Thursday, July 18, 2019


Two articles referenced today should provide increased confidence among Trump supporters, or anyone at all who has concerns regarding the “power” of the mainstream media to influence voters. Because in reality the MSM’s leftist influence is rapidly waning.

Timothy Meads headlined a column on Monday at “Matt Drudge's 'Future' Is Now Realized, And That Has Legacy Media Enraged.”

Meads goes on to explain that: “In 1998, Drudge gave a speech before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. in which he mapped out a future. He dreamed of a national press free of editors and beholden not to corporate masters but driven by the ever industrial spirit of the American citizen reporter.“ Drudge went on: “...clearly there is a hunger for unedited information, absent corporate considerations."

“In short, Drudge accurately predicted that the Internet would not kill media, but would make consuming news more popular than ever. The world wide web would make it easy for the average person to become a reporter. It would, however, change where and how Americans consumed their information.”

Meads closes by writing: “Now (today), there are hundreds of thousands of people just like Drudge who want to report the news. To be clear, there are certain growing pains with this development -- fake viral news for instance. Some of the folks invited to the social media summit have actually promoted lies and falsehoods, but then again so have the traditional White House outlets represented by legacy media. Even in this case, internet transparency has increased the ability of the populace to call out viral fake news rather than depending on the mainstream media to admit their mistakes.”

In case two today, Drudge’s contention regarding the general population’s access to factual information, regardless of the MSM’s attempts at distortion favorable to their cause can be seen today in an article receiving almost no coverage on a national basis.

According to Alex Moe and Jane C. Timm at “The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.

“The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment. All Republicans joined with 137 Democrats and the lone independent, Justin Amash, to table the resolution.”

Nancy Pelosi, said that she does not support the resolution, and that "We have six committees working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the president may have engaged in," she said at a news conference. "That is the serious path we’re on — not that Mr. Green is not serious, but we'll deal with that on the floor."

However, after providing considerable more verbiage regarding the possibility of future House action against the POTUS, writers Moe and Timm finally arrive at a far more probable conclusion as they write: “More than 80 members of the House have called for opening an impeachment inquiry, but some Democratic leaders have resisted, fearing that it would distract from the party's policy agenda, could rally Trump's base, isn't popular with the public and is doomed to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

“A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that enthusiasm for impeachment may be waning: The July survey found 21 percent of registered voters say that there is enough evidence for Congress to begin impeachment hearings now. In June, 27 percent in the poll the same thing, a 6-point drop in one month — though that survey was of Americans, not registered voters.”
All of which seems to indicate clearly that despite the MSM’s efforts to apply what was once was considerable influence over voters, in the real world today the POTUS doesn’t actually have very much to worry about regarding his job performance nor future reelection.

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, July 17, 2019


Without much of great importance occurring in the news this morning, this entry was planned to be a refresher on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals published in 1971 by Random House.

According to Wikipedia the rules were originally intended to be employed by “a structured organization with a clearly defined goal that could take direct action against a common enemy.” 

While the 13 “rules” were drawn from Mr. Alinsky’s personal experience as a community organizer, they've also been applied by national political figures. “The book was disseminated by the Tea Party conservative group FreedomWorks during Dick Armey's tenure as chairman. Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, and Barack Obama taught a course at the University of Chicago on how to organize communities using Saul Alinsky tactics.”

In addition to Clinton and Obama mentioned above, it now seems that Democrats in the House of Representatives are following along the same lines wherein just yesterday they apparently applied three of Alinsky’s 13 tactics.  

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
8 "Keep the pressure on."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

In that regard, Allan Smith, Alex Moe, Kasie Hunt and Leigh Ann Caldwell headlined an article "House votes to condemn Trump 'racist comments,' with only four Republicans backing the measure." 
“The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution on Tuesday night condemning President Donald Trump for his "racist comments" about four Democratic congresswomen of color.

“The resolution passed largely along party lines — 235 Democrats joined by only four Republican supported the measure — following hours of back-and-forth and gamesmanship between Republicans and Democrats, which included a GOP objection to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's remarks about Trump and whether she would be allowed to keep speaking on the floor.”

Pelosi said: "Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets. To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people. I urge a unanimous vote." 

