Wednesday, July 26, 2017


While news providers trip all over each other in trying to provide flashes about the POTUS’s current dissatisfaction with Attorney General Sessions, the real problem may simply boil down to the fact that Trump is a businessman, not a politician. And therefore, the choices he makes are what he deems best for his organization at any particular point in time, despite the political issues that might be caused.

Yet, on the other hand, in regard to the areas he knows best, business, industrial leaders and their stockholders illustrate total confidence in the nation’s current economic outlook.
As reported by Fred Imbert this morning: “U.S. stocks traded higher as more companies continue to report strong quarterly results.”

The Dow Jones industrial average rose 114 points to hit a record high as Dow-component Boeing posted earnings per share of $2.55, topping Wall Street estimates. “The S&P 500 also hit a record, rising 0.1 percent as telecommunications led advancers. The Nasdaq composite climbed 0.3 percent and also notched an all-time high.”

“Coca-Cola and Ford also posted better-than-expected quarterly results.

“Earnings season has been strong thus far. With 34 percent of S&P 500 components having reported as of Wednesday morning, 78 percent have beaten expectations on the bottom line and 73 percent have topped on sales, according to data from The Earnings Scout.

“Kim Forrest, senior equity analyst at Fort Pitt Capital, said she expects companies to continue reporting strong quarterly results this season. "The results are showing the economy continues to improve, so I would expect these types of results to continue."

At the same time, also reports that Apple-supplier Foxconn will announce a plant in Wisconsin on Wednesday evening. 

“The announcement would come on the heels of a Wall Street Journal interview with Trump, where he said he had spoken to Apple CEO Tim Cook about three U.S. factories. Apple has yet to comment on Trump's remarks. Cook told Jim Cramer on CNBC's "Mad Money" in May it would start a $1 billion fund to promote advanced manufacturing jobs in the United States. 

“With its wide network of developers, Apple has already created two million jobs in the United States, according to Cook. Apple supplier Corning told CNBC last week that it would "immediately" invest $500 million and create 1,000 new jobs in the United States, but those jobs were related to medical devices.”

However, despite Trump’s continual delivery as promised for the nation’s economy, job development and opportunity, the mainstream media maintains its relentless leftist-supportive assault on the POTUS’s non-existent Russian association. 

In this matter, Newt Gingrich has once again struck at the heart of the matter, suggesting the investigation change focus to where it really belongs. On the Clinton’s.

Jeff Poor writes that “Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called efforts to reopen the story of alleged corruption surrounding the Clinton Foundation “totally reasonable” given the environment the Democratic Party had created.

“According to Gingrich, questions about the Russian government’s associations with those tied to the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign deserved attention as well.

“Well, look, the president’s now had six months of watching the establishment go after him relentlessly, dishonestly with a whole series of falsehoods,” Gingrich said. “And he’s saying, ‘Wait a second, if we’re going to attack Don, Jr. for one 15-minute meeting, what about the fact that her campaign chairman’s brother was the registered lobbyist for a Russian bank? What about the fact that they had this uranium deal while she was secretary of state?”

“I mean, in a sense, the left has brought on itself creating an environment in which it is now totally reasonable to go back and reopen the whole Clinton Foundation story and ask if we want to look at Russian influence, there was a lot more money going to the Clintons by any standard than anybody has even begun to allege in any way affected the Trump operation, particularly since nobody’s found anything yet that affected the Trump operation,” he continued. “You know, Andy McCarthy, who’s a great former prosecutor in the Justice Department, keeps writing pieces saying there’s no crime here. How can Mueller be an independent counsel when they have yet to define a single crime?”

So, considering the facts involved, Trump’s reaction is exactly what it should be. And that’s what he’s upset with Sessions about now. 

As reported by Matthew Boyle “Trump is upset about how Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and did not tell him he would before he took office. Trump has a legitimate grievance there—there is literally no way that Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch would have recused themselves in a similar spot during their tenures as now former President Barack Obama’s attorneys general. Nonetheless, Trump has yet to directly call on Sessions to resign, and has not fired him—despite constant griping from the opposition party media pushing for that next soundbite for him to do so and to keep the story alive.”

Nonetheless, despite the facts of the matter stated above,  when politics are involved there are far more ramifications than would exist in the business world. 

As noted by author Boyle: “Sessions is a critical part of the Trump administration—and before there was a Trump administration, Sessions was a critical part of the “movement” that elected Trump to the presidency. Losing Sessions could endanger the administration and the split the critical coalition that helped Trump to the presidency. Doing that is something Trump supporters nationwide do not want to see—and in fact, with all the reports of Trump being upset after he fired Gen. Mike Flynn earlier this year, it might be wise for the president to slow down and think about this one before he fires away too harshly and quickly.”

History shows the depth of Sessions involvement in the Trump campaign and its critical importance from the outset as Boyle writes: “Sessions, the intellectual leader of the future of the conservative movement, has provided the brainpower behind the populist nationalist revolt against political elites that’s been emerging since at least 2013. At a warm and windy rally here with thousands present in a packed football stadium just outside Huntsville, Sessions appeared on stage with Trump to back him for president. Sessions’ endorsement provides Trump with even more legitimacy as Trump’s two remaining serious opponents—Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX)—attempt to undermine him in a desperate bid by the donor class to regain control of the party from populists revolting in elections around the country. Sessions backing Trump is a significant blow to both Rubio and Cruz, as now the powerful Alabamian will be putting his entire operation all in behind Trump.

“The new book Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and the Storming of the Presidency also includes critical details about how Sessions knew that endorsing Trump was a critical moment in his career. If he failed to succeed in getting Trump not only the nomination but into the Oval Office past Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the November 2016 general election, he would not have a future at all in GOP politics. Sessions bet it all on Trump, and they won.

“He became the first U.S. Senator to back the now-President of the United States. It was, as we reported at the time, a “game change” moment in the campaign—as big a deal as any other moment over the two years of Trump’s meteoric rise to the Oval Office.”

All of which serves to underline the point that politics is quite a different game than running one’s own business. And since that will remain the case, it might be best if Trump backed off the issue at present, giving Sessions some time to adjust his focus. 

Because even if Trump is absolutely correct in his analysis of Sessions, in the eyes of the mainstream media, his political opponents and many current supporters, Trump will still be perceived as wrong. And while that’s something that may not matter when running privately-owned enterprises, it can be a total disaster in the job he holds now.

That’s it for today folks.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017


Today’s another wherein one has to wonder if those on the left ever pay attention to what goes on in the nation, or simply pursue their consistently backward agenda, regardless. 

Evidence of Democrat refusal to accept and respect the wishes of the public majority can be seen farther along in today’s entry. But first, here are several examples of what their stubbornness is up against.   

It was mentioned here yesterday that according to a new Rasmussen Report survey: 74% of adults rate life as good or excellent. That’s the highest level of satisfaction ever recorded by Rasmussen

“Only 5% of Americans in this survey rate their life as poor.

And now, today Fred Imbert reports that: “The S&P 500 rose 0.4 percent to hit a record high, with financials, materials and energy rising more than 1 percent to lead advancers. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 123 points.

“Caterpillar and McDonald's contributing the most gains.

"This is what the market needs to hear from industrial names coming in strong," said Quincy Krosby, chief market strategist at Prudential Financial. "This is the earnings week."

"The majority of companies that have reported have beaten" the Street, said Nick Raich, CEO of The Earnings Scout. "If there is a negative in these numbers, and this was expected, is that the earnings growth rate has declined from the first quarter."

Wall Street also expects the Fed to keep interest rates unchanged at its meetings this week, while major metro area home prices rose 5.7 percent in May, according to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller home price index. 

The vast improvement in the nations economy is further seen in an article by Scott Lanman this morning, titled: “Pickup in Confidence Shows Americans Upbeat on Jobs, Economy”

“A four-month high in U.S. consumer confidence reflects Americans’ sunnier views on both their current situation and outlook, a positive sign for the economy, data from the New York-based Conference Board showed Tuesday.

