Friday, June 30, 2017


Today, another columnist joins the very, very small group that truly grasps the way that the POTUS manipulates the mainstream media, keeping them otherwise occupied as his administration quietly continues its accomplishments.

Charles Hurt began his column writing: “Oh, the mad genius of Donald Trump!”

“On the cusp of one of the biggest victories of his administration, cracking down on illegal aliens who commit vicious crimes inside our country, President Trump took to Twitter.

“I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

Hurt continues: “The Trump presidency is a little like having a dog. Every day that passes, you love the dog more and more until it seems impossible to love her any more.”

And then, Hurt presents an example wherein the press is so intent on disgracing and demeaning the POTUS that a writer failed to realize he’d actually praised Trump in his column.  

“The Amazon Post” — the paper-of-record for Never Trumpers — rushed to the defense of Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough with a laughably illogical and twisted explanation.

“The notion that Brzezinski and Scarborough were desperate to hang out with Trump on New Year's Eve but were rebuffed seems dubious, at best,” reporter Callum Borchers wrote on the paper’s website.

“For one thing, the New York Times spotted the co-hosts at Trump’s New Year's Eve party at Mar-a-Lago.”

“So, wait a minute? The proof that Mr. Trump is lying about Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year's Eve is that — well — Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough were slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year's Eve?

“Oof. Mr. Borchers probably learned this in journalism school. He should have gone to logic school instead.”

Hurt also included a most-perfect illustration of the double-standard continually applied throughout the MSM, writing: “Of course, the puritanical schoolmarms of the political press went absolutely bonkers over Mr. Trump’s broadside of their fellow travelers. They scolded him that his Twitter missives were beneath the office of the president.

“Really, you mean like molesting an intern in the Oval Office? “Presidential” like that?”

While Hurt is undoubtedly correct in his analysis regarding media hostility toward the POTUS, an article by Tony Lee illustrates that the public is not only aware of the issue, “A majority of Americans believe that the “Deep State” is trying to “unseat” President Donald Trump, according to the most recent Harvard-Harris poll."

“The poll asked respondents: “Specifically, do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ – the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump using leaks of classified information?”

“Fifty-four percent of respondents answered “yes” while 46% believed the Deep State is not trying to unseat Trump, who has repeatedly asserted that he is the victim of a “Witch Hunt.”

Lee goes on to explain: “The Deep State has leaked to establishment media outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times to undermine and smear Trump and his advisers, some of whom are reportedly being investigated by the FBI for their ties to or meetings with various Russian officials. These outlets have written stories, based on anonymous Deep State sources, that, among other things, have suggested Trump revealed classified information to the Russians and called former FBI director James Comey a “nut job.”

A reader Dave, found the bright side of the circumstance, commenting: “Harvard would be hard leaning lefties, right?. The mere fact that they are looking past their programming and biases and are even now considering this says a lot.”

And then, another illustration of how far one of the left’s bastions, San Francisco, has deteriorated results in a case that is hardly believable.  

According to Brendan Kirby today: “An illegal immigrant who found himself detained and turned over to federal immigration authorities is poised to collect $190,000 from the city of San Francisco, according to KPIX-5.

“The TV station reported that city lawyers have agreed to pay the settlement to Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, a native of El Salvador who sued, alleging the city violated its "sanctuary" policy by alerting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The city's Board of Supervisors still must approve the deal, but there dos not appear to be much opposition.”

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said: “That is beyond backwards. That is perverse. Talk about an incentive to come here illegally. I just can't wrap my head around that."

“San Francisco adopted its sanctuary policy in 1989, becoming one of the first jurisdictions in the country to prohibit police from cooperating with federal officials on immigration enforcement.

“Yet when Figueroa-Zarceno went to the police station in December 2015 to recover his stolen car, someone tipped off ICE. He found himself detained for two months, marked for deportation. Officials issued a civil deportation order in 2005, according to KPIX.

“Figueroa-Zarceno is fighting his deportation and has a hearing date in 2019, according to the TV station.”

“David Cross, a spokesman for Oregonians for Immigration Reform, agreed.

"There's an insanity in California that is just unfathomable," he said.

But it was another individual, Joseph Guzzardi, spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, who put his finger on the real tragedy for San Franciscan's. 

“Ripping” the decision to agree to a six-figure settlement with a man who is not even in the country legally, Guzzardi said: “It just goes to show the extent to which San Francisco city officials are willing to go to support their own sanctuary policies. It's completely and totally an assault on taxpayers and not justifiable in any way."

And that’s the real crime taking place, in which hard-working taxpayers are about to lose $190,000 to a criminal having no real right to be in California, or anywhere else in America.  Making one wonder, just how long voters will continue to put up with things like this?

That's it for today folks.


Thursday, June 29, 2017


Today’s one in which statistics tell a quite interesting story about citizen’s views of what transpires around them.

Frank Newport reported on new survey results that illustrate opinions on several key subjects.

Newspapers gained 7% over last years performance, up from 20% to 27%, However, that means three quarters of the public still doesn’t have much confidence in them. 

Public schools rose in acceptance too, to 36% from 30%.leaving two-thirds unpleased. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rose to 40% approval from 36%, surprising in view of the balance turning toward the conservative side.

Congress is not surprisingly still greatly disliked, sinking to 9% from 12% while television news isn’t much better at 21%, down from last year’s 24%

As usual small business still gets very high marks at 68%, compared to last years 70%.

The military remains a public favorite at 73%, up one point from 72%, while the presidency gained 4% for a total of 36% compared to last year’s 32%.

And then, not extraordinary considering it’s newness,  news on the internet attained only a 16% viewership. 

Newport summarized the findings, writing: “Overall, U.S. adults say they have the most confidence in the military, as has typically been the case since the mid-1980s. Americans have almost as much confidence in small business as they do in the military. Confidence levels drop off substantially after these two, with only one other institution -- the police -- getting a combined "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence rating over 50%.”

 “At the other end of the spectrum, two institutions have confidence ratings below 20% -- Congress, last on the list with a confidence rating of 12%, and news on the internet, at 16%.”

As to be expected: “Republicans and Democrats essentially flipped their confidence ratings of the presidency this year. Republicans' confidence surged 46 points compared with 2016, while Democrats' confidence fell by 49 points. Last year, with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats were much more confident in the presidency than were Republicans. This year, Republicans' confidence in the presidency is 50 points higher than that of Democrats.”

And then, some particular statistics were compiled by the Trump administration at his request. 

Results were posted by Neil Munro who wrote that “Trump told his deputies on March 6 to reveal government data about immigration which was largely hidden by former President Barack Obama.

“Trump’s first quarterly report has now been posted by the Department of Homeland Security, and it contains a flood of jargon-tangled data.”

Some specifics revealed that there  are now “one new immigrant for every four Americans who turn 18.”

There are also “two new foreign workers for every four Americans who enter the workforce,” which is the most important statistic in the report.

“Half of the arriving temporary workers are white-collar workers, not farm hands or blue-collar workers. Each month, the temporary worker inflows include 35,000 white-collar workers, 6,707 agricultural workers and roughly 25,000 blue-collar and mid-skill workers. 

"Which makes sense because “businesses save more money by importing low-wage, high-skill engineers, nurses, doctors, professors, accountants, and designers to take the place of many expensive American graduates and skilled technicians who are trying to pay off college debts, to buy houses, get married and raise families.” 

“So, 50 percent of foreign temporary workers are white-collar professionals.”

Important details include the following: “The unskilled legal immigrants included 375,000 sisters and brothers, or sons, daughters or parents of recent immigrants who got their green cards via so-called “chain immigration,” not via their skills or accomplishments. The remaining 90,000 arrivals consisted of refugees, asylum-seekers, miscellaneous and “diversity” people who were selected because they have no connection to the United States. 

