Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Gorsuch !!!

  • This was a very dignified introduction by the President. He took a backseat and allowed Gorsuch to be the star of the evening. 
  • If you watched the introduction, it would be hard to not be impressed with the man. He is well spoken, seemed to say all the right things, and quite frankly he comes across as a nice guy. 
  • I believe that there will be pressure from a broad cross section of Americans to confirm Gorsuch. Look for any polling to show pretty overwhelming support from conservatives and independents. 
  • Rumors are that there are already seven Democrats who are going to come out in favor of an up and down vote. This could suggest that a preconceived strategy has already been laid out, allowing the maximum amount of Democrats to distance themselves from an unpopular filibuster. Or it could suggest that they will have a great deal of trouble circling the wagons and keeping 41 members together.

Ultimately this is as close to a nightmare scenario as there can be for the Democrats. There really isn't any upside for them. If they allow the vote and he is confirmed, then they let down the hardcore left that has been putting in overtime in the public melt-down department. If they filibuster, then they will lose massive credibility with mainstream Americans and likely provide Trump with some much needed ammunition and possibly even some sympathy. 

But ultimately, if they play hardball, it's likely that the GOP will go nuclear on this. Not only would Gorsuch be confirmed, but you could be looking at the almost sure confirmation of any future Trump picks. Bottom line: there is a great deal of buzz about another Justice stepping down sometime later this year. (Possibly Kennedy?)  If that is the case, then the removal of the filibuster would allow Trump to look at someone more controversial (such as Pryor) as his second pick. 

Democrats use Yates firing to further delay Sessions inevitable confirmation...


Of course, if the Democrats had allowed the generally politically accepted quick confirmation of Attorney Generals that all other Presidents have been given, a former Obama flunky would not have been in a position to create the "grandstanding" scene that led to the firing of the flunky in question.

The next Liberal temper tantrum coming later today !!

Who will it be?  The buzz is that it's down to these two?

Neil Gorsuch of Colorado 
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania

You're Fired!

Partisan hack refuses to do her job!
"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts," she said in a letter. "In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."

Political rhetoric to English translation: The order is perfectly legal and my responsibility is to enforce it...  but I don't like it politically, so I am going to hold my breath, stomp my feet, and throw a tantrum that will put me in the news.

Note: The Office of legal Counsel (which is part of the Justice Department) ultimately assists the Administration on issues such as this executive action. They provided guidance and review of this particular executive order and deemed it to be both constitutional and within the scope of any pertinent statutory limits.

In other words, the acting Attorney General not only defied her boss, but disrespected the legal experts (in her charge) who's job it is to make the determination on whether something is or is not legal. Make no mistake... this was pure one hundred percent partisan politics. There is no other explanation.

Note Number 2:  As the Deputy Attorney General, Yates was ultimately part of repeated attempts by the Justice Department to defend the executive actions of President Obama. Considering his track record for losing these court battles, in many cases having unanimous rulings up and down the chain against him... she must be used to defending actions that would only hold a vague tortured legal defense.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Typical liberal waiting for their daily NYT WaPo fix...

So they can be told how to think today!

A little Krugman, Dionne, Dowd treat for the lucky puppy?
Oh gimme gimme gimme!!!

Well who would have thunk it?

Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens 
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57 percent of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists form coming here. Thirty-three percent are opposed, while 10 percent are undecided. 
Similarly, 56 percent favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent oppose this temporary ban, and 11 percent are undecided.
So by what is "almost" a two to one margin, Americans favor exactly the executive order that Donald Trump just handed down... Of course you certainly wouldn't have suspected this based on the news coverage over the past couple of days.

Maybe some day the media will realize that the temper tantrum grade school actions of the sore loser liberal elitists does not actually represent the overall views of the American public. Then again, I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting...


Media as the opposition that cannot resist sugar...

Yesterday I limited my political morning viewing to a taping of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. It's become increasingly difficult to get through any Sunday morning political show these days (especially the round tables), as every interview seems to lead into "gotcha questions" and every discussion revolves around things that are considered "controversial".

On Fox News Sunday, the panel engaged in a discussion surrounding the concept that the current Administration considers the media to be an "opposition Party".  This led to Charles Lane suggesting that just because they are the "opposition" doesn't mean that they have to be "enemies". Other discussions included a sugar vs savory metaphor that suggested that the media will always be attracted to the controversial over the noncontroversial, and that it's up to those politicians to avoid providing any "sugar" if they want the media to report on the "savory" tidbits they offer.

This made me curious as to whether or not they even understand how little credibility that they currently have, much less have any understanding as to why.

The word they should be looking for here is "neutral" and other word they should be looking at is "importance". The idea that there is an acceptance at this point that they are no longer neutral, but should be considered "opposition" is very telling. The fact that they admit that they no longer cover the meat and potatoes, and are easily distracted by the side shows should be alarming to every one. Hard to be any sort of "news media" if your entire concept of the news demands that all that matters is what is considered "confrontational" or "controversial".

The reality is that political journalist are no different than say a sports journalist. Imagine if your typical sports journalist behaved in the same manner as the political journalist? Imagine at the end of the game, if they always interviewed the defensive back who got burned, rather than the wide receiver who caught the game winning pass, because they wanted to ask the "tough question". What if they failed to report on the actual score of the game, and wrote five articles about holding penalty on third down that wasn't called? What if they didn't cover the draft, trades, playoff standings or anything else of substance? How long would they remain sports writers if they spent all their time looking into a player's past or extracurricular behavior rather than judging their performance during the game? Not very long.