“Overall, consumers foresee the current economic expansion continuing well into the second half of this year,” Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at the Conference Board, said in a statement.
  • Share of respondents citing “good” business conditions rose to the highest level since early 2001; the proportion expecting them to improve over the next six months also increased
  • Labor differential, measuring share of those saying jobs are plentiful minus the share saying they’re hard to get, widened to 16.1 percentage points, the most since August 2001
  • Consumers were modestly less upbeat about income prospects than in previous month
  • Buying plans up for autos and homes, down for major appliances
And then, after 74% of adults rated life as good or excellent, with the highest level of satisfaction ever recorded by Rasmussen, followed by a continual stream of improvement across the economic board, Alex Roarty reports that: “Democrats please progressives with left-leaning policy agenda”

“The Democratic Party’s top leaders talked about reviving Teddy Roosevelt’s fights against big corporations, mimicked Bernie Sanders’ calls for a massive minimum wage hike, and echoed Franklin Roosevelt’s promise to deliver a “New Deal” to the American public.

“It was the kind of message the party’s liberal wing has waited years to hear.

“For a long time the Democratic Party has been pretty timid about the role of government,” said Tamara Draut, a vice president of policy and research at the liberal think tank Demos. “It’s a good thing to see them leaning in to it.”

Chuck Schumer then offered an opinion one really has to think about. Because it seems as if he doesn’t really know what nation he lives in or has even an iota of knowledge of how that nation is supposed to function.

Schumer said: “When you lose elections, as we did in 2014 and 2016, you don’t flinch, you don’t blink. You look in the mirror and ask what did we do wrong? The number one thing we did wrong was not to present a strong, bold economic agenda to working Americans so they’re hope for the future might return.” 

Schumer’s language proved cause for Roarty to note that it “was reminiscent of a revolutionary-minded activist.” 

“Old-fashioned capitalism has broken down, to the detriment of the consumer,” the Democratic Senate leader said. (The term “Better Deal” is an homage to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal economic program from the 1930s, which many liberals still view as the foundation for the party’s economic agenda.)

“Progressive leaders also approved of the substance of agenda. That wasn’t surprising, given that many of the proposals in the “Better Deal” agenda were tailor-made to please a liberal audience, including raising the minimum wage to the $15-an-hour mark Bernie Sanders advocated for during last year’s presidential election. 

“It also calls for allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, reshaping trade deals, and creating a new government position to enforce anti-trust laws.”

While the economy-stifling objectives are obvious in Schumer’s verbiage, Liz Peek wrote an excellent rejoinder this morning.

“If you don’t succeed at first, fail and fail again. Democratic congressional leaders who seem to be pursuing that strategy trotted out a series of failed solutions Monday to problems that only worsened under the Obama administration. They mislabeled their absurd plan “A Better Deal.”

“If truth-in-labeling laws applied to political slogans, the Democrats would have to rename their new game plan “An Awful Deal.”

“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) were joined by other top Democrats at a news conference in tiny Berryville, Va., in a laughable effort to show that big-city Democrats really and truly care about ordinary Americans and not just far-left elites.

“But instead of coming up with effective and workable policies, the mislabeled Better Deal is the same old collection of anti-business, anti-growth, anti-job policies that guided the Obama White House and that resulted in eight years of sluggish economic growth and stagnant family incomes.

“Obama’s anti-business posture, echoed in the Democrats’ new platform, hurt the country and hurt job creation. How can Democrats deny it, when even the prospect of lower corporate taxes and lighter regulation under President Trump caused the World Bank to raise its growth expectations for the United States. Why do they think the stock market keeps hitting new highs?”

While the level of understanding Ms Peek shows regarding the nation’s economy is outstanding on its own, she also included an observation from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon who applied his world-renown banking knowledge to explain: “the absurdity of the anti-business jihad that so many Democrats embrace when he spoke on an earnings conference call earlier this month. Dimon said he had recently visited France, Argentina, Israel and Ireland, and spoken with the prime ministers of India and China. “It's amazing to me that every single one of these countries understands that practical policies that promote business and growth is good for the average citizens of this countries, for jobs and wages, and that somehow, this great American free enterprise system, we no longer get it," Dimon said. 

However, not to find fault with Dimon’s conclusion because he certainly is a most-qualified observer. Nonetheless, Trump voters surely got his message, which is why he’s now in office and the nation’s economy is rapidly turning for the better.

That’s it for today folks.


Monday, July 24, 2017


Several news story's today serve to show why leading Democrats grasp at the tiniest of straws as they try to keep their failing party together. And it’s the lack of having anything substantial to offer constituents that leads to reactions such as the creation of Russian witch hunts, making them look even worse than the pathetic whiners and hopeless cases they truly are.    

An item titled “As Gas Prices Fall to 12-Year Low, Schumer Claims Gas Prices 'Never Go Down, begins: “Even as gas prices have fallen to the lowest point in years under President Trump, Senate Minority Leader is claiming the price of petrol has only gone up.”

According to the text: “Over the July 4th holiday weekend, gas prices were at their lowest point since 2005, according to the AAA.

"At $2.23, today’s average national gas price is the cheapest the country has seen all year," AAA reported. "On the week, gas prices fell in 46 states. Only Illinois, Oklahoma and Washington, D.C. saw prices increase, albeit by one cent each, while Hawaii and Maine remained flat. South Carolina continues to carry the cheapest gas in the country at $1.90. Today, consumers can find gas for $2.00 or less at one out of every four gas stations in the country."

Despite the statistics presented, when Schumer appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, he claimed prices are only rising, thanks to "huge companies buying up other big companies."

"Gas prices are sticky -- you know, when the domestic price goes, uh, when the, uh, price for oil goes up on the markets, it goes right up but it never goes down.," Schumer said. "How the heck did we let Exxon and Mobil merge?"

After reading Schumer’s assessment, one has to wonder who he thinks his audience is. Because anyone owning a gas-driven vehicle or machine knows full well how gas prices have fallen.  

And once again its readers who prove the point.

Reader Western commented: “Well, he is correct. Prices in California have gone up, and scheduled to go up even more, due to liberal taxation.

Old Hickory wrote: “Schumer is confused and thinks Barak "Prices will necessarily rise" Obama is still in office. Obama did everything he could to sabotage US energy production. He tried to regulate coal to death and oil and gas acreage leased fell to a 35 year low. The result was coal mines shut down and O&G production on federal land dropped by 15% even while the shale boom nearly doubled production on private property.”

Matamoros added: “Yep oil peaked at well north of $100 a barrel under Obama. It stayed over $80 for most of 2010-2015. That was a huge gift to Putin and OPEC. Those stupid policies are what allowed Putin to fund his military buildup. Thanks to private investment, we are now exporting liquid NG, undercutting Russian market share and profit margins in Europe. Energy price decline is a major factor curtailing Russian aggression, just like in the 1980s.”

BigAl further noted: “All of that and sold 20% of our uranium to the Russians as well.”

All of which goes to confirm that if the Democrats continue without a meaningful, recognizable platform with tangible benefits, today’s voter's are far too well-informed to accept the divergence attempts of witch-hunts. Particularly when leaders like Schumer come across as totally ignorant of simple staistics, such as current trends in the price of a basic commodity like oil.

On the other hand, however, another article concerned a topic in which Democrats are consummate experts; politics. 

Brooke Singman writes about the same politician, Schumer, “who had choice words for Hillary Clinton in an interview over the weekend, blasting the Democratic presidential nominee for blaming Russia for her loss to now-President Trump -- who picked up on the jab in a Monday morning tweet. 

“When you lose to somebody who has a 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself,” Schumer told the Washington Post. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”

He was referring to “comments Clinton has made tying her November election loss to multiple factors -- including former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to re-open the investigation into her private email server as well as the email hack of her campaign chairman's account.”