“Despite their lack of skills, business is fine with this huge inflow of unskilled people. The inflow pressures blue-collar wages, and it also grows the consumer economy because poor people have to eat, drive, and find shelter just like everyone else. Moreover, federal, state and local government financial support for these imported consumers also converts middle-class taxes into an economic stimulus for retailers worth at least $56 billion per year.”

According to Munro, “So the important statistic here is that only one-in-eight legal immigrants have worked their way into the country — the rest were pulled in by relatives, regardless of education or health or age or productivity or ability to integrate into American society.

“Trump’s data shows that 264,553 legal immigrants got citizenship during the six months in the first report, at a rate of roughly 45,000 a month. These new citizens come from 164 countries, speak more than 164 languages, and few have the skills to pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare or aid, and most vote Democratic.”

In summary, a huge cost to the public arises because the flood of foreign labor “spikes profits and stock values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, and sidelines marginalized Americans and their families.”

Thus, much in keeping with the Obama administration’s practice of hiding relevant details concerning questionable policies and programs, it was always expected by them that the following president would be a Democrat. And therefore, little chance existed for information, such as the true costs of immigration, would be exposed to the public.

However, that obviously isn’t what transpired. Which means that future disclosures are a practical certainty.    

On another subject, Trump-bashing took another step backward yesterday, as reported by Tony Lee that “NBC’s Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly got walloped by a fresh episode of 60 Minutes and lost yet again to a rerun of America’s Funniest Home Videos. In fact, as Variety pointed out, Kelly’s show slipped to “a new low in both the key demo and total viewers.”

“Kelly’s much-hyped interview with Alex Jones that aired last week was her lowest-rated program to date until last night’s show, which “averaged a 0.4 rating in adults 18-49 and 3.4 million viewers, according to Nielsen data. That is down from a 0.5 and 3.6 million viewers [for] last week’s episode.” 60 Minutes had 7.2 million viewers while the rerun of America’s Funniest Home Videos got 3.9 million.” also reported that: “The program took a nosedive in comparison to Kelly’s debut on June 4, which featured an interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin. That interview drew 6.2 million viewers.

“And Kelly didn’t just lose viewers. Forbes reported JPMorgan, along with several local advertisers, dropped spots from the show or, in the case of the financial company, the entirety of NBC News, until after the interview aired.”

But it was Mark Taylor who, according to Kyle Mantyla on Monday, “is a former firefighter who now presents himself as a prophet based on his claim that God told him back in 2011 that Donald Trump would become president, appeared on a local Virginia radio program last week to promote his forthcoming book, “The Trump Prophecies: The Astonishing True Story of the Man Who Saw Tomorrow… and What He Says Is Coming Next.”

“During the interview, Taylor told host Rob Schilling that former Fox News host Megyn Kelly fell ill before the first Republican primary debate in 2015 because God had sent her a “warning shot” to let her know that she should not to try to harm His anointed candidate, Donald Trump.

“She did it anyway,” Taylor said, “and, if you notice, her life has never been the same and neither has Fox’s; they’ve had lawsuits, chaos. So that is a sign from God that he is chosen by God and anointed by God for such a time as this.”

Thus, it looks as if when Kelly decided to take on Trump, she wound up facing far more than she ever expected. And when it comes to divine intervention, she’s no longer on the side of the angels which her declining ratings certainly indicate.

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, June 28, 2017


Over the past few months, Michael Goodwin’s been mentioned often whereas he’s one of the few newspaper people who’ve gained a grasp of how the POTUS plays the media. But even Goodwin doesn’t yet understand completely, as can be seen in his column yesterday.

At the outset, Goodwin refers to what he calls the “unprecedented meltdown of much of the media,” wherein “standards have been tossed overboard in a frenzy to bring down the president.”

After explaining that Trump, “like all presidents, deserves coverage that is skeptical and tough, but also fair, and that’s not what he’s getting," Goodwin addresses the recent CNN presidential attack and retraction.

Goodwin believes, as does this writer, that all-consuming media attempts to destroy the president “are boomeranging and leaving their reputations in tatters.” Particularly CNN which is “suffering an especially bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, even trying to make a virtue of its hostility to the president. In doing so, executives conveniently confuse animus with professional skepticism, and cite growing audiences as proof of their good judgment.”

“The bottom line matters, and there is certainly an audience for hating Trump all the time. But facts and fairness separate major news organizations from any other business looking to make a buck, and a commitment to them creates credibility and public trust.

“That’s how CNN sold itself for years — boring but trustworthy. Now it’s boring and untrustworthy.”

After presenting the CNN overview, Goodwin gets specific, citing the networks “apology for and retraction of a story connecting a Trump associate to a Russia investment fund, and the resignation of three journalists involved, suggest the network fears it has lost control of its own agenda. It also issued a special edict barring all Russia coverage without approval from top bosses.”

And then, touching on evidence of how the POTUS actually manipulates media outlets, Goodwin still doesn’t quite appreciate the methodology, as he writes: “Russia, Russia, Russia is a fixation for all the networks, with a new study by the Media Research Center showing 55 percent of Trump coverage on nightly broadcasts was related to the Russia investigation.

“That adds up to 353 minutes of airtime since May 17, compared to 47 minutes on Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate pact, 29 minutes on the fight against terrorism and 17 minutes on the efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, according to the Daily Caller’s summary of the study. It said tax reform got a mere 47 seconds of coverage.”

And it’s those numbers that tell the story. Whereas while the coverage converges on meaningless red-herrings or trivial presidential tweets, the POTUS’s administration is working diligently on important matters uninterrupted by hordes of reporters otherwise occupied by Trump’s diversions.  

Rush provided an amusing, vividly appropriate analogy regarding Trump’s handling of the media, writing today: “Have you ever had a pet cat and one of these red laser pointers? You point it at the floor, and the cat tries to catch it. You point it up against the sofa, cat runs into the sofa. You point it against the wall, cat runs into the wall. I think that's what the Trump administration is doing with many in the media.” 

However, had the media been paying attention they’d have found out that, according to “Illegal immigrant crossings at America's southern border have dropped 64 percent over the same timespan in 2016.

“On June 10th, Clayton Morris reported on "Fox & Friends" that President Trump's "tough talk" seems to have been enough to slow the flow of illegals coming in from Mexico.”

And most importantly, although the media may not be aware of the POTUS’s accomplishments, the voters who put him in office certainly are.

At the same time, Sarah Palin too is making her own advances on a major media outlet, the New York Times, and seems to have a very good chance of prevailing.

Samuel Chamberlain wrote today “Former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin filed a lawsuit against the New York Times Tuesday over an editorial that tied her to the January 2011 shooting of an Arizona congresswoman.

Palin's attorneys claim the paper defamed her in a June 14 editorial, attributed to The Times' editorial board whom “initially linked Palin's rhetoric to a shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.”

“The paper posted a correction the next day admitting that "no such link was established."

The editorial, titled "America's Lethal Politics," also claimed, incorrectly, that a now-infamous ad from Palin's political action committee put "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs[sic]." The Times also corrected that statement, admitting that the crosshairs on the map targeted "electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers."

“Palin is being represented by Kenneth Turkel, Shane Vogt and S. Preston Ricardo in the suit. Turkel and Vogt were part of the team that secured Hulk Hogan a $115 million award at trial from Gawker Media Group. Gawker appealed, but the two sides eventually settled for $31 million and Gawker and its founder, Nick Denton, were forced to file for bankruptcy.”

While Palin is seeking damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, in another article this morning, Alan Dershowitz approached the growing trend toward instituting lawsuits from another direction.  

Dershowitz tried to make the point that the many attempts in the political arena to criminalize differences equates to treading in “dangerous territory.” 