In the past week we have seen:
  • Freeze on federal hiring
  • Executive order to start building "the wall"
  • Executive orders to restart two pipeline projects
  • Order to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services to start to unravel the ACA. 
  • Executive action that bans refugees from Syria indefinitely and from six other countries for 120 days.
Reality is that you would almost have to do your own research to even know that these things even happened, much less to get any analysis into the possible positive effects or negative repercussions of actual new policy. This is honest to goodness real life news about real life policies that will effect real life people.

Instead, the media is reporting about inauguration crowd sizes, the protests over the travel ban portion of the executive action on refugees (that has already been reversed), and a threat from the President about a 20% tax on Mexican imports (that isn't even a real proposal). In other words, they are not looking for issues that are potentially "important" anymore, they simply look for issues that are potentially "confrontational" and "controversial". Something that might provide them with the next tough question or gotcha moment.

But sometimes people turn on the local sports radio show to get the scores of the local games, whether or not anyone was hurt or traded, and how the teams might be playing. There is always a place for analysis and opinions about whether or not the latest draft pick was wise, whether the team should make a trade, or change their strategy. But the latter doesn't seem to take on much importance if you are not provided with the former.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Executive Orders...

Personally I have always felt that when it comes to policies where we have laws in place, that Presidents should be seen, heard, but they should stop sort of taking matters into their own hand. I took much issue with President Obama's statements regarding executive actions, and how he believed that it was his right to act "if Congress didn't". That was wrong headed then, and the same logic is wrong headed today.

That being said, of the two arguments... executive action to "loosen" restrictions on refugees and immigration seem to be almost 100% a policy issue, where as executive action to "tighten" restrictions on refugees and immigration can at least be argued to be an action stemming from national security concerns.

From a legal standpoint, opposition to the Trump executive action took it's best shot and barely put a dent into anything. They got possibly the best federal Judge they could have gotten (an Obama appointee with direct ties to Chuck Schumer) and the results were a temporary stay on the "deportation" of those with Green Cards being detained at Airports (other Judges provided similar rulings). It's not even certain whether or not that even effects the main tenets of the executive order. Nor would it likely supersede a deportation by Homeland Security if there were legitimate grounds to do so. Ultimately, it may not even warrant an appeal from the Administration.

Contrary to the arguments of politically motivated politicians and the politically under-informed liberal elitist media, there is nothing unconstitutional about banning refugees based on region or even religion. In fact our refugees laws clearly states that religious persecution is one of the main reasons we would accept a refugee, meaning that "by law" consideration of religion is part of the vetting process for asylum status. Not to mention that there is no constitutional rights for any foreigner to be provided with refugee or immigration status. It's no surprise that even the most liberal judge with the interests of the Democratic Party in mind, would not be so bold as to declare the order to be invalid.

Likewise, the seven countries on the list were not randomly determined by the President, they are countries were identified by Congress in 2015 as part of Terrorist Prevention Act. So at the very least, the list of countries was taken from existing law. In fact this whole executive order can be seen to some degree as an expansion of that existing law.

Bottom line, like most everything Trump does that seems impulsive, I think this is another opening gambit being played by the President.  While I am not a fan of executive actions, almost everything in this action is temporary. I believe that is by design. It should now become a priority for Congress to prevent future Presidential action, by creating a law (or amending existing law) that follows through on some of the promises made by Donald Trump and the Republican Party... who after all, did with both the Presidency and both of the chambers of Congress in 2016.

Trump shocks the political world...

by following through on campaign promises and not changing his behavior...

The political world has been stunned by the recent behavior of President Trump. It appears that the new President has acted in an unprecedented manner by following through on campaign promises, defending himself against left wing media attacks, and basically acting the same way he acted prior to becoming President.

One political operative described the behavior of following through on campaign promises as bizarre.  "Everyone understands that campaign promises are only made to get elected. Nobody expects anyone to actually implement them. Trump apparently doesn't understand how politics is supposed to work. It's bizarre."

Meanwhile the media is dismayed by the fact that he has continued to bash them, question their reporting, and even threaten to take away special privileges for certain media outlets that he sees as being unfair to him. "It's the media's job to fawn over Democratic Administrations and be completely disrespectful of Republican administrations" a longtime political writer stated. "Did he not pay attention to the previous 24 years, when we covered up for every Clinton scandal, attacked Bush at every turn, then pretended that Obama was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He should just accept things for how they are. Who is he to try to stand up to it or change it?"

Another long time political pundit suggested that Trump does not understand the true nature of elections. "It's fine for a Republican to campaign under the guise of a conservative agenda. We understand that sometimes that helps a Republican get elected. But once the election is over, he must understand that he should govern like a liberal leaning moderate. That's the most we can allow. The fact that he won, doesn't give him the right to govern like he won."

Overall, the consensus is that Donald Trump is not only "failing to play by the rules and decorum of American politics" but that some question if he actually understands that such rules and decorum exists. "It's almost as if he thinks he can just be President Donald Trump and still act like Donald Trump the person. What is he thinking?"


Saturday, January 28, 2017

Resistance is futile...

Almost since the first day that Donald Trump announced his intention to run for President, the left, the media, and Hollywood worked overtime to create the illusion that his candidacy was not to be taken seriously. Democrats laughed at his candidacy. Late Show Hosts routinely made fun of him. Hollywood celebrities mocked him. Many in the media openly stated that his candidacy could not and should not be covered as if it was actually a legitimate candidacy.

Any politician who stood with Trump was treated as if they had leprocy. Jimmy Fallon was criticized for "messing up his hair" on the Tonight Show, because such an act made Trump seem somewhat human (which apparently was the one thing to be avoided at all cost). Anyone in the media who did cover Donald Trump as if he was an honest to goodness Presidential candidate were chastised by the left for "normalizing him".

