountain—straight from his lips so it wouldn’t be twisted by CNN and MSNBC.”
And in those three paragraphs, Resnick has demonstrated that the MSM and he
himself, simply don’t understand how and why Trump was elected in the first
place and why his “rapturous show kept fans enthralled.”
And that’s because it’s only the MSM and their dwindling leftist audience
that's keeping an itemized scorecard. In reality, however, all Trump’s
supporters care about is that he’s on their side, fighting the establishment for
them, isn’t a politician and from their perspective has accomplished a great
deal in 100 days versus a swampfull of recalcitrant, complacent politicos.
Which is also why, with the exception of a few hard-line conservatives,
Trump’s performance to date is appreciated by so many of those who voted him
into office that he’d rather spend an evening among them than a room full of
left-leaning elitists.
Further proof that Trump’s efforts to date are having significant positive effect for him is
seen in a piece by Michael M. Grynbaum @nytimes.com, who
unintentionally illustrated the POTUS’s damaging impact on the MSM.
In support of the MSM’s journalistic prowess, Grynbaum writes: “Loud cheers
and a palpable sense of defiance broke out when the president of the
Correspondents’ Association, Jeff Mason of Reuters, declared with sermonlike
ferocity, “We are not fake news. We are not failing news organizations. And we
are not the enemy of the American people.” It was the longest ovation of the
night.
That was followed by mention that “Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, seated on
the dais, reminded the room of journalism’s power, and Mr. Woodward articulated
the subtext of the evening when he addressed Mr. Trump directly, saying, “Mr.
President, the media is not fake news.”
However, what the supportive commentary illustrates isn’t that the MSM is
honest and forthright in reporting. Instead it shows them as being in a
self-created, shrinking, corner from which they must now defend themselves.
What’s more, aside from losing credibility and image from fake news reportage
and the continual failure of news organizations, there seems to be a colossal
failure of talent as well.
That can be seen in Hasan Minhaj, of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,”
ending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday night by blasting
President Trump in a night that mostly focused on the First Amendment.
Minhaj said: “We've got to address the elephant that's not in the room. The
leader of our country is not here. And that's because he lives in Moscow. It's a
very long flight. As for the other guy, I think he's in Pennsylvania because he
can't take a joke."
And if that’s all that this group can offer, they’re all a joke.
Reader therealtexassoil summed it up this way: “The worst rating as
any dinner has ever had
“So who watched it ?
“So who went to it?”
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Saturday, April 29, 2017
BloggeRhythms
On the new president’s 100th day in office, the news continues to be quite
good for him while the corner into which Democrats have painted themselves
grows smaller still.
Mark DeCambre provides hard evidence @marketwatch.com, that the business world has provided the POTUS with the highest approval rating since WWII. And they’ve done it with one of the most tangible evidences of support possible: real money.
Mr. DeCambre writes: “As President Donald Trump hits his 100th day in office Saturday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has booked the best performance in the postwar era under a first-term president when measured from Election Day through the 100th day in office, according to Dow Jones data.”
The Dow has rallied 14.22% since the election, the S&P 500 index has gained about 11.6% while Nasdaq has climbed 16.5% over the same period.
“For first-term presidents overall, including those before World War II, Trump ranks fourth, trailing Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Republican presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.”
For comparison's sake, during the same period under Obama (11/6/2012-4/30/2013) the Dow rose 12.04%.
Another highly supportive analysis of Trump’s performance comes from Doug Schoen @FoxNews.com. Having more than 30 years experience as a Democrat pollster and political consultant, Schoen is certainly one who knows what he’s talking about, adding substance to his article titled: “What Democrats won't admit about Trump's first 100 days"
Schoen begins: “One hundred days into President Trump’s administration, it is becoming evident that when considering his base, the president has been more successful than many would like to give him credit for.”
Rating presidential performance categorically Schoen grades Trump's Foreign Policy as “A+.”
“President Trump’s reassertion of U.S. leadership around the world was a foundational component of his campaign, and already his style of leadership has positively changed the way our global allies view the United States.”
For evidence of deserving the highest grade, Schoen writes: The “U.S. Navy’s Tomahawk missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat Airbase in response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons, made it clear that the president of the United States will not tolerate a red line being crossed or an appalling human rights violation to be committed on his watch.”
Following next is the use of the “largest non-nuclear bomb in the US’s arsenal in Afghanistan to destroy a critical network of tunnels used by ISIS, as well as large caches of weapons.”
Shifting U.S. foreign policy goals with China and instead of labeling China as a currency manipulator, working on building a partnership with them in order to address the threat of North Korea is seen as a major success. As is making good on the promise that he would ensure the United States would negotiate better deals with our international partners.
Next came Domestic Policy Agenda, where the grade was a “C.”
However, Schoen’s rationale for the grade illustrates that Trump isn’t really at fault. Because although there was an “inability to follow through on a signature promise to immediately “repeal and replace” ObamaCare within the first 100 days,” the delay was caused by members of Trump’s own party who deserted him for their own gain.
Noting next that Democrats “are not going to consider [Trump’s] tax plan, with the tax cuts too heavily weighted on cuts for the rich. His plan will hurt states disproportionally with high state and local taxes, and putting their social safety net at risk,” Schoen goes on to defuse his own premise as follows:
“That being said, the Democrats have to take the blame as well. Instead of constantly resisting his every move, Democrats need to article an agenda that could potentially win bipartisan support and help move this country forward.”
Then, in truly surprising straightforwardness, Schoen not only gives Trump’s Supreme Court selection a “B+,” but a virtual endorsement of his performance.
“President Trump ran on the promise that if elected, he would appoint federal judges who uphold the constitution and support the Second Amendment. The nomination and appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch has accomplished just that, and will be one of President Trump’s lasting successes from his first 100 days.”
Next covered were Regulations, Trade and Jobs where Trump was rewarded with an “A-.”
Presidential accomplishments included this week wherein: “Canada and Mexico have agreed to begin renegotiating NAFTA, which from the outset has largely occurred on President Trump’s terms.”
Also seen as positive was pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, enacting tougher enforcement of exporters who sell products below the cost of production, and the request for a comprehensive report on “every possible cause of the U.S. trade deficit.”
On the campaign promise of job creation, Schoen particularly praises the beginning of the process of “cutting federal regulations and expedited the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.
“Additionally, President Trump also ran the plan to crack down on companies outsourcing jobs. The president has called out corporate leaders and companies to help ensure jobs do not go to Mexico, all while negotiating with corporations to invest in new facilitates and factories in America as a “vote of confidence” in his administration.”
Immigration earned a “B+” whereas: “The president has done exactly as he said he would do with regards to immigration,” proactively trying to enact a constitutionally acceptable version of the travel ban.
“More importantly, however, President Trump has worked toward reforming the H1-B visa program in order to ensure that American workers will be a prioritized over foreign workers.
“Finally, Trump has held steady on his promise for a wall along the U.S. Southern border, and has initiated funding talks, as well the possibility of public-private partnerships to ensure the wall’s completion.”
Thus, if one such as Schoen awards the POTUS with the highest of marks in all categories of governance, except for one in which it’s party members that are failing him, it’s no wonder he titled his column; “What Democrats won't admit about Trump's first 100 days”
On another subject, Marisa Guthrie @hollywoodreporter.com writes that the Murdochs may be preparing for a leadership change at Fox News. Sources say “Rupert Murdoch and his sons James and Lachlan, CEO and co-chairman of Fox News parent 21st Century Fox, have quietly put out feelers for a new head of Fox News. And the preference, according to two sources familiar with the Murdochs’ thinking, is that the new leader be female.”
Changes taking place in Fox’s political leanings may be having a negative effect too, whereas Rachel Stockman reports @mediaite.com: “A well-placed source close to the proposal tells Mediaite that serious discussions are underway to create an alternative conservative cable network on the belief that the Fox News Network is moving too far to the left.”
Possible “stars” include the ousted Bill O’Reilly and Tomi Lahren, a conservative mega star, recently sidelined at The Blaze. Although those coming on board won’t be clear until the deal is more defined, “the source says the pitch is that the network could immediately reach at least 85 million homes.”
Adding to the appeal of the opportunity for a new Conservative outlet is that the only primetime personality remaining at Fox is Sean Hannity who was mentioned, as follows:
“I just don’t see Fox News and Sean having a long relationship. If Sean becomes available, you have 100 percent turnover in primetime and a huge opportunity,” a television executive, who didn’t want to be identified, but is involved in some of the talks, told Mediaite.
“I’m working on it (the new conservative channel) hot and heavy,” the source said. “It’s live, it’s real.” The new channel could come to fruition within the next 10 to 12 months, the executive said.”
All of which is certainly possible whereas it’s very much like the opportunity seen by Roger Ailes in 1996 when he became the founding CEO of Fox News 21 years ago.
And then, another brilliant suggestion came from Rush yesterday, regarding outrageous speaking fees demanded by Democrat leadership.
Rush said: “They don’t care about getting rich, they aren’t rich, and they, of course, have negative comments and things to say about everybody who is rich. And yet when they have a chance to money grub, they go out and do it. Now, if Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were actually honest when articulating their class envy and class warfare rhetoric. For example, if they really mean it when they say they want to tax the rich, you know how they can prove it? Suggest a 90% tax rate on all speech income above $50,000.
“Wasn’t it people like Obama and Clinton who tried to limit the tax deductibility corporations paid their CEOs above a million dollars a year? It’s very simple. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, made to order, put your mouth where your policy is. Suggest a 90% tax on all speech income over $50,000. Don’t hold your breath, folks, it will never happen. But if they were honest and if they really meant this class warfare stuff, they’d be just as irritated when liberals get rich as they are when Republicans and conservatives do so.”
Then, on the other hand, there are Republicans like Trump who’s already rich, is quite proud of it and believes there’s enough to go around for everybody else who wants to do it it as well.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Mark DeCambre provides hard evidence @marketwatch.com, that the business world has provided the POTUS with the highest approval rating since WWII. And they’ve done it with one of the most tangible evidences of support possible: real money.
Mr. DeCambre writes: “As President Donald Trump hits his 100th day in office Saturday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has booked the best performance in the postwar era under a first-term president when measured from Election Day through the 100th day in office, according to Dow Jones data.”
The Dow has rallied 14.22% since the election, the S&P 500 index has gained about 11.6% while Nasdaq has climbed 16.5% over the same period.
“For first-term presidents overall, including those before World War II, Trump ranks fourth, trailing Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Republican presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.”
For comparison's sake, during the same period under Obama (11/6/2012-4/30/2013) the Dow rose 12.04%.
Another highly supportive analysis of Trump’s performance comes from Doug Schoen @FoxNews.com. Having more than 30 years experience as a Democrat pollster and political consultant, Schoen is certainly one who knows what he’s talking about, adding substance to his article titled: “What Democrats won't admit about Trump's first 100 days"
Schoen begins: “One hundred days into President Trump’s administration, it is becoming evident that when considering his base, the president has been more successful than many would like to give him credit for.”
Rating presidential performance categorically Schoen grades Trump's Foreign Policy as “A+.”
“President Trump’s reassertion of U.S. leadership around the world was a foundational component of his campaign, and already his style of leadership has positively changed the way our global allies view the United States.”
For evidence of deserving the highest grade, Schoen writes: The “U.S. Navy’s Tomahawk missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat Airbase in response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons, made it clear that the president of the United States will not tolerate a red line being crossed or an appalling human rights violation to be committed on his watch.”
Following next is the use of the “largest non-nuclear bomb in the US’s arsenal in Afghanistan to destroy a critical network of tunnels used by ISIS, as well as large caches of weapons.”
Shifting U.S. foreign policy goals with China and instead of labeling China as a currency manipulator, working on building a partnership with them in order to address the threat of North Korea is seen as a major success. As is making good on the promise that he would ensure the United States would negotiate better deals with our international partners.
Next came Domestic Policy Agenda, where the grade was a “C.”
However, Schoen’s rationale for the grade illustrates that Trump isn’t really at fault. Because although there was an “inability to follow through on a signature promise to immediately “repeal and replace” ObamaCare within the first 100 days,” the delay was caused by members of Trump’s own party who deserted him for their own gain.
Noting next that Democrats “are not going to consider [Trump’s] tax plan, with the tax cuts too heavily weighted on cuts for the rich. His plan will hurt states disproportionally with high state and local taxes, and putting their social safety net at risk,” Schoen goes on to defuse his own premise as follows:
“That being said, the Democrats have to take the blame as well. Instead of constantly resisting his every move, Democrats need to article an agenda that could potentially win bipartisan support and help move this country forward.”
Then, in truly surprising straightforwardness, Schoen not only gives Trump’s Supreme Court selection a “B+,” but a virtual endorsement of his performance.
“President Trump ran on the promise that if elected, he would appoint federal judges who uphold the constitution and support the Second Amendment. The nomination and appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch has accomplished just that, and will be one of President Trump’s lasting successes from his first 100 days.”
Next covered were Regulations, Trade and Jobs where Trump was rewarded with an “A-.”