Using the current Sanders case as an example he wrote: “So now the shoe is on the other foot. A Trump surrogate has gotten the FBI to open an investigation of Jane and Bernie Sanders for alleged bank fraud. The couple has lawyered up, as is their right. The allegations seem more civil than criminal but the Trump surrogate is demanding that criminal charges be brought.

“Welcome to the world of tit-for-tat criminalization of political differences.”

From there Dershowitz provided several examples of the various legalities involved, leading to his conclusion that: “Criminal prosecution should be a neutral sanction of last resort, rather than a primary partisan weapon used to target political opponents.”

What was of significant interest, however, was a comment posted by a reader claiming to be an “investigator” who certainly seemed quite conversant in the subject himself, as follows:

DonVero AD wrote: “Regardless of how this came to fruition, a criminal act is alleged. Having spent several years investigating BF&E cases (Bank Fraud and Embezzlement), in the FBI Washington Field Office, I can assure you that if the evidence is sufficient to convict her of the charges, it will be a criminal violation. Keep in mind that the bank, and it's shareholders, lost $10 million in this deal. They are the victims. Banks don't lend money to institutions who truthfully confess they are on the verge of bankruptcy. Lying to the bank to get the loan is a felony. Using a political office to enable the scheme is also a felony.”

All of which serves to illustrate the need for politicians and media outlets in particular, to gain greater knowledge of technological advances in information gathering and communication. Whereas, its become glaringly obvious that voters are well aware of what transpires around them as they employ alternative means of obtaining information. And so does the POTUS. 
That’s it for today folks.



Tuesday, June 27, 2017


Another good day for the POTUS, which includes the news that another major business announces a coming expansion and hiring's. At the same time, another leading Democrat expresses concern that Loretta Lynch may have committed jailable offenses while holding office. 

Lesley Wroughton in Washington and Ankit Ajmera in Bengluru report @reuters,com today, that BMW said yesterday it would invest $600 million in its Spartanburg, South Carolina plant.

From 2018 to 2021, 1,000 jobs will be added at the plant, the company’s biggest worldwide, making BMW X vehicles for the U.S. and global markets.

“The Spartanburg plant manufactured more than 411,000 vehicles in 2016 and currently employs more than 9,000 people,” according to the article.

And then, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, the times they are achangin’ for the Democrat party. 

Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, “has now voiced concerns about allegations ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch may have sought to keep a lid on last year’s Hillary Clintons email probe,” according to yesterday

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Schiff said the thought of allegations made him “queasy,” and that he’d “like to hear what Loretta Lynch's explanation for that is, either by having her come to the Hill or by having her speak publicly.”

“The call significantly ups the pressure on Lynch, as the push to scrutinize her conduct in last year’s Clinton email investigation becomes more bipartisan.”

Adan Salazar took the issue farther, quoting from the opinion of Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Fox Business Channel, who said: “If emails exist between Lynch and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz improperly discussing the Clinton email investigation, the former attorney general could be charged with “misconduct in office,” a felony carrying five to ten years in jail.

“It is alleged, this document has not seen the light of day if it exists, that there are one or several emails between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Loretta Lynch concerning the behavior that Loretta Lynch will take to further the DNC interests while Mrs. Lynch was attorney general,” Napolitano stated. “That, if it happened, would be ‘misconduct in office.'”

“It’s a felony. Depending upon exactly what they charged her with, it could be five or 10 years in jail. It’s very serious. It’s the equivalent of obstruction of justice. It’s the same allegation they are making about the president.”

What’s critically important is that the Senate probe into Lynch’s conduct while in office is headed by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, known to be a diligent, well-informed investigator.

In a letter to Lynch last Thursday announcing the Senate probe, “Grassley asked if she’d ever communicated with Schultz.”

“Grassley’s inquiry followed testimony from former FBI Director James Comey earlier this month claiming he felt “queasy” after Lynch asked him to refer to the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s emails as a “matter” instead of an “investigation.”

This “terminology,” Judge Napolitano stated, “may be indicative of a mindset on the part of Attorney General Lynch that she was going to do whatever she could to prevent Mrs. Clinton from getting indicted.”

“Comey had previously stated under oath he believed Ms. Lynch’s tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton also destroyed the FBI’s ability to carry out the Clinton email investigation in a credible manner.”

While the investigational swing away from Trump and toward Obama administration officials continues, another indication of the public’s interest in political conservatism comes from Paul Bedard this morning.

Bedard writes that Mark Levin's new book, "Rediscovering Americanism," an "assault on the media and progressives and a call for Americans to take back their country, debuts today at No. 1 on Amazon."

Levin, a New York Times bestselling author is a ”top syndicated radio host, and this new book is “already on the way to becoming another big seller.”

Secrets reviewed "Rediscovering Americanism" last week and wrote:

“In the book, Levin attacks the embrace by the media, politicians and academia of progressive promises of a "utopia" defined by the end of personal freedom and individuality.

“He has a grim name for it: "The Final Outcome." Levin wrote, "They reject history's lessons and instead are absorbed with their own conceit and aggrandizement in the relentless pursuit of a diabolical project, the final outcome of which is an oppression of mind and soul."

“Levin added, "the equality they envision but dare not honestly proclaim, is life on the hamster wheel, where one individual is indistinguishable from the next."

As far as the premise regarding leftist’s facing ultimate oppression of mind and soul is concerned, an example appeared this morning in an article by James Delingpole.

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman and fellow investment billionaire Charlie Munger speaking at an informal investors’ Q & A “clearly does not rate Gore’s intelligence or investment acumen,” according to the article.

“Al Gore has come into you fellas business, Munger said. “He has made $3 or $400 million in your business. And he’s not very smart. He smoked a lot of pot as he coaxed through Harvard with a gentleman’s C. But he had one obsessive idea that global warming was a terrible thing and he would protect the world from it,” he explained.  [Note: Gentleman’s C is defined by Urban Dictionary as “A grade given to a student (traditionally with wealthy parents) instead of a failing grade.”

“So his idea when he went into investment counseling is he was not going to put any CO2 in the air,” Meager explained to the investors noting that Gore’s simple strategy of buying only service company stocks enabled the former Vice President to become very rich.

Meager explained: “So he found some partner to go into investment counseling with and says we’re not going to have any (carbon dioxide). But this partner is a value investor and a good one. So what they did is, is Gore hired staff to find people who didn’t put CO2 in the air. Of course that put him into services. Microsoft and all these service companies were just ideally located. And this value investor picked the best service companies. So all of a sudden the clients are making hundreds of millions of dollars and they are paying part of it to Al Gore. Al Gore has hundreds of millions dollars in your profession. And he’s an idiot. It’s an interesting story. And a true one.”

As regular readers know quite well, the subject of AlGore and his global-warming fraud has been addressed here quite often in the past. However, this author only addresses what’s found in the media dispelling the climate-change hoax. 

But now, today, we have first-hand knowledge from one who’s far closer to Gore than most people are. And he’s reached the same conclusions as found here in the past, that if you really want to understand Gore’s objective, just follow the money like Charlie Munger was able to do.

And, as far as the actual climate’s concerned, Mother Nature will continue to take care of it by herself without a dime from anyone else. Just like she always does.

That’s it for today folks.


Monday, June 26, 2017


This morning's another wherein the mainstream media continues its assault on the Trump administration. Meanwhile however, the administration itself scored several significant victory’s in the past few days.

A major win is reported by the AP’s Mark Sherman who writes: “The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.”

Visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can now be banned if they lack a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." The justices will hear arguments in the rest of the case in October.

“Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.”

Three of the court's conservative justices, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said they would have let the complete bans take effect and that “government has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and that it will suffer irreparable harm with any interference.”

Most importantly: “Thomas said the government's interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.”