Now whether or not Donald Trump and his agenda can be considered "normal" is still up for debate. But the fact remains that he is currently the President of the United States, he has a GOP congress ready for action, and of course he has a "pen and a phone" to take on issues that do not require congressional actions. He's making his presence felt and will no doubt continue to do so moving forward.

Of course, that doesn't stop hundreds of thousands of women from dressing up like female parts, celebrities telling us how they fantasize about blowing up the White House, or politicians like Cory Booker demanding we resist the temptation of normalizing Donald Trump:

To be clear here folks, the resistance is at the core level here. These same people somehow believe that they can convince Americans and the rest of the world that we are a nation that at least "figuratively" doesn't really have a President, because Trump cannot be considered as such.

While you may be able to convince some people of this logic for four days, or maybe even four weeks, this is going to realistically prove impossible to promote wide scale for four months, much less four years. Again, I hate to point out the obvious... but the United States does require that we have a President, Trump "is" that President, and with that title comes some degree of respect.

The Senate confirming his cabinet, normalizes him. Every time he signs an executive order and people start to discuss the potential effects, it normalizes him. Ever time Congress takes up his actions, it normalizes him. When he nominates a candidate for the U.S.S.C. it normalizes him. Every day the media covers the White House (good or bad) it normalizes him. Even simple disagreements about "policy" will begin to normalize Trump. Pretty soon, people will all have to simply admit that he is President, and that he is legitimate.

Resistance is futile!

Friday, January 27, 2017

You're Fired!

Trump administration asks top State Department officials to leave
Washington (CNN)Two senior administration officials said Thursday that the Trump administration told four top State Department management officials that their services were no longer needed as part of an effort to "clean house" at Foggy Bottom. Patrick Kennedy, who served for nine years as the undersecretary for management, Assistant Secretaries for Administration and Consular Affairs Joyce Anne Barr and Michele Bond, and Ambassador Gentry Smith, director of the Office for Foreign Missions, were sent letters by the White House that their service was no longer required, the sources told CNN.  All four, career officers serving in positions appointed by the President, submitted letters of resignation per tradition at the beginning of a new administration.

Of course the gasbagged liberals were quick to believe that these people were not fired, but rather quit because they had too much integrity to work for Trump. Sad really.... that so many people on the left are so emotionally distraught that they simply cannot even think clearly.

So easy to lure emotional people into believing "whatever" you want to tell them, as long as it eases their emotional suffering. Watching them embarrass themselves with their own gullibility will become something of a spectator sport. We just have to figure out how to keep score!

You may be a victim of Gaslighting...

  • The BLS website shows that according to the Employer Survey, approximately ten million jobs were created from 2009 to 2016. The Population Survey shows that approximately three and half million more Americans are working today than when Obama took office. If you believe that Obama "created twenty million jobs" - you may be a victim of gaslighting. 
  • Average Gallup Polling shows that President Obama fell below George W Bush and even Richard Nixon in terms of average approval over the course of his Presidency. In fact, only three Presidents since WWII had lower average approvals than Barack Obama. If you believe that Obama is a "historically popular President" - you may be a victim of gaslighting.
  • House Republicans received nearly 1.4 million more votes than House Democrats in 2016. If you believe that the Democrats hold some sort of mandate for winning the popular vote - you may be a victim of gaslighting. 
  • According to "" the National Rifle Association gave just over one million dollars to politicians and political Parties and ranked 422 out of 18,544 organizations (that donated) for contributions in 2016. Their 2.5 million spent on lobbying in 2016 ranked them 143 out of 3,651 lobbying organizations. If you believe that the NRA controls the Republican Party  - you may be a victim of gaslighting.
  • The liberal elitist main stream media declared over and over and over during the campaign that comparing the size of Trump and Clinton crowds didn't matter in terms of popularity or support.  If you now believe the same media when they make a big deal out of comparisons between the size of the Trump and Obama inauguration crowds - you may be a victim of gaslighting. 
  • In fact, if you believe anything the liberal elitist main stream media states about much of anything these days - you are almost certainly the victim of gaslighting.  
  • If you recently discovered the phrase of "gaslighting" and have been misusing it to attack everyone who disagrees with you - you just may be the victim of your own stupidity. 

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Bottom line: Results matter!

Oh noooooo! RIP Mary Tyler Moore...

Once again, the media opinions were wrong...

A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that the new president’s message is resonating with voters, refuting the idea that Trump bungled his first speech as commander in chief. 
Trump got relatively high marks on his Friday address, with 49 percent of those who watched or heard about the speech saying it was excellent or good, and just 39 percent rating it as only fair or poor. Sixty-five percent of those surveyed reacted positively to the “America First” message, the cornerstone of the Trump campaign and governing posture.

Sorry Media. Trump won. You lost.

The most recent Gallup poll regarding media trust breaks down like this:

  • Great deal - 8%
  • Fair amount - 24%
  • Not very much - 41%
  • None at all - 27%

So, if you are one of those people who love to cut and paste your "facts" from the media as "proof" of your arguments, consider that in a room with twelve people (including yourself) - you would statistically be the "only" person who would have a great deal of trust in the media facts you are using to promote your argument.

Let me repeat that: In a room full of twelve people you would be the only one having a great deal of trust in the media information you are using to promote your argument. 

On the flip side, eight of those people would basically hold very little, if any, trust in what you are using to promote your argument. The other three would go either way on whether or not they trust your source.

Hint - it's why people tend to think of you as weak minded, easily fooled, and basically brush aside your media sources as propaganda that you are silly enough to believe. Second hint: the eight people are not the ones on the outs with reality... it's you.  Stop pretending it's the other way around. 

Reminds me of the quote from David St Hubbins, the fictional lead singer of the band Spinal Tap:
I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn't believe anything.
Keep in mind that this "rockumentary' was a spoof, and David St Hubbins was not the sort of person you wanted to take your philosophical ideals from.