Presidential accomplishments included this week wherein: “Canada and Mexico have agreed to begin renegotiating NAFTA, which from the outset has largely occurred on President Trump’s terms.”
Also seen as positive was pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, enacting tougher enforcement of exporters who sell products below the cost of production, and the request for a comprehensive report on “every possible cause of the U.S. trade deficit.”
On the campaign promise of job creation, Schoen particularly praises the beginning of the process of “cutting federal regulations and expedited the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.
“Additionally, President Trump also ran the plan to crack down on companies outsourcing jobs. The president has called out corporate leaders and companies to help ensure jobs do not go to Mexico, all while negotiating with corporations to invest in new facilitates and factories in America as a “vote of confidence” in his administration.”
Immigration earned a “B+” whereas: “The president has done exactly as he said he would do with regards to immigration,” proactively trying to enact a constitutionally acceptable version of the travel ban.
“More importantly, however, President Trump has worked toward reforming the H1-B visa program in order to ensure that American workers will be a prioritized over foreign workers.
“Finally, Trump has held steady on his promise for a wall along the U.S. Southern border, and has initiated funding talks, as well the possibility of public-private partnerships to ensure the wall’s completion.”
Thus, if one such as Schoen awards the POTUS with the highest of marks in all categories of governance, except for one in which it’s party members that are failing him, it’s no wonder he titled his column; “What Democrats won't admit about Trump's first 100 days”
On another subject, Marisa Guthrie @hollywoodreporter.com writes that the Murdochs may be preparing for a leadership change at Fox News. Sources say “Rupert Murdoch and his sons James and Lachlan, CEO and co-chairman of Fox News parent 21st Century Fox, have quietly put out feelers for a new head of Fox News. And the preference, according to two sources familiar with the Murdochs’ thinking, is that the new leader be female.”
Changes taking place in Fox’s political leanings may be having a negative effect too, whereas Rachel Stockman reports @mediaite.com: “A well-placed source close to the proposal tells Mediaite that serious discussions are underway to create an alternative conservative cable network on the belief that the Fox News Network is moving too far to the left.”
Possible “stars” include the ousted Bill O’Reilly and Tomi Lahren, a conservative mega star, recently sidelined at The Blaze. Although those coming on board won’t be clear until the deal is more defined, “the source says the pitch is that the network could immediately reach at least 85 million homes.”
Adding to the appeal of the opportunity for a new Conservative outlet is that the only primetime personality remaining at Fox is Sean Hannity who was mentioned, as follows:
“I just don’t see Fox News and Sean having a long relationship. If Sean becomes available, you have 100 percent turnover in primetime and a huge opportunity,” a television executive, who didn’t want to be identified, but is involved in some of the talks, told Mediaite.
“I’m working on it (the new conservative channel) hot and heavy,” the source said. “It’s live, it’s real.” The new channel could come to fruition within the next 10 to 12 months, the executive said.”
All of which is certainly possible whereas it’s very much like the opportunity seen by Roger Ailes in 1996 when he became the founding CEO of Fox News 21 years ago.
And then, another brilliant suggestion came from Rush yesterday, regarding outrageous speaking fees demanded by Democrat leadership.
Rush said: “They don’t care about getting rich, they aren’t rich, and they, of course, have negative comments and things to say about everybody who is rich. And yet when they have a chance to money grub, they go out and do it. Now, if Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were actually honest when articulating their class envy and class warfare rhetoric. For example, if they really mean it when they say they want to tax the rich, you know how they can prove it? Suggest a 90% tax rate on all speech income above $50,000.
“Wasn’t it people like Obama and Clinton who tried to limit the tax deductibility corporations paid their CEOs above a million dollars a year? It’s very simple. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, made to order, put your mouth where your policy is. Suggest a 90% tax on all speech income over $50,000. Don’t hold your breath, folks, it will never happen. But if they were honest and if they really meant this class warfare stuff, they’d be just as irritated when liberals get rich as they are when Republicans and conservatives do so.”
Then, on the other hand, there are Republicans like Trump who’s already rich, is quite proud of it and believes there’s enough to go around for everybody else who wants to do it it as well.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, April 28, 2017
BloggeRhythms
Today’s items combine to illustrate the significant changes taking place
regarding politicians while in the case of leading Democrats, hypocrisy
and exposure of self-serving intentions surface quite visibly.
The first article comes from Cameron Easley @morningconsult.com who writes about a new Morning Consult poll that’s likely to make many in the media “cringe.”
“In the new poll, roughly half (51 percent) of Americans said the national political media “is out of touch with everyday Americans,” compared with 28 percent who said it “understand the issues everyday Americans are facing.”
However, what’s even more problematical for the MSM is that “Donald Trump, a frequent public antagonist of the press, is also slightly more trusted than the national political media. Thirty-seven percent of Americans said they trusted Trump’s White House to tell the truth, while 29 percent opted for the media.”
And then, aside from learning that the new POTUS is seen as more honest then they are, MSM members also have to deal with the fact that their most cherished idol is proving to be more of a greed-driven capitalist than most of the Republicans they find continual fault with.
Claire Atkinson wrote @nypost.com yesterday: “Even as President Obama faced criticism for getting $400,000 for a speech to a Wall Street bank, he pocketed the same amount of money for a second speech, The Post has learned.
“Obama made another $400,000 on Thursday when he appeared at the A&E Networks advertising upfront at The Pierre Hotel. He was interviewed over 90 minutes at the Midtown Manhattan event by presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in front of the cable network’s advertisers.
“Out of office just 98 days, Obama caught some flack earlier this week when it was learned that he had agreed to speak in September at a health care event sponsored by Wall Street bank Cantor Fitzgerald.”
Obama, though, isn’t the only leftist doing exactly the opposite of what he preaches when money is involved.
According to Morgan True @vtdigger.org via Drudge: “The Justice Department was investigating the activities of the now-defunct Burlington College as recently as February, according to emails obtained through a public records request.
“The emails show the U.S. attorney for Vermont and an FBI agent reviewed Burlington College records in the state’s possession earlier this year pursuant to an investigation. Both enforcement agencies declined to comment on the substance of that probe or whether it has been completed.”
Kraig LaPorte, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office along with an FBI spokeswoman cited similar policies, the spokeswoman saying: “It’s typical for us not to comment or to confirm whether or not there’s a current investigation. We would not comment on any active investigation.”
Nonetheless, another source, the chair of the Burlington College board of trustees “said Thursday that the FBI investigation has been going for more than a year, and at least one former school employee was subpoenaed as part of the probe.”
Back in January 2016, “after reporting by VTDigger showing former Burlington College President Jane Sanders overstated pledged donations in applying for a loan so the school could purchase its former North Avenue campus, Republican lawyer Brady Toensing made a formal request to the U.S. attorney for a fraud investigation.”
“The Vermont Agency of Education took possession of records left at the college in the wake of its sudden closure in May. When a college closes, state law requires the school or the state to keep academic records so students can obtain transcripts and graduate certificates.
“These records are of significant public interest because they are relevant to an improper loan that led directly to the college’s demise,” Toensing said.
Although Burlington College board Chair, Yves Bradley, said he has no information about what the FBI is investigating, he still speculated that the probe indeed relates to the school’s purchase of its former North Avenue campus.
“At the end of the day, it’s got to relate back to the purchase of the land by the college,” Bradley said.
While his wife Jane’s embroiled in a questionable loan arranged while she was president of Burlington College, Bernie Sanders himself is having a difficult time with his latest tweet assailing the wealthy, writes Daniel Chaitin @washingtonexaminer.com.
Bernie, who ran a progressive presidential campaign criticizing Wall Street and the rich, tweeted out a message Thursday evening telling billionaires: "You can’t have it all."
The tweet asked: “How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all.”
In response, “Sanders was mercilessly mocked for questioning how yachts and cars billionaires need when he and his wife bought their third house — a $600,000 beachfront residence — in August.”
So, what can be seen in today’s items regarding the loudest proponents against the evils of money and wealth, those at the top of the Democrat party, is that their concerns apply to everyone else but themselves.
Which is why Trump is such an anathema to them. Whereas he not only makes no bones about attaining financial success, he does his best to help everyone else achieve it too.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
The first article comes from Cameron Easley @morningconsult.com who writes about a new Morning Consult poll that’s likely to make many in the media “cringe.”
“In the new poll, roughly half (51 percent) of Americans said the national political media “is out of touch with everyday Americans,” compared with 28 percent who said it “understand the issues everyday Americans are facing.”
However, what’s even more problematical for the MSM is that “Donald Trump, a frequent public antagonist of the press, is also slightly more trusted than the national political media. Thirty-seven percent of Americans said they trusted Trump’s White House to tell the truth, while 29 percent opted for the media.”
And then, aside from learning that the new POTUS is seen as more honest then they are, MSM members also have to deal with the fact that their most cherished idol is proving to be more of a greed-driven capitalist than most of the Republicans they find continual fault with.
Claire Atkinson wrote @nypost.com yesterday: “Even as President Obama faced criticism for getting $400,000 for a speech to a Wall Street bank, he pocketed the same amount of money for a second speech, The Post has learned.
“Obama made another $400,000 on Thursday when he appeared at the A&E Networks advertising upfront at The Pierre Hotel. He was interviewed over 90 minutes at the Midtown Manhattan event by presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in front of the cable network’s advertisers.
“Out of office just 98 days, Obama caught some flack earlier this week when it was learned that he had agreed to speak in September at a health care event sponsored by Wall Street bank Cantor Fitzgerald.”
Obama, though, isn’t the only leftist doing exactly the opposite of what he preaches when money is involved.
According to Morgan True @vtdigger.org via Drudge: “The Justice Department was investigating the activities of the now-defunct Burlington College as recently as February, according to emails obtained through a public records request.
“The emails show the U.S. attorney for Vermont and an FBI agent reviewed Burlington College records in the state’s possession earlier this year pursuant to an investigation. Both enforcement agencies declined to comment on the substance of that probe or whether it has been completed.”
Kraig LaPorte, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office along with an FBI spokeswoman cited similar policies, the spokeswoman saying: “It’s typical for us not to comment or to confirm whether or not there’s a current investigation. We would not comment on any active investigation.”
Nonetheless, another source, the chair of the Burlington College board of trustees “said Thursday that the FBI investigation has been going for more than a year, and at least one former school employee was subpoenaed as part of the probe.”
Back in January 2016, “after reporting by VTDigger showing former Burlington College President Jane Sanders overstated pledged donations in applying for a loan so the school could purchase its former North Avenue campus, Republican lawyer Brady Toensing made a formal request to the U.S. attorney for a fraud investigation.”
“The Vermont Agency of Education took possession of records left at the college in the wake of its sudden closure in May. When a college closes, state law requires the school or the state to keep academic records so students can obtain transcripts and graduate certificates.
“These records are of significant public interest because they are relevant to an improper loan that led directly to the college’s demise,” Toensing said.
Although Burlington College board Chair, Yves Bradley, said he has no information about what the FBI is investigating, he still speculated that the probe indeed relates to the school’s purchase of its former North Avenue campus.
“At the end of the day, it’s got to relate back to the purchase of the land by the college,” Bradley said.
While his wife Jane’s embroiled in a questionable loan arranged while she was president of Burlington College, Bernie Sanders himself is having a difficult time with his latest tweet assailing the wealthy, writes Daniel Chaitin @washingtonexaminer.com.
Bernie, who ran a progressive presidential campaign criticizing Wall Street and the rich, tweeted out a message Thursday evening telling billionaires: "You can’t have it all."
The tweet asked: “How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all.”
In response, “Sanders was mercilessly mocked for questioning how yachts and cars billionaires need when he and his wife bought their third house — a $600,000 beachfront residence — in August.”
So, what can be seen in today’s items regarding the loudest proponents against the evils of money and wealth, those at the top of the Democrat party, is that their concerns apply to everyone else but themselves.
Which is why Trump is such an anathema to them. Whereas he not only makes no bones about attaining financial success, he does his best to help everyone else achieve it too.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, April 27, 2017
BloggeRhythms
As the mainstream media reacts to the POTUS’s tax reform plan, two
alternative possibilities arise regarding their negativity toward his
proposal.
While knee-jerk objections are certainly to be expected, since the subject is taxes two possibilities exist regarding the media’s negativity. The first is simply in keeping with their continual rejection of anything proposed by any Republican, anywhere, anytime, regardless of the issue involved.
The other alternative, and certainly very possible, is that they simply don’t understand the subject in the slightest yet spout their unfounded gibberish anyway.
And as often happens, Rush discussed the subject in well-informed detail yesterday, saying: “I get so tired of it. I get so frustrated watching this stuff. It’s amazing after all these years I’m still sane. I just watched idiocy on CNN. I mean, idiocy above the norm. It’s about tax cuts and what these people are saying about tax cuts. “Well, you know…” They had some babe, some CNN, I don’t know, reporter, analyst, I don’t know who she was. I’ve never seen her before. Don’t know her name. Doesn’t matter. They’re all cookie cutters over there.”