And then, another indication of positive shifting toward the POTUS was reported by Aaron Klein on Friday when the president “raised three unanswered questions about the Democratic Party and the Obama administration’s role in claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

“1 –  Why did the Democratic National Committee (DNC) turn down FBI requests to inspect its hacked servers?

“A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official was quoted by the news media as saying.”

“2 – Why was the DNC uninterested in assistance from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to secure DNC servers?

“In his prepared remarks before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, former Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson revealed that the Democratic National Committee “did not feel it needed” DHS assistance into hacks of the Committee’s systems.

“This means that the DNC, faced with hacks later attributed to Russia, turned down the possibility of assistance from at least two federal agencies – the DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).”

“3 – Why did the Obama administration wait until October before going public with claims that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?

“The Obama administration was reportedly confident that Russia was attempting to hack the election as early as August.  Yet the administration waited until October 7 to make an announcement, when the DHS released a statement claiming “the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” 

“Newsweek raised further questions three months ago when the magazine cited “two sources with knowledge of the matter” reporting that Comey wanted to go public with the Russia story in the summer of 2016, but he was rebuffed by top Obama administration officials.” 

And now that serious questions are finally being asked, where is this all going? The answer is, as has been suggested here for several weeks now, the Democrat hierarchy is now coming under investigation as they well should be.

According to Breitbart’s Kristina Wong on June 23rd: “Three Republican House Oversight Committee members on Friday called for an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller for acting in a partisan manner and applying double standards when it came to the Obama and Trump administrations.

“Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Mark Meadows (NC), and Jody Hice (GA) said Comey misled the American people last year when he agreed to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s request that he call an investigation into Hillary Clinton a “matter” instead of an investigation.

“He did it willfully. He did it intentionally. And he did it at the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch,” they wrote in a piece published on

They also said Comey misled the American people in the early weeks of the Trump administration by “furthering the perception that President Trump was under investigation, when in fact he was not.”

“He again did this willfully and intentionally,” they wrote.

They also pointed out that Comey recently admitted having a friend leak one of his memos detailing a private conversation he had with Trump, after Trump fired him.

“Comey admitted doing so to spark the appointment of a special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference and any collusion with the Trump campaign.

“That person appointed was Robert Mueller — Comey’s “mentor and predecessor,” they wrote.

“The American people want justice to be blind. They want equal justice and equal protection for everyone. But Mr. Comey’s actions continue to call his impartiality, and the impartiality of the Holder and Lynch Justice departments, into question,” they said.

6132 comments followed the article, just about all of them sampled agreeing with the three congressional Representatives regarding an investigatory “double-standard” that’s unfavorable toward Trump.

Reader Elefantmann wrote: “Don't underestimate Sessions either. 

“By accident the appointment of Mueller by assistant general attorney Rosenstein puts the Democratic cabal together in one big room. Mueller and Comey, together again. Comey and Lynch with Comey leaking out Lynch's bias towards the Clintons. Mueller tied into foot dragging of the IRS investigations. It's all going to come out.”

contractorniu disagreed with the Sessions assessment, feeling he wasn’t moving quickly enough: 

“AG Sessions has done very little. He should have stepped up to the plate and instigated, but instead he sits back and dribbles. We need a strong leader in AG.. Not Sessions.”

To that, reader Bruno replied:”Don't be so sure. Sessions is a good man who loves America & the Law.

“He is sorting through 30-40 yrs of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama filth. It takes a while to find out where everything has been hidden, and then take a proper survey before surgical strike.”

All of which serves to prove that a significant segment of today’s voters aren’t simply scanning headlines, but instead are keenly aware of what transpires daily in national politics. And those are the very same people who put Trump in office, and are intent in keeping him there. 

Adding substance to the growing refusal of Trump supporters to blindly accept what the left-leaning mainstream media publishes, on Saturday Matthew Boyle wrote

“Peddling fake news does not, in fact, equate to a long-term successful business strategy, reporters for The New York Times are learning the hard way.

“Reporters at the New York Times could soon be ‘vulnerable’ to the ax,” the Post’s Keith Kelly wrote. “If the ongoing round of voluntary buyouts being offered to editing staff does not get enough takers, the Gray Lady could begin another round, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet recently warned his top department editors.”

Since early 2017, “a whopping 109 copy editors have already been terminated while only 50 new jobs are likely to be created as the paper shifts its focus to digital. Kelly wrote.”

And then a point was raised regarding alternate news sources, which are availed here on a daily basis and may very well “bring about a seismic shift in the media industry as to which outlets have power and which do not.”

As a present practical reality, CNN is “under fire in the new world of media—while the Times keeps draining away in the long term. Part of the reason why the media target the president so much and so viciously is because he represents a threat to their continued business models—thus their cushy, elitist lifestyles could come to an end if such a change in the landscape occurred. President Trump is a threat to them, in large part, because he calls them out directly.”

“The President has repeatedly called the Gray Lady “the failing New York Times.

A reader, Real Talk, summed the situation up quite handily, commenting: “The future is truly BLEAK for this dying, annoying, mischievous, partisan, miserable, out of touch, bankrupt, clueless, classless, desperate, shameful & irrelevant entity, they write negative stories about our president on daily basis just to stay in business.... Shame on them!!!”

The comment received 439 “likes,” as well it should whereas it's the plain, totally applicable, everyday truth.

That’s it for today folks.


Sunday, June 25, 2017


As a growing number of news reports indicate major Democrat problems due to their lack of a viable platform, one who should know far better, Maureen Dowd, presented her misguided conclusion yesterday that the POTUS is “nuts enough to blow up the world.”  

However, while suggesting that the POTUS is "nuts,” Dowd writes:”Democrats are going to have to come up with something for people to be for, rather than just counting on Trump to implode. (Which he will.) The party still seems flummoxed that there are big swaths of the country where Democrats once roamed that now regard the Democratic brand as garbage and its long-in-the-tooth leadership as overstaying its welcome. The vibe is suffocating. Where’s the fresh talent? “

Conceding that the Democrat brand is “garbage” and realizing that they have no “fresh talent,” Dowd writes “We congenitally believe that our motives are pure and our goals are right,” Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, told me. “Therefore, we should win by default.” 

But, he added dryly: “You’ve got to run a good campaign. In elections, politics matter. Oooh, what a surprise.”

Thus in this case, Dowd and Chicago’s Mayor Emanuel believe that what’s most important in elections are a good campaign and good politics. However, the truth about leftist beliefs shows something else completely. Because their policies are unsustainable as a practical matter, and as proven over time, do not work at all. 

As reported by Sara Burnett “Illinois is on track to become the first U.S. state to have its credit rating downgraded to "junk" status, which would deepen its multibillion-dollar deficit and cost taxpayers more for years to come.

Ratings agencies are "concerned about Illinois' massive pension debt, as well as a $15 billion backlog of unpaid bills and the drop in revenue that occurred when lawmakers in 2015 allowed a temporary income tax increase to expire.”

The subject was analyzed further by Elliott Hamilton who wrote: “Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) of Illinois believes that his state is on the verge of "banana republic territory" because the state faces an imminent financial crisis. 

Quoting from The Fiscal Times on June 12:
  • 60% of state pensioners retired in their 50's, many with full pension benefits.
  • Over half of state pensioners will receive $1 million or more in pension benefits over the course of their retirements. Nearly 1 in 5 will receive over $2 million in benefits.
  • Almost 60% of all current state pensioners can expect to spend 25 or more years collecting benefits, based on approximate actuarial life expectancies. Due to automatic, 3% compounded COLA benefits, those pensioners can expect to see their annual pension benefits double in size.
  • The average career pensioner — retired after Jan. 1, 2013, with 30 years of service or more — receives $66,800 in annual pension benefits and will collect over $2 million in total benefits over the course of retirement.
  • The average career pensioner will get back his or her employee contributions after just two years in retirement. In all, pensioners’ direct employee contributions will only equal 6% of what they will receive in benefits over the course of their retirements.
“With a financial crisis like this, nobody is going to get their pay-day without destroying the state economy. While Detroit filed for bankruptcy following its own pension crisis, this could be the first time in the 21st century that a state in the union files for bankruptcy in a vain attempt to give excessive pension plans to government employees.”