Of course, this doesn't stop the media from continuing to dance with the girl who helped them cause this whole mess. From arguments about the removal of busts, to attacking the son of the new President, to basically behaving like a whiny third grader who was picked last for the kickball game, the media stays the course when it comes to their "all out assault" on Donald Trump.

Hey! Look over there!
You sort of want to remind the media, that in spite of all of their best efforts, Donald Trump won the election. In spite of their best efforts to promote the good guys, the Democratic Party has fallen to levels of power that have not been this low since the 1920s.  Ss it pertains to persuasive clout, the media have become eunuchs.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump was sworn in as President, he has signed executive orders, his cabinet is slowly but surely being confirmed, he will be offering a USSC pick within the next couple of weeks, the stock market is up, consumer confidence is up, people are seeing a brighter future... and the media is basically arguing with the Press secretary over crowd sizes and other bits of nonsense...

and pretending that it's someone else who doesn't have their eye on the ball.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Tucker Carlson nearly doubling Megyn Kelly's ratings...

Sorry Tucker... She's still better looking!
Fox News's Tucker Carlson is nearly doubling the ratings of his predecessor, Megyn Kelly, when compared to the same time period last year, according to Nielsen Media Research.

"Tucker Carlson Tonight" is up 95 percent in the 25- to 54-year-old demographic that advertisers covet most compared with the same period in 2016, when "The Kelly File" occupied the 9 p.m. ET time slot.
Carlson has averaged 775,000 viewers per night in the category, while Kelly averaged 398,000 during the same time period, Jan. 11–22.

What does the progressive cause actually stand for?

Based on the recent events surrounding the inauguration of Donald Trump, it's clear that liberals are against anything and everything that Donald Trump stands for. Many thousands of trees were killed to produce the mass amount of paper required for liberals to pen their objections to his speech, his actions, and his general existence.

So as near as I can tell, you can clarify the new progressive platform based primarily on their objections to Trump, his ideals, and his dark, hateful, horrible, Nazi-like speech. So let's go through some of the prominent points made during his speech and the obvious progressive disagreement:

Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning because today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.
So, first and foremost, the progressive cause believes in the central power of Washington D.C. and pretty much rejects the notion that the "people" of the country should have control. After all, people are stupid. People voted for Donald Trump. Therefor people need to be guided and told what to believe and how to act. Therefore a strong "liberal" central government is necessary, because quite obviously, the American public is too stupid to know what's best for them and otherwise follow along.

Government failing:
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction, that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public.
Secondly, the progressive cause believes in the status quo as it pertains to inner cites, the rust belt, the education system, and crime and gangs.  To suggest that there are inner city crime issues (that cannot be solved by retraining the police), is to be a racist. To suggest that we can stop the flow of American jobs being shipped overseas, is to be a Nazi-like Nationalist. To suggest that parents be given say in how their children are taught, is an attack on public schools. The progressive cause believes that these situations are not problems, but rather just a negative spin on an otherwise happy reality. To suggest that eight years of Barack Obama's leadership did not resolve these issues is to be dark and negative. Did I mention it also makes you a racist?

America first:
For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries, while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend our own.  Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.
The progressive cause certainly rejects the notion that we need to put America first. The progressive cause is all about globalism, and the need to have a cohesive global society. In order to achieve such a goal, means that American leadership must include American sacrifice. We need to collectively "check" our white American privilege and tend to the needs of the world. If this means agreeing to trade agreements that do no benefit America and American workers, so be it. After all, our reputation with the more liberal nations of the world is much more important than the fate of our spoiled uneducated low information American working population.

Uniting against terrorism:
We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.
Obviously, the progressive cause is against the eradication of anyone. To be suggest that there even is such a thing as radical Islamic terrorism is Islamophobic. Secondly, we obviously must come to the obvious realization that Israel is not our friend, and that most of the antisemitism in this world is well grounded.

Coming together as Americans:
It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the wind-swept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they will their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty creator.
The progressive cause obviously calls bullshit on this one. The general concept of everyone bleeding the same blood, or people of different races seeing the same sky is to not see the obvious racism, bigotry, and hatred that can only be combated by quotas, special treatment, and the overall concept that things will never be equal until White American lets go of their privilege. Liberals can call on people to come together. Conservatives have not earned such a privilege.

Maybe I am missing some things here. but as far as I can tell from the reaction to the Donald Trump inauguration speech, we can pretty much determine the following as the pillars of American progressivism :
  • People of America should answer to Washington - not the other way around. 
  • Federalism is good. Globalism is even better. The more you can consolidate more people under one central control, the better. As long as the control is liberal. 
  • There is no such thing as bad Muslims, only bad Christians who think there are bad Muslims. 
  • Conservatives pretending to point out problems are just being dark. There is no real problems in America that cannot be solved by Whites checking their privilege. Those who do not agree should be called names.
  • Calling on people to come together is fine if you are liberal. But if you are conservative, doing so is only an attempt minimize your racism. 
Does that about sum it up?

Monday, January 23, 2017

Rex Tillerson will get full GOP support...

Possibly the Democrats best hopes of derailing a Trump nominee were dashed over the past couple of days as Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio all decided to put reservations aside and vote for the confirmation of the soon to be Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

McCain, Rubio, and Graham will vote yes!

Of course, the left doesn't care for the fact that Tillerson has a history with Vladimir Putin from his time as CEO of Exxon. One could argue that having someone familiar with the negotiating tactics of one of he worlds most influential leaders might be a nice ace in the hole for this Administration to own.

Biggest mass temper tantrum in history!

We can go back and forth on the size of the inauguration crowd, or how many people watched it world wide, or whatever... but one thing is for certain:

This was the largest full scale all out coordinated group temper tantrum ever performed anywhere.