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., “asked Pelosi whether she would like to "rephrase her comment." House members are barred from making disparaging remarks about the president on the House floor, but the resolution was aimed at criticizing the president for comments directed at four congresswomen, who he said should "go back" where "they came" from.

“The proceedings were put on hold for over an hour as Collins' request was considered."

A short time later, “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland took the chair and announced that Pelosi's comments had been found "not in order." He then called a vote on whether the comments should be stricken from the record, and Democrats prevailed on a party-line vote, allowing Pelosi's remarks to stand after an almost two-hour delay.”

One of the four assenting Republicans, Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, used the opportunity to tweet: “There is no room in America for racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia and hate. I voted to condemn the President's tweets today but I hope that Speaker Pelosi also considers holding members of her own party accountable to the same degree to which she holds the President,"

Another representative, Justin Amash of Michigan, had announced his departure from the Republican Party earlier this month, also voted for the resolution.

Getting to the true crux of the matter, however, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “said in a news conference Tuesday morning that he did not believe Trump's tweets were racist.” 

"I believe this is about ideology, this is about socialism versus freedom," McCarthy said, adding that the four congresswomen "talked more about impeachment than anything else" at a news conference Monday where they responded to the president.

"This is more from their base. It's about politics, and it's unfortunate," he said. "We should get back to the business of America."

And then we get to the real truth of what the POTUS actually said in his tweets

Trump tweeted Sunday that, instead of criticizing his government, the four congresswomen should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." Nowhere did he mention racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia or hate.

Then on Tuesday morning, Trump further tweeted that the four congresswomen "have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician in the House or Senate" and asked why the House wasn't "voting to rebuke the filthy and hate laced things they have said?"

Later, at a Cabinet meeting in the White House, the POTUS was asked where he thought the congresswomen should go. "It's up to them," he said. "Go wherever they want, or they can stay, but they should love our country. They shouldn't hate our country."

Asked Monday whether he was concerned that his comments were being called racist, the president said, "It doesn't concern me, because many people agree with me."

While the POTUS’s conclusion is very likely correct, the Democrat opposition keeps its pressure on despite having nothing more than politically motivated attempts to employ the POTUS’s own words against him regardless of accuracy of the context. 

Bringing us back to Saul Alinsky’s rules, this time referring to #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Which certainly seems to be the case for Democrats who have no real platform to offer voters except spending virtually all of their time finding fault with the POTUS as he keeps turning the nation around for the better.

That’s it for today folks.


Tuesday, July 16, 2019


Yesterday’s entry ended with this writer’s mention of having “little doubt that not only is the POTUS subtly setting leftist leadership up in ways they'll never comprehend, as the election nears there will be plenty more to come.”

Later in the day, Rush referenced an internal Democrat poll showing that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the “most recognizable Democrat in America among swing voters.” A caller to his show raised the subject, saying: “It’s a pleasure to speak with you. I just wanted to lend support to your theory as to why Trump uniting the Dems around AOC and Ilhan Omar is sound political strategy. There was an internal Democratic poll of swing voters. Axios published a story on this.”

The caller went on: “She (AOC) only has a 22% favorability rating. Omar, only 9%. Socialism, only 18%. The interesting thing also is that this poll came out in May, before Pelosi went on her assault. I think Trump probably sensed Pelosi’s strategy, which was to disassociate the party from AOC and her crew, particularly in swing House districts, and what Trump is doing is basically putting them all together again.”

Later in the broadcast Rush continued the theme, saying: “Here we have the Trump sound bites from near the top of the hour, 35/40 minutes ago. Trump was hosting the third annual Made in America Product Showcase. This was a massively successful event, once again highlighting the upward trends of the U.S. economy. At the Made in America Products Showcase, he tripled down on these comments about members of Congress he didn’t even name. Do you realize this? He didn’t mention Ocasio-Cortez or Ilhan Omar. It’s just everybody knew who he meant. So he tripled down on it. He was getting ovations and cheers from the crowd today. The only people making negative noises were the Drive-By Media.”