So, here’s a guy who blamed the presidential election on the lack of a platform, and running a campaign based solely on being against the other candidate. Yet, he did it on the very same day that when discussing particular issues, such as the price of oil, he has no idea whatsoever of what he’s talking about either.    

And then, what truly becomes an interesting circumstance regarding all the efforts of Democrats to uncover Trump collusion with Russians during the past election, the vast majority of the American people are quite content with the way things are going at present.   

As presented by Rush on Friday: “This is from Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, but it’s actually the result of a Rasmussen Reports survey. You ready for this? Seventy-four percent of the American people say they have never felt better and are very happy. New Rasmussen Report survey: 74% of adults rate life as good or excellent. That’s the highest level of satisfaction ever recorded by Rasmussen. That’s up from 61% in 2010 and 67% in 2014.
“Only 5% of Americans in this survey rate their life as poor. Most of those surveyed said the first 40 years of life were the best. Unmarried adults were the happiest.”

Thus, one would have to believe that creating issues where there are none, make the Democrat lack of a platform even harder to attract voters who are now happier than they’ve been in recorded history.  

Bringing us to another Democrat issue with which they appear to be incorrect about, as reported by AWR Hawkins who writes:

“A study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows during the time period 2007 to 2015, the percentage of adults with carry permits rose 190% and violent crime fell by 18%.

“According to CPRC,  from 2007 to 2015 the “murder rates fell from 5.6 [per 100,000] to 4.9 per 100,000. This represents a 12.5% drop.” At the same time, “overall violent crime fell by 18 percent.” And again, these drops are coinciding with a 190% increase in “the percentage of adults with permits.”

The CPRC showed that the number of concealed carry permit holders “grew by a record 1.83 million” in 2016. This beats the previous record of 1.73 million, set in 2015, and means “6.53% of American adults have permits.” Moreover, “outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.”
“CPRC observes: Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and drops in murder and violent crime rates. Each one percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. This holds true even after accounting for incarceration rates, the number of police per capita, and other demographics.
“In other words, more concealed carriers, less murder.”

Making one wonder if leadership on the left is ever going to do some research on subjects before they present incorrect matter in the future. Because although 74% of adults rate life currently as good or excellent, they might be able to attract some of the 26% finding it somewhat less. Provided they can ever come up with something beneficial to offer.

That’s it for today folks.


Friday, July 21, 2017


Sorry folks, still under the weather. So, after 2627 (7 plus years) straight daily entry’s I’m taking some time to recover and pick up again on Monday. 

But, as long as I’m here today, noticed three items on Drudge worth noting.

According to to “The real value added to the U.S economy by the mining, construction and manufacturing sectors boomed in the first quarter of 2017, while the real value added by the financial and insurance sector dropped, according to data released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“Overall, the U.S. economy grew at an annual pace of only 1.4 percent in the first quarter. But the value added by mining grew by a booming 21.6 percent, while construction grew 5.6 percent and manufacturing grew 4.7%.

“The overall 4.7 percent growth in manufacturing reflected 5.0 percent growth in manufacturing of nondurable goods (i.e. products such as clothing and food) and 4.4 percent growth in the manufacturing of durable goods.

“At the same time that mining, construction and manufacturing were booming, the finance and insurance sector declined by 2.1 percent.”

Then Katherine Rodriguez reports that: “USDA statistics on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation showed that 42,609,852 people in the U.S. took part in the food stamp program in fiscal year (FY) 2017, the lowest level it has been since 2010 when 40,302,000 people enrolled in the program.”

While the economic news was breaking, Joshua Caplan reported: 

“Under the leadership of former Obama official Tom Perez, a new FEC report reveals the DNC finished the month of June $3.3 million in debt. 

“They’re broke. Just like their policies.”

Does anyone else see a correlation in these happening. Or is it just me?

That’s it for today folks.


Thursday, July 20, 2017


Tough morning today, due to intestinal glitch which should be soon be over. However, instead of calling in sick, I’m going to let an article and comments from readers fill in for me. And, in my opinion they did a very good job.

The article comes from AFP’s Ivan Couronne via and begins: “Thursday marks six months in power for US president Donald Trump. Fellow Republicans hope to turn the page on a relatively fruitless debut and lift a trophy with tax reform before his first year is out.

“Since January 20 the president has rolled back 14 regulations set by his, predecessor Barack Obama, notably on environmental and industry rules.

“He also claimed a critical victory with the Senate's confirmation of conservative judge Neil Gorsuch onto the US Supreme Court, and has signed numerous executive orders.

"What we've done over a short period of time, and what we're going to be doing over the next six months, will be incredible," the billionaire businessman-turned-politician said Monday.

“But a grand legislative accomplishment has eluded him, including his long-pledged repeal of the health care reforms that was Obama's signature domestic achievement -- and which have divided Republicans.”

While the bias of the author against the POTUS is obvious, it’s remarkable that the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice in the first six months receives 14 words in the middle of a sentence. Yet, the effects of that appointment will significantly influence court rulings for many, many years to come.

When it comes to the real world, however, readers have totally different opinions about Trump’s accomplishment's while placing blame for the POTUS’s “relatively fruitless debut” where it really belongs.
Reader 2WAYSTREET commented: “It's just sad how hard the Liberal left has worked to continually slow any chance of success for this President, yes he has his downsides but my god, this is dispicable. And if it had been Cruz or even thier pick Jebbie Bush it would have gone the same way. Our nation used to fight the good fight in politics and then come together no matter who won, thats how it was with Obama, we didn't see known celebrities out there holding Obama's bloody head or crybabies whining day after day about the loss, America came together and said " Give The Guy a Chance" but because a Republican won the Liberal's and Liberal media went off the cliff and haven't stopped for a second, even today. The Liberals are willing to watch America burn to the ground just to keep up their tantrum. SAD.”

Reader Mamamia took another path, producing a long list of accomplishments that the author either isn’t aware of, or simply chose to ignore.

Examples from the quite long list of first six-month accomplishments includes:

“US Debt” ”As of today, the US Debt has decreased under President Trump since his inauguration by (-$103) Billion. (President Obama increased the US debt in his first 6 months more than $974 Billion or nearly $1 Trillion.) The difference between Presidents Trump and Obama is more than $1 Trillion.”

“Jobs: ”According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics President Trump added a projected 1,027,000 jobs in his first six months (January through June 2017.) President Obama on the other hand lost more than 3,826,000 million jobs in his first six months.”

“Unemployment: “Also according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate since President Trump’s inauguration decreased from 4.8% to 4.4% (January through June 2017). The unemployment rate in January 2017 was 4.8% and by June it was down to 4.4%. Unemployment under President Obama on the other hand moved in the opposite direction. In his first six months as President the US unemployment rate increased each month from 7.8% in January 2009 to 9.5% by June of 2009.

“Illegal immigration is down almost 70% under President Trump.”

“NATO announced Allied spending is up $10 Billion because of President Trump.”

“After being nominated by President Trump, Constitutionalist Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in as Supreme Court Justice in early April.

“The President has signed around 150 executive orders, memoranda and proclamations as of July 19th, including:
* Dismantling Obama’s climate change initiatives.
* Travel bans for individuals from a select number of countries embroiled in terrorist atrocities.
* Enforcing regulatory reform.
* Protecting Law enforcement.
* Mandating for every new regulation to eliminate two.
* Defeating ISIS.
* Rebuilding the military.
* Building a border wall.
* Cutting funding for sanctuary cities.
* Approving pipelines.
* Reducing regulations on manufacturers.
* Placing a hiring freeze on federal employees.
* Exiting the US from the TPP.”

There’s considerably more posted by the reader, but space prohibits its addition. But just what’s there is quite a lot of accomplishment if you stop and think about it. Which those on the left and in the mainstream media certainly chose to ignore.