“And this woman is out there saying, “If we’re gonna have tax cuts, we must find a way to pay for them, otherwise the deficit will explode out of control just like happened with Reagan, especially in the first term.” I’m pulling my hair out. Because it’s not what happened. The deficit didn’t grow; the deficit came down. The amount of money that was generated by tax cuts, tax rate cuts, they weren’t tax cuts. They were cuts in the rate. It led to more revenue being created.”
From there Rush explained quite accurately that in eight years, “Reagan almost doubled the amount of revenue that the government collected from taxes.”
Taking the tack that the “woman is obviously brain-dead” and “just repeating and regurgitating in robot-like fashion the drivel and bilge that she’s been taught,” Rush then dispelled another of her propositions wherein she said: “Well, you know, we must start talking about deductions, too, because the Trump administration is only cutting taxes for the very rich and those who want to be very rich, and this is not fair, and we must seriously look at the home mortgage deduction. You know why? You know why? Because the home mortgage deduction is very, very bad. It’s leading us to buy McMansions, and that is not good.”
To that, Rush responded that there are indeed “some ways that government actually does create wealth, but not in the sense we’re talking about. [T]he essential argument here is that when you cut taxes on businesses and on individuals, you leave both with much more income in their possession to do with whatever they choose: to spend it, to invest it, or what have you.”
And that led to the most important point about tax cuts and why they work because “it all ends up circulating in the economy. It is not in government, and it’s not being wasted, it’s not being spent on things to buy votes. It’s being spent on things that improve the lives of people. When businesses benefit from tax cuts, they can hire more employees because their businesses grow. When more people are hired, more taxpayers are created. More people paying taxes equals more money going to Washington.
“It’s simple mathematics. This is the result of reducing tax rates. Reducing tax rates does not reduce tax revenue. Quite the opposite. Reducing tax rates means that taxpayers and businesses keep more of what is theirs. And how they use it grows the economy. Growing the economy means companies get bigger and need more employees. Individuals get wealthier and buy more things. All of this stimulates an economy which is growing.”
Referring to Reagan who believed the tax structure he inherited was “absurd,” Rush rightfully explained that under him “in eight years the top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 28. Now, what happened to government revenue in those eight years? It nearly doubled, from $500 billion to almost a trillion dollars, reducing the marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%. The revenue doubled.”
And it’s the Reagan results that Rush believes are the cause for the Democrat Party’s immediately beginning history revisionism whereas they “could not permit that stat to become common knowledge.”
Getting to specifics, Rush presented the fact that "the top 1% are paying nearly 40% of all income tax revenue. Stop and think of that. The top 1%. You have to have an adjusted gross income of over a million dollars a year to be in the top 1%. Those people are paying nearly 40% of the entire tax burden while it is said the rich aren’t paying their fair share. It’s an out-and-out lie, like all of liberalism is and like most of the Democrat Party is.
“The top 20% are paying 50%. The bottom 50% of wage earners in America are paying zero. The bottom 50% are paying effectively nothing. They are contributing, if you want to use that word, literally nothing. So the reality on the ground is the exact opposite of the way the Democrat Party has positioned all of this. It is inarguable that lowering tax rates — now, you reach a point where you can’t lower them and still create wealth, but we’re not there.”
And as a result of the above, it can be seen as to why the leftist mainstream media most assuredly doesn't want their audiences exposed to factual reality. Because if those in the Democrat base gained employment and any kind of financial success due to an expanding economy, they’d almost assuredly begin voting Republican in the future.
CNN reporters however aren’t the only ones who have nothing of viable value to offer their audiences. Other leftists too have been reduced to babbling inanely in the absence of having anything substantive to offer at all.
Pam Key reports @breitbart.com that: “Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews said President Donald Trump’s “boasts and bragging” was “simian,” adding it was like a “monkey banging with a stick.”
“Matthews said, “The ego here is — well it’s something. By the way, his teeth come out like it’s simian almost. It’s simian, like a monkey banging with a stick, You know, ‘I’m the biggest. I’m the biggest.’ Pounding his chest. It does have a simian quality to it, I mean primordial, I should say.”
Members of the audience, however, proved once again their awareness of the realities regarding the media.
Lance1234 commented: “Had anyone dared compare Obama to a simian of any sort for any reason, Matthews would have immediately launched into a diatribe against the racist who would dare do it.”
thats MR Deporable to you! added: “This proves that the left is so completely rattled that this all they have left....name-calling and insults.”
That's it for today folks.
Adios
While knee-jerk objections are certainly to be expected, since the subject is taxes two possibilities exist regarding the media’s negativity. The first is simply in keeping with their continual rejection of anything proposed by any Republican, anywhere, anytime, regardless of the issue involved.
The other alternative, and certainly very possible, is that they simply don’t understand the subject in the slightest yet spout their unfounded gibberish anyway.
And as often happens, Rush discussed the subject in well-informed detail yesterday, saying: “I get so tired of it. I get so frustrated watching this stuff. It’s amazing after all these years I’m still sane. I just watched idiocy on CNN. I mean, idiocy above the norm. It’s about tax cuts and what these people are saying about tax cuts. “Well, you know…” They had some babe, some CNN, I don’t know, reporter, analyst, I don’t know who she was. I’ve never seen her before. Don’t know her name. Doesn’t matter. They’re all cookie cutters over there.”
“And this woman is out there saying, “If we’re gonna have tax cuts, we must find a way to pay for them, otherwise the deficit will explode out of control just like happened with Reagan, especially in the first term.” I’m pulling my hair out. Because it’s not what happened. The deficit didn’t grow; the deficit came down. The amount of money that was generated by tax cuts, tax rate cuts, they weren’t tax cuts. They were cuts in the rate. It led to more revenue being created.”
From there Rush explained quite accurately that in eight years, “Reagan almost doubled the amount of revenue that the government collected from taxes.”
Taking the tack that the “woman is obviously brain-dead” and “just repeating and regurgitating in robot-like fashion the drivel and bilge that she’s been taught,” Rush then dispelled another of her propositions wherein she said: “Well, you know, we must start talking about deductions, too, because the Trump administration is only cutting taxes for the very rich and those who want to be very rich, and this is not fair, and we must seriously look at the home mortgage deduction. You know why? You know why? Because the home mortgage deduction is very, very bad. It’s leading us to buy McMansions, and that is not good.”
To that, Rush responded that there are indeed “some ways that government actually does create wealth, but not in the sense we’re talking about. [T]he essential argument here is that when you cut taxes on businesses and on individuals, you leave both with much more income in their possession to do with whatever they choose: to spend it, to invest it, or what have you.”
And that led to the most important point about tax cuts and why they work because “it all ends up circulating in the economy. It is not in government, and it’s not being wasted, it’s not being spent on things to buy votes. It’s being spent on things that improve the lives of people. When businesses benefit from tax cuts, they can hire more employees because their businesses grow. When more people are hired, more taxpayers are created. More people paying taxes equals more money going to Washington.
“It’s simple mathematics. This is the result of reducing tax rates. Reducing tax rates does not reduce tax revenue. Quite the opposite. Reducing tax rates means that taxpayers and businesses keep more of what is theirs. And how they use it grows the economy. Growing the economy means companies get bigger and need more employees. Individuals get wealthier and buy more things. All of this stimulates an economy which is growing.”
Referring to Reagan who believed the tax structure he inherited was “absurd,” Rush rightfully explained that under him “in eight years the top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 28. Now, what happened to government revenue in those eight years? It nearly doubled, from $500 billion to almost a trillion dollars, reducing the marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%. The revenue doubled.”
And it’s the Reagan results that Rush believes are the cause for the Democrat Party’s immediately beginning history revisionism whereas they “could not permit that stat to become common knowledge.”
Getting to specifics, Rush presented the fact that "the top 1% are paying nearly 40% of all income tax revenue. Stop and think of that. The top 1%. You have to have an adjusted gross income of over a million dollars a year to be in the top 1%. Those people are paying nearly 40% of the entire tax burden while it is said the rich aren’t paying their fair share. It’s an out-and-out lie, like all of liberalism is and like most of the Democrat Party is.
“The top 20% are paying 50%. The bottom 50% of wage earners in America are paying zero. The bottom 50% are paying effectively nothing. They are contributing, if you want to use that word, literally nothing. So the reality on the ground is the exact opposite of the way the Democrat Party has positioned all of this. It is inarguable that lowering tax rates — now, you reach a point where you can’t lower them and still create wealth, but we’re not there.”
And as a result of the above, it can be seen as to why the leftist mainstream media most assuredly doesn't want their audiences exposed to factual reality. Because if those in the Democrat base gained employment and any kind of financial success due to an expanding economy, they’d almost assuredly begin voting Republican in the future.
CNN reporters however aren’t the only ones who have nothing of viable value to offer their audiences. Other leftists too have been reduced to babbling inanely in the absence of having anything substantive to offer at all.
Pam Key reports @breitbart.com that: “Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews said President Donald Trump’s “boasts and bragging” was “simian,” adding it was like a “monkey banging with a stick.”
“Matthews said, “The ego here is — well it’s something. By the way, his teeth come out like it’s simian almost. It’s simian, like a monkey banging with a stick, You know, ‘I’m the biggest. I’m the biggest.’ Pounding his chest. It does have a simian quality to it, I mean primordial, I should say.”
Members of the audience, however, proved once again their awareness of the realities regarding the media.
Lance1234 commented: “Had anyone dared compare Obama to a simian of any sort for any reason, Matthews would have immediately launched into a diatribe against the racist who would dare do it.”
thats MR Deporable to you! added: “This proves that the left is so completely rattled that this all they have left....name-calling and insults.”
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
BloggeRhythms
Today’s another in which the new POTUS continues fulfilling campaign promises
while Democrats persist in chasing their tails as they take their party further
backward.
According to FoxNews.com, today President Trump “ordered the Interior Department to review national monument designations dating back 20 years for millions of acres of land, arguing former presidents have “abused” the system and vowing to return such authority to citizens and state lawmakers.”
“Today, we are giving power back to the states and people where it belongs,” Trump said in signing the executive order at the Interior Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. “This massive federal land grab; it’s gotten worse and worse.”
Vowing to end the “abuses” he said the law also gives federal government “unlimited power to lock up millions of acres of land and water” and that it has been used on hundreds of millions of acres.
“The executive order targets protections from the past three presidents and two spots in Utah: former President Barack Obama’s designation of the 1.35 million-acre Bear Ears National Monument in Utah and former President Bill Clinton’s designation in 1996 of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said before the signing: “Let me be clear, this executive order does not reverse any monument designation.”
While the national monument executive order is intended to return power and control to the people, where it belongs, Trump also displayed a different attitude toward involving others regarding serious situations facing the nation.
Edmund DeMarche, also @FoxNews.com, reports: “In an unusual move, all 100 senators were invited to attend a classified meeting later Wednesday at the White House to discuss the North Korea and its growing bellicosity.”
Some of Trump’s top cabinet members will attend the meeting to provide input to the attendees, “including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—who will chair the meeting-- and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.”
Thus we have a major departure from the past where it was far more common to read items such as this one from Steve Holland @reuters.com on January 29, 2014:
“President Barack Obama vowed on Tuesday to bypass a divided Congress and take action on his own to bolster America's middle class in a State of the Union address that he used to try to breathe new life into his second term after a troubled year.
“Standing in the House of Representatives chamber before lawmakers, Supreme Court justices and VIP guests, Obama declared his independence from Congress by unveiling a series of executive orders and decisions - moves likely to inflame already tense relations between the Democratic president and Republicans.”
While the differences between the new POTUS and his predecessor are enormous, the MSM has either failed to grasp the positive swing taking place in the nation or is purposefully distorting it. This can be seen in an article by Rob Lever @afp via yahoo.com via Drudge this morning, as follows: .
“Newspapers such as the New York Times have seen a significant bounce in circulation since Trump's victory last November and cable news networks have also enjoyed a ratings rise.
"You can attribute a lot of that to Donald Trump," said Dan Kennedy, a Northeastern University journalism professor, said there is more interest in news because it is a time of "great anxiety."
“A key question for the media is whether the bump in ratings and subscriptions is temporary or indicative of a trend.
"It may end up being more sustainable than we might think even if Trump goes away," said Kennedy.
"There is so much concern over fake news, and the garbage that is shared on Facebook," he added. "We are seeing a flight to quality."
However, while there certainly may be more interest in the news, the professor has got his facts reversed. That’s because most well-informed readers know that there’s a far better chance of finding truth and accuracy on Facebook links than leftist propaganda machines like the New York Times, LA Times or Washington Post.
Reader sparky2, summed it all up this way:
“Probably the most significant of all this, is that Trump won! And he did it with every network, except Fox News, condemning him from the very first day he became a candidate. And on every network, every night it was anti-Trump as their lead stories for almost 2 years...and he won! Amazing. And shows that the credibility of the media is so low, that the more they condemn Trump the more solid he gets. The latest polls showing that 96% of the people who voted for him would do so again! That is an astounding number especially after the media's ongoing attacks.”
And then there’s a story that certainly should have been expected, because it provides the details of what AlGore’s objective has been all along in his relentless selling of the global-warming farce.