One has to be amazed at just how many sore losers are willing to come out to display such hatred of one man, and such intolerance for those who support him.

To be clear, nobody suggests that you cannot protest something peacefully. Of course, one "might" prefer that those protests be in resistance to something "other" than the Democratic process, the peaceful transfer of power, and the American tradition of showing respect for a new leader.

The protesters will have you believe that they are protesting something tangible. Of course, the President hasn't been President long enough to have done anything to warrant any real protests, and these protests were planned well before he took office. Apparently the protesters must be suggesting this is a preemptive protest against possible future actions that may or may not occur. You can imagine how these possibilities can get people all worked up.

The reality, however, is something quite different. Regardless of what is being claimed... they are literally protesting the fact that Trump won. They are protesting the fact that more people in more states with more electoral college votes, cast their votes for the candidate that these people did not want to win.  This is quite literally a protest of the ultimate group of sore losers, protesting the fact that they lost. Nothing more, nothing less.

Scratch beneath the surface of what this is all about, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the underlying circular reasoning for "why" they lost in the first place.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Some notes on the crowd size...

Yes - Obama's was bigger
No - Trump's was not small 

First let me suggest that this is a really stupid and pointless argument. Both on the part of the media (whom I expect it from), and especially on the part of the Administration (who quite frankly should have bigger and better things to concern themselves with).
  • There are no and will be no official announcement of any numbers. That had been done by the National Park Service, and they stopped doing so back in the 1990s. What you will have is crowd estimates from a variety of people, but mostly the media. 
  • As I watched the speech live on the internet, they panned out over the crowds and you did not see the large areas of "white' that you do in many of the pictures. The pictures were still shots and could have been taken at any time prior to the speech. Quite obviously the earlier you take a picture as the crowds gather, the less people will show in your picture. Unless of course, someone believes that everyone magically appears all at once.
  • On that note, the covering of the fields in a "white" tarp had never been done before. Generally there had been no covering of the area, which would obviously make it harder to distinguish where there may be open spots, as people and a brown/green ground would naturally blend much better than people and "white". 
  • There were white areas that were "blocked off" due to security reasons. Again, the fact that the ground was white makes these areas show up. But it begs the question, why would those areas be otherwise vacant when thousands were watching from way further back?
  • The television ratings show that Donald Trumps inauguration was the fourth most watched inauguration at approximately 31 million. This trails Ronald Reagan in 1980 with 42 million and Barack Obama in 2008 at 38 million and Jimmy Carter in 1976 with 34 million.

For the record, I don't believe that the Trump crowd size in D.C. was comparable to the Obama crowd size, which was historically large by all accounts. 2017 was probably very similar to most of the other inauguration crowds. That being said, when you consider how much the international community has advanced in terms of media access, it's certainly "possible" that 2017 was the most "watched" world wide, which is the suggestion being made by the Administration.

Not that it really matters.  

The left's worst nightmare comes true...

President Donald Trump signs first executive order!

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Here is a statistic that should reasonate

  • According to the bureau of labor statistics at the end of 2008 we had 145,362,000 people working in civilian jobs. We had 79,501,000 who were considered out of the labor force.
  • According to the bureau of labor statistics at the end of 2015 we had 148,834,000 people working in civilians jobs. We had 93,671,000 who were considered out of the labor force 
So in the first seven years of the Obama Presidency we had approximately three and a half million more people working, but twenty four fourteen million more people considered out of the labor force. In other words, for every one new person who got a job in the civilian labor market,  seven four people left the workforce all together.

Rather than wonder how the American public can look at the job market so negatively considering all the jobs Obama has created and how much unemployment has dropped... perhaps the left can:
  • wonder how the previous administration can claim twenty million new jobs when only three and a half million more people are working? 
  • consider how little those twenty four million Americans who have left the workforce (and those around them) care about the unemployment percentage going down?

After loss, the strategically challenged liberal media runs the same game plan again...

Literally the same words, expressions, and phrases were used by the out of touch liberal media to describe the President's acceptance speech at the GOP convention, as were used to describe yesterday's inauguration speech. Coincidentally the same manipulation of wording is being used to justify the descriptions that the progressive media herd would like to portrait as real.

Look at some of the headlines and stories accompanying them.

"Dark", "gloomy", "scary", "ugly".

The concept is the same in each example of each story. Donald Trump is trying to appeal to people's fear, hate, and divisiveness, and of course lure them away from the upbeat ideals of modern progressive liberalism. They draw these conclusions, of course, because he points out certain realities that people on the left would like to pretend don't exist. Rather than figure out how to combat crime and poverty in the urban areas of the country, the left would prefer to let the conditions fester and simply label everyone who brings it up as a racist or bigot. They understand that an angry urban minority voter is a Democratic voter.   Rather than point out the tangible problems with how globalization effects the American economy, the left would rather declare "Nationalism" to be the new Nazism.  They understand that correlating Trump with Hitler, that they can produce the negative image they seek in the weak minded that follow them.

Of course, every story has two sides, and of course the "losing" side is not going to like the story told by the victors. There are plenty of journalist writing positive things about the President's speech, mainly from those who live outside of California, New York, and D.C.  Most of these people understand that the broad message of Trump's inauguration speech was no different than the broad message of his acceptance speech which was no different than the broad message of his campaign. This was an anti-establishment campaign, run against everyone in the establishment, including (of course) the liberal elitist media. Trump is not a high minded liberal academic who believes in the infallibility of a overreaching central government... he's a man who believes that the Government should serve the people, not the other way around.

Of course, somewhere along the line, the liberal elitist media has taken it upon themselves to push the narrative that the populist Trump must turn into establishment Trump, play by their rules, or forever be labeled a guy who cannot "pivot". More to the point, the liberal elitists media probably thinks such a pivot is necessary. He must come to understand that the progressive way is the correct way.

