Wednesday, January 31, 2018

All signs point to release of controversial memo...
The FBI could not point to any factual inaccuracies

Kelly: Nunes memo to be released ‘pretty quick’
White House chief of staff John Kelly said Wednesday a controversial Republican memo alleging wrongdoing by FBI officials investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election would be released soon. “It will be released here pretty quick, I think, and the whole world can see it,” Kelly said during an interview on Fox News Radio.
Trump overheard saying he is '100 percent' behind releasing surveillance memo
President Donald Trump was overheard telling a GOP lawmaker Tuesday night that he’s “100 percent” behind releasing a classified Republican intelligence memo detailing alleged surveillance abuses. "Don't worry," the president reportedly told U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., on the House floor after delivering his first State of the Union address. “One hundred percent."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray reportedly advised White House Chief of Staff John Kelly against releasing the memo, saying such action would set a dangerous precedent and would not accurately characterize the FBI's investigative practices, the Washington Post reported. But two senior FBI officials – one from the bureau’s counterintelligence division and the other from the legal division – who reviewed the memo said they “could not point to any factual inaccuracies,” Fox News reported Tuesday.
I for one, am very curious as to what the Memo states. But according to most sources, the FBI and DOJ are a lot more worried about the upcoming Inspector General report that is expected out within the next couple of months.


Many believe that Andrew McCabe was forced to step down due to a combination of what is on the memo, and what is going to be in the IG report. There are also rumors that Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be a major part of both the memo and the upcoming IG report. It could follow that Rosenstein will either voluntarily (or involuntarily) be removed from his post.

There has been some consideration that if the Assistant AG spot opened up, that Trump would find a heavy hitter to come in and become the active person overseeing the Mueller investigation. Names such as Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie have been mentioned.

Today, Trey Gowdy offered a tweet that he will not be running for reelection, and that he would like to get out of politics and back into "the Justice system". How perfect would Trey Gowdy be for that Assistant Attorney General spot?

Job market keeps rolling along...

Private payrolls grow by 234,000 in January, vs 185,000 expected: ADP/Moody's Analytics

  • Private companies hired another 234,000 in January, well above expectations for 185,000, according to ADP and Moody's Analytics.
  • Service-related industries led with 212,000 new jobs, though manufacturing added 12,000 and construction 9,000.
  • The report often differs significantly from the government's more closely watched nonfarm payrolls count, with ADP reporting growth of 242,000 in December vs. the Labor Department's 148,000.
Eventually, reality will start to sink in...

Hat Tip: Roger - for telling me to go check Drudge this morning to come up with a new post!

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

State of the Union. Two different Americas.

America is Becoming Great Again!

America Sucks! Because Trump is President.

Someone in the Democratic audience had bad gas!

This was a good night for Donald Trump (all possibilities considered). Watching CNN and MSNBC, they will always find something to complain about when it comes to Trump. But when you are criticizing facial expressions or suggesting that the speech was "racists" it makes it pretty obvious that you have no tangible criticism to wield.

I thought Trump made excellent use of his guests and their stories. In a quiet (almost subconscious manner) Trump was telling us that being an American hero is based on how you live your life and what you do, not based on whether you were born in America or some where else. The speech was a little long. The delivery was more somber than the message he was giving. But considering what "could" have happened, I would assume that Trump's inner circle are popping the champagne corks.

The follow up by Joe Kennedy was dark. Far darker than the GOP convention speech that the media declared to be dark. Quite obviously, that is how Democrats are feeling today, as I heard CNN and MSNBC sort of suggest that Kennedy told the right story.

drool gate!
I think I have to go no further than the previous post for an answer to which message ultimately wins out. 

If you are part of the two thirds of Americans who believe that Americans can be dreamers too, and that it's reasonable for the country to end chain migration, visa lotteries, and cut back on immigration... then you will like the fact that the President stood up for Americans. If you want to live in a better country, have a higher standard of living, and be safer, then you probably appreciated the President's message.

If you are part of the less than one third who believes in open borders and that everyone who doesn't is a racist... then you probably fell in line with the message of Joe Kennedy (which appears to be that being born somewhere other than America makes you better than someone born here). If you are part of the shrinking minority still obsessed with "Russia" and are still not over the fact that Trump is President, then you probably related to Joe Kennedy and the "resistance".

UPDATE: CNN suggested on their front page that Trump's speech had the "least positive" reaction to the speech of any President in 20 years. You have to go into the story to read that Trump's 48% Very Positive rating was exactly the same as Barack Obama's first SOTU speech. The difference apparently was a few more Americans had a "somewhat positive" viewpoint of Obama's speech. a a few less had a negative rating of the former President's first SOTU.  Moreover, the difference between the two speeches rested on the fact that more Republicans were willing to express a positive view about Obama, than Democrats were willing to express about Trump? Surprising? Not really.