Michael Bastasch @dailycaller.com reports that: “A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.
“The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum [$15 trillion total] do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.
“ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz4fNGDnLW8
Reader Cody McLuvin commented: “Many years ago I felt sorry for Al Gore. Now I have nothing but contempt for him. Love the way he flies private jets around the world, leaving a footprint probably a million times mine, then lectures me on global warming - the biggest fraud of all time.”
The comment received 648 “Likes.”
JapaneseRamenNoodle added: “You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to agree to this fringe organization's demand.”
263 "Likes" for this one.
And then Rush had a few thoughts too: “Well, there isn’t any. There isn’t any man-made climate change. It can’t be proven, it has not been established, there is no science on it, settled or otherwise. It has never once been established that man has a damn thing to do with the climate, the weather, the temperature, what have you. And the proof is that we can’t stop any kind of weather. We’re causing it, apparently. If that’s true, then why can’t we stop it? Tornado coming, why can’t we go out there like Fidel Castro does and stand up to it, put our arm out and say, “Not here. Not here. You will hit Georgia.”
“And why doesn’t it turn to Georgia and go destroy them? Why does it come right at us and kill us, while we’re out there standing — we can’t stop it. Same thing with a hurricane. What it takes to advance movements like this is absolute empty-headed total believers, nonthinkers, fraudulently educated. Arrogant fools are necessary to keep narratives like this alive.
“And the mistake we make, like in climate change, a mistake we’ve made from the beginning in fighting it is to fight it on the science. There isn’t any! They make it up. Tree rings, ice cores, whatever it is, hockey stick, preordained paleocentric period. “No, the preordained paleocentric period, according to our research –” we’ve lost everybody. It’s a political argument they’re having. We made the mistake of fighting the science, when there isn’t any.”
However, while the warming farce has been a hot button issue for Rush for many years [no pun intended,] there actually is supporting science available. Such as this from Marc Morano @climatedepot.com:
“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since May 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.
“It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climatereport that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.
“But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 8 months since May 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.”
Yet, despite the supporting science proving that Rush is correct in his premise that global-warming doesn’t exist, he’s overlooking the most important fact of all. AlGore wants the money.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
According to FoxNews.com, today President Trump “ordered the Interior Department to review national monument designations dating back 20 years for millions of acres of land, arguing former presidents have “abused” the system and vowing to return such authority to citizens and state lawmakers.”
“Today, we are giving power back to the states and people where it belongs,” Trump said in signing the executive order at the Interior Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. “This massive federal land grab; it’s gotten worse and worse.”
Vowing to end the “abuses” he said the law also gives federal government “unlimited power to lock up millions of acres of land and water” and that it has been used on hundreds of millions of acres.
“The executive order targets protections from the past three presidents and two spots in Utah: former President Barack Obama’s designation of the 1.35 million-acre Bear Ears National Monument in Utah and former President Bill Clinton’s designation in 1996 of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said before the signing: “Let me be clear, this executive order does not reverse any monument designation.”
While the national monument executive order is intended to return power and control to the people, where it belongs, Trump also displayed a different attitude toward involving others regarding serious situations facing the nation.
Edmund DeMarche, also @FoxNews.com, reports: “In an unusual move, all 100 senators were invited to attend a classified meeting later Wednesday at the White House to discuss the North Korea and its growing bellicosity.”
Some of Trump’s top cabinet members will attend the meeting to provide input to the attendees, “including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—who will chair the meeting-- and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.”
Thus we have a major departure from the past where it was far more common to read items such as this one from Steve Holland @reuters.com on January 29, 2014:
“President Barack Obama vowed on Tuesday to bypass a divided Congress and take action on his own to bolster America's middle class in a State of the Union address that he used to try to breathe new life into his second term after a troubled year.
“Standing in the House of Representatives chamber before lawmakers, Supreme Court justices and VIP guests, Obama declared his independence from Congress by unveiling a series of executive orders and decisions - moves likely to inflame already tense relations between the Democratic president and Republicans.”
While the differences between the new POTUS and his predecessor are enormous, the MSM has either failed to grasp the positive swing taking place in the nation or is purposefully distorting it. This can be seen in an article by Rob Lever @afp via yahoo.com via Drudge this morning, as follows: .
“Newspapers such as the New York Times have seen a significant bounce in circulation since Trump's victory last November and cable news networks have also enjoyed a ratings rise.
"You can attribute a lot of that to Donald Trump," said Dan Kennedy, a Northeastern University journalism professor, said there is more interest in news because it is a time of "great anxiety."
“A key question for the media is whether the bump in ratings and subscriptions is temporary or indicative of a trend.
"It may end up being more sustainable than we might think even if Trump goes away," said Kennedy.
"There is so much concern over fake news, and the garbage that is shared on Facebook," he added. "We are seeing a flight to quality."
However, while there certainly may be more interest in the news, the professor has got his facts reversed. That’s because most well-informed readers know that there’s a far better chance of finding truth and accuracy on Facebook links than leftist propaganda machines like the New York Times, LA Times or Washington Post.
Reader sparky2, summed it all up this way:
“Probably the most significant of all this, is that Trump won! And he did it with every network, except Fox News, condemning him from the very first day he became a candidate. And on every network, every night it was anti-Trump as their lead stories for almost 2 years...and he won! Amazing. And shows that the credibility of the media is so low, that the more they condemn Trump the more solid he gets. The latest polls showing that 96% of the people who voted for him would do so again! That is an astounding number especially after the media's ongoing attacks.”
And then there’s a story that certainly should have been expected, because it provides the details of what AlGore’s objective has been all along in his relentless selling of the global-warming farce.
Michael Bastasch @dailycaller.com reports that: “A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.
“The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum [$15 trillion total] do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.
“ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz4fNGDnLW8
Reader Cody McLuvin commented: “Many years ago I felt sorry for Al Gore. Now I have nothing but contempt for him. Love the way he flies private jets around the world, leaving a footprint probably a million times mine, then lectures me on global warming - the biggest fraud of all time.”
The comment received 648 “Likes.”
JapaneseRamenNoodle added: “You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to agree to this fringe organization's demand.”
263 "Likes" for this one.
And then Rush had a few thoughts too: “Well, there isn’t any. There isn’t any man-made climate change. It can’t be proven, it has not been established, there is no science on it, settled or otherwise. It has never once been established that man has a damn thing to do with the climate, the weather, the temperature, what have you. And the proof is that we can’t stop any kind of weather. We’re causing it, apparently. If that’s true, then why can’t we stop it? Tornado coming, why can’t we go out there like Fidel Castro does and stand up to it, put our arm out and say, “Not here. Not here. You will hit Georgia.”
“And why doesn’t it turn to Georgia and go destroy them? Why does it come right at us and kill us, while we’re out there standing — we can’t stop it. Same thing with a hurricane. What it takes to advance movements like this is absolute empty-headed total believers, nonthinkers, fraudulently educated. Arrogant fools are necessary to keep narratives like this alive.
“And the mistake we make, like in climate change, a mistake we’ve made from the beginning in fighting it is to fight it on the science. There isn’t any! They make it up. Tree rings, ice cores, whatever it is, hockey stick, preordained paleocentric period. “No, the preordained paleocentric period, according to our research –” we’ve lost everybody. It’s a political argument they’re having. We made the mistake of fighting the science, when there isn’t any.”
However, while the warming farce has been a hot button issue for Rush for many years [no pun intended,] there actually is supporting science available. Such as this from Marc Morano @climatedepot.com:
“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since May 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.
“It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climatereport that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.
“But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 8 months since May 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.”
Yet, despite the supporting science proving that Rush is correct in his premise that global-warming doesn’t exist, he’s overlooking the most important fact of all. AlGore wants the money.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
BloggeRhythms
Today’s one where subtle shifts taking place in the world of politics are
becoming far more obvious. Particularly regarding two significant entity’s, Fox
News and the former POTUS Obama.
As a frequent visitor to the Fox News website it’s been rather clear for quite a while now that with Rupert Murdoch handing his offspring the reins, the network’s moving considerably left.
Substantiation of the leftward movement can be seen, as has been mentioned here before, by the continual presence of an article by Dana Blanton originally published on FoxNews.com on March 15, 2017.
Headlined “Fox News Poll: Trump approval slips, even as more feel economy improving,” the column contains praise of the economic upswing while also putting the new POTUS in the dimmest of light possible, as follows:
“Voters think President Trump is ahead of most previous presidents on fulfilling campaign promises, and the most voters in more than a decade see an improving economy. Yet that isn’t enough to put the president’s job rating in positive territory, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.”
In this case, the column’s verbiage is secondary to the fact that website viewers eyes will catch the headline and its bold message which is old “news,” yet has almost undoubtedly been left there as an ongoing reminder that the president’s job rating wasn’t in “positive territory.”
Rush also picked upon the same theme yesterday, discussing a news article he’d read in the Washington Post. Rush said: “Trump’s approval number all-time low, modern times, new president, end of hundred-day honeymoon, blah, blah, blah. You have to read all the way to the second-to-last paragraph to learn that Donald Trump, with the lowest approval ratings and the highest unpopularity in the modern era, would still beat Hillary Clinton if the election were held today. And not just the Electoral College, he would win the popular vote.
“Second-to-last paragraph of a long story that had shown that Clinton would still lose despite high disapproval ratings and problems with his first 100 days, detailed by the paper. It says the new survey finds 46% saying they voted for Clinton, 43% said they voted for Trump. And that might be fairly close to accurate if you acknowledge that these polling results represent the popular vote back in November. And that’s similar to Hillary’s two-point national vote margin in the actual election.
“These same respondents, it was 1,004 people, “Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 43 say they would support Trump and 40 percent say Clinton.”
“Well, this is quite a plunge. When you have in 2012 people acknowledging that the Democrat Party is in touch with them and understands their needs and cares about people like them to now 67% think the Democrat Party’s out of touch. The Republican Party it’s around 53, don’t misunderstand. Both parties are in the 30’s in terms of in touch, care about me. But the Democrat Party’s where the gigantic plunge has taken place here. Sixty-seven percent say the Democrats are out of touch with their concerns. And again you have to dig deep to find this.”
Yet, despite all the interpretation and hyperbole that comes from the media, pundits and commentators regarding what’s transpiring across the nation, other far more indicative evidence of citizen’s true feelings can be found in news items needing little or no clarification at all.
A steadily growing positive attitude among everyday people comes from Diana Olick who writes @cnbc.com: “Even as more homes come on the market for this traditionally popular sales season, they're flying off fast, with bidding wars par for the course. Home prices have now surpassed their last peak, and at the entry level, where demand is highest, sellers are firmly in the driver's seat.
"I've been selling real estate for 25 years and this is the strongest seller's market I have ever seen in my entire real estate career," said David Fogg, a real estate agent with Keller Williams in Burbank, California. "A lot of our sellers are optimistically pricing their homes in today's market, and I have to say in most cases we're getting the home sold anyway."
Fred Imbert also reported @cnbc.com: “U.S. equities got off to a strong start on Tuesday as solid quarterly reports from several large-cap companies rolled through.
“The Nasdaq composite jumped about 0.5 percent, sending the index above 6,000 for this first time ever. The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 200 points, with Caterpillar contributing the most gains. The S&P 500 advanced 0.5 percent, with financials and materials rising more than 1 percent to lead advancers.
“Here are some of the firms that posted quarterly results before the bell:
On another, hot button topic, illegal immigration, Kyle Olson wrote @theamericanmirror.com: “Arizona ranchers John Ladd and Fred Davis invited House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see the southern border from their property, but she never responded.
“But they responded this morning to Pelosi’s recent claim that the border wall is “immoral, expensive, unwise.”
“Appearing on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, Ladd said border crossings by illegal aliens have decreased 90% to 95% since Donald Trump took office.
“Perhaps more shockingly, Ladd has determined through Border Patrol data that some 500,000 illegal aliens have crossed his property in the 30 years he’s owned it.
“Davis disputed Pelosi’s notion that a wall would divide border towns.
“All the communities that I know about, all the cities along the border, already have high fences,” he told co-host Steve Doocy, disputing Pelosi’s argument.
“Where the wall is necessary is in a lot of the outlying areas that still only have a four-wire barbed-wire fence between Mexico and us.”
And, most importantly is something having nothing to do with “immorality” regarding typical illegal entrants at all: Davis said the wall is one tool that’s necessary to stop drug cartels and other criminals from entering the U.S.”
And now that major items have been covered illustrating the significant change for the better in two major categories, the economy and border crossings, both of which are moving in a positive direction under Trump, it seems that even Obama is taking his first shot at personally benefiting from pure and outright capitalism.
Yesterday Fox News reported that: “Former President Barack Obama, less than 100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000, which is nearly twice as much as Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016 Democratic Party candidate, charged private businesses for such events.
“Obama has agreed to speak at Cantor’s health care conference in September and will be the keynote luncheon speaker for one day during the event, people at the firm tell FOX Business. These people say Obama has signed the contract, but the company, a mid-sized New York-based investment bank, is waiting to coordinate with the former president before making a formal announcement.”