Reality check. It's not necessary or preferred that Trump should pivot at this point. Pivots are supposed to come after the conventions and during the general election campaign. He already won the election, and he won it on his terms.  The only reason to believe that Trump should change is because liberals are inherently self absorbed to the point where even when they lose, they feel entitled that their preferred method of governing should continue. Their hubris so overwhelming, that what they see is so obvious that they cannot grasp the concept that anyone can possibly disagree with any good faith.

The sad part about all of this is that when the media played this hand in the general election, they were trying to influence an election to get their preferred candidate into office. Their continuance to play such a misguided hand now only works to undermine our President, our Presidency, and ultimately our Democracy.

Not only that, but it continues to undermines their own shattered reputation. Right now, they have very little reputation left to spare. If Donald Trump has accomplished nothing else to this point, he has pushed the main stream media into pounding nail after nail into their own coffins of credibility. For that, he's already a success in the eyes of many.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Violence and Destruction of Property...

as a means to protest the "nationalism" of Trump and his supporters!

Clear headed liberals show their logical thought process!

The event

A couple of quick notes on the inauguration, and the speeches that were made. Let's just say that I was not surprised by any of it.

Chuck Schumer managed to give a speech where he did not acknowledge the new President in any way at all. No congratulations, no looking forward to working with you, no mention of Donald Trump at all.

Trump gave a speech (which I suspect was about 60% as long as Obama's speech from eight years ago) that I am sure will be soundly attacked by the political class for not doing enough to praise former President Obama, and not "reaching out" enough to those who do not call themselves supporters. As one person noted, if you live in California, New York, or D.C. your hair probably started on fire. On the flip side, if you live in the heartland, you probably loved the speech. Since most of your pundits live in California, New York, and D.C. I am guessing they won't like it.

Personally I liked the fact that it was short and to the point. There is no pussy footing around where Trump stands on the issues, and there will be no sucking up to the political class. Not during the campaign, not during the inauguration speech, and not likely during his Presidency.

For those suffering from TDS, this was just a speech. You were not expected to like it. Get over it.

(no comment thread - comment on inauguration thread)

Inauguration thread

"This moment is your moment - It belongs to you!"

Tale of two headlines

Same event, two different headlines, two diffferent pictures, two different takes:

TRUMP SUPPORTERS BEATEN-BLOODIED Outside #DeploraBall – Pummeled With Eggs, Batteries!

Police pepper spray anti-Trump protesters outside 'DeploraBall' event

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Why does the left care so much about celebrity?

A couple of the arguments I have heard recently for why Donald Trump should not be seen as a legitimate President is the fact that many of the black tie inauguration parties are not as in demand as they were eight years ago... and the fact that Trump has struggled to find top caliber musical acts to perform at the actual inauguration.

Not a "real" White House Administration
Seriously? Liberals now defer to the "celebrity" to make determinations as to which politicians we should consider "legitimate"?  Does it strike anyone else at all ironic that a group of actors who played a White House administration on television are calling the actual President-elect illegitimate? Does it strike you as somewhat alarming that anyone actually listens to this?

Sorry, not "real" superheroes
Certainly, if we are not willing to take our political cues from a group of actors who have much experience solving make believe crises in sixty minutes or less, we certainly should be taking them from actors who routinely save the world from eastern European bad guys, killer robots, and evil computer enhanced characters with the voice of James Spader? Shouldn't we be listening to actors who portrait gods, people who turn into giant green beasts, or grown men in the twenty first century who carry bows and arrows with them at all times? Makes sense to liberals.

Obviously we should all understand, that if musicians back up Hillary Clinton and refuse to perform for the Trump inauguration... that this simply must be a sign that Donald Trump really didn't get the 300 plus electoral college votes needed. I mean, how did he win America, if he didn't win the 50 cent, Snoop dog, or Lady Gaga voter?

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

The Ironic Climate Change President...

Promised to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet 

Over the course of his eight year tenure, this President has devoted himself to issues of climate change and how to combat it. No President has been more involved, more active, and more instrumental in creating change in how our country and the world does things. Over the past eight years we have seen:
  • International treaties on Climate Change
  • Countless executive orders on Climate Change
  • A record amount (over 3300) new regulations from the EPA involving 29,770,000 words (approximately 50 bibles worth of new regulations).
What has it gotten us? Well according to the statistical magicians working with our climate alarmist community, Obama has managed to achieve the three highest years of warming in the history of the planet. More to the point, according to the alarmists each of the past three years has gotten progressively worse. 

Now like most people who are concerned about climate change and want to see a bright future for our planet, I am forced to logically determine that it's time to go back to the drawing board. As much as I believe he "wanted" to help. He quite obviously didn't. Now had the last three years of his Presidency shown that our warming had been reduced or even reversed, I would have seen every incentive to continue forward on the same path. But it got worse. Objective data analysis must prevail. Time to move on. 

The prudent plan, of course, would be to undo as much of it as physically possible and start over with a new approach. I think Donald Trump is the man with the plan to do so! Less regulations, more fossil fuels, and tear up those damned treaties.  I am sure those really concerned with Climate change will agree that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. We certainly do not want the next eight years to continue with the Obama legacy of being the "hottest on record" (sic)...  

Therefor I am sure they would agree that we need serious change. 

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Does Trump really have an issue with the intelligence community?

The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump is "at war" with the intelligence community. But is that really a fair assessment, considering how much infighting we have seen in recent times within the intelligence community?