Reader AlanC wrote: “The libertards and the clowns that call themselves media have tried to derail Trump and his agenda at every turn. But we still have a bustling economy and the public has grown wise to all the turmoil the libertards have tried to create now it is starting to work against them. The midterms will be fun to watch the dems continue their downward spiral. Keep bashing and causing nothing but trouble dems. It only shows how immature and foolish they are.”

Reader Dude opined: “The problem is that Trump is going against the establishment. Both democrats and republicans make up the DC establishment, and neither of them want him there. And of course the news media is doing all they can do damage him. During the campaign he survived all of that, and will continue to. Trump is our first truly independent president.”

And reader Dude is certainly correct in his observation. Most of those in the “swamp,” are putting up obstacles. Primarily because none of them, regardless of party affiliation, want an outsider in their midst showing them up for the wastrels they truly are.  
Then Sir.Dennis presented some very impressive statistics.

“In the first 6 months of the Trump Presidency, the Dow increased by nearly 2000 points. The Stock Market has gained over $4 trillion in value since Trump became president.

“In the first 6 months of the Trump Presidency, the national debt decreased by $103 billion. In Obama's first 6 months, the debt went up $974 billion.”

“In the first 6 months of the Trump Presidency, over 1,027,00 new jobs have been added to the economy. In Obama's first 6 months, 3,826,000 jobs were lost.”

“I hope America has 8 more years of Trump's failures, because 8 years of Obama's successes damn near killed us!”

So, thanks to those readers who put their thoughts, opinions and conclusions in print today. Particularly because what they posted is the absolute, unequivocal truth.  

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, July 19, 2017


Yesterday Rush, as usual, proffered a well-informed analysis of what actually transpired in the Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. His rationale includes the obvious rules and protocols of the Senate and also practicalities regarding particular Senators and those influencing them.   

Rush began by describing the POTUS’s current position on the legislation wherein he’s “not gonna own it. Which he’s been saying for months. He said, you know, the smart thing politically for him to do is to let it fail and let the Democrats absorb all the blame. Let Obama and the Democrats take the blame. Just let it fail. But Trump said — as a show of good faith — he was gonna work with people to try to replace it, to repeal and replace it rather than just to let it implode, let it fail.”

With repeal and replace failing, Rush interprets Trump's present actions to possibly mean “he’s just going to sit by and let the thing fail, and that means old Mitch and the boys can go in there and fail to repeal it and that means Obamacare remains the law of the land. This is where it gets interesting. Obamacare is imploding. It is in the process of consuming itself. If Trump follows through and just says, “I’m gonna let it fail,” and we just sit by and watch premiums go up 45, 50% every year… As we watch insurance companies pull out of the exchanges, as we watch the subsidies end, as we watch the exchanges close, as nobody’s able to buy insurance…”

Next, Rush addressed “the Trump opposition in the, quote, unquote, “elite club” known as the establishment,” whom he believes now find themselves in a quandary whereas the election didn’t work out as expected.

“What are they gonna do now? See, the objective in the original design of Obamacare was to fail. But it was supposed to fail with Hillary Clinton or another Democrat in the White House. And, at the moment of failure, it was then to be suggested almost as a brilliant spur-of-the-moment idea, “Hey, why don’t we just go single payer.” Or, “Hey, why don’t we just put everybody on Medicare? Hey, problem solved!” Because, at that time, that point in time, premiums would be out of reach, deductibles out of reach, insurance companies closing down and closing up shop, exchanges closing up shop. So it’d be eagerly demanded, even maybe by the public.”

However, as a result of the election, “now we’ve got Trump who doesn’t want to go single payer, and this the Democrats and the establishment know. So there are two options here, and it’s interesting to note that if you listen to the media and you listen to the Democrats, repealing Obamacare is the worst thing that could be done, but it isn’t. Staying with Obamacare and letting it implode is the absolute worst outcome here. Repealing it means you repeal it. You get rid of every Obamacare law, and that means you start over. But it also raises a question: At what point do you…? Where do you resume?”

Having laid out the current status of the situation from a procedural aspect, Rush then got into unseen underlying pitfalls regarding individual Senators, having as much, or more, influence on their votes as the issue itself.   

Rush’s used talks with Senator Ted Cruz to define the current state of affairs, saying: “Let me set this up by reminding you what Ted Cruz has told me I don’t know how many times. [T]he thing that shocked him more than anything his first few days in the Senate was how 90% of what senators do is get reelected. Ninety percent of their time is spent raising money, organizing fundraisers, dealing with the consultants and all who raise the money, planning the events.

“The other 10%’s being a senator. It shocked him. It was that blatant, that obvious. Why? Because getting reelected is the most important job every senator thinks he has. Probably to a degree this is true in the House, but he was speaking specifically of the Senate. And yet, if getting reelected is the most important thing, then a question occurs to me.

“All of these promises and all of these votes to repeal Obamacare since 2010, now when they have the power to actually do it, they don’t do it, they can’t do it. After all these promises, after all these times being elected on the basis of that promise, and yet they obviously don’t fear the voters in their states nearly as much as they fear something else.”

And that’s where missing pieces fit together regarding the individual votes of Senators, whereas the force driving them most strongly isn’t political affiliation, constituent's satisfaction or particular legislation itself. Not surprisingly, according to Rush, the main worry turns out to be money, pure and simple.  

Regarding those Senators, Rush explains: “They are clearly willing to incur your wrath at reelection time. They would much rather do that than deal with whatever is gonna happen to them if they vote to repeal it. They’re afraid of somebody. They are concerned about somebody or something, but it isn’t you. Despite the most important thing in their lives, being reelected, that’s what you do. So who is it that they’re more afraid of than you? Who is it that they are the least interested in angering?

“Well, yeah, money people, but I want get more specific than that. Of course it’s the money people, the donors and all that, but who are they, and what threat do they have? What threat do they have that can make elected officials more fearful of them than of you? ‘Cause if you don’t show up, whatever else happens is academic. It has to be the fact that whoever it is they’re afraid of can supply them with, in their minds, enough money to win reelection no matter what your opinion of them is.

“But it all circles around money, understandably. And there’s nothing new about that. I’m not claiming to have discovered anything earth-shattering here. But I just find it interesting.”

Now, who specifically “bought” particular Senators votes, when, where, how and why are things that may never be discovered at all. But what is known is that as found in Wikipedia) “lobbyists are, in some circles, referred to as the "fourth branch of government," as some have great influence in U.S. national politics due to their monetary resources and the "revolving-door" practice of hiring former government officials. It is widely believed to be common practice for politicians to solicit money from lobbying firms in exchange for better access to officials, especially members of the United States Congress, and to buy favoritism in policies.” 

Most interestingly, if Rush is correct about Senators that have been bought, his suspicion may well be confirmed today when all of them will meet with the POTUS for lunch at the White House. 

Republican Representative from Texas, Louis Gohmert put it this way as he spoke to Stuart Varney on Fox Business this morning, commenting on his disappointment in the Republican Party for promising repeal and not staying true to their word. 

Gohmert said: “I love what the president is doing and he's going to have every one of the senators there. I hope, Stuart, the message is going to be … ‘look, you all promised you would repeal it [Obamacare] if you got the majority and you got it. You voted for repeal in the last Congress, and now I will sign it as soon as you vote to repeal it. You better not have been lying to your constituents because you're going to get a chance to vote to repeal and keep your promise; and, if you don't, we’re gonna find somebody that will keep their promises.”

Which means that if money truly is driving the votes of particular Senators, and after the White House lunch with the POTUS, there are still dissenters, they will have exposed themselves. Because, Gohmert got it right when he said they all “promised” they would repeal Obamacare if they got the majority they now have."

Thus, this very afternoon all Senators still refusing  to vote for repeal and replace will be known by the POTUS, the constituents of those dissenters and the voting public in general. And it's those Senators that can then be targeted in the future as one’s placing personal interests above fulfilling the commitments of their jobs. Bringing us back to Gohmert's threat that: "You better not have been lying to your constituents because you're going to get a chance to vote to repeal and keep your promise; and, if you don't, we’re gonna find somebody that will keep their promises.”