Which means that while critics like Dowd, who is certain that Trump will “implode” and that his “fatal flaw is that he cannot drag himself away from the mirror,” she also acknowledges that “Democrats are stuck in loser gear.“

And then she concludes with the thought that “Trump may be nuts enough to blow up the world. But the Democrats are nuts if they think [he's] crazy enough to save them.” 

While Dowd is one of a very small group who realizes that despite how much she despises Trump, Democrats are actually far worse,  Mike Lillis wrote @ yesterday: “Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.”

According to Lillis, while Democratic leaders have been beating the drum this year over the ongoing probes into the Trump administration’s potential ties to Moscow, “rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare.”

Citing the string of special-election defeats, “an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift. 

“We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. “They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.  

“And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything that's going on,” he added, “then we're never going to be able to win elections.”

A reader, Devin, commented: “Democrats want to drop the Russian story because its starting to lead back to the obama administration."

SG, responded: “Bingo !!”

Dems_Sharia_MS13 followed with: “1200 Dem seats lost plus the special elections.

“Keep going with the Russia collusion hoax, progs. It is all working so well for you.”

And then, in a typical knee-jerk reaction, CNN published an unconfirmed anti-Trump story Thursday evening which led to a complete retraction.

Staff Writer Rob Tornoe reported that “On Thursday evening, CNN investigative reporter Thomas Frank published a potentially explosive report involving an investigation of a Russian investment fund with potential ties to several associates of President Donald Trump.

“But by Friday night, the story was removed from CNN’s website and all links were scrubbed from the network’s social media accounts.

“That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted,” CNN said in an editors note posted in place of the story. “Links to the story have been disabled.”

In addition to retracting its story, “CNN also apologized to Anthony Scaramucci, an adviser to Trump during the presidential campaign and a member of his transition team’s executive committee, who was mentioned in the story as having met Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) that the network said is overseen by Vnesheconombank, a state-run bank that is currently under U.S. sanctions.

“According to the report,  the meeting between Scarmucci and Dmitriev could have included the issue of sanctions being lifted, but a spokesperson for the RDIF told Sputnik News, a state-run Russian news channel, that the fund is not a part of Vnesheconombank.

“RDIF always operates in full compliance with relevant regulations and legislation and its operations do not violate sanctions,” the spokesperson said.

In terms of public opinion regarding story’s such as the preceding one erroneously thought by CNN  to be an expose of Trump, Tony Lee published some statistics about media bias today.

“According to recent YouGov polling, 70% of Americans “agree that news organizations report stories in a light that’s partial to who owns them.” In addition, while 52% of Democrats agree with this sentiment, a whopping 85% of Republicans do. When YouGov then asked “whether or not one would trust a news source if its track record proved objectivity,” 83% of Democrats said they would compared to 58% Republicans.

“The percentage point difference in the two surveys reveals that the general public sides more with Republicans than it does with Democrats on the topic of media bias,” YouGov noted.

And then, another report regarding the Sanders’ is more than likely true. This one coming from John Bat, who writes: 

“Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms. 

“Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders' top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution. 

“According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.”

All of which serves to reinforce the opening subject today, wherin Maureen Dowd rightfully proposed that “there are big swaths of the country where Democrats once roamed that now regard the Democratic brand as garbage and its long-in-the-tooth leadership as overstaying its welcome. The vibe is suffocating. Where’s the fresh talent? “

And if Sanders is ultimately found guilty of  inappropriately urging a bank to approve a business loan, Democrat leadership will not only be proven “stale,” one of them might wind up using campaign funds to cover he and his wife's bail.

That’s it for today folks.


Saturday, June 24, 2017


As expected here for quite some time now, the Russian investigation is now beginning a seismic shift. Moving away from Trump and toward Democrat leadership where it belongs. On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it sent four investigatory letters, including one to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. 

And while the Democrats keep insisting that Trump must be guilty of something, not really caring about what in particular, Trump himself maintains his focus on turning the nation’s economy around from the disaster its been for the last eight years under Obama.    

Seventeen tech CO’s met with him Monday, appearing optimistic about what was possible during this administration. According to Charlie Spiering, “Trump appeared open to working with them on issues they cared about, including immigration, saying “[W]e’re working very diligently with everybody, including Congress, on immigration so that you can get the people you want in your companies.”  

“Peter Thiel — the most high profile venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, who endorsed Trump — praised the president for highlighting the importance of technology.

“I think that the tech industry is an industry that is doing well in America and we need to sort of make it do even better,” Theil said, calling for ongoing government and regulatory support. “I think your administration is off to a terrific start in doing these things.”

Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Alphabet, said to Trump “I’m absolutely convinced that during your administration there is going to be a huge explosion of new opportunities because of the platforms that are getting built in our industry.”

“Apple CEO Tim Cook said he was pleased that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka Trump were bringing technology companies together in the Trump administration to help streamline government.” And that “innovations made in the Trump administration would pay back immensely in the future.”

“Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos also praised Trump’s administration for forming the tech innovation council, telling Trump that his team could be the “innovation administration.”

“Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella also thanked Trump for the opportunity and said he hoped that Trump would continue both government spending on technology and “enlightened immigration” policies that would allow them to stay competitive.

“A full list of the tech CEOs who attended below:

Ajay Banga, CEO of MasterCard
Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon
Zachary Bookman, CEO of OpenGov
Safra Catz, Co-Chief Executive of Oracle
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple
John Doerr, Chairman of Kleiner Perkins
Pat Gelsinger, CEO of VMware
Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir
Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel
Tom Leighton, CEO of Akamai
Bill McDermott, CEO of SAP
Steven Mollenkopf, CEO of Qualcomm
Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft
Shantanu Narayen, CEO of Adobe
Ginni Rometty, CEO of IBM
Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Alphabet
Julie Sweet, CEO of Accenture
Peter Thiel, Founders Fund”

By comparison, while the POTUS was meeting with industry leaders having potential to create billions upon billions of dollars in growth to the nation’s economy, leftists remained transfixed on Russian collusion-based witch hunts.

However, a reported Ian Mason the Senate Judiciary Committee is now demanding “answers and documents related to the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, especially reports that Clinton campaign operatives expressed confidence Lynch would keep that investigation from “going too far.”

“The demand comes as the Judiciary Committee investigates the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of ex-FBI Director James Comey, in which the material may take on a new significance.

“The New York Times reported this April that not only had Lynch told then-Director Comey in September of 2015 to refer to the investigation of Secretary Clinton and her staff as a “matter,” but that the Justice Department  obtained a Russian document in March 2016 showing a “Democratic operative” expressing “confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.”

Reader Rick Jones (Deplorable) asked in a comment: “Could this be the begining of the swamp draining??? It is crystal clear that all of these dirtbags have committed numerous crimes, crimes for which regular folk would be locked up."

Rick received 597 “Likes.”

And then, another example of Democrat financial wizardry appeared. While gas prices are now sliding, providing consumers more room in their budgets for fulfilling needs and/or perhaps even some entertainment, California Governor Jerry Brown wants a 12-cent hike in his state's gas tax.

Brown said: “There's nothing more fundamental in the business of government than making sure the roads and bridges don't fall apart – and they are falling apart." 

He likened the $5 billion a year infusion of additional taxpayer money to annual medical check-ups, saying neglect, in either case, is done at one's own peril.