The news is remindful of a scene at the end of the movie Arthur where after his fiancé Linda attends to his wounds, the couple discuss living a life of poverty. Arthur’s horrified grandmother Martha tells him that he can have his fortune because no Bach has ever been working class. Arthur declines, but at the last minute, talks privately to Martha. When he returns to Linda's side, he tells her that he declined again – Martha's dinner invitation, he means - but he did accept $750 million. Arthur's pleased chauffeur Bitterman then drives the couple through Central Park. (info obtained from Wikipedia.)
Thus, just like Arthur, while typical leftist leaders like Obama endlessly spout about their dedication to the helpless, they’re always sure to abscond with as much as possible for themselves first, foremost and forevermore.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
As a frequent visitor to the Fox News website it’s been rather clear for quite a while now that with Rupert Murdoch handing his offspring the reins, the network’s moving considerably left.
Substantiation of the leftward movement can be seen, as has been mentioned here before, by the continual presence of an article by Dana Blanton originally published on FoxNews.com on March 15, 2017.
Headlined “Fox News Poll: Trump approval slips, even as more feel economy improving,” the column contains praise of the economic upswing while also putting the new POTUS in the dimmest of light possible, as follows:
“Voters think President Trump is ahead of most previous presidents on fulfilling campaign promises, and the most voters in more than a decade see an improving economy. Yet that isn’t enough to put the president’s job rating in positive territory, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.”
In this case, the column’s verbiage is secondary to the fact that website viewers eyes will catch the headline and its bold message which is old “news,” yet has almost undoubtedly been left there as an ongoing reminder that the president’s job rating wasn’t in “positive territory.”
Rush also picked upon the same theme yesterday, discussing a news article he’d read in the Washington Post. Rush said: “Trump’s approval number all-time low, modern times, new president, end of hundred-day honeymoon, blah, blah, blah. You have to read all the way to the second-to-last paragraph to learn that Donald Trump, with the lowest approval ratings and the highest unpopularity in the modern era, would still beat Hillary Clinton if the election were held today. And not just the Electoral College, he would win the popular vote.
“Second-to-last paragraph of a long story that had shown that Clinton would still lose despite high disapproval ratings and problems with his first 100 days, detailed by the paper. It says the new survey finds 46% saying they voted for Clinton, 43% said they voted for Trump. And that might be fairly close to accurate if you acknowledge that these polling results represent the popular vote back in November. And that’s similar to Hillary’s two-point national vote margin in the actual election.
“These same respondents, it was 1,004 people, “Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 43 say they would support Trump and 40 percent say Clinton.”
“Well, this is quite a plunge. When you have in 2012 people acknowledging that the Democrat Party is in touch with them and understands their needs and cares about people like them to now 67% think the Democrat Party’s out of touch. The Republican Party it’s around 53, don’t misunderstand. Both parties are in the 30’s in terms of in touch, care about me. But the Democrat Party’s where the gigantic plunge has taken place here. Sixty-seven percent say the Democrats are out of touch with their concerns. And again you have to dig deep to find this.”
Yet, despite all the interpretation and hyperbole that comes from the media, pundits and commentators regarding what’s transpiring across the nation, other far more indicative evidence of citizen’s true feelings can be found in news items needing little or no clarification at all.
A steadily growing positive attitude among everyday people comes from Diana Olick who writes @cnbc.com: “Even as more homes come on the market for this traditionally popular sales season, they're flying off fast, with bidding wars par for the course. Home prices have now surpassed their last peak, and at the entry level, where demand is highest, sellers are firmly in the driver's seat.
"I've been selling real estate for 25 years and this is the strongest seller's market I have ever seen in my entire real estate career," said David Fogg, a real estate agent with Keller Williams in Burbank, California. "A lot of our sellers are optimistically pricing their homes in today's market, and I have to say in most cases we're getting the home sold anyway."
Fred Imbert also reported @cnbc.com: “U.S. equities got off to a strong start on Tuesday as solid quarterly reports from several large-cap companies rolled through.
“The Nasdaq composite jumped about 0.5 percent, sending the index above 6,000 for this first time ever. The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 200 points, with Caterpillar contributing the most gains. The S&P 500 advanced 0.5 percent, with financials and materials rising more than 1 percent to lead advancers.
“Here are some of the firms that posted quarterly results before the bell:
- Caterpillar: posted EPS of $1.28 and sales of $9.822 billion, versus expected EPS of 62 cents and $9.271 billion revenue forecast.
- McDonald's: posted EPS of $1.47 and revenue of $5.68 billion, versus expected EPS of $1.33 and sales of $5.53 billion.
- 3M: posted EPS of $2.16 and revenue of $7.685 billion, versus expected EPS of $2.06 and sales of $7.472 billion.
- DuPont: posted EPS of $1.64 and sales of $7.743 billion, versus expected EPS of $1.39 and revenue of $7.504 billion.
On another, hot button topic, illegal immigration, Kyle Olson wrote @theamericanmirror.com: “Arizona ranchers John Ladd and Fred Davis invited House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see the southern border from their property, but she never responded.
“But they responded this morning to Pelosi’s recent claim that the border wall is “immoral, expensive, unwise.”
“Appearing on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, Ladd said border crossings by illegal aliens have decreased 90% to 95% since Donald Trump took office.
“Perhaps more shockingly, Ladd has determined through Border Patrol data that some 500,000 illegal aliens have crossed his property in the 30 years he’s owned it.
“Davis disputed Pelosi’s notion that a wall would divide border towns.
“All the communities that I know about, all the cities along the border, already have high fences,” he told co-host Steve Doocy, disputing Pelosi’s argument.
“Where the wall is necessary is in a lot of the outlying areas that still only have a four-wire barbed-wire fence between Mexico and us.”
And, most importantly is something having nothing to do with “immorality” regarding typical illegal entrants at all: Davis said the wall is one tool that’s necessary to stop drug cartels and other criminals from entering the U.S.”
And now that major items have been covered illustrating the significant change for the better in two major categories, the economy and border crossings, both of which are moving in a positive direction under Trump, it seems that even Obama is taking his first shot at personally benefiting from pure and outright capitalism.
Yesterday Fox News reported that: “Former President Barack Obama, less than 100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000, which is nearly twice as much as Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016 Democratic Party candidate, charged private businesses for such events.
“Obama has agreed to speak at Cantor’s health care conference in September and will be the keynote luncheon speaker for one day during the event, people at the firm tell FOX Business. These people say Obama has signed the contract, but the company, a mid-sized New York-based investment bank, is waiting to coordinate with the former president before making a formal announcement.”
The news is remindful of a scene at the end of the movie Arthur where after his fiancé Linda attends to his wounds, the couple discuss living a life of poverty. Arthur’s horrified grandmother Martha tells him that he can have his fortune because no Bach has ever been working class. Arthur declines, but at the last minute, talks privately to Martha. When he returns to Linda's side, he tells her that he declined again – Martha's dinner invitation, he means - but he did accept $750 million. Arthur's pleased chauffeur Bitterman then drives the couple through Central Park. (info obtained from Wikipedia.)
Thus, just like Arthur, while typical leftist leaders like Obama endlessly spout about their dedication to the helpless, they’re always sure to abscond with as much as possible for themselves first, foremost and forevermore.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, April 24, 2017
BloggeRhythms
An item in today’s news suggests that the swing in U.S. politics, and other
nations around the world, has finally sunk in for Bernie Sanders.
Yesterday, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sanders “declared the model of the Democratic Party was failing and pointed to Republican dominance in not just Congress, but in the states as well.”
Further confirmation of “Republican dominance was reflected in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that “43 percent said they would support Trump if the election were held today, compared with 40 percent for the former Democratic nominee, Clinton.”
In explanation of his awakening Sanders said: “Well, I think what is clear to anyone who looks at where the Democratic Party today is, that the model of the Democratic Party is failing. We have a Republican president who ran as a candidate as the most unpopular candidate in modern history of this country. Republicans control the House, the Senate, two-thirds of governor’s chairs and in the last eight years they have picked up 900 legislative seats. Clearly, the Democratic Party has to change.”
And then, Sanders presented what he sees as what his party must do to regain their “control” again. Which is mentioned here because, after accurately defining the Democrats problem, his solution is the same tired old mantra he and his party have been spouting for years and years.
Sanders said: “And in my view what it has to become is a grassroots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up, a party which is more dependent on small donations than large donations, a party, john, that speaks to the pain of the working class in this country. The middle class is shrinking. 43 million people living in poverty,” he continued. “Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1%. People can’t afford to send their kids to college. They can’t afford childcare. They can’t afford health care. The Democratic Party has to take the lead, rallying young people, working people, stand up to the billionaire class, and when we do that, you’re going to see voter turnout swell. You’re going to see people coming in and running for office. You’re going to see Democrats regain control of the United States Congress.”
A reader, JOBO, put the situation into a succinct paragraph that is mirrored by most others who responded to Sanders outdated rhetoric.
"Most unpopular candidate in modern history?" I believe that was the totally dishonest and corrupt Hillary! The libtards still don't get it! They promote surrendering our borders, rewarding criminal aliens for violating our laws, engage in aiding and abetting, creating "sexual constructs" for mentally disturbed people, encouraging seditious lawlessness, and then don't have the courage to confront the totally corrupt medieval and barbaric Islamic ideology undermining multiple democracies in the Western world! I am a lifetime union member who voted Democratic 80% of the time, but rest assured, after the liberal chaos I have witnessed since Trump WON the election---NEVER AGAIN!!
At the very same time Sanders was pushing for party unity, Democrat National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said “every Democrat” should be pro-choice -- no exceptions.”
The statement drew a swift rebuke from a top leader of his own party, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who appeared Sunday on NBC's “Meet The Press.
Asked if a Democratic politician could be pro-life, Pelosi replied unequivocally: “Of course, I have served many years in Congress with members who have not shared my very positive – my family would say aggressive – position on promoting a woman’s right to choose.”
Nonetheless, while the Democrats have been showing signs of disarray for quite some time now, they're not alone in losing touch with their base. The new POTUS too faces self-caused ramifications from changing positions on issues he ran on.
In today’s case, the subject is global-warming which is addressed in an open letter to Trump from climate expert, Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, found in an article @breitbart.com by Duane Thresher.
Dr. Williams “has urged the President not to give in to his daughter Ivanka’s misguided views on global warming and her insistence that the U.S. remain in the Paris climate agreement ratified by Barack Obama last August.”
In his letter, made available to Breitbart News, Dr. Williams wrote: “Climate treaties like the Paris Agreement have little to do with climate. They are about economic competition. As the greatest economy in the history of the world, other countries will do anything to cripple the United States.”
“Thresher, who has a PhD in Earth & Environmental Sciences from Columbia University and NASA GISS and worked for years in climate monitoring, says he understands the President’s temptation to listen to his daughter’s advice, but begs him not to give in to that temptation.
“Countries like China will agree to anything in these treaties and simply ignore their obligations while demanding the United States fulfill theirs,” Thresher said, calling belief in global warming a “popular delusion.”
The situation relates to today’s theme regarding politicians who lose touch with their base whereas: “In his letter, Dr. Thresher also reminded President Trump of his campaign promises that led many Americans to vote for him.
“We who voted for you consider stopping this climate change madness one of your key promises,” Thresher said. “If you renege on it you will lose me and many others as supporters.”
And in that regard, Dr. Thresher was absolutely correct as confirmed by 2808 reader comments the vast majority similar to the ones shown below:
Old Goat wrote: “That will be the final straw, for me. I supported Trump all the way, and his campaign promises were something to behold. If, after such a short time, he is reneging on so many of them, then I'm afraid I'm no longer interested in him. Shame, after such a promising start.”
Deplorable all day long commented: “Trump will not survive in politics if he makes any more major decisions based on Ivanka’s screwed up liberal world view.”
Thus, it’s now in Trump’s court to decide whether to listen to those who voted him into office, or abandon them by aligning with his daughter.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Yesterday, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sanders “declared the model of the Democratic Party was failing and pointed to Republican dominance in not just Congress, but in the states as well.”
Further confirmation of “Republican dominance was reflected in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that “43 percent said they would support Trump if the election were held today, compared with 40 percent for the former Democratic nominee, Clinton.”
In explanation of his awakening Sanders said: “Well, I think what is clear to anyone who looks at where the Democratic Party today is, that the model of the Democratic Party is failing. We have a Republican president who ran as a candidate as the most unpopular candidate in modern history of this country. Republicans control the House, the Senate, two-thirds of governor’s chairs and in the last eight years they have picked up 900 legislative seats. Clearly, the Democratic Party has to change.”
And then, Sanders presented what he sees as what his party must do to regain their “control” again. Which is mentioned here because, after accurately defining the Democrats problem, his solution is the same tired old mantra he and his party have been spouting for years and years.