That's it for today folks.


Tuesday, July 18, 2017


Headline news today, naturally, concerns the implosion of the Senate Republican health care bill, about which there are virtually unlimited opinions as to how that happened. And what comes next for healthcare, is just about anyone’s guess. 

What's truly amazing, however, is that at present voters have given the Republican party the White House and both houses of Congress. Yet that discombobulated group of politicians can’t figure out how to work together. Which is why, in 2018 Democrats will almost undoubtedly regain the House, while the Senate will likely prove somewhat tougher, but not impossible to accomplish.

On the Republican side, what’s now become quite obvious is that for many in office, party affiliation and concern for their constituents matter much less than personal gain for themselves. Which one can only hope will be remembered by voters when these self-interested sellouts run for reelection. 

As far as the POTUS himself is concerned, Rush offered some interesting, non-scientific insight yesterday saying this weekend he “went up to play in my annual member-guest golf tournament up in Connecticut, Country Club of Fairfield.”

“Some people just want to talk about golf and the tournament and all that, but those who wanted to talk about events were just totally invested in what’s going to happen to Obamacare.

“They are fit to be tied. They’re frustrated. They were livid. They are under the impression that nothing is going to happen because they think — and, look, I’m talking about maybe 15 people here, so it would be dangerous to extrapolate that. But it was common that they don’t think Trump is the problem. Not one of them thinks Trump is the problem. I didn’t have anybody — and these are achieved businesspeople, some of them still actively working, most of them are, some of them with their sons, otherwise with associates or just friends.

“And I didn’t hear a single criticism of Trump from anybody. I heard people laughing about Trump.”

And that is most likely reflective of voter opinion in general. Particularly those who’ve given the time and effort to follow daily media reportage which reflects pretty much the same thing. Trump's fine, Congress isn't.

Next comes an opinion on the subject from one who’s obviously grossly biased against the POTUS and therefore presents a premise not only questionable, but quite short on simple business/legislative logic.   

Found on Drudge, the article comes from, written by David Faris. He’s an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the author of Dissent and Revolution in a Digital Age: Social Media, Blogging and Activism in Egypt. He’s also a frequent contributor to Informed Comment, and his work has appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, The Christian Science Monitor and Indy Week.

In his opening paragraphs he writes: “the new Congress would work with a sub-literate tabula rasa named Donald Trump, a man who could probably be persuaded to inject himself with experimental medication if an important-seeming person whispered "do it" in his ear.

“But a funny thing happened on the way to libertarian utopia. Indeed, it turns out that the GOP-controlled Congress can't seem to pass any meaningful laws at all. Either they have forgotten how, or the divisions in their own increasingly radicalized caucus are proving too difficult to surmount. Whatever the explanation, thus far these GOP legislators are on track to be the least productive group since at least the Civil War.”

And then, after haughtily demeaning Republican Congressional members and the POTUS in particular, Faris slips-in the following paragraph: “Now, okay, technically the Ryan-McConnell 115th Congress is so far actually a bit more active than recent Congresses, if you measure by the 43 laws that President Trump has adorned with his garish signature. Obama was at 40 at this point in 2009. George W. Bush had signed even fewer midway through 2001. But sheer number is not the best way to think about how much is being achieved. As The Washington Post's Philip Bump pointed out, a majority of the bills signed by Trump thus far have been one page long, meaning many are just symbolic or ceremonial.”

And that’s where simple outrage kicked in. Whereas after spending a business life in financial contract negotiation, concerning a couple of thousand dollars at the low end to multi-million agreements deals at the other, closing deals is something I know intimately well. And, in that regard, contract length or number of pages has nothing whatsoever to do with document validity, party obligations, terms and conditions involved, underlying intent, or intensity of enforcement. Simply because the paperwork's voluminous doesn't mean anything at all.

Thus, it isn’t the number of words on the page that count, or the number of pages themselves. All that matters is what those words say: whose responsible for what, where, why, how and when.

In that regard there are attorney’s who feel that every single iota of possibility should be included in a contract, leaving nothing to argument. Others feel that less verbiage is better, that it’s impossible to address every contingency in print, and that courts will determine the outcome of litigation anyway, so drafting far less is fine with them.

Which means that in the case of Obamacare, if all a single page said is that the program’s terminated, period, that would suffice to end the legislation on whatever date was stated. 

Therefore, this  example also goes to illustrate that, before writing columns about subjects such as the form and context of presidential bills signed, which he assumes to be “symbolic or ceremonial,” Faris really ought to do at least an iota of homework. 

As practical matter -interestingly enough- according to information found at from March 8, 2017, the Affordable Health Care Act comprises 2,300-pages.

The Republican replacement bill at present is accompanied by clear explanations in plain English, while “the legislation itself is a mere 46 pages long.”

Next we have developing news indicating that the more Dem’s push their fictional case against Trump collusion with Russia, they may very well eventually wind up seeing their presidential candidate and her husband facing legal ramifications.

Today, Malia Zimmerman writes “The former president indeed had received a personal call from then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressing his appreciation for [a] speech. According to Mrs. Clinton’s ethics disclosure form filed while she was secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital for his June 29, 2010, speech in Moscow to its employees and guests attending the company's annual conference. 

“The speech is now coming back to haunt the Clintons, considering the company that cut the check was allegedly tied to the scandal that spurred the Global Magnitsky Act, a bill that imposed sanctions on Russians designated as human-rights abusers and eventually would become law in 2012.

“This was the same law Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was lobbying against during her sit-down with Trump Jr. last year. And back in 2010, it would have put the Clintons on her side. 

“Shortly before Bill Clinton’s speech in 2010, when members of Congress pushing the sanctions bill had asked Hillary Clinton to refuse visas to Russian officials implicated under the policy, the State Department denied the request. The Obama administration initially was opposed to the Magnitsky Act because then-President Barack Obama was seeking a “reset” with Russia and did not want to deepen the divide between the two countries.

“Former President Bill Clinton’s speech to Renaissance just weeks later was all the more curious, considering Renaissance’s Russian investment bank executives would have been banned from the U.S. under the law.”

Thus, while it seems the facts presented above are readily believable, considering the Clinton’s implication and the dollars involved, one has to truly wonder why other Democrats would tie themselves to this sinking ship. 

Because although Trump Jr. was well-within the limits of campaign information-gathering, as reported by John Merline back in May: “Democrats have a long history of business and political ties with Russia, for the simple reason that there is money to be made by people who can peddle their political connections.” And that rationale has always been right in the center of the Clinton wheel-house.

That’s it for today folks.


Monday, July 17, 2017


While the blatant bias in the mainstream media is widely known, the depth of the hatred toward those on the political right becomes more obvious each passing day. 

A vivid example comes from Warner Todd Huston who wrote on Friday that: “Despite an encounter with the president that the New York Times called “ebullient,” the paper still reported that President Trump was engaging in mean-spirited policies goaded by the “nationalist” ideology of adviser Steve Bannon to appease his populist supporters.”

The Times reported that “President Trump engaged with reporters on a very personal basis as they all flew back from Europe on Air Force One, and the "Donald J. Trump who turned up in the press cabin of Air Force One on Wednesday evening was starkly different from the one who publicly pillories the news media but surprisingly familiar to reporters who know him well.”

Huston goes on to note that although “President Trump entered the area where the press sat and began to engage with reporters in an “expansive, engaging, even at times ebullient” way, “despite the president’s good will, the Times went on to slam Trump anyway.

“It was a loose, good-humored side of Mr. Trump that the public rarely sees amid the fusillade of angry speeches and venomous tweets that have characterized the president’s first six months in the White House,” the paper said darkly. “And it came to light only because he retroactively put the session on the record, asking a reporter the next morning why she had not quoted his remarks.”