Voters though, have quite different opinion, whereas “A recent poll of California voters shows a strong majority against the new tax, which takes effect in November and will raise the state's overall gas tax to 50 cents per gallon. Another 7.5 cent-per-gallon increase is scheduled for 2019, which will put California motorists second in the nation to Pennsylvania for most taxes paid at the pump.”

What’s even more ridiculous about Brown's proposal is that, as stated by Kris Vosburgh of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: “The fact is by the time the money goes through the bureaucracy – much of it is diverted elsewhere – people don't see an improvement." 

Reader tsaerman wrote: “More taxes to give to illegals. If you come to California maker sure to brush up on your spanish because nobody speaks english here anymore. GRACIAS.”

californiakook added: “They have to raise taxes. They've subsidized electric vehicles, and relieved them of road use taxes, although they are just as rough on roads as any Ford Fiesta. So, you have to tax those people who need a car, not a short range golf cart. That's the Socialist way of doing business.”

And then Rush once again referenced Alan Dershowitz, who’s become a steady ally in illustrating the absurdity of the left’s fixation on the non-existent Trump/Russia connection.    

Yesterday, Rush said: “I don’t know what has happened to Professor Dershowitz, but whatever it is, I like it.”

“Professor Dershowitz has written about it. He said, “Now that President Trump has tweeted that he didn’t tape James Comey, the anti-Trump zealots are accusing him of witness intimidation.” Professor Dershowitz says, “This is most the absurd of the many absurd charges leveled against Trump by those out to get him without regard to the law. Trump’s bluff was calculated to get Comey to tell the truth. How can that be witness intimidation? If it were, Abraham Lincoln would have gone to prison rather than the White House.

“As a young lawyer, he, too, bluffed a witness into telling the truth. In one of his most famous murder cases, a witness testified that he saw Lincoln’s client kill the victim. The time it occurred was at night, so the witness testified that he was able to see the crime because there was a full moon. Lincoln then handed the witness an almanac and asked him to turn to the date in question. The almanac showed that there was no moon on that night, and the witness broke down and admitted that he had not seen the crime.

“The defendant was acquitted. Lincoln later acknowledged that he had deliberately fooled the witness into telling the truth by handing him an almanac for the wrong year. The correct year’s almanac indeed showed a full moon.” Lincoln fully bluffed a witness and got him to change his story, which was a lie. Dershowitz says that all Trump has done here is bluff Comey into releasing news that Trump wanted Comey to release.”

In the near future, however, Alan Dershowitz may not have time to write about comparison’s such as Trump and Abraham Lincoln. Because, as the Senate Judiciary Committee ramps up it’s investigations into Democrat involvement with Russia, many of them will be needing lawyers like Dershowitz to defend them.

That’s it for today folks.


Friday, June 23, 2017


In typical fashion, Democrats reacted vehemently to the Senate version of replacement of Obamacare, although none of them seem to have read the revisions made.  

One of the first to react was Schumer who said in a speech that the bill “will result in higher costs, less care and millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, particularly through Medicaid.”

Mitch McConnell, however, highlighted elements of the bill from the floor of the Senate, saying that if the bill passes as written, it gets rid of all Obamacare taxes, keeps coverage for people with preexisting conditions, and will continue to cover adult children on their parents’ plan up to age 26.

Health savings accounts will be enhanced and strengthened. States will now have the choice of what to cover, unlike the federal government doing so, while billions will be spent stabilizing insurance markets.

In addition, McConnell said the individual mandate is gone in the Senate bill. And so is the employer mandate which is, according to Rush, “is what has led to many American employees being downsized to 29 hours a week, because the threshold was 30 hours. If an employee worked 30 hours or more, the company had to cover ’em. If they worked 29 hours or less, the company didn’t. And so this led many American companies, corporations large and small, to change the structure of their employment so that more and more people were working part time and therefore weren’t covered. McConnell says we’re getting rid of both of those.”

Rush went on to say: “The Drive-By Media already has push polls out saying how much the American people hate it. They don’t even know about it yet, but our friends in the Drive-Bys have got a push poll out; Americans think that the Republican health care bill will kill people and hurt people. Big surprise.”

Rush continued his analysis, which as usual, was right on the money, saying: “As McConnell started speaking, the Drive-Bys started trickling out their response. AP and Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post unanimous in saying that the Republican bill in the Senate is mean-spirited, that it will hurt people, and that it won’t work. The same people who told us that Obamacare was brilliant. The same people that told us, along with Obama, if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you get to keep your plan.

“The same people that told us that Obama’s health care plan was brilliant and it was gonna insure the uninsurable, and it was gonna heal the unhealable and it was gonna make well the sick. It was gonna do all these miraculous things and it was not gonna cost any new money, oh, it was so wonderful. Of course, it was all BS. Reuters even has one of their patented push polls out. I mentioned this earlier. The headline of the Reuters story: “Most Americans Say Republican Healthcare Plan Will Be Harmful.”

Rush then referred to Avik Roy who writes at National Review and Forbes, saying he’s a scholar whose expertise is health care and that Roy had posted the following: “Finished reading the Senate [health care] bill. Put simply: If it passes, it’ll be the greatest policy achievement by a [Republican] Congress in my lifetime.” 

After reading Roy’s powerful endorsement of the Senate bill, some research on him shows that he’s an Indian-American journalist and policy advisor. He is the co-founder and president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a think tank based in Austin, Texas, according to Wikipedia.

“While working as an investment research analyst in the late 2000s, Roy began blogging in response to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, from a critical point of view. The blog was republished at National Review Online, and moved to Forbes in 2011. Roy has published two books about the Affordable Care Act, as well as research and proposals though the Manhattan Institute, where he was a senior fellow from 2011 to 2016.

“Roy has been a policy advisor to three Republican Party presidential candidates. He was a health care policy advisor to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign and was the senior advisor to Rick Perry's 2016 campaign. After Rick Perry withdrew from the race, Roy joined the 2016 presidential campaign of Marco Rubio as a policy advisor.”

Thus, when it comes to having first class credentials and intimate knowledge of the subject, the Affordable Care Act, one couldn’t find a more qualified analyst. Meaning that the Senate has evidently done a superior job in revising the disaster known as Obamacare.

Coming back to Rush, he then presented  the certainly accurate premise that “Most Americans haven’t even seen it! It has not actually been formally presented. This is exactly how they do it in the Drive-Bys. Because most low-information people are not gonna know it hasn’t been presented. They’re gonna see this: “Most Americans Say Republican Healthcare Plan Will Be Harmful.” Gonna assume that everybody else but them knows about it.”

However, the continual obstructionism with no material alternatives is apparently coming back to significantly haunt the hapless Democrats who’ve now lost five contiguous elections. The last one being the sure thing they thought they had in Georgia with Ossoff.

That’s why Pelosi's now in trouble while an influential leftist like David “Rodham” Gergen said yesterday, not only are we not going to get rid of Trump, “if we’re not careful, he’s gonna be reelected.”

Another indicator of public sentiment regarding the POTUS comes from from Tony Lee who wrote: “Just three weeks into her new Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly program, Megyn Kelly’s “star is dimmer than ever,” according to television industry publication Variety.”

Television critic Sonia Saraiya notes, in a piece titled, “NBC’s Megyn Kelly Problem,” that since Kelly left Fox News in January for NBC, “whatever high-wattage star power she had has waned considerably” and “by all measures, her ‘Sunday Night’ effort has been a disaster.”

She points out many of Kelly’s flaws that were obvious to many except for NBC executives who may have chosen to overlook them because she seemed like a “sensible” Republican when Kelly attacked Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

"Her current track record reveals that:   
"The debut of her Sunday show lost to a rerun of 60 Minutes, and it has been downhill for Kelly since. Her second show lost to reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home Videos. Her third show that featured her controversial interview with Alex Jones was her lowest-rated show yet, drawing a measly 3.5 million viewers and losing again to reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home videos. As Breitbart News wrote, controversy creates cash and ratings—unless you are Kelly.