Sanders said: “And in my view what it has to become is a grassroots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up, a party which is more dependent on small donations than large donations, a party, john, that speaks to the pain of the working class in this country. The middle class is shrinking. 43 million people living in poverty,” he continued. “Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1%. People can’t afford to send their kids to college. They can’t afford childcare. They can’t afford health care. The Democratic Party has to take the lead, rallying young people, working people, stand up to the billionaire class, and when we do that, you’re going to see voter turnout swell. You’re going to see people coming in and running for office. You’re going to see Democrats regain control of the United States Congress.”
A reader, JOBO, put the situation into a succinct paragraph that is mirrored by most others who responded to Sanders outdated rhetoric.
"Most unpopular candidate in modern history?" I believe that was the totally dishonest and corrupt Hillary! The libtards still don't get it! They promote surrendering our borders, rewarding criminal aliens for violating our laws, engage in aiding and abetting, creating "sexual constructs" for mentally disturbed people, encouraging seditious lawlessness, and then don't have the courage to confront the totally corrupt medieval and barbaric Islamic ideology undermining multiple democracies in the Western world! I am a lifetime union member who voted Democratic 80% of the time, but rest assured, after the liberal chaos I have witnessed since Trump WON the election---NEVER AGAIN!!
At the very same time Sanders was pushing for party unity, Democrat National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said “every Democrat” should be pro-choice -- no exceptions.”
The statement drew a swift rebuke from a top leader of his own party, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who appeared Sunday on NBC's “Meet The Press.
Asked if a Democratic politician could be pro-life, Pelosi replied unequivocally: “Of course, I have served many years in Congress with members who have not shared my very positive – my family would say aggressive – position on promoting a woman’s right to choose.”
Nonetheless, while the Democrats have been showing signs of disarray for quite some time now, they're not alone in losing touch with their base. The new POTUS too faces self-caused ramifications from changing positions on issues he ran on.
In today’s case, the subject is global-warming which is addressed in an open letter to Trump from climate expert, Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, found in an article @breitbart.com by Duane Thresher.
Dr. Williams “has urged the President not to give in to his daughter Ivanka’s misguided views on global warming and her insistence that the U.S. remain in the Paris climate agreement ratified by Barack Obama last August.”
In his letter, made available to Breitbart News, Dr. Williams wrote: “Climate treaties like the Paris Agreement have little to do with climate. They are about economic competition. As the greatest economy in the history of the world, other countries will do anything to cripple the United States.”
“Thresher, who has a PhD in Earth & Environmental Sciences from Columbia University and NASA GISS and worked for years in climate monitoring, says he understands the President’s temptation to listen to his daughter’s advice, but begs him not to give in to that temptation.
“Countries like China will agree to anything in these treaties and simply ignore their obligations while demanding the United States fulfill theirs,” Thresher said, calling belief in global warming a “popular delusion.”
The situation relates to today’s theme regarding politicians who lose touch with their base whereas: “In his letter, Dr. Thresher also reminded President Trump of his campaign promises that led many Americans to vote for him.
“We who voted for you consider stopping this climate change madness one of your key promises,” Thresher said. “If you renege on it you will lose me and many others as supporters.”
And in that regard, Dr. Thresher was absolutely correct as confirmed by 2808 reader comments the vast majority similar to the ones shown below:
Old Goat wrote: “That will be the final straw, for me. I supported Trump all the way, and his campaign promises were something to behold. If, after such a short time, he is reneging on so many of them, then I'm afraid I'm no longer interested in him. Shame, after such a promising start.”
Deplorable all day long commented: “Trump will not survive in politics if he makes any more major decisions based on Ivanka’s screwed up liberal world view.”
Thus, it’s now in Trump’s court to decide whether to listen to those who voted him into office, or abandon them by aligning with his daughter.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, April 23, 2017
BloggeRhythms
Much is being made of the new POTUS’s “breaking tradition” by not attending
the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner next Saturday. He plans to
hold a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s New Holland Arena in the PA Farm Show
Complex & Expo Center instead.
And once again, he’s reached a perfectly common-sensical conclusion on both counts. Because it serves him no purpose whatsoever, to spend an evening among a bunch of biased elitists who openly hate him, while using their dwindling power to demean and debase him 24/7/365.
But by going to Harrisburg to say thank you to those who put him in office, he’ll reinforce the premise that he sees his job as fulfilling promises made while campaigning as opposed to sharing insider jokes with reporters.
What’s also interesting is that the last president to not attend was Ronald Reagan. However, he was recovering from being shot in an assassination attempt at the time.
Next is an item @nytimes.com by Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman and Eric Lichtblau about how FBI Director, James Comey “tried to keep the bureau out of politics but plunged it into the center of a bitter election.”
The article’s quite long, involved, and contains significant amounts of detail as it tracks the history of both, the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails as well as that of the campaign of Donald Trump.
It is the contention of the authors that although two separate and distinct investigations took place, they were handled quite differently. The implication being that Trump was handled far gentler in order for the FBI to avoid being seen as biased toward the then presumptive next president, Clinton.
The text reads: “But with polls showing Mrs. Clinton holding a comfortable lead, Mr. Comey ended up plunging the F.B.I. into the molten center of a bitter election. Fearing the backlash that would come if it were revealed after the election that the F.B.I. had been investigating the next president and had kept it a secret, Mr. Comey sent a letter informing Congress that the case was reopened.
“What he did not say was that the F.B.I. was also investigating the campaign of Donald J. Trump. Just weeks before, Mr. Comey had declined to answer a question from Congress about whether there was such an investigation. Only in March, long after the election, did Mr. Comey confirm that there was one.
“For Mr. Comey, keeping the F.B.I. out of politics is such a preoccupation that he once said he would never play basketball with President Barack Obama because of the appearance of being chummy with the man who appointed him. But in the final months of the presidential campaign, the leader of the nation’s pre-eminent law enforcement agency shaped the contours, if not the outcome, of the presidential race by his handling of the Clinton and Trump-related investigations.”
As far as the differences in approach toward both individuals is concerned, the authors explained: “An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials, found that while partisanship was not a factor in Mr. Comey’s approach to the two investigations, he handled them in starkly different ways. In the case of Mrs. Clinton, he rewrote the script, partly based on the F.B.I.’s expectation that she would win and fearing the bureau would be accused of helping her. In the case of Mr. Trump, he conducted the investigation by the book, with the F.B.I.’s traditional secrecy. Many of the officials discussed the investigations on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.”
From there, the authors add shape to a premise that although Clinton remained innocent of charges, Comey’s procedural steps and timing of his inquiry proved greatly damaging to her electability. At the same time, nothing material arose regarding Trump at all. Therefore providing Trump with significant advantages.
Yet, much farther along in their piece the authors finally write the following few paragraphs:
“With a black binder in hand, Mr. Comey walked into a large room on the ground floor of the F.B.I.’s headquarters. Standing in front of two American flags and two royal-blue F.B.I. flags, he read from a script.
“He said the F.B.I. had reviewed 30,000 emails and discovered 110 that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton’s emails. And he criticized the State Department’s lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly.
“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position” should have known better, Mr. Comey said. He called her “extremely careless.”
“The criticism was so blistering that it sounded as if he were recommending criminal charges. Only in the final two minutes did Mr. Comey say that “no charges are appropriate in this case.”
“Mr. Comey’s criticism — his description of her carelessness — was the most controversial part of the speech. Agents and prosecutors have been reprimanded for injecting their legal conclusions with personal opinions. But those close to Mr. Comey say he has no regrets.
“By scolding Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Comey was speaking not only to voters but to his own agents. While they agreed that Mrs. Clinton should not face charges, many viewed her conduct as inexcusable. Mr. Comey’s remarks made clear that the F.B.I. did not approve.”
Thus, after Mr. Comey disclosed that the FBI “discovered 110 [emails] that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton’s emails. And he criticized the State Department’s lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly, “ the authors still contend that Clinton is unquestionably innocent and that Comey himself attempted to steer the election toward Trump. Making one wonder what they would need to see to grasp the fact that her conduct was indeed "inexcusable" and "careless" and therefore should have faced appropriate repercussions.
Whereas the article appeared in the New York Times, readers were overwhelmingly favorable to Clinton. At present, 2245 have registered supportive commentary regarding her. And of that group, one stood out.
Lois Schmidt from Wisconsin wrote: “So many articles, differring opinions, etc. but as I see it, Hillary lost for the simple reason that nobody likes her! She was not, and is not, an attractive and believeable person, not that any of the others were, but she simple had too much baggage. The Clintons are done. Move on. To keep arguing and revisting this thing over and over doesn't change that. Even many Democrats and others voted for Trump rather than Hillary. The mantra was 'anyone but Hillary.'
"Best to search out and support a candidate that really speaks to the concerns of the average American, than to waste time searching for answers that don't exist. Find a solid person that is electable.
"Anyway, just my thoughts.”
149 others agreed with her as does this writer.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
And once again, he’s reached a perfectly common-sensical conclusion on both counts. Because it serves him no purpose whatsoever, to spend an evening among a bunch of biased elitists who openly hate him, while using their dwindling power to demean and debase him 24/7/365.
But by going to Harrisburg to say thank you to those who put him in office, he’ll reinforce the premise that he sees his job as fulfilling promises made while campaigning as opposed to sharing insider jokes with reporters.
What’s also interesting is that the last president to not attend was Ronald Reagan. However, he was recovering from being shot in an assassination attempt at the time.
Next is an item @nytimes.com by Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman and Eric Lichtblau about how FBI Director, James Comey “tried to keep the bureau out of politics but plunged it into the center of a bitter election.”
The article’s quite long, involved, and contains significant amounts of detail as it tracks the history of both, the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails as well as that of the campaign of Donald Trump.
It is the contention of the authors that although two separate and distinct investigations took place, they were handled quite differently. The implication being that Trump was handled far gentler in order for the FBI to avoid being seen as biased toward the then presumptive next president, Clinton.
The text reads: “But with polls showing Mrs. Clinton holding a comfortable lead, Mr. Comey ended up plunging the F.B.I. into the molten center of a bitter election. Fearing the backlash that would come if it were revealed after the election that the F.B.I. had been investigating the next president and had kept it a secret, Mr. Comey sent a letter informing Congress that the case was reopened.
“What he did not say was that the F.B.I. was also investigating the campaign of Donald J. Trump. Just weeks before, Mr. Comey had declined to answer a question from Congress about whether there was such an investigation. Only in March, long after the election, did Mr. Comey confirm that there was one.
“For Mr. Comey, keeping the F.B.I. out of politics is such a preoccupation that he once said he would never play basketball with President Barack Obama because of the appearance of being chummy with the man who appointed him. But in the final months of the presidential campaign, the leader of the nation’s pre-eminent law enforcement agency shaped the contours, if not the outcome, of the presidential race by his handling of the Clinton and Trump-related investigations.”
As far as the differences in approach toward both individuals is concerned, the authors explained: “An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials, found that while partisanship was not a factor in Mr. Comey’s approach to the two investigations, he handled them in starkly different ways. In the case of Mrs. Clinton, he rewrote the script, partly based on the F.B.I.’s expectation that she would win and fearing the bureau would be accused of helping her. In the case of Mr. Trump, he conducted the investigation by the book, with the F.B.I.’s traditional secrecy. Many of the officials discussed the investigations on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.”
From there, the authors add shape to a premise that although Clinton remained innocent of charges, Comey’s procedural steps and timing of his inquiry proved greatly damaging to her electability. At the same time, nothing material arose regarding Trump at all. Therefore providing Trump with significant advantages.
Yet, much farther along in their piece the authors finally write the following few paragraphs:
“With a black binder in hand, Mr. Comey walked into a large room on the ground floor of the F.B.I.’s headquarters. Standing in front of two American flags and two royal-blue F.B.I. flags, he read from a script.
“He said the F.B.I. had reviewed 30,000 emails and discovered 110 that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton’s emails. And he criticized the State Department’s lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly.
“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position” should have known better, Mr. Comey said. He called her “extremely careless.”
“The criticism was so blistering that it sounded as if he were recommending criminal charges. Only in the final two minutes did Mr. Comey say that “no charges are appropriate in this case.”
“Mr. Comey’s criticism — his description of her carelessness — was the most controversial part of the speech. Agents and prosecutors have been reprimanded for injecting their legal conclusions with personal opinions. But those close to Mr. Comey say he has no regrets.
“By scolding Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Comey was speaking not only to voters but to his own agents. While they agreed that Mrs. Clinton should not face charges, many viewed her conduct as inexcusable. Mr. Comey’s remarks made clear that the F.B.I. did not approve.”
Thus, after Mr. Comey disclosed that the FBI “discovered 110 [emails] that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton’s emails. And he criticized the State Department’s lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly, “ the authors still contend that Clinton is unquestionably innocent and that Comey himself attempted to steer the election toward Trump. Making one wonder what they would need to see to grasp the fact that her conduct was indeed "inexcusable" and "careless" and therefore should have faced appropriate repercussions.
Whereas the article appeared in the New York Times, readers were overwhelmingly favorable to Clinton. At present, 2245 have registered supportive commentary regarding her. And of that group, one stood out.