THE PRESIDENT: A politician that hears somebody when we’re at war with Al-Qaeda and she’s somebody talking about how great Al-Qaeda is? Pick out her statement. That was Omar. How great Al-Qaeda is? When you hear that, and we’re losing great soldiers to Al-Qaeda. When you see the World Trade Center get knocked down and you see the statements made about the World Trade Center, all the death and destruction? I’ll tell you what. I’m not happy with them, and it’s very easy to be saying, “Oh, gee. Well, it’s okay.” If weak politicians want to say it — and the Democrats in this case, if they want to gear their wagons around these four people — I think they’re gonna have a very tough election, because I don’t think the people of the United States will stand for it.

RUSH: And right there, he’s attempting to actually make that happen. He wants Pelosi to be forced to accommodate these people. He wants them to become the face of the Democrat Party, and he’s gonna force Pelosi to take action diminishing them, relegating them outsiders. She’s gotta do something or else let this happen. The worst thing in the world… Remember this Axios story with the poll from the polling unit that doesn’t want anybody to know who they are.

Summarizing Rush’s perspective on what’s taking place he ultimately arrives at the conclusion that it is the POTUS who is brilliantly forcing Democrat leadership to “accommodate these people.”  Yet, In an internal Democrat poll, "she’s at 9% approval and Cortez at 22% approval among swing voters. Neither of these people are liked. They are not approved of. Socialism is roundly disapproved in this poll. Trump obviously is attempting to have these people become the face of the Democrat Party. It’s a brilliant political move, what he’s doing here, and it’s being met with the typical, small-minded, knee-jerk reaction: “Trump’s a racist, Trump’s a Bigot, Trump’s a misogynist. He didn’t mention the race.”

Thus, we now see that today’s entry can be concluded with precisely the same verbiage as yesterday’s which said there's “little doubt that not only is the POTUS subtly setting leftist leadership up in ways they'll never comprehend, as the election nears there will be plenty more to come.”

Here’s a link to the very interesting segment from Rush’s show:
That’s it for today folks.


Monday, July 15, 2019


It's been the expectation here for quite some time that barring anything major unforeseen, the POTUS will be reelected, most probably in a landslide. And now we have some credentialed figures echoing that thought. One of them, opinion writer Michael Goodwin at the New York Post, theorized about the subject on Saturday 7/13.

Mr. Goodwin writes that there's a growing national trend indicating a belief that "Dems are not coming back to this world anytime soon." And that, "The election is still a long way off, but there is no sign that the radicalism surging through the party can be put back in the bottle before the election. What we see now is likely what voters will see in 2020."

As further evidence he cites a New York couple who've differed politically for many years, however "these days, they agree on one big thing: The president will be ­re-elected. Easily."

“Easily?” Goodwin asked, making sure he heard them correctly. Yes, they insisted, with her nodding as he said Democrats had gone bonkers and voters would respond by giving Trump four more years."

Two specific issues were cited as examples of where Mr. Goodwin believes the left has entered la la land. The "unanimous support for giving illegal immigrants free health care (Free, of course, except to American taxpayers,)" and while Trump's trying "to learn the facts about who is in the country," nobody on the left "wants to know."

And that brings us to the underlying point that Mr. Goodwin finally reaches as he writes: "Because Trump is for it, they must oppose it at any cost. Chalk that up as more evidence that Dems hate the president more than they care about commonsense approaches to the nation’s problems."

Regarding the constant knee-jerk leftist opposition to any presidential utterance, there's been a suspicion here for quite some time that the POTUS is acutely aware of its existence. And as a result he subtly sets leftists up via offering suggestions that no rational individual could possibly find fault with. Nonetheless, any proposition arsing from him will curtly be rejected.

That circumstance goes a long way to explain why leftists make such apparent fools of themselves by claiming open borders are beneficial to the nation and its citizens or that the major portion of individual incomes should be redistributed to others. However, there are other ways the POTUS can make use of brainless leftist reaction.

One such idea might be stating that New York's Empire State Building be preserved at all cost, regardless. Within moments there would likely be a claim by Rosie O'Donnell, Cher, Streisand and/or Jerry Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, Cortez et al that the building must be torn down for a whole host of reasons and is a danger to society as we know it. Anti-Empire State protests would shortly take place, as would Soros-funded marches and vigils.

Yet, as preposterous as the preceding premise is, this writer has little doubt that not only is the POTUS subtly setting leftist leadership up in ways they'll never comprehend, as the election nears there will be plenty more to come.

That's it for today folks.