There were leaks from FBI officials regarding the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server. There were leaks from Inspector Generals regarding the same investigation. It was said that Comey's press conference was hastily thrown together to squelch the ongoing work being done by some of the agents. There has been plenty of talk about riffs between the DOJ and the FBI. There has been disagreement (some of them public) between the CIA and the NSA, the FBI and the CIA, and probably some between the NSA and the FBI as well.

Believe me, I love the intelligence community!
You're gonna find out just how much! 

In fact, there has even been speculation (at one time or the other) that the rank and file are not happy with the management in pretty much all of the agencies.

It would appear that the intelligence community is not a very cohesive happy family at the moment, regardless of who is going to be calling the shots come this Friday. Perhaps the real issue here has nothing to do with Donald Trump and the "community"... but rather this is a good old fashioned D.C. pissing match between Trump and the politically appointed intelligence community "leadership" that he will soon be replacing with his own people.

Perhaps we should see where things go once the CIA, DOJ, and NSA are actually answering to people who answer to Trump, rather than answering to people who answer to Obama. I have a sneaking suspicion that once his people are in place, that there will no longer be much fighting going on between Trump and these agencies.

Of course, that will likely be because these agencies will no longer be crawling under rocks looking for excuses for Hillary's loss, ties between Putin and Trump, or whether or not Trump has unscrupulous business connections to the Chinese or other foreign interest. In fact, I doubt under Trump's command that they will spend any time at all investigating the 2016 election or the new Commander in Chief.

I have suspicion that they will find some other areas of interest, that may in fact create some tension between the intelligence community and the other political Party.

Back at it !!!

Trump Remains Unpopular

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Jan. 12-15, 2017, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,005 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 31-23-37 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
Here we are, just a two months away from an election where Republicans made up a third of the electorate, and our Democratic media pollsters are right back to insisting that these Republicans simply do not exist. According to the latest Gallup Party Affiliation polling from early January, more Americans now call themselves Republicans than Democrats. This would appear consistent with what "generally" happens after one side wins, and the other side acts like a group of inconsolable adolescent crybabies. Not to mention, it's pretty much "always" what happens during the "honeymoon" period of a new Presidency. People tend to associate themselves with the winner (and that Party) and they disassociate with the loser (and that Party). I mean what sort of "loser" really still admits to supporting the grand master of losers (HRC)?

But let's not sweat the details of reality. The media is going to tell you what they want you to believe at this point, not what's real. They cannot fathom a country that elected Donald Trump, much less a country that actually continues to support him. So instead, what you will hear is how little faith the American left has in Trump, and they will amplify their diminishing opinions above all else.

As someone who has spent years watching and analyzing polls, it's sad how they have become less and less a quest for information, and more and more a tool to reinforce a predetermined narrative. Many in the media openly stated that they willingly and knowingly tossed out their objectively over Donald Trump. There is no reason to believe they relocated their objectively now, or are likely ever going to.

Will we ever get honest reporting again?

Monday, January 16, 2017

Liberals vs Bikers?

Clinton Global Initiative - RIP

Fallout from the bad press for the Clinton Foundation during the recent election campaign has resulted in the shuttering of one of the Clinton Foundation's major pieces. The Clinton Global Initiative, which "convenes global leaders to create and implement innovative solutions to the world's most pressing challenges," was a centerpiece of the Clinton Foundation's efforts to influence world leaders while raising cash for the Foundation - 20 million Kroners from Norway alone. The layoffs will take effect April 15, the Clinton Foundation said in a filing with the New York Department of Labor Thursday, citing the discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative.

One has to wonder out loud why people would stop sending Money to the Clinton foundation, since everyone of it's donors suggested that the reason they were donating was because of all the good the foundation did with the money. Never did anyone donating make any suggestions that the donations were in any way an attempt to buy influence.

Now the Clintons have extra time to devote to their charity

So the fact that Hillary didn't win, and it would appear that the Clinton's are now out of national politics, should not have effected the long stream of donations. Not unless the donors were not actually being honest about their incentive?

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Bob "liberal" Woodward - voice of reason

  • Garbage Dossier should not have been party of an intelligence briefing. 
  • Information should never have been leaked. 
  • Former intelligence leaders should not be saying the things about Trump that they have.
  • Current intelligence leaders should have but didn't condemn such talk.

I am curious...

What specific information was released due to the Russians hack...
that supposedly was responsible for "changing" the election results?

What changed your mind?

We hear a lot about this in a generic sense. But I have not really seen too much in terms of specifics. In fact, I am not exactly sure which information was hacked by the Russians and which was provided to Wikileaks by insiders? 

Moreover, information like the fact that the DNC and members of the media was in the bag for Hilllary Clinton was always known to be true. Nothing that was leaked did anything other than confirm the obvious. 

So what, exactly, was it?

Friday, January 13, 2017

Liberals confused by the fact that Conservatives disagree with each other...

It's become amusing to watch the hand wringing from the left over the (what they see as troubling) concept that not all of Trump's nominees for cabinet positions walk in lockstep with the concepts he has put forward. What's even more amusing is the hand wringing from the left, when they realize that it doesn't cause any real problems with people on the right that there is disagreement. 

Liberals prefer to be in lockstep with each other

Let's be clear. No newly elected President ever knew enough about all the nuances of the job to have successfully formulated an all encompassing plan during the campaign. They campaign on general themes and figure that the policy details will fall into place sometime after they are in the actual position. At least that is how any realistic Presidential hopeful would (or should) act.

Let's be doubly clear. If there was ever a newly elected President who didn't know what he didn't know... it would be Donald Trump. I firmly expect that the one thing he will "not" do as President is become stubborn about clinging to broad concepts he might have campaigned on, and rejecting any opinions that do not align. One thing about successful business people is that they are flexible. Flexibility would serve an administrator equally well in the political realm.

The reality is that other than being tougher on immigration (building a wall), repealing Obamacare, and creating a more business friendly environment, there is very little Trump was very specific about. "Make America Great Again" was a lot like "Hope and Change". It could be whatever you want it to be.

Now perhaps the left walks in a little more lockstep than the right does. At least they feel that it's important to put up a united front on pretty much everything. But conservatives tend to disagree among themselves and don't seem to think this is necessarily a bad thing. In my mind, I would rather have some honest disagreement, honest dialogue, and open discussions, than to see an entire cabinet made up of "yes men" who only are allowed to hold views that are consistent with the President.

The only consistency you heard from these candidates is that their opinions aside, they still answer to the President. I am sure they will make their collective cases to the President elect when they believe they are right. Oddly, I am pretty sure that the President elect will give them an honest listen and change his mind more often than we might expect a President to do so. At the end of the day, I would offer this as a potential "good" quality, rather than as a bad one. I also know this confuses most liberals.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Well who didn't know this?

Conservatives really are better looking, research says
A recently published study in the Journal of Public Economics concludes that the attractiveness of a candidate does correlate with their politics. They find that politicians on the right are more good looking in Europe, the United States and Australia.

The researchers also offer a more general psychological explanation for the trend: That good-looking people are often treated better than others, and thus see the world as a more just place. Past studies have found that the more attractive people believe themselves to be, the lower their preference for egalitarianism, a value typically associated with the political left.

Judge for yourself: 

Anchor for MSNBC or Anchor for FOX News

Writer for VOX or Writer for Hot Air?

Anonymous Liberal blogger or Anonymous Conservative blogger?

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

This is ironic

Liberals are reconsidering federalism in the wake of Trump
WITH ALL OF official Washington in the grip of Republicans, and an autocratic — not to say imperial — figure in the White House, many liberals are taking a second look at the 10th Amendment. That’s the one where all power not explicitly granted to the federal government by the US Constitution devolves to the states. “Progressive federalism,” a term that once might have been considered an oxymoron, is coming into vogue as worried Americans look to the states to protect their rights or to resist President-elect Donald Trump’s more despotic policy proposals.
It’s ironic that progressives find themselves looking for decentralized solutions to overweening power in Washington. Federalism, and its coarser cousin “states’ rights,” have long carried a noxious whiff of bigotry because of Southern-state resistance to civil rights and the abolition of slavery. And, since at least the 1960s and President Johnson’s Great Society, liberals have looked to Washington for broad safety-net protections, and to the Supreme Court to confer an ever-widening circle of liberties.

Pretty sure I was just called a "confederate" for suggesting that we are better off living in a country where state's rights can thrive within the constitutional aspects of our Republic. You know, according to some slim-witted individuals... anyone who suggests that there is such a thing as "state's rights" must be in favor of slavery, among other things.

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, we have a possible authoritative Republican President, and we are very possibly looking at a conservative leaning Supreme Court for the foreseeable future, liberals are now looking at centralized control at the top as possibly a bad thing, rather than a good thing. They suddenly understand the importance of allowing liberal states to not have to conform to conservative federal rules. I think it's both ironic and quite frankly a very good long term turn of events.

For those of you who do not exactly understand state's rights you only have to look at one thing in today's world. It's legal to buy, sell, and consume marijuana in Colorado and Washington, and it will soon be legal in other states as well. Yet, it is still a federal crime to buy, sell, and consume marijuana. So if federal law actually trumped state law, then how come the federal government doesn't come into Seattle and Denver and start arresting people?

US intelligence has tried to verify Russian Trump allegations for some time...

Let's start with this: These memos that are floating around regarding Trump, Russian hookers, and possible blackmail have been out there for months. In fact they were around prior to the election. To the best of anyone's knowledge, absolutely none of it has been verified (despite the FBI and other intelligence organizations actually investigating then).

Right now a website called "4Chan" is taking credit for starting the rumors and they are pointing to when and where these rumors started. While none of this can be verified either way, it's probably fair to say that what little evidence that has been released regarding these memos, does actually point to this website as the instigator. (at least there are no other verifiable explanations). If so, and the current administration ordered their intelligence community to investigate what appears to be an internet rumor, it would be a very fitting end for what has been arguably the most partisan administration in history.

This is a wonderful exercise in how gullible people are when they become to emotionally involved in something. So many "truly" want to believe the worst about Donald Trump that they will latch onto even the most flimsy of allegations, simply because it provides confirmation bias for them. The fact that Trump denies these allegations, as do the Russians, and we have a third party who is taking credit for making them up... all just points to a conspiracy theory of denial in the minds of these Trump haters. The fact that the intelligence community cannot verify any of it just points to cover up.

Moreover... it can be expected that these Trump haters will attack "me" for providing this insight, call me an apologists, and demand it shows crazy partisanship on my part. All simply because I do not automatically accept an unverified internet rumor to be actually true. I guess the idea of due process falls to the wayside when it comes to Donald Trump internet rumors.

Sessions hearing a disappointment for the left...

Sad thing is that almost everyone states that Sessions is a really nice guy and that he gets along with almost everyone in the Senate. Even the Democrats do not really believe he is a bigot or a racist, but they sort of feel obligated to act like they do for purposes of politics.

Expected to be confirmed

Major problem is that there is much more "smoke" than fire when it comes from the allegations made against him. One might even say that most of it falls under the category of "fake news".  Perhaps it was the former (that people actually like him) or the latter (that the actual facts are on his side) that drove the tenor of the hearing. But by all accounts it was a dud for the left. There just wasn't the sort of hard hitting questions or any real uncomfortable answers that would be required to derail his nomination.

Make no mistake, many Democrats will go against their personal judgement and follow their politics by voting against him for the sake of spite, but it won't be enough to prevent him from being confirmed.