And then, Huston reaches a point that calls for careful consideration as he writes: The “paper of record” goes on to charge the president with its ever-ready list of accusations. Trump is “populist,” he is grasping for press coverage, he is a “nationalist,” and he is “boastful,” going on to state that “Trump’s advisers are pulling him in different directions.”

“Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers — including his daughter Ivanka; his son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and Gary D. Cohn, his chief economic adviser — want to draw him toward the political mainstream, keeping the United States in the Paris climate accord, for example, or avoiding a trade war,” the paper said matter-of-factly.

"But then it reveals what it seems to characterize as the “damaging,” darker forces inside the White House:
"Others, led by his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, and his senior adviser, Stephen Miller, want to pull him in a staunchly nationalist direction on issues like trade and immigration. Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller had a hand in the inauguration address and the angry jeremiad he delivered in Harrisburg, Pa., to celebrate his first 100 days. They argue that Mr. Trump’s brawling approach is what got him elected, and what will secure his base.
So, what we have here is the New York Times finding fault with the idea of the POTUS putting the nation’s citizens, economy and safety first instead of favoring globalization. Making one wonder exactly where these Times people think they live. It also makes one curious if they realize that their circulation is quickly approaching zero.

A reader, OldTimer60, summed it up this way: 

“So it's just verification of the NYT stance:

Globalist - destruction of America = Good

Nationalist - Pro-America = Bad”

“Just further confirmation why I don't listen to those dirtbags.”

And then there was some news about what voters really think, as found in a Rasmussen Poll from Friday

“Consumers are seeing green again when it comes to rating the economy and their own personal finances, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re ready to start spending more.

“The Rasmussen Reports Economic Rating Index is up nearly five points from last month to 157.3, just one point shy of March’s highest level of confidence in the economy since 2014. Immediately following the 2016 presidential election, enthusiasm about the economy started to grow and has been on the upswing for six of the last eight months. In President Obama’s final year in office, economic ratings ranged from 112.7 to 122.9.”

In this case, it seems consumers are still in the early stages of realization that the economy is truly on an upswing. However, when they see continuation of the trend, increased spending will start once again. And the major difference between now and the past administration is that, when the spending urge really returns, consumers will now have the money to actually do it.   

Next comes some news reflecting another initial step toward draining the swamp. This time in the area of controlling voter fraud. 

Adam Shaw writes that: “According to the Denver Post, approximately 3,400 Colorado voters canceled their registrations after the Trump administration sought voter info from the states. The Post notes that the number is hardly enormous, representing only 0.09 percent of the state’s 3.7 million voters.” 

Although the number truly isn’t enormous, overall reaction indicates there’s far more to come because: “Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity has asked states to hand over data from their voter rolls, reportedly including felony convictions, military status, and voter history.” 

And not surprisingly at all: “The move has seen pushback from a number of liberal states such as California, New York, Virginia, and Connecticut, as well as some red states such as Oklahoma and Kentucky.”

“Officials told the Post that while one reason given by those withdrawing was a lack of trust in Trump’s commission, another was that they didn’t realize how much of their information was public under state law.

“However, even though that would suggest the withdrawals coincide with reporting about the commission rather than being directly caused by the commission, it hasn’t stopped the Democrats from hitting the panic button.

“McClatchy reports that the Democratic National Committee and the Colorado Democratic Party have launched an effort to persuade Democrats to stay on the voter rolls.

“What we’re seeing in Colorado, we hope that doesn’t spread elsewhere,” said one DNC official. “That’s why we’re working on educating voters across the country about this. We’re not trying to incite panic, but the DNC itself is monitoring this situation and is concerned by what we’re seeing.”

While Trump has repeatedly claimed that he believes he would have won the popular vote if illegal votes were discounted, Democrats and left-leaning media outlets have accused him of making the claim without evidence. Yet those same groups “are now opposing his administration’s investigation.”

“Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who serves as vice chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, told Breitbart News Daily this week that the amount of opposition to the probe is “extraordinary.”

“It’s truly extraordinary that they are trying to stop the commission from even beginning. These lawsuits are intended to stop the gathering of data and stop the meeting of the commission. It does make you think that some people out there don’t want us to see what amount of voter fraud there is,” said Kobach.

Which brings us once again to the recently self-appointed Republican legal authority, Alan Dershowitz, although that quite certainly wasn't his intention in any way.  

As reported by Trent Baker “Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz defended President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., for meeting with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya to do opposition research.

“According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with a candidate getting information on his opponent from any type of source.

“If it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has the right to get information from whatever source the information comes,” he argued.

Dershowitz also pointed out, “If the material was obtained unlawfully, you prosecute, if you can, the people who obtain the material. But there is a First Amendment right of a candidate to use information. You can’t include information under the campaign finance law. That would be unconstitutional.”

All of which serves to confirm that whether the subject is the mainstream media, consumer confidence, the overall economy, voter fraud or Russian election interference, the Democrats certainly aren’t having a very good day at all. 

That's it for today folks.


Sunday, July 16, 2017


Mixed bag today illustrating the difference between the left which construes every occurrence into a political premise, and the Trump approach that’s based on simple, everyday common sense.  

First comes an article by David Wooding, Sunday Political Editor who writes about a “conversation” in which “Donald Trump begs Theresa May to fix a ‘warm welcome’ for his state visit – and says he won’t set a date for it until he knows he’s going to get ‘a better reception.”

According to Wooding, the “US President warns he will not visit until he can guarantee a good reception and pleas with Theresa May to help influence public."

Quotes from the article include: “The US President made his shameless plea in a private conversation with Theresa May to plan his state visit — now postponed until next year.

“Two million people signed a petition calling for Mr Trump’s proposed trip to be axed.

“A transcript of the chat, seen by senior diplomats, reveals his touchiness. Mr Trump says: “I haven’t had great coverage out there lately, Theresa.”

“She replies awkwardly: “Well, you know what the British press are like.”

“He replies: “I still want to come, but I’m in no rush.

“So, if you can fix it for me, it would make things a lot easier.

“When I know I’m going to get a better reception, I’ll come and not before.”

Now, for ardent anti-Trumper’s the first thought coming to mind is most likely the pleasure of having further confirmation of his weaknesses and unfitness for office. And for others having the intelligence they were born with, the wonder is the probability of the “transcript” between two heads of state actually reaching the hands of a tabloid reporter. The odds of which are somewhere around zero or less. Take your pick.     

And then, Brooke Seipel writes that: “Former talk-show host Phil Donahue on Saturday reflected on President Trump's administration, saying: “This is the darkest political moment in American history,” Donahue said on MSNBC Saturday. “Who’s going to argue that?”

Now in this case, Donahue’s remarks call for some thinking because: “When asked about whether he thought Trump could be impeached, Donahue said that Trump is too popular and it wouldn't be a good decision for lawmakers' popularity. Donahue compared Trump to Elvis saying his base "will not tolerate criticism" of the president.

“I think it’s too dangerous for a member of Congress to vote for impeachment and upset a significant number of his own constituency,” Donahue explained. “It’s a third rail he could risk his own re-election.”

Thus, in Donahue’s opinion, while we’re amidst the “darkest political moment in American history,” impeachment efforts would be a mistake because across the nation significant numbers of Congress members own constituencies like the POTUS too much. Which is like Yogi Berra’s quote about a popular restaurant: “No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.”

Not to be outdone, Maureen Dowd compared Trump’s performance to “Game of Thrones” yesterday

While the article itself is non-sensically biased against the POTUS, the opening paragraphs are shown below whereas they lead to an astute reader’s comment afterward.

Dowd wrote: “The crowds are swelling, yelling: “Shame. Shame. Shame.”

“Hugging their tattered brand, the family tried for a respite this weekend. Ivanka and Jared fled to Sun Valley to hang out with the global elite at Herb Allen’s conference. After escaping to the City of Light for Bastille Day — poor battered Sean Spicer had to settle for a party at the French Embassy here — Trump and Melania were going to his Bedminster club to attend the U.S. Women’s Open being held there. (Some women protested, saying the Open should be closed to Donald Trump.)"