"A network executive told CNN last week that NBC’s “fundamental mistake” was thinking that Kelly was a “superstar.”

Reader, LuciLulu, commented: “It all started with her giddy smugness when she tried to take out Trump at the debate. She made a name for herself that day...but not the one she thought she would. And now she's made her bed.”

Bringing us to some news about Trump’s former rival, coming from Tim Marcin, as follows:

“Just 41 percent of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, according to a poll released by Gallup Wednesday. Fifty-seven percent, meanwhile, view Clinton unfavorably. Those figures are virtually unchanged since November, when Clinton lost the election in a somewhat shocking upset. At about that time, Gallup found 43 percent viewed Clinton favorably while 55 percent viewed her unfavorably; since then, her numbers have held pretty steady at 41/57.

“That Clinton hasn't seen a bump in support represents an anomaly from historical trends. 

"Over the past quarter century, the favorable ratings of losing presidential candidates generally have increased after the election—some in the immediate aftermath and others in the months that followed," Gallup wrote Wednesday. Typically, losing candidates can expect to see a bump in favorability of about 4 points, according to Gallup.”

Which means that, with Trump’s election, it looks like the voting public avoided putting a colossal loser in the White House. 

That’s it for today folks.


Thursday, June 22, 2017


Today’s one indicating upcoming significant change in political strategizing for the left, while reinforcement of the Republican focus on business growth continues flourishing.   
Jess Macy Yu and J.R. Wu report via Drudge that “Foxconn, the world's largest contract electronics maker and a major Apple Inc supplier, plans to invest more than $10 billion in a display-making factory in the United States and will decide on the location of the plant next month.”

Locations being considered include Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, while Gou told reporters: “In the U.S., the state governors' sincerity and confidence to attract investment ... is beyond my imagination."

"This time we go to America, it's not just to build a factory, but to move our entire supply chain there," Gou told shareholders, without providing specific details.

Which is in keeping President Trump’s calling for “firms to build more products in the United States,” focusing on investments by both foreign and domestic manufacturers as promised in his campaign. 

On the Democrat side, another high-profile leader certainly senses what’s happening to his party as it evaporates around him.

According to Tony Lee “Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes Americans must “get behind” President Donald Trump because “he’s our president” and “the public has spoken.”

Appearing on Wednesday’s episode of The View on ABC, Bloomberg said he doesn’t want Democrats to be obstructionists just to hurt Trump politically. “You can protest. You can elect other officials. You can write letters. You make phone calls. You can carry signs. You can do all that. But in the end, we’re a democracy. The public has spoken—whether you like the results or not.”

Bloomberg added that, “You have to make it work. We have an election. Whoever wins, you got to get behind, and you can run against someone else.” He also joked that Trump got elected with “a little help from the Russians.”

However, when endorsing Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in a primetime speech, he said he was doing so because he thought Trump was a “dangerous demagogue,” who “would do great damage to our economy” and “erode our influence in the world.”

“The bottom line is: Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice,” he said then. “And we can’t afford to make that choice!”

But now, yesterday, Bloomberg said that Trump is “our president and we need the country to be run well.” Adding, “I didn’t vote for him.”

“Let’s just all hope that Donald Trump is a good president of the United States,” he said adding that Trump has a 55% chance to be re-elected.

Which means that although Bloomberg's opinions regarding Trump most likely haven’t changed an iota, and he probably still hates him most wholeheartedly, Bloomberg also knows that his party's going nowhere except backward if their whole platform is anti-Trump vitriol. 
The same conclusion was apparently reached by filmmaker and leftist activist Michael Moore, who yesterday on Twitter expressed his frustration with Ossoff’s loss in Georgia.

Moore tweeted: “If u think the party who’s won the vote in 6 o last 7 Prez votes but hold ZERO power &is now 0-4 in 2017 votes is going to win next year… get a friggin’ clue [sic],” . “The DNC&DCCC has NO idea how 2 win cause they have no message, no plan, no leaders, won’t fight &hate the resistance[.]”

Aside from Democrat politician’s inability to gain voter popularity, nationally syndicated radio show host, author and University of the Arts professor of humanities and media studies Camille Paglia railed against the current state of journalism in America on Sean Hannity’s program. 

Calling what she said the Democratic Party had done to journalism “absolutely grotesque” Paglia warned it would take decades to recover.

“It’s obscene,” she said. “It’s outrageous, OK? It shows that the Democrats are nothing now but words and fantasy and hallucination and Hollywood. There’s no journalism left. What’s happened to The New York Times? What’s happened to the major networks? It’s an outrage.”

“I’m a professor of media studies, in addition to a professor of humanities, OK?” she continued. “And I think it’s absolutely grotesque the way my party has destroyed journalism. Right now, it is going to take decades to recover from this atrocity that’s going on where the news media have turned themselves over to the most childish fraternity, kind of buffoonish behavior.”

Picking up on the theme of Democrat futility yesterday, Rush discussed “another congressional hearing. And Jeh Johnson, another vaunted Obama administration guy brought back up, and he was being asked today about what they knew about Russians tampering and hacking with the election. I just want you to hear this.”

"[Republican Congressman] Mike Conaway from Texas: “One of our purposes this morning was to reassure the American public with [regard] to the 16 election and also secondly look at what we do in future elections going forward. You said in your opening statement, in your prepared remarks that to your knowledge there was no vote tallying changes, that no one’s vote was voted one way and recorded some other way. Is that still your opinion with respect to the 16 election,” the intrusions, whatever they might have been, by whoever, the vote was not affected?”

"Johnson: “Based on everything I know, that is correct. I know of no evidence that through cyber intrusions, votes were altered or suppressed in some way.

"Rush: “So what are we doing here? They are continuing to chase ghosts. They cannot win elections.”

Jeh Johnson came up again in an article by Pam Key, as follows: “[T]alking to Martha Maccallum on Fox News Channel’s “The Story,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said it was concerning that while testifying before the House Intelligence Committee earlier in the day at a hearing on the alleged Russian hacking of the 2016 presidential election, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said his department’s offer to help the Democratic National Committee was denied.

MACCALLUM: “What struck you most about your conversation with Jeh Johnson today?”

GOWDY: “He is in a unique position to answer those questions. He is looking at what Russia was doing. What was the government’s response in 2016? He was the secretary of DHS at all relevant times. I was interested in what the Obama administration knew and when and what efforts they took to thwart the Russians, or to notify potential victims. You just played a clip where we had a victim, the DNC. Not only did they not cooperate with Jeh Johnson, they didn’t turn the server over to the FBI, I think it is a little ironic to now criticize, some Democrats are, Jeh Johnson and Jim Comey and others for not giving enough in 2016, when you had a really good piece of evidence you didn’t bother to turn over.”

MACCALLUM: ”It’s really a head scratcher. When you take a look at it from that perspective—when you put yourself there, during the election, and you remember the emails that were leaked, very embarrassing for John Podesta, Neera Tanden. That was the main thing that Democrats pegged their election loss on. They said because these emails were released, they call it the Russian hacking, which is apparently where it came from. If you remember the content, it was embarrassing. At the same time, they were asked by the FBI and the DHS to give the servers up, let’s figure out who is getting into them and how. Why would they say no? Why would they not want to cooperate?”

GOWDY: “Let me hazard a wild guess. There may be something else on that server they didn’t want law enforcement to see? That is where you start. I don’t like speculating, but I have dealt in the past with victims that would not cooperate with investigations. Typically, the reason is, there is something else you don’t want law enforcement to see. There is no reason to not allow DHS to patch or fix a vulnerability in the DNC system. Heaven knows there is no reason to not give the world’s premier law enforcement agency, which is the FBI, the evidence they may need to stop another attack from hurting someone else.”