Certainly nobody would have expected a CNN poll to show Trump and Obama anywhere's near each other in terms of speech giving. Certainly everyone would have expected Trump to have more "resistance" to his speech than Obama would have seen. The fact is that looking at expectations and how the media was going to portrait these two speeches, I would argue that Trump beat his expectations and impressed many, many people "in spite" of a negative reaction from most of the media. Perhaps he should come up with some more excuses to take his message directly to the American public with national addresses. They seem to work for him.

Btw... the fact that CNN is splitting hairs to declare Trump's first SOTU speech to be a "less positive reaction" than Obama's first SOTU speech is actually working (like it or not) to "normalize" the President. Many on the left never thought Trump would make it a year, much less seeing the media forced to compare and contrast his first SOTU speech to that of Barack Obama.

81% of Americans are evil racists !!!

65% of Americans agree 100% with Trump  
A new poll released by Harvard-Harris shows that a staggering percentage of voters on all ends of the political spectrum are overwhelmingly in favor of an immigration deal that would end Chain Migration, eliminate the Visa Lottery, and grant amnesty to DACA recipients.

According to the poll, 65% of voters would support a DACA deal that secures the Southern border, ends Chain Migration, and eliminates the Visa Lottery. A majority of voters from nearly every demographic group would support the deal, including 68% of Hispanic voters, 64% of African American voters, 64% of Democratic voters, 67% of all independent voters, 63% of liberal voters, and 68% of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election cycle.

The poll also reveals that 60 percent of voters oppose giving preference to parents who illegally brought their children to the U.S. The Durbin-Graham no-strings DACA amnesty offered in the Senate would give amnesty to the parents.

The poll found that 81% of voters want to reduce legal immigration from its current level of more than 1 million per year, and 63% want it cut by at least half.

So pretty much two thirds of Americans agree that Trump's immigration offer is a clear winner, and nearly that many Americans would like to see immigration cut "by at least half". This is pretty tough to take for the immigration happy Democrats, who seem to believe that anything short of open borders is akin to giving in to white supremacy. Moreover, they at least "act" as if they hold the majority position in the country. It's clear that the country is not immigration crazy, and that most believe things would be better if immigration is reduced.

I will be curious as to how Schumer and the Democrats continue to play this. There is little doubt that the President will reaffirm his desire (during his SOTU address tonight) to legalize the dreamers in exchange for ending chain migration, the Visa lottery, and putting more money into the southern border. That should go over pretty well with a population inclined to agree in full with this offer.

The "right" thing for Schumer and the Democrats to do is to take the deal. No doubt the deal with lose GOP support due to the fact that it allows for "amnesty". But if Trump can simply convince McConnell and Ryan to allow the vote, it likely passes in a highly bipartisan manner. Wouldn't that be something?

Of course, Schumer and the Democrats are not interested in doing what's right, or even what's popular. They are more inclined to cater to the screams and threats of their rabid base, many of whom would likely be willing to chew off their own fingers, rather than agree with Trump on anything.

Why is this?

Nobody seemed to mind all that much that Barack Obama nominated like minded people to run the Justice Department. Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were both cut out of the same mold, and both had very similar viewpoints on how the Justice Department should be run and how Justice should be prioritized.

It was clear that Holder and Lynch represented the President's viewpoint on Justice. Whether that be the decision to investigate and retrain police forces, allow for a more relaxed crack down on immigration crimes, or the decision not to push federal marijuana laws in states where the citizenship had voted to legalize it... all of it was fairly liberal political policy.

Furthermore,  it was clear that there was a working relationship between the Justice Department and the agencies beneath them. Former FBI director James Comey made it crystal clear in his interviews with Congress, that he was given (and took) fairly detailed and political instructions from the Obama era Attorney Generals. Comey even suggested that he was told by A.G. Lynch how to describe the investigation of Hillary Clinton when or if he spoke about it in public.  He was quite obviously, kept on a pretty short leash by the A.G.

Nobody found any of this alarming. After all, we elected Obama to be President. He runs the executive branch. The Department of Justice and the FBI are both under his charge. If Justice is prioritized and run under the beliefs of the President, then so be it.

So why is it that now that Donald Trump is President that suddenly the concept of the Justice Department or underlying agencies working towards the President's priorities is considered by many to be a conflict of interest, corrupt behavior, or possibly even illegal.

Suddenly, we elect a new President and everyone is screaming about how the Justice Department and the Law enforcement agencies are supposed to be independent agencies. Suddenly everyone expects that rather than work for the White House, or even with the White House, these executive branch agencies supposed to actually be overseeing the White House?