Lois Schmidt from Wisconsin wrote: “So many articles, differring opinions, etc. but as I see it, Hillary lost for the simple reason that nobody likes her! She was not, and is not, an attractive and believeable person, not that any of the others were, but she simple had too much baggage. The Clintons are done. Move on. To keep arguing and revisting this thing over and over doesn't change that. Even many Democrats and others voted for Trump rather than Hillary. The mantra was 'anyone but Hillary.'
"Best to search out and support a candidate that really speaks to the concerns of the average American, than to waste time searching for answers that don't exist. Find a solid person that is electable.
"Anyway, just my thoughts.”
149 others agreed with her as does this writer.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, April 22, 2017
BloggeRhythms
In a lengthy article @politico.com via Drudge, Tim Alberta
includes considerable political history that’s well-worth reading as he
describes similarities between Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump.
To the headline “The Ideas Made It, But I Didn’t,” Mr. Alberta added the subtitle: “Pat Buchanan won after all. But now he thinks it might be too late for the nation he was trying to save.”
No matter one’s opinion regarding of the man himself, good, bad or indifferent, Buchanan’s keen knowledge of the nation’s history is insightful and immense giving him the opportunity to assess future probabilities far better than most.
In that regard, way back in 1992 the motto of Buchanan’s first presidential campaign was “America First.”
At the time he was running against President George H. W. Bush whom he called a “globalist” associated with “bureaucrats in Brussels” pursuing a “European superstate” that trampled on national identity. Buchanan warned his "rowdy" audience, “We must not trade in our sovereignty for a cushioned seat at the head table of anybody’s new world order!” His radically different prescription, which would underpin three consecutive runs for the presidency: a “new nationalism” that would focus on “forgotten Americans” left behind by bad trade deals, open-border immigration policies and foreign adventurism. His voice booming, Buchanan demanded: “Should the United States be required to carry indefinitely the full burden of defending rich and prosperous allies who take America’s generosity for granted as they invade our markets?”
Considering the similarities with the Trump agenda, it’s certainly no surprise that Buchanan told Mr. Alberta: “I was elated, delighted that Trump picked up on the exact issues on which I challenged Bush,” he tells me. “And then he goes and uses my slogan? It just doesn’t get any better than this.”
“Buchanan, who has published such books as The Death of the West, State of Emergency, Day of Reckoning and Suicide of a Superpower, admits that November’s election result “gave me hope” for the first time in recent memory.”
While Buchanan’s elation is certainly logical concerning the political similarities between himself and the new POTUS, the next phase of the article indicates that there’s another aspect of Trump’s “style” that few grasp whereas they lack his unique talent for keeping others off balance and preoccupied with trivialities.
Mr. Alberta writes: “But none of this means he’s suddenly bullish about America’s future. Buchanan says he has “always been a pessimist,” and despite Trump’s conquest, two things continue to color his dark forecast for the nation. First, Buchanan harbors deep concerns over whether Trump, with his off-topic tweeting and pointless fight-picking, has the requisite focus and discipline to execute his nationalist agenda—especially over the opposition of a media-establishment complex bent on his destruction.”
However, it seems that Buchanan, much like most others, is focusing on disturbing asides Trump initiates while his team is quietly turning the nation’s economy around, greatly reducing illegal border crossings, moving toward health care tax revision, preparing for tax reductions and improving relationships with Europe, Japan, China, Israel and even Mexico.
And what’s most important about the way Trump operates, is that the influence of the mainstream media has been greatly reduced whereas his constituents obtain their input from myriad other sources, accessed via Drudge and other web providers.
As far as Buchanan’s second worry is concerned, he fears that “even if Trump delivers on the loftiest of his promises, it will be too little, too late. Sweeping change was needed 25 years ago, he says, before thousands of factories vanished due to the North American Free Trade Agreement, before millions of illegal immigrants entered the country, before trillions of dollars were squandered on regime change and nation-building.”
Now, naturally, future outcomes regarding the issues Buchanan mentioned cannot be presently determined. However, if the vast majority of voters were asked not all that long ago if they thought Trump had a chance of election the answers would have been resounding “No’s.”
Which means that, while it may be true that all this should have been done 25 years ago, it’s finally getting started now. And as has been seen so far from Trump, underestimating his capabilities is a very bad bet indeed.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
To the headline “The Ideas Made It, But I Didn’t,” Mr. Alberta added the subtitle: “Pat Buchanan won after all. But now he thinks it might be too late for the nation he was trying to save.”
No matter one’s opinion regarding of the man himself, good, bad or indifferent, Buchanan’s keen knowledge of the nation’s history is insightful and immense giving him the opportunity to assess future probabilities far better than most.
In that regard, way back in 1992 the motto of Buchanan’s first presidential campaign was “America First.”
At the time he was running against President George H. W. Bush whom he called a “globalist” associated with “bureaucrats in Brussels” pursuing a “European superstate” that trampled on national identity. Buchanan warned his "rowdy" audience, “We must not trade in our sovereignty for a cushioned seat at the head table of anybody’s new world order!” His radically different prescription, which would underpin three consecutive runs for the presidency: a “new nationalism” that would focus on “forgotten Americans” left behind by bad trade deals, open-border immigration policies and foreign adventurism. His voice booming, Buchanan demanded: “Should the United States be required to carry indefinitely the full burden of defending rich and prosperous allies who take America’s generosity for granted as they invade our markets?”
Considering the similarities with the Trump agenda, it’s certainly no surprise that Buchanan told Mr. Alberta: “I was elated, delighted that Trump picked up on the exact issues on which I challenged Bush,” he tells me. “And then he goes and uses my slogan? It just doesn’t get any better than this.”
“Buchanan, who has published such books as The Death of the West, State of Emergency, Day of Reckoning and Suicide of a Superpower, admits that November’s election result “gave me hope” for the first time in recent memory.”
While Buchanan’s elation is certainly logical concerning the political similarities between himself and the new POTUS, the next phase of the article indicates that there’s another aspect of Trump’s “style” that few grasp whereas they lack his unique talent for keeping others off balance and preoccupied with trivialities.
Mr. Alberta writes: “But none of this means he’s suddenly bullish about America’s future. Buchanan says he has “always been a pessimist,” and despite Trump’s conquest, two things continue to color his dark forecast for the nation. First, Buchanan harbors deep concerns over whether Trump, with his off-topic tweeting and pointless fight-picking, has the requisite focus and discipline to execute his nationalist agenda—especially over the opposition of a media-establishment complex bent on his destruction.”
However, it seems that Buchanan, much like most others, is focusing on disturbing asides Trump initiates while his team is quietly turning the nation’s economy around, greatly reducing illegal border crossings, moving toward health care tax revision, preparing for tax reductions and improving relationships with Europe, Japan, China, Israel and even Mexico.
And what’s most important about the way Trump operates, is that the influence of the mainstream media has been greatly reduced whereas his constituents obtain their input from myriad other sources, accessed via Drudge and other web providers.
As far as Buchanan’s second worry is concerned, he fears that “even if Trump delivers on the loftiest of his promises, it will be too little, too late. Sweeping change was needed 25 years ago, he says, before thousands of factories vanished due to the North American Free Trade Agreement, before millions of illegal immigrants entered the country, before trillions of dollars were squandered on regime change and nation-building.”
Now, naturally, future outcomes regarding the issues Buchanan mentioned cannot be presently determined. However, if the vast majority of voters were asked not all that long ago if they thought Trump had a chance of election the answers would have been resounding “No’s.”
Which means that, while it may be true that all this should have been done 25 years ago, it’s finally getting started now. And as has been seen so far from Trump, underestimating his capabilities is a very bad bet indeed.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, April 21, 2017
BloggeRhythms
Today’s another in which news reports clearly illustrate the huge gap between
a rudderless leftist agenda and the practical realities of effective
Republican leadership.
On one side, California Democrat Rep., Maxine Waters, has risen in status. She was recently declared as "the newest hero of the anti-Trump” movement by leftist website BuzzFeed and an “icon of the Trump resistance” by MSNBC.
According to Pam Key @breitbart.com, “on Tuesday evening in Los Angeles at the Westchester-Playa Democratic Club, while discussing President Donald Trump’s budget, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said she hoped Trump is impeached so he cannot build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border."
Waters said, “We are in church you all. We have got to do what God would have us do. And I believe we are the kind of people that would do that. So I’m hoping and praying the wall will never be built and if we impeach him we know it is not going to get built.”
What stands out about Waters denunciation of Trump is the consistency with the Democrat agenda of hostility toward the new POTUS with not a hint of positive alternatives of their own.
The Democrat approach, however, does seem to be working effectively elsewhere. That can be seen in several other items today that indicate while Republican voters don’t traditionally involve themselves in politics until actual election days draw near, it appears that the dramatic upward change of the nation’s direction since Trump’s election has made them aware of his continual need for their support.
And as reported by Mark Hensch @thehill.com, those voters are delivering whereas: “The Republican National Committee on Friday announced it raised $41.5 million in the first three months of 2017, its strongest-ever total for the first quarter following a presidential race.
“Our record-setting fundraising pace has been fueled by grassroots enthusiasm for President Trump and the Republican Party,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel said in a statement.
“The RNC is in a strong position to make an impact in key races in 2017 and 2018 as we plan to take a leading role in preserving our congressional majorities and prepare to reelect President Trump in 2020.”
“The RNC said it brought in $12.2 million in March, breaking its record for biggest haul in the March after a presidential race. The committee has $41.4 million total cash on hand.
“RNC finance chairman Steve Wynn said the robust totals are proof voters approve of Trump and the GOP majorities in both chambers of Congress.”
While the rising economic tide in the U.S. is welcomed heartily by the public, others elsewhere are enthused by Trump as well.
Pete Kasperowicz writes @washingtonexaminer.com today, that: “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday welcomed the more aggressive foreign policy stance taken by President Trump, and said that change from President Obama's position is greatly "appreciated" by Israel.
"We sense a great change in the direction of American policy," Netanyahu said in a joint press appearance with Defense Secretary James Mattis.
"We noted the very clear and forthright words, Mr. Secretary, that you had to say about Iran," Netanyahu said. "This follows very strong and forthright words on the part of President Trump, and very forthright deeds against the use of chemical weapons by Iran's proxy, Syria."
"This has been appreciated around the world and in our region," Netanyahu said. "I think this is welcome change, a strategic change of American leadership and American policy."
In this case, while Trump's decision to bomb Syrian assets weapons against its own people was seen as a long-over due step by Republicans, “even many Democrats” are quite pleased as well. They envision it as an enforcement of President Obama's "red line" that he never enforced himself.
At the same time, the European Union’s opinion of Trump has changed significantly toward the positive as well.
Howard Schneider and Jan Strupczewski, Reuters reporters @ca.news.yahoo.com via Drudge inform us that Trump’s important initial decisions have been far more centrist than might have been expected by European policy-makers. “The European Union's commissioner for economic and financial affairs, Pierre Moscovici, summed up a widely shared sentiment as he highlighted how two people at the top of Trump's economic team - Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council - have curbed the worst fears over the young U.S. presidency.”
Moscovici told Reuters in an interview: "We have the feeling that Mnuchin and Cohn are sensible people with whom we can discuss things, who are conscious of what an open economy requires."
And then, most surprisingly it was further reported that: “The European Union's view of a more pragmatic administration was shared by Mexico, which attracted some of Trump's greatest ire. Trump's threat to impose punitive tariffs on Mexican exports sent the peso currency tumbling, but it has since recovered.
“Mexico's finance undersecretary, Vanessa Rubio Marquez, said discussions with the Trump administration so far have become "anchored" around a handful of issues "that Mexico would be able to deal with."
"There is still a lot of uncertainty," she said in a seminar on Wednesday. But "dialogue has been more structured, more constant."
Following the article, readers once again demonstrated that the general public is also well aware of what’s transpiring in the nation’s economy.
Reader Al commented: “Well, we now have a President that actually understands business rather than a person who was (and is) not qualified to be an assistant manager at a Taco Bell.”
Charlie added: “Trump approval rating up to 50%. Voters are sticking with him despite the propaganda the media is pumping out.”
Joseph opined: “This is only news to moron liberals. Trump voters understood what he was doing on the campaign. For liberals who have never held jobs - its called negotiation -- something normal Americans have to do day in an day out.”
Then peter offered a premise fitting for the close of today’s posting which began quoting Maxine Waters: “I think we Americans have just found that professional politicians are not the best choice for America.”
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
On one side, California Democrat Rep., Maxine Waters, has risen in status. She was recently declared as "the newest hero of the anti-Trump” movement by leftist website BuzzFeed and an “icon of the Trump resistance” by MSNBC.
According to Pam Key @breitbart.com, “on Tuesday evening in Los Angeles at the Westchester-Playa Democratic Club, while discussing President Donald Trump’s budget, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said she hoped Trump is impeached so he cannot build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border."
Waters said, “We are in church you all. We have got to do what God would have us do. And I believe we are the kind of people that would do that. So I’m hoping and praying the wall will never be built and if we impeach him we know it is not going to get built.”