An accurate summation came from reader gordonfreeman who commented: “The Democrats are really playing with fire...

“They are not in power. Eric Holder can't cover for them. And they're just being arrogant & unwise.

“The more Democrats testify, the more likely some of these issues come to light & backfire on them.”

As far as Gowdy himself concerned  over the past few days it’s been suggested here that with 
his appointment as House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman things are about to change in the realm of Congressional investigations, with the pendulum starting to swing leftward. 

And then, while the Democrats are foundering as they chase Russian ghosts, one of their most prominent leaders performed foolishly again yesterday. 

Dr. Susan Berry reports: “In a move that many Americans will no doubt view as the height of liberal hypocrisy, Senate Democrats are planning to bring their chamber to a halt Monday to protest what they view as the Republicans’ closed-door process in writing a health care proposal to repeal Obamacare.

“Democrats’ demand to see the GOP healthcare bill before it comes up for a vote reveals a decidedly different tone from one former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi adopted in 2010 when Obamacare was passed by her party.

“Pelosi – now famously – said prior to the passage of Obamacare, “We’ll have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”

“Democrats have also consistently refused to work with Republicans on fixing Obamacare.”

And leave it to Rush again to come up with a pertinently appropriate observation about the congressional vote in Georgia, saying yesterday: “I tell you, I wouldn’t want to be in the group of people that have to talk to Hillary Clinton today. You gotta go talk to Hillary, you gotta be careful not to tell Hillary, don’t tell Hillary that a woman can beat a man even when she’s outspent by a gazillion dollars. Trump spent a fraction of what Hillary spent and won. Ditto Georgia-6. Karen Handel spent a smidgen of what was arrayed against her, and she still won, and it wasn’t close.”

All in all not a very good day to be a Democrat. Particularly if you’re Nancy Pelosi, Jeh Johnson Michael Bloomberg, or Michael Moore. 

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, June 21, 2017


The loss of the House race in Georgia comes on the heels of yesterday’s blog in which this author questioned the Democrat objective. Which seems to be nothing more than “fighting back” against the American Dream as represented by President Trump.

And from the election results, it appears that voters are none to sure of what Democrats offer either.   

Liz Peek writes that Democrats “poured tens of millions of dollars into what became the most expensive House race ever.” With a candidate, 30-year-old “nonentity” Jon Ossoff, the race was cast as a "referendum on Donald Trump, and a bellwether for 2018.”

The winning Republican, Karen Handel, “worked her way up through state politics and was a reliable middle-of-the-road candidate.” 

And then Ms Peek raised the critically important point for Democrats, that: “What is undoubtedly true is this: despising Donald Trump is not much of a platform."

“The loss of the Georgia election is devastating for Democrats. There were plenty of reasons to think they might score an upset, and they went for broke. The race became not a referendum on President Trump, but on Democrats’ ability to convert their newfound energy and activism into wins at the ballot box. They failed, and many will wonder if the party’s leadership has what it takes to get them back on track.”

Larry Sabato, Director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics  stated on Tuesday’s “CNN Tonight,” that “the results of Georgia’s special election are saddening for Democrats, and they should learn the lesson that re-taking the House and defeating President Trump will be long and difficult,” as reported by Ian Hanchett

Sabato went on: “[F]or Democrats, obviously, it’s pretty depressing. … I think, if Democrats learn a lesson from this election, it’s that the euphoria that they’ve felt for the last several months as Donald Trump has fallen in the polls and they began to believe that this would be — not easy, but doable to take over the House of Representatives and eventually replace Donald Trump, that euphoria is gone, and it’s replaced with reality. And the reality is, it’s going to be a long, twilight struggle, day in and day out, if they’re going to be able to re-take the House and eventually defeat Donald Trump. It won’t be easy. It may not be possible.”

A reader, Patricia Mulligan, offered Democrats some advice, commenting: “Maybe if you'd spend less time trying to fight Trump and spend a little more time listening to what Americans want, you'd do a little better. America is fed up with you little people telling us what we want and need. Try to stop all your strategizing and start LISTENING.”

Then, Charlie Spiering who’s also, addressed the subject as well, writing: “White House Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway celebrated the humiliating defeat for Democrats in Georgia on Tuesday night after Republican Karen Handel beat her challenger Jon Ossoff.

“Laughing my #Ossoff,” she wrote on Twitter after it was clear that Handel was winning.

“Conway also took a shot at the pundits who predicted a loss for Trump and Republicans in Georgia.

“Thanks to everyone who breathlessly and snarkily proclaimed GA06 as a “referendum on POTUS,” she wrote. “You were right.”

“Conway thanked Handel for “being a grownup” and “running on the issues” — while actually living in the district she was running to represent.

“Welcome to Congress,” she wrote and highlighted Handel’s call to “lift up this nation so that we can find a more civil way to deal with our disagreements.”

Another Breitbart writer, Jeff Poor, presented a different perspective. This one coming from Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson who opened his show on why Democrats are continuing to lose these elections, as follows:
“[D]emocrats still have literally no idea why they keep losing elections. If they did they would have run a real candidate with a real job who understands the constituents he is attempting to represent.
“Instead, Democrats put up a 30-year-old semi-employed documentary filmmaker who can’t even vote for himself because he doesn’t live in the district. He’s got a ton of trendy rich people positions on just about every topic – the abortion people love him. He is gravely concerned about climate and childhood obesity and the availability of organic kale. He thinks illegal aliens are noble. He went to the London School of Economics. He is super fit and way smarter than you want.
“We could go on and on, but you’ve seen it all before. That’s the point. Voters have seen it before, too. And outside of Brooklyn and in the west side of L.A., they are not that into it. That’s why Democrats keep losing.”
However, while all those pundits quoted above have surely presented valid points, none have taken the issue far enough. Because, as noted in yesterday’s blog, significant numbers of voters are simply sick and tired of Democrat leadership’s hypocrisy.  

And when you have multi-millionaires continually exhorting the less fortunate populace to pay higher taxes, redistribute whatever’s theirs and give up job opportunity to illegal entrants, sooner or later even the dimmest leftist will wake up and smell the double-standard.   

All of which suggests that Larry Sabato was correct in his assessment that unless something changes in the Democrat mantra : “[T]he reality is, it’s going to be a long, twilight struggle, day in and day out, if they’re going to be able to re-take the House and eventually defeat Donald Trump. It won’t be easy. It may not be possible.”

And then there's an example of what lies ahead should Democrats continue creating phantom charges against the president.  

As mentioned last week, South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy secured one of Congress’s most powerful investigative posts when voted in as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

Now having nearly boundless jurisdiction to probe executive branch misdeeds and abuses, he “criticized congressional Democrats Tuesday for making what he called "reckless, baseless allegations" about President Trump's involvement in Russian activities during the 2016 election campaign,” according to

"There are members of both the House and the Senate who [say] 'I’ve seen evidence that is more than circumstantial, but not direct,'" Gowdy told Fox News. "There is no way it can be more than circumstantial but not direct."

“Gowdy, who serves on the House intelligence committee investigating possible connections between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign, said a member of the panel "said this week that he has seen evidence [but] he can’t tell us what it is [and] it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt.

"There’s no way to defend yourself against those kinds of baseless, reckless accusations," Gowdy said.

So now there’s a much more vociferous individual at the helm of an investigative committee who’ll not stand still for baseless, politically-motivated charges. Which brings us back to Liz Peek’s observation that: “What is undoubtedly true is this: despising Donald Trump is not much of a platform.” 

Thus, combining the two elements, baseless reckless accusations and the total lack of a viable Democrat platform brings us back to Sabato for a third time today and his observation that eventually defeating  Donald Trump “may not be possible.”

That's it for today folks.