“Trump always inflates his numbers, using his own special brand of ego arithmetic. But Don Jr. and Jared have been busy deflating their numbers.”

And then, reader Robert Schlumberger commented: “Remember when Donald Trump was business partners with the Russian government and his company got 53 million from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano that was started by Vladimir Putin and is referred to as "Putin's Child"? OH wait! That wasn't Trump it was John Podesta.

“Remember when Donald Trump received 500 thousand for a speech in Moscow and paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies? OH Wait! That was Bill Clinton.”

“Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to the Russians while he was Secretary of State which gave control of it to Rosatom the Russian State Atomic Enery Corporation? Oh wait! That was Hillary Clinton.”

“Remember when Donald Trump lied about that and said he wasn't a part of approving the deal that gave the Russians 20% of our uranium, but then his emails were leaded showing he did lie about it? Oh wait! That was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.”

“Remember when Donald Trump got 145 million dollars for the the uranium sold to the Russians? Oh wait! That was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.”

“Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian Oligarchs like the chairman of a company that's part of the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster, the wife of the mayor of Moscow, and a close pal of Putin? Oh wait! That was the Clinton Foundation.”

While reader Schlumberger confirms Phil Donahue’s belief’s about the POTUS’s popularity, it also denotes the awareness and intellect of considerable numbers of Trump’s supporters. 

That intelligence can be seen in a reader's response to similar, stale gibberish also from the New York Times where Joshua Green wrote an article titled: “No One Cares About Russia in the World Breitbart Made”

According to Breitbart News today, Green wrote: “The revelation that Donald Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager met with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer promising information that would “incriminate” Hillary Clinton was a true bombshell in an era when we have become almost inured to them. Here was proof that members of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign had, at the very least, been eager to collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

“Look to the right now and you’re apt to find an alternative reality in which the same set of facts is rearranged to compose an entirely different narrative.

“The Breitbart mind-set — pugnacious, besieged, paranoid and determined to impose its own framework on current events regardless of facts — has moved from the right-wing fringe to the center of Republican politics.”

In response to Green, reader Victor Von Doom wrote: “That is because we were intelligent BEFORE we found Breitbart.

“The reason we don't care is even if everything said is true, Trump is FAR more honest and Patriotic then Hilde***** ever was or could be.

“We voted for America and used everything available, and WE WON, even against five million or more dead people and illegals voting. We won.

“Now in the real world all this Russian garbage is looking to come back and bite the DNC, Liberals and especially Hillary in the ***. Ukraine anyone, 1/2 mil speeches for Billy the rapist, and tens of millions donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State signing off on giving the Russians 20% of America's Uranium all from Putin connected company's even Podesta got a good bite of that deal.. Now that's what I call a reset button, and it looks like Obama was more "flexible" after he was elected.”

All of which brings us right back to today’s opening paragraph, concerning the difference between the left which construes every occurrence into a political premise, and the Trump approach that’s based on simple, everyday reality and common sense.  

And that difference becomes quite clear if one heeds another of Yogi’s thoughts: “You can observe a lot by just watching.”

That’s it for today folks.


Saturday, July 15, 2017


Not surprisingly, Tony Lee reports that “voters who live in the heartland and outside the New York-D.C. media bubbles do not care about the legacy media’s obsession with Russia.”

“An Iowa radio news director emailed CNN media reporter Brian Stelter, out of all people, on Thursday to tell him that conservatives in his state are “very angry” at the legacy press because they think the media are using Russia stories to “oust” and delegitimize President Donald Trump.

“They think the Trump/Russia deal is a coup attempt by the media, and don’t think there is anything to the Russia/ Trump, Jr. emails,” Robert Leonard, the news director, emailed. “They don’t understand why the media is trying to oust our duly elected president. They think there is a double standard — why isn’t anyone investigating the Clinton campaign/Russia connections? They are standing firm behind Trump.”

“According to a recent Harvard-Harris poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that “there exists a campaign to delegitimize” Trump.

“Reporters who have gone to working-class areas in states like Pennsylvania (“Trump’s Supporters Aren’t Abandoning Him in This Pennsylvania Town”), Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky and even Tennessee (“In Trump Country, Russia Scandal Doesn’t Resonate”) have all reported similar sentiments.”

CNN, however, maintains focus on Russia “even though one of its anchors, Alisyn Camerota, said on Friday that she was actually experiencing Russia “fatigue.” That might be because a Media Research Center study found that “her show New Day spent a whopping 93% of its airtime on Wednesday on Trump-Russia stories.”

A resounding 9,011 comments came from readers, the overwhelming majority of them favorable toward the POTUS.  

Reader John's a Smith commented: “It is beginning to sink into the heads of some prominent Democratic Leaders being looked at as the future of the party. Gavin Newsom of San Francisco is saying the same thing. He is telling his party to get off the Russian/Trump blather and concentrate on rebuilding a democratic party with an actual message and platform to solve problems in America. Until the party puts a muzzle on Maxine Waters, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer the party will continue losing ground. One would think with 4 opportunities to pick up seats in the House of Representatives since Trump became the President and losing all of them by running against Trump it might occur to them they need to rethink what they are doing.”

Cat Straykat commented: “Hell yes Trump voters and hardworking Americans everywhere are ANGRY. We're sick of the unhinged witch hunt against OUR President!

Joe Citizen responded: “The harder they rail against Trump unjustly, the greater the 2018 democratic bloodbath will be.”

nancy wrote: “California is behind Trump 100%! Watch us take down the Demo clowns in this State- yeah that means you brown and DeLeon, Feinsten and Pelosi. Your days are numbered you corrupt good for nothing despots!”

Santiago De Matamoros answered nancy; “30 + years in public service and nothing to show for it, only lining their pockets and creating bums every where.”

Despite all the leftist media attempts to defame, demean and ultimately destroy him, Trump himself keeps moving straight ahead while still maintaining his acute sense of irony, as evidenced by Adam Shaw Wednesday.

When reporters aboard Air Force One on the way to Paris asked if he was joking about plans to cover the wall in solar panels, Trump said: “No, not joking, no.”

“There is a chance that we can do a solar wall. We have major companies looking at that. Look, there’s no better place for solar than the Mexico border — the southern border,” he said. “And there is a very good chance we can do a solar wall, which would actually look good.”

Back in June, he “reportedly mentioned the idea to Republican lawmakers as a way to potentially help pay for the wall, and it appeared to be welcomed favorably by some of the fiscal hawks in the Republican caucus.”

Readers too appreciated the dilemma that would be created for the left.

Mourning in America commented: “President Trump finds a way to turn liberals against solar energy.

"Now that's funny..."

BluzLover  wrote: “Turning leftists against green energy one project at a time.”

overboosted ✓ᴰᴱᴾᴸᴼᴿᴬᴮᴸᴱ added some depth: “This is a brilliant idea. He can make the wall a part of a DOE energy infrastructure project instead of a DHS security project. How will the liberals explain that they are suddenly against a green energy infrastructure project?”

And then, another article certainly appeared to involve typical Democrat mentality, written by Katherine Rodriguez.

“Uloma Curry-Walker, 45, faces life in prison without parole for murdering William Walker in November 2013, four months after she married him, reported.”

Wracking up tens of thousands of dollars in debt, close to financial ruin, Curry-Walker enlisted her 17-year-old daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend to search for someone who would kill her husband William Walker.

The plan was to collect the insurance money after her husband’s death, prosecutors say.

However, her husband still had his ex-wife listed as the beneficiary on the insurance policy, so the money went to his ex-wife.

“Testimony at the hearing showed that Curry-Walker paid her daughter’s boyfriend, Chad Padgett, $1,000 to ensure that the murder was carried out, CBS News reported.”

“Padgett initially reached out to his cousin, Chris Hein, to carry out the slaying. When Hein failed to kill Walker, Hein recruited Ryan Dorty to perform the murder.”