What stands out about Waters denunciation of Trump is the consistency with the Democrat agenda of hostility toward the new POTUS with not a hint of positive alternatives of their own.
The Democrat approach, however, does seem to be working effectively elsewhere. That can be seen in several other items today that indicate while Republican voters don’t traditionally involve themselves in politics until actual election days draw near, it appears that the dramatic upward change of the nation’s direction since Trump’s election has made them aware of his continual need for their support.
And as reported by Mark Hensch @thehill.com, those voters are delivering whereas: “The Republican National Committee on Friday announced it raised $41.5 million in the first three months of 2017, its strongest-ever total for the first quarter following a presidential race.
“Our record-setting fundraising pace has been fueled by grassroots enthusiasm for President Trump and the Republican Party,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel said in a statement.
“The RNC is in a strong position to make an impact in key races in 2017 and 2018 as we plan to take a leading role in preserving our congressional majorities and prepare to reelect President Trump in 2020.”
“The RNC said it brought in $12.2 million in March, breaking its record for biggest haul in the March after a presidential race. The committee has $41.4 million total cash on hand.
“RNC finance chairman Steve Wynn said the robust totals are proof voters approve of Trump and the GOP majorities in both chambers of Congress.”
While the rising economic tide in the U.S. is welcomed heartily by the public, others elsewhere are enthused by Trump as well.
Pete Kasperowicz writes @washingtonexaminer.com today, that: “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday welcomed the more aggressive foreign policy stance taken by President Trump, and said that change from President Obama's position is greatly "appreciated" by Israel.
"We sense a great change in the direction of American policy," Netanyahu said in a joint press appearance with Defense Secretary James Mattis.
"We noted the very clear and forthright words, Mr. Secretary, that you had to say about Iran," Netanyahu said. "This follows very strong and forthright words on the part of President Trump, and very forthright deeds against the use of chemical weapons by Iran's proxy, Syria."
"This has been appreciated around the world and in our region," Netanyahu said. "I think this is welcome change, a strategic change of American leadership and American policy."
In this case, while Trump's decision to bomb Syrian assets weapons against its own people was seen as a long-over due step by Republicans, “even many Democrats” are quite pleased as well. They envision it as an enforcement of President Obama's "red line" that he never enforced himself.
At the same time, the European Union’s opinion of Trump has changed significantly toward the positive as well.
Howard Schneider and Jan Strupczewski, Reuters reporters @ca.news.yahoo.com via Drudge inform us that Trump’s important initial decisions have been far more centrist than might have been expected by European policy-makers. “The European Union's commissioner for economic and financial affairs, Pierre Moscovici, summed up a widely shared sentiment as he highlighted how two people at the top of Trump's economic team - Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council - have curbed the worst fears over the young U.S. presidency.”
Moscovici told Reuters in an interview: "We have the feeling that Mnuchin and Cohn are sensible people with whom we can discuss things, who are conscious of what an open economy requires."
And then, most surprisingly it was further reported that: “The European Union's view of a more pragmatic administration was shared by Mexico, which attracted some of Trump's greatest ire. Trump's threat to impose punitive tariffs on Mexican exports sent the peso currency tumbling, but it has since recovered.
“Mexico's finance undersecretary, Vanessa Rubio Marquez, said discussions with the Trump administration so far have become "anchored" around a handful of issues "that Mexico would be able to deal with."
"There is still a lot of uncertainty," she said in a seminar on Wednesday. But "dialogue has been more structured, more constant."
Following the article, readers once again demonstrated that the general public is also well aware of what’s transpiring in the nation’s economy.
Reader Al commented: “Well, we now have a President that actually understands business rather than a person who was (and is) not qualified to be an assistant manager at a Taco Bell.”
Charlie added: “Trump approval rating up to 50%. Voters are sticking with him despite the propaganda the media is pumping out.”
Joseph opined: “This is only news to moron liberals. Trump voters understood what he was doing on the campaign. For liberals who have never held jobs - its called negotiation -- something normal Americans have to do day in an day out.”
Then peter offered a premise fitting for the close of today’s posting which began quoting Maxine Waters: “I think we Americans have just found that professional politicians are not the best choice for America.”
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, April 20, 2017
BloggeRhythms
At least one Democrat seems to be waking up to reality, claiming to
understand just how far from sanity her party is at present.
Tim Hains headed his column @realclearpolitics.com yesterday: “Camille Paglia: Trump Already Headed Towards Reelection, Democrats Have Overplayed Their Hand”
Mr. Hains writes about New York Times columnist Frank Bruni’s “moderating a 'Times Talks' discussion between legendary feminist Camille Paglia and 'Watch What Happens Live' host Andy Cohen about life in the Trump era.”
Paglia says the Times and the Democratic Party still have "soul searching" left to do about why they called 2016 wrong. "It is incumbent upon the defeated party to pull itself together, or else we're going to get the reelection of the present administration," she said.
Noting that early on "I didn't take him seriously at all," but shortly after the first Republican debate, seeing “Diamond & Silk, the African-American sisters doing a pro-Trump attack on Megyn Kelly on their podcast," Paglia "suddenly saw the populism, and from that moment forward," could "feel the momentum of it."
What made the article particularly relevant is Paglia’s realization that “The New York media was in an absolute bubble about this."
Andy Cohen said he had similar thoughts: "Just today I was walking by a monitor, I don't know what channel was on, but there was -- he has some slogan about jobs for America or some new plan. And I saw that chyron: 'Jobs For America Plan,' and I thought to myself... it doesn't even matter if this works or not, he could get reelected just because he has a 'Jobs For America' plan."
The article includes a quite interesting interchange, as follows:
“BRUNI: You feel like he is going to get reelected?
“PAGLIA: Yes. The Democrats have overplayed their hand. And the -- I just can't imagine--
“BRUNI: You're already betting on his reelection less than 100 days in?
“PAGLIA: Yes because what the Democrats needed to do-- and the major media, Frank, needed to do was to do some soul-searching.
“BRUNI: By that you mean the failing New York Times?
“PAGLIA: Yes.
“BRUNI: Yes, we're going to rebrand this 'Failing Times Talks.'
“PAGLIA: If you read only the New York Times-- I said, 'Oh my God!' The readers of the New York Times are heading for a major, major breakdown shock if Trump is in fact elected.”
A strong stimulus for including Mr. Hains article was a comment posted by reader, JustASimpleGuy, who concisely defined the Democrats quandary.
“Their problem is they can't do anything other than what they've been doing. They have whipped their base into such a raging froth of a deranged and deluded frenzy that they have painted themselves into a corner where rational opposition isn't possible. It would either demoralize their base or turn their base against them and push them further into loony land.
“One of the most important reasons that Trump will likely be elected has nothing to do with irrational Democrats, but instead to a simple reality. He’s fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected in the first place.”
JustASimpleGuy’s accurate premise was confirmed just a few minutes later in an article by Jeffry Bartash @marketwatch.com, reporting that “The number of out-of-work people collecting unemployment checks fell to a 17-year low in April, underscoring the strongest U.S. labor market in years.
“So-called continuing jobless claims fell by 49,000 to 1.98 million, marking just the second time they’ve fallen below 2 million during the current eight-year-old economic expansion. Continuing claims also dipped below the 2 million mark in March.
“There is a “steady downtrend in place in the pace of layoffs,” noted Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities.”
That reflection of a rebounding economy was reinforced by Tim Devaney who wrote @thehill.com that: “President Trump has saved taxpayers more than $86 billion in regulatory costs during his first three months in the White House, according to a new study from a conservative group.
“The American Action Forum (AAF) points to several Obama-era regulations that Trump has either rolled back on his own or with the help of Republican lawmakers using the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
“This includes the Education Department’s school accountability standards, the Environmental Protection Agency’s waters of the United States rule and the so-called “blacklisting” rule for government contractors.”
Then, a commentary was found on FoxNews.com by Sean Hannity that considers the diametrically opposed positions held by the two major party's, along with the role played by the mainstream media.
Addressing the question of whether the MSM is biased against Trump, Hannity writes:
"Actually, they are. And there’s proof. A new study from the Media Research Center shows a whopping 89 percent of coverage during ABC, NBC, CBS's evening newscast has been negative toward President Trump.
“We're seeing the alt-radical left taking all of this unhinged hatred to a whole new level, and they're teaming up to attack the president on all fronts. It's only going to get worse, it's only going to get more intense. So Republicans need to do their job and also be ready to fight back.”
And then Hannity writes about the most disturbing predicament in which the left has put itself, and can do absolutely nothing to rectify. Primarily because they don’t know how:
“As for President Trump, all he needs to do is check campaign promises off his list and continue to fulfill enact the agenda that he won on. And then his haters can keep on hating for the next seven years.”
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tim Hains headed his column @realclearpolitics.com yesterday: “Camille Paglia: Trump Already Headed Towards Reelection, Democrats Have Overplayed Their Hand”
Mr. Hains writes about New York Times columnist Frank Bruni’s “moderating a 'Times Talks' discussion between legendary feminist Camille Paglia and 'Watch What Happens Live' host Andy Cohen about life in the Trump era.”
Paglia says the Times and the Democratic Party still have "soul searching" left to do about why they called 2016 wrong. "It is incumbent upon the defeated party to pull itself together, or else we're going to get the reelection of the present administration," she said.
Noting that early on "I didn't take him seriously at all," but shortly after the first Republican debate, seeing “Diamond & Silk, the African-American sisters doing a pro-Trump attack on Megyn Kelly on their podcast," Paglia "suddenly saw the populism, and from that moment forward," could "feel the momentum of it."
What made the article particularly relevant is Paglia’s realization that “The New York media was in an absolute bubble about this."
Andy Cohen said he had similar thoughts: "Just today I was walking by a monitor, I don't know what channel was on, but there was -- he has some slogan about jobs for America or some new plan. And I saw that chyron: 'Jobs For America Plan,' and I thought to myself... it doesn't even matter if this works or not, he could get reelected just because he has a 'Jobs For America' plan."
The article includes a quite interesting interchange, as follows:
“BRUNI: You feel like he is going to get reelected?
“PAGLIA: Yes. The Democrats have overplayed their hand. And the -- I just can't imagine--
“BRUNI: You're already betting on his reelection less than 100 days in?
“PAGLIA: Yes because what the Democrats needed to do-- and the major media, Frank, needed to do was to do some soul-searching.
“BRUNI: By that you mean the failing New York Times?
“PAGLIA: Yes.
“BRUNI: Yes, we're going to rebrand this 'Failing Times Talks.'
“PAGLIA: If you read only the New York Times-- I said, 'Oh my God!' The readers of the New York Times are heading for a major, major breakdown shock if Trump is in fact elected.”
A strong stimulus for including Mr. Hains article was a comment posted by reader, JustASimpleGuy, who concisely defined the Democrats quandary.
“Their problem is they can't do anything other than what they've been doing. They have whipped their base into such a raging froth of a deranged and deluded frenzy that they have painted themselves into a corner where rational opposition isn't possible. It would either demoralize their base or turn their base against them and push them further into loony land.
“One of the most important reasons that Trump will likely be elected has nothing to do with irrational Democrats, but instead to a simple reality. He’s fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected in the first place.”
JustASimpleGuy’s accurate premise was confirmed just a few minutes later in an article by Jeffry Bartash @marketwatch.com, reporting that “The number of out-of-work people collecting unemployment checks fell to a 17-year low in April, underscoring the strongest U.S. labor market in years.
“So-called continuing jobless claims fell by 49,000 to 1.98 million, marking just the second time they’ve fallen below 2 million during the current eight-year-old economic expansion. Continuing claims also dipped below the 2 million mark in March.
“There is a “steady downtrend in place in the pace of layoffs,” noted Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities.”
That reflection of a rebounding economy was reinforced by Tim Devaney who wrote @thehill.com that: “President Trump has saved taxpayers more than $86 billion in regulatory costs during his first three months in the White House, according to a new study from a conservative group.
“The American Action Forum (AAF) points to several Obama-era regulations that Trump has either rolled back on his own or with the help of Republican lawmakers using the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
“This includes the Education Department’s school accountability standards, the Environmental Protection Agency’s waters of the United States rule and the so-called “blacklisting” rule for government contractors.”
Then, a commentary was found on FoxNews.com by Sean Hannity that considers the diametrically opposed positions held by the two major party's, along with the role played by the mainstream media.
Addressing the question of whether the MSM is biased against Trump, Hannity writes:
"Actually, they are. And there’s proof. A new study from the Media Research Center shows a whopping 89 percent of coverage during ABC, NBC, CBS's evening newscast has been negative toward President Trump.
“We're seeing the alt-radical left taking all of this unhinged hatred to a whole new level, and they're teaming up to attack the president on all fronts. It's only going to get worse, it's only going to get more intense. So Republicans need to do their job and also be ready to fight back.”
And then Hannity writes about the most disturbing predicament in which the left has put itself, and can do absolutely nothing to rectify. Primarily because they don’t know how:
“As for President Trump, all he needs to do is check campaign promises off his list and continue to fulfill enact the agenda that he won on. And then his haters can keep on hating for the next seven years.”
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)