Just curious...

Monday, January 29, 2018

comic relief...

FOX CNN Both report Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe removed...

This apparently took place just after FBI Director Chrisopher Wray was given access to the "memo" that will soon be released to the full House, and quite possibly to the nation. Was this a preemptive strike? Certainly McCabe has some obvious conflicts, and was responsible for many important and questionable decisions. One has to believe that the "memo" probably does a reasonable job of exposing this.
From our Justice team One source said FBI Deputy Director McCabe's departure was not in the plans as of Friday. The source said McCabe was told this morning to step down. A second source described McCabe’s departure as being “removed”.
As pointed out by several observers, the memo is not the only problem for the FBI. The real concern appears to be the eventual report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who has been internally  investigating the FBI over both the Clinton and Trump investigations. Horowitz, as you recall, was the guy who located the missing 50,000 text messages that our top law enforcement agency did not appear to be capable of otherwise finding on their own. 

The irony is that Wray apparently threatened to quit last year, when the subject of firing McCabe was brought up. It goes to show you the arrogance of those in charge of the FBI. They had to figure that only what they wanted anyone to know would get out.

More on the obstruction debate

Politico: Opinions of some legal experts
  • Asha Ranjappa -  Mueller would have higher bar than normal case.  Case would be stronger if he can prove the underlying crime.
  • Laurence Tribe - Believes Mueller will indict.
  • Alan Dershowitz - President cannot be accused of obstruction for exercising constitutional authority
  • Norm Eisen - Mueller will not indict. But may treat the President as unindicted co-conspirator or send report to congress with recommendations to impeach. 
  • Jennifer Taub - No solid evidence. Probably needs proof of collusion to prove there was motive to cover up.
  • Laurie Levenson - Mueller must prove corrupt intent. Firing (or wanting to fire) not proof of anything by itself.
  • Bradley Moss - No criminal charge. Report outlining his findings to Rosenstein. Probably will conclude that there is at least some evidence of obstruction. 
  • Josh Blackman - Not a federal crime or impeachable offense. Lawyers there to talk clients out of mistakes.
  • Robert Weisberg - Possible obstruction. But the alleged incident between Trump and McGahn would be privileged and inadmissible in court. 
  • Marty Lederman - Mueller's goal is to spell out the facts. Office of legal counsel concluded bringing charges against a sitting President is unconstitutional.
  • Alex Whiting - Case would have to be built on accumulation of separate pieces. No smoking gun, but still believes it could be obstruction.
  • Kathleen Clark -  McGahn had legal obligation to prevent firing. Trump followed McGahn's advice.

Of the twelve, one (Dershowitz) considers the matter closed as a matter of executive authority. Three argue that Trump cannot be held criminally liable for changing his mind and following the advice of an attorney. Three suggest that there may not be enough "known" evidence to make a strong case. Three believe that Mueller's ultimate job should be to send a report to Rosenstein (rather than bring charges).  One believes that there is evidence, but doesn't opine as to whether Mueller will indict or send report. One strongly believe that Mueller can (and should based on evidence) indict the President. 

Certainly, there is some crossover opinions. The legal expert who argues that the conversation between Trump and McGahn was probably privileged and inadmissible, says that plans to fire Mueller could have otherwise been evidence of possible obstruction. A couple of the experts who expect Mueller to just file a report make the argument that there is evidence of obstruction. Two of the experts believe that obstruction charges might be tough to prove without finding any evidence of the underlying crime (no motive, no crime).

But what is crystal clear is that there is no real legal consensus on this subject. In order to bring charges against anyone, there has be an honest belief that you can make the charges stand up. For Mueller to indict he would first have to ignore the findings of the office of legal counsel that a sitting President cannot be indicted, then fight off those challenges in court with all prevailing legal opinions and precedent against him. He would then have to fight off a slew of executive privilege, attorney client privilege, and other legal challenges that very well could hamper his ability to make a case. Remember, just because something is leaked, doesn't mean it's true. But even if it's true, it doesn't make it admissible in court.

All just to bring a case to court, where he would have to unanimously convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a sitting President committed obstruction for exercising his constitutional authority to fire someone for cause.  Considering that that lack of consensus within the legal community on the subject tangibly provides reasonable doubt...  that seems to be a steep hill to climb.

Would a "reasonable prosecutor" bring such a case? 

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Talk about fake news...


The U.S. coalition denied on Friday the deaths of two Special Forces members after social media and mainstream news reports carrying an image purporting to show a dead U.S. soldier were spread by two of the Pentagon's allies currently battling one another in Syria.

The reports were initially carried by accounts that appeared supportive of both the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) and those supportive of the Turkish military fighting them in the northwestern district of Afrin in Aleppo, Syria. In both versions, the subject of the photograph was described as a Special Forces member named Eddie Bragdon who went by the nom de guerre "Zana Rizgar" and was killed fighting alongside the U.S.-backed Kurds.

The problem? Social media users and analysts quickly pointed out that the man in the picture was actually U.S. actor Bradley Cooper appearing as he did in his role as late Navy SEAL veteran Chris Kyle in the 2014 film American Sniper. But not before mainstream Turkish outlets such as CNN Turk ran with the story.

The new liberal Jeffry Toobin legal logic?

So the oft wrong Jeffrey Toobin wrote an interesting piece about how he now believes that "it's clear" that Trump obstructed Justice. The logic of the Toobin argument attempts to draw on the basic concept of  simple action vs action with intent... but with one pretty clear logical error.

He appears to be missing the action.

He correctly suggests that there is a difference between a company insider just selling stock because they just needed some cash, and a company insider selling stock because they have inside information that tells them that the stock price is about to go down. The former is simply an action. The latter is an action that includes criminal intent. Of course, inside trading laws are clearly written, and there are concrete factors that play into the legality of a trade. Thus, the issue isn't proving intent so much, it's still about proving that the person had inside information. You prove the facts relevant to the law, and intent follows. That's generally how laws are written. They are not written as open ended psychological questions. 

Toobin doesn't want to talk about the facts of the law, because quite frankly the law itself doesn't address the tangible actions taken. So Toobin's farcical logic is to reduce the actual facts of the law and the actual action taken place to irrelevancy, while elevating the intent into the only thing that matters.

Toobin appears to be piggy backing to some degree on the Comey argument that Clinton's actions (while clearly criminal) were not actually criminal because they lacked intent... by arguing that even if no criminal action was taken, that criminal intent can create a crime. This, of course, would effectively turn our entire legal inside out, likely with the need to replace investigators with psychologist in order to determine who is actually committing a crime.

Imagine for a second, a person being deemed guilty of a crime because they showed some sort of willingness to do so, while never following through. Would we arrest someone for driving under the influence, because they wanted to drive home from the bar, but was eventually talked out of it by concerned friends? Of course not. The criminal act never took place.

But according to Toobin, the very suggestion that Donald Trump had to be talked out of firing Robert Mueller as special counsel shows "intent" to commit a criminal act, and that intent (not the actual action) is what's important.

But even if one was willing move past the fact that Donald Trump didn't actually fire Robert Mueller (which is the only tangible fact we have right now) you still have no actual evidence that Trump's motive would have been  to "obstruct justice". The rumors were that Trump wanted Mueller out (meaning a different person could still continue the investigation) and those same rumors suggested that Trump provided specific reasons for why.

Here is the reality, folks.

Nearly everyone (across the political spectrum) at some point in time believed that James Comey needed to be fired. Whether it was for his decision to make a public statement not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton, whether it be reopening the Clinton investigation right before the election, or whether it be how he was handling the Russian collusion investigation... Comey was questioned by everyone. Simply put, he not the right man to lead the FBI forward. There was no broad confidence in him from the American public.

Furthermore, there are numerous legal experts (across the spectrum) who believe that Robert Mueller is too close (as a former FBI director and personal friend of James Comey) to an investigation that calls into question FBI tactics, the actions of his friend, as well as being the person who may be judging the reasons his friend got fired. Many believe he is the wrong person to be leading this special counsel, thus tainting the entire investigation.

Those are legitimate, if not prevailing views. At worst, they would be political disagreements. Toobin wants to turn these opinions into something criminal, because he sees something more nefarious as the true reasons for the President (and by logic anyone) questioning Comey and Mueller. He's quite literally blinded by his own partisanship and hatred for the President, that his mind cannot process that legitimate reasons exist for actions to be taken (or not taken in this case). Therefor, it should "be clear" to everyone that it's all criminal.

James Comey rewrote the laws and provided his own personal psychological evaluation to demand Hillary Clinton didn't commit the crime she tangibly and unquestionably committed. Toobin is suggesting that we rewrite the law and allow people who think like him to provide psychological evaluation to demand that Donald Trump committed a crime that he tangibly and unquestionably didn't actually commit.

This is not how criminal justice works. You cannot quite literally make up new definitions for a crime, replace objective law with subjective opinion as your determining factor for innocence or guilt... simply because you favor one Presidential candidate over another.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

It's all about the numbers...

President Trump offers exactly what the Democrats are publicly asking for. More importantly, he just offered the "dreamers" more than anyone else actually ever has before.

Under the rules of Obama's DACA orders, the so called "dreamers" were only provided with extended work permit status. Under what Trump has offered, the "dreamers" would be provided (for the first time) with the chance to become citizens.

In exchange, the President wants to limit the unpopular chain migration policy to immediate family, end the even more unpopular lottery immigration system, is asking for additional funding for border security (which everyone apparently wants), and is expecting appropriations for the wall.

Schumer rejected the offer flat out, claiming that the Trump proposal will "tear apart" our immigration system. In other words, Schumer and the Democrats would rather maintain the current unpopular immigration policy, than provide the pathway to citizenship for dreamers.

You know when you have a politician by the short and curly? When they do a lot of complaining in the generic rhetorical sense, rather than actually providing specifics. What Schumer is doing (but doesn't want you to know) is actually choosing chain and lottery migration over a merit based system. Moreover, this choice to maintain the broken chain and lottery migration system is more important than the pathway to citizenship for the dreamers.

Reality here folks. All this talk by the Democrats about the dreamers? 100% bullshit. 

They never cared, because the dreamers only provide them with a one time potential boost to their demographic base.  Their real concern is protecting chain and lottery migration (which brings in dreamer style numbers every year).

Schumer and the Democrats have just been exposed.  Their supporters will close their eyes, cover their years, and yell "Trump, Trump, Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia" over and over again.

Friday, January 26, 2018

A reasonable immigration compromise?

The White House has unveiled a proposal that provides a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants living in the country illegally, in exchange for new restrictions on legal immigration and $25 billion in border security.
Obviously, the $25 billion will include some funds for a wall. But let's move past that for now. The wall is a separate conversation.

The bottom line: a pathway to citizenship is just that; a pathway. It doesn't mean that 1.8 million would ever become citizens. Likely only a portion of those will ever actually meet all the requirements for citizenship. Meanwhile, whatever number of dreamers that become citizens should be more than offset by the reduction of chain migration and the elimination of immigration lottery.

The question seems to be, would we rather grant citizenship to people who are currently living here, or grant citizenship to more uncles, second cousins, and people randomly selected from other countries?

While for some hardliners, the answer would be neither... the truth is that either way, this is going to have to be a compromise of sorts. This one seems reasonable. Which is why I am sure those on the far right and far left flanks will be red faced and screaming over this.

Plurality of Americans want special counsel to investigate partisanship in the FBI

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate whether senior FBI officials handled the investigation of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump in a legal and unbiased fashion. Thirty-one percent (31%) disagree, but a sizable 19% are not sure.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans are calling for an outside prosecutor to investigate the FBI, as is a plurality (49%) of voters not affiliated with either major political party. Among Democrats, 38% favor a special prosecutor; 40% are opposed, but 22% are undecided.

Let's be clear here, folks. The FBI has brought this on themselves. While it has to be conceded that the master persuader certainly has contributed to the reputation downfall of our most esteemed law enforcement agency, none of this would be possible if the FBI was running a tighter (non-partisan) ship.

It's a simple concept. Follow the law. Be professional. Keep politics out of it. But the FBI has not been able to follow that simple formula.

Consider nothing else than this compare and contrast.

Hillary Clinton purposely attempted to wipe all existing information off from a server, shortly after that server was subpoenaed by the FBI in the course of a federal investigation. This is text book, blatant, nailed to the wall pre-proven obstruction of justice. People are not allowed to destroy evidence, much less subpoenaed evidence. Yet, there appears to have been not even any consideration of any indictment.  There were known repeated lies told to the FBI (under oath) by Clinton aides. No perjury charges were ever brought.

Meanwhile, two members of the Trump campaign team have been charged with misleading statements over non-criminal events, and there appears to be some attempt to literally "manufacture" a never before considered idea that you can charge the President of the United States for obstruction of justice because he used his constitutional authority to fire someone everyone believed (at one time or another) should be fired.

Democrats - ignore existing laws.
Republicans - make up new laws.

NYT and WashPo rehash old claims as new...

Liberals shit their pants over the new old news... 

Last summer there were multiple reports that President Trump wanted to fire James Mueller, but was talked out of it by top aides, who suggested that it would be a bad idea.

Yesterday the NY Times and Washington Post both reported that President Trump wanted to fire James Mueller, but was talked out of it by top aides, who suggested it would be a bad idea.

I seriously wonder how anyone can still fall for this nonsense...

Thursday, January 25, 2018


Because the last Secretary of State to run for President was soooo successful! 

Trump willing to testify under oath
FBI still refuses to turn over subpoenaed information

But liberals believe Trump is guilty (of something)
while the FBI is innocent (of everything). 

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Red State Democrats losing ground

1. Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has seen his net approval drop 18 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +25 in the first quarter to +7 in the fourth quarter.
2. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
 has seen her net approval drop 11 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +28 in the first quarter to +17 in the fourth quarter.

3. Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)
 has seen his net approval drop 9 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +20 in the first quarter to +11 in the fourth quarter.

4. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
 has seen her net approval drop 8 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +8 in the first quarter to zero in the fourth quarter.

5. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
 has seen his net approval drop 8 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +24 in the first quarter to +16 in the fourth quarter.

6. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
 has seen his net approval drop 6 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +20 in the first quarter to +14 in the fourth quarter.

7. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
 has seen her net approval drop 6 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +6 in the first quarter to zero in the fourth quarter.

8. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
 has seen his net approval drop 4 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +22 in the first quarter to +18 in the fourth quarter.

9. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
 has seen his net approval drop 2 percent since the first quarter of 2017, going from +27 in the first quarter to +25 in the fourth quarte
Now some of these red state democrats are in bigger trouble than others. Hard to imagine Bill Nelson at plus 25 being real vulnerable (short of running against Jeb Bush) in Florida. But several others (Tester, Baldwin, McCaskill) are going to have a rough go of it. If the trend continues, look for Heitkamp and others to become equally vulnerable.

I believe this boils down to partisanship. The more the two Parties move away from each other, and the more the rhetoric rises, the more likely it is that Republicans and Democrats will have a hard time crossing over on Party line voting. You know that the very red state Democrats (Tester, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Manchin) will have their own identities intertwined with Schumer and Pelosi and the Democratic Party. That's not going to play well in states where upwards of two thirds of the electorate are conservative.

Bottom line is that it would appear counter-intuitive that a deep red conservative Republican state that votes for Donald Trump by 20-30 points would then two years later vote for a Senator who is going to oppose him at every turn.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Just remember...

It was me who made the argument that Trump overturned the DACA executive order in order to sometime in the future gain concessions to give it back.

Whether it's more border security, a wall, an end to chain migration, an end of the immigration lottery system, or any combination thereof... all of it is being given away by the left in order to get back what was previously in place. If not for Trump ending the DACA executive order and asking Congress to take it on... the GOP would have little or no leverage on what is important to them.

Not that anyone in the media would report it this way. But there is no arguing the basic reality of the situation.

Shenanigans at the FBI

How the House Intelligence Committee can make Nunes' FISA memo public
One source said the judge was not told that the document was paid for by the Democratic sources. CNN first reported last April that the dossier was used as part of the justification with the secret FISA court to monitor the communications of former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page. The New York Times first reported on the charges outlined in Nunes' memo.
Top Secret FISA Court Order - President Obama Spying on Political Enemies
Speaking of deceiving the FISA court, Joseph diGenova, in an interview with Ginni Thomas for the Daily Caller, discusses a FISA court opinion of April 27, 2017 that accused the Obama administration of lying to court and of abusive use of material obtained through authorized surveillance. The opinion found that the FBI distributed such material to “contractors.” The names of the contractors are redacted, but diGenova believes they include Fusion GPS and Crowd Strike. Crowd Strike was the DNC’s private security firm.
Newly released texts between ex-Mueller team members suggest they knew outcome of Clinton email probe in advance
The Justice Department has given various congressional committees nearly 400 pages of additional text messages between two FBI officials who were removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
One of the newly discovered messages, lawmakers said, appeared to indicate that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page knew that charges would not be filed against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as a result of the investigation into her email server — before Clinton was interviewed by the bureau.
FBI ‘Failed To Preserve’ Five Months Of Text Messages Between Anti-Trump FBI Agents
The FBI “failed to preserve” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.
The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

Certainly the left will still tell you that all of this is a "distraction" from the investigation in Russian Collusion. Of course, in a matter of a week or so we have more evidence of corruption and possible criminal behavior from the FBI and Obama DOJ than we have found in nearly two years of investigating Trump.

The reality here folks (and it's time for liberals to admit it) is that the Russian collusion investigation was manufactured as a distraction. It was never real to begin with. No amount of investigating can uncover something that doesn't exist.

Perhaps it's time to investigate something we actually know could be a real crime, and something that has some evidence to support it.

Monday, January 22, 2018

Trump, GOP win shutdown fight (for now)...
Dems crawl away with their tail between their legs...

That seems to be the major consensus at this point. Liberals are saying that the Democrats caved. Conservatives are saying that the Democrats caved. FOX reports that Schumer and gang caved and blinked. CNN and MSNBC are reporting just the facts (suggesting they cannot find anything in the deal to claim any sort of Democratic victory).

Moving forward, both groups agreed to work on comprehensive immigration reform, with some mixed messages about DACA. Schumer suggested that if there is no agreement on comprehensive immigration reform before Feb 8th, that a clean DACA bill will be put up for vote. But McConnell and others are simply suggesting that they are opening up the floor to debate, and will allow amendments from both sides as part of the process. There has been no acknowledgement from any Republicans that they agreed to pass (or even vote on) a clean DACA fix at any point. There is no guarantee that such a clean vote would pass the House, get 60 votes in the Senate, or be signed by the President (considering passing a clean DACA bill basically guarantees an end to any comprehensive immigration bill).

Perhaps this is more of a threat by Schumer and Democrats, that if an immigration deal is not reached prior to the Feb 8th deadline, that they will again push a shutdown over DACA. But if that strategy didn't work today, it won't work on Feb 8th. Especially considering the two sides will have over two weeks to work out the endgame to an immigration bill that they have already been working on for months.

The reality that Schumer and the Democrats have to accept is that there will be no DACA fix that is not part of a comprehensive immigration deal where they have to concede to both Trump and Republicans on several points. Yeah, this will piss off their base. But it may be their only way forward.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Nuke the filibuster over the shut down?

“If a majority is good enough in the House and a majority would have kept government from shutting down, I think that’s a whole case the American public would say, ‘That’s a responsible way to govern,’” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Roll Call.
Asked if he thinks Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would consider ending the legislative filibuster — coming on the heels of recent rules changes to lower the threshold to advance executive and judicial nominees by a majority only — McCarthy said, “That’s a question for Mitch.”
Personally I sort of agree with the concept that we need a good Government shut down, so I would be against said change in rules specifically over this. However, I do wonder why a short term funding bill could not be passed via some sort of reconciliation? After all, it is really just a budgetary thing, something that generally qualifies for reconciliation. If you can claim Obamacare falls under reconciliation, then you can claim a short term funding bill does as well. I believe you can do so with a great deal of credibility.

The question would be, would the Democrats who bucked their leadership still do so if their vote actually meant something tangible, rather than just something symbolic?

Friday, January 19, 2018

Will Democrats crumble on the shutdown or stick to their guns?

CNN poll: DACA not worth a shutdown, except to Democrats
Overall, about half of Americans say they would blame either Trump (21%) or his Republican counterparts in Congress (26%) should Congress fail to fund the government by the midnight Friday deadline. About a third, 31%, say they would hold the Democrats in Congress responsible, and another 10% say they'd blame all three groups. Among Republicans, 62% would blame the Democrats in Congress, while 43% of Democrats would blame Republicans on Capitol Hill and 29% would blame Trump.
Still, 56% overall say approving a budget agreement to avoid a shutdown is more important than continuing the DACA program, while just 34% choose DACA over a shutdown. Democrats break narrowly in favor of DACA -- 49% say it's more important vs. 42% who say avoiding a shutdown is the priority -- while majorities of both Republicans (75%) and independents (57%) say avoiding a shutdown is more important.
So far the only Democrats who have crumbled over to the dark side:

  • Joe Manchin
  • Joe Donnelly 
  • Joe Heidi Heitkamp

Well I guess only those named Joe are on board so far, but we'll see when the final votes come in. The House already passed a bill to keep the Government afloat with 230 bipartisan votes.

Another beat down from the USSC

Supreme Court halts North Carolina court-ordered redrawing of congressional districts
The three-judge panel ruled that the Republican-drawn districts violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by intentionally hobbling the electoral strength of non-Republican voters. Two of the three judges also said the plan ran afoul of the Constitution’s First Amendment by discriminating based on political belief and association.
Those judges on Tuesday refused to put the ruling on hold.
North Carolina’s congressional maps were challenged in two lawsuits by more than two dozen Democratic voters, the North Carolina Democratic Party and other groups.
Under current North Carolina congressional boundaries, Republicans won 10 of the 13 House districts in 2016, despite getting just 53 percent of the statewide vote.
The Supreme Court is currently examining two other cases from Wisconsin and Maryland involving claims that electoral districts were manipulated to keep the majority party in power in a manner that violated voters’ constitutional rights. That practice is called partisan gerrymandering.
The Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering can violate the Constitution. But it has never struck down a voting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Republicans and, in private, many Democrats in North Carolina had expected the Supreme Court to stay last week’s ruling. But elected officials and political strategists had been preparing for the possibility of a hasty redrawing of the congressional map and an upending of carefully laid plans for the midterm campaigns.
Even the brief gap between the trial court’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s order left the state in a fit of paralysis weeks before the deadline to declare candidacies.

670,000 DACA recipients vs 850,000 furloughed workers

Democrats apparently still put illegal immigration ahead of American workers...

I think it's pretty fair at this point to expect a Government shutdown of non-essential government agencies. It's just as fair to expect that a great deal of finger pointing will take place. It's also equally fair to expect that most of the finger pointing will be of the dishonest variety.

As it stands, the buzz is that the President is willing to "hunker down" for the long run. Most government agencies have holdover funding available, and other means to pay for their expenses. Meanwhile, the very concept that we should be upset that "non-essential" government functions will end, might be a oxymoron. Perhaps we should let this go on for a while, and figure out if we actually "need" these nonessential services.

The difference between what happened in 2013 and what would happen in 2018, is that the Obama administration refused to bend to any degree to keep anything open. They wanted the shut down, and they wanted to blame Republicans. Trump can (if he so chooses) use any number of means to fund the government for the foreseeable future. We'll see if he chooses to do so or if he lets the shut down play it's course.

What I wouldn't expect any times soon is for the President to simply cave in on the demand to fund DACA on a separate bill. It was always been designed to be part of the larger immigration reform. I am guessing if the question was asked objectively that most Americans want comprehensive reform, not patchwork.

GOP House members want to declassify FISA memo

CBS News
Republican members of Congress, mostly conservative, are calling for the release of a brief memo written by the House Intelligence Committee about alleged FISA surveillance abuses. The committee had voted along party lines Thursday to allow House members to read the memo.
"I viewed the classified report from House Intel relating to the FBI, FISA abuses, the infamous Russian dossier, and so-called 'Russian collusion.' What I saw is absolutely shocking," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, tweeted.

Another Republican, Rep. Steve King, of Iowa called the memo "worse than Watergate" in a tweet.

Now given that most everything that Democrats do shock Republicans, while most everything Republicans do shock Democrats, and considering every time someone does something someone doesn't like, it's compared to either Hitler, Nazis or Watergate...

I will withhold my judgement until I see what is in the memo.

Let's also be clear that it would make more sense to declassify the actual FISA documents, rather than declassify a memo written by politicians regarding those FISA documents. Certainly a memo written by one side (in this case, Republicans) is going to have it's own slant.

But in order to get the party going, as they say, I think it's a very good idea to release the memo to the public. If there are further questions (or disagreements about the accuracy) it would fuel the need to actually declassify the whole deal. After all, this all took place under the Obama administration, who promised us that they would be the most transparent administration in history.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Apple to invest $350 billion and create 20K jobs due to tax cuts...

Democrats still insist that the law will kill people!

Tax cuts kill! Donald Trump is crazy!! Russia Russia Russia!!!

Jeff Flake lives up to name...

Flake compares Trump to Stalin?
Well not really...

I read Coldheart's post the other day and changed my mind.
“I am in no way comparing President Trump to Joseph Stalin,” Flake told host Christiane Amanpour. “Joseph Stalin was a killer. Our president is not. But it just puzzles me as to why you’d use a phrase that is so loaded and that has such deeper meaning, the press being the enemy of the people.”

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Those hoping the Doctor would save them from Trump...

... are going to be extremely disappointed.

Dr Ronny Jackson (an Obama appointee) is giving a press conference before a hostile media, where he has stated that in his professional opinion that Trump is in excellent physical shape for someone of his age. He spoke highly about his energy level, and endurance. Dr Jackson even called the President mentally "sharp". He also suggested that Trump must have been blessed with tremendous physical genes, while also suggesting that his no cigarettes and no alcohol lifestyle contributes to his overall health.

He said this opinion comes from "objective data".

"Very, Very good physical health. Excellent cognitive health."

Obviously, the Doctor has been and is being asked a ton of questions, almost all of them an attempt to get the good doctor to say something bad about Trump. So far, he has defended the President's physical and mental health in almost a cheerleading fashion. It's clear he is not one who sees the President as having any physical or mental problems.

The President did take a cognitive test (which Trump requested). The doctor stated that he scored high enough on the cognitive exam (30 out of 30) that it basically "rules out" any additional need for psychiatric testing. In other words, he is not only sane, but objectively considered cognitively superior.

From a factual basis, the exam takes place over about a four hour period, and Dr Jackson has twelve different consulting medical experts that are on hand.

Jorge Garcia deported

Which is odd, because he was born in Nebraska?

Please don't send me back to that Island! 

Open Mic

Monday, January 15, 2018

Liberals have a high degree of self worth...

You hear the lost souls attempt to equate Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. Some people even take it seriously. Let's take a quick look at the three people in question:
  • Adolf Hitler invaded other countries. Started a world war. Imprisoned and executed Jews in concentration camp. Imprisoned and executed political opponents. In all told, it was said that Hitler was responsible for over ten million deaths. 
  • Joseph Stalin was a terrorist dictator. He seized Russian property for Government purposes, leaving his own people to die of famine.  He imprisoned and summary executed political opponents. He ran gulag work camps similar to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. It is said that Stalin was responsible for even more deaths than Hitler.