“Prosecutors say Dorty shot Walker four times as he was on his way home from picking up fast food at Curry-Walker’s request.

“As part of the plea agreement, Hein agreed to serve 18 years to life. Padgett agreed to 28 years to life in prison, and Dorty accepted a sentence of 23 years to life.”

In this case, Breitbart readers seemed to immediately pick up on the same wavelength amongst themselves.

Henry Bowers asked: “Why does this article make me think of the Clintons?”

EjB responded: “Because she is a lot like the genius who said Obama was going to pay her mortgage and car payment ...."from his stash."

Tariq_Toulhead_Al_Tabilcloth proposed: “She will still vote next year.

“Oh, and in CLE. Twice.”

cryhavoc noted to Henry Bowers: “With the Clinton's involvement the victim would have been ruled a suicide with three stabs wounds to the back.”

While Breitbart readers certainly have no qualms about putting opinions in print regarding their suspicions of illicit Clinton behavior, Bill himself expressed doubts of his own about his wife’s integrity.

Chris Stirewalt suggested yesterday that: “If it had been somebody else, we would call it a gaffe, but since it was Bill Clinton, we know better.

“The former president, speaking at an event with his successor, George W. Bush, mused on the question of what makes a winning campaign, and offered a stinging rebuke of candidates that happened to sound exactly like his wife. 

“Yeah, you have to win the election, but why in the heck are you running?” Clinton asked rhetorically. He said it wasn’t enough to simply disparage the other candidate, ahem, but one had to have a real agenda that voters could understand. 

“If you want to be president, you have to realize it’s about the people, not about you,” said the husband of the woman who ran on “I’m with her.”

Which means that in the certainly plausible event that Bill’s wife decides to run for elective office again, her opponent now has as good an assessment of her pure self-interest as obtainable. Because her own husband doesn't think she belongs in elections either.  

That’s it for today folks.


Friday, July 14, 2017


Today’s another wherein one has to wonder what the leftist dream for the nation actually is. Because, as the U.S. picture becomes continually brighter, Democrats maintain their fruitless quest to unseat the POTUS. Despite having not an iota of evidence supporting that effort.   

On the bright side, Kaya Yurieff reported that yesterday tech giant Amazon “reported record sales for its third annual Prime Day, beating out its numbers for previous Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping periods. In fact, Prime Day sales were higher than both shopping holidays combined in 2016.”

Sales increased 60% compared to last year while the company also added more Prime members in one day than ever before. 

“While it didn't give specific figures, Amazon said "tens of millions" of Prime members bought something on Prime Day this year, up more than 50% than last year.”

What's more, while consumer confidence seems to rise quite strongly, other data adds credence to further economic growth expectations.    

Regarding the banking industry, reports that J.P. Morgan beat expectations on both revenue and profit while both Wells Fargo & Co. and Citicorp reported second-quarter results that were better than expected, as well. 

At the same time, the consumer-price index, or cost of living, was unchanged last month, largely due to lower gasoline prices.

While news reports continue showing domestic economic improvement, Stephen Collinson reported that in France: “Presidents Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron just didn't want to let one another go."

Although the two are opposites in many ways, they “put on an extravagant show of friendship Friday on Bastille Day on the Champs-Élysées.

“The highlight of a chummy two-day visit was an extraordinary, on-the-walk handshake across the cobblestones, that included multiple mutual pats on the back of the hand and shoulder taps. At one point, the 30-second embrace drew in Macron's wife, Brigitte, leaving first lady Melania Trump standing slightly awkwardly to the side."

In Collinson’s opinion: “The unusual show of personal chemistry in Paris might just mean Macron, 39, and Trump, 71, just got along famously.

“It reflects the French leader's desire to ensure the United States does not totally divorce itself from the rest of the West. 

“And the charm offensive is the latest sign that some world leaders think the best way to get to Trump is not to rebuke or lecture him, but to flatter him and show him respect.”

Most interesting was Collinson’s thought that it was most likely far better for anyone wishing to “get to” Trump to show him respect. Because it highlights the fact that Democrats have no intention whatsoever of ever dealing with him in any way, shape, manner or form.    

For Democrats its far more preferable to keep hammering at their only issue, Russian collusion. Yet, all the mounting evidence shows it was their leadership that bears all the guilt.  

As reported by Brooke Singman this morning: “The Russian attorney whose campaign-season meeting with Donald Trump Jr. has caused headaches for the White House was cleared to enter the U.S. at the time of the visit by the Obama State Department, officials confirmed to Fox News late Thursday.

“A brief timeline released overnight helps to resolve questions over how Natalia Veselnitskaya even had legal permission to be in the U.S. And it also shows multiple Obama agencies were involved on multiple occasions in granting access to the lawyer after she was initially denied a visa.

“According to the timeline released by the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama Justice and Homeland Security departments granted her a special type of “parole” to be in the U.S. from September 2015 through February 2016 to work on a court case in New York. After that expired, according to DHS, the State Department issued her a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa in June 2016, according to DHS, just in time for her meeting with Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort.”

While considerable additional detail regards specifics of the case, another article provides broader background. Kristina Wong writes: “The revelation that Donald Trump Jr. met for 20 minutes at Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016 has skyrocketed her to mainstream news media notoriety.

“Although she has been painted by Democrats as a Russian government official, numerous reports and photos show she has a long record of working with U.S. political figures, including many Democrats.

For example, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group revealed on Wednesday that California Rep. Ron Dellums was a hired lobbyist for Veselnitskaya.

“According to a Washington Post story, she worked for years on a case with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, a firm that produced a widely discredited dossier against Trump.

“She also worked with Christopher Cooper, the founder and CEO of Potomac Square Group, which has had Democratic clients including California Government Jerry Brown, Democratic presidential nominee Howard Dean, and Joe Trippi, according to the Daily Caller.

“And it was Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch that granted her an extension in late 2015 to stay in the U.S. after her visa was due to expire, under “extraordinary circumstances” related to defending a case in New York, according to The Hill. She was granted an extension through January, but it’s not yet clear how she was able to be in the U.S. in June 2016, when she met with Trump Jr., and again January 2017.”

Considerable detail is included in the Breitbart article. Here’s a link:

The POTUS himself told Reuters yesterday “that he was unaware of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer until a “couple days ago,” and did not fault his son for accepting the meeting.

“It was a 20-minute meeting, I guess, from what I’m hearing,” Trump said. “Many people, and many political pros, said everybody would do that.”

And then, in another supporting effort toward Trump: “Wednesday on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto: Coast to Coast,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz dismissed accusations of treason aimed at Donald Trump, Jr., as a New York Times op-ed suggested, for his meeting with a Russian lawyer offering opposition research on his father’s Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

“Dershowitz pointed to The New York Times publishing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, noting that it was protected by the First Amendment.

“[T]here’s really no difference under the First Amendment between a campaigner using information he obtained illegally, from somebody who obtained it illegally, and a newspaper doing it,” he said. “So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the First Amendment. It’s also not prohibited by law. There’s been so much overwrought claim. There are people who are talking about treason. I can’t believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned without even looking at the definition.”

Reader oldswimcoach offered an accurate summary: “Dershowitz's commentaries through this whole "Fake News" "Fake Scandal" have been amazingly on point. Don't agree with his politics at all, but he is objective in how he interprets the legal issues - not right or left. The democrats must be going crazy seeing him blow up their fantasy Trump/Russia conspiracies every time he does an interview.”

Fox reader yoncy commented following their article above: “I am SO sick and tired of this elementary school mentality of our American political system I could puke!  Russia!!!  For Christ's sake, give it a rest will you?? 

“What about the number of jobs?  Or the record setting stock market?  Can you imagine these headlines if a democrat was in office?  But if one was, you wouldn't be seeing those number either.  

“How about national defense?  Build the wall? And, God forbid, healthcare?” 

Which brings us right back to what was discussed at the start of today’s entry once more. 

That’s it for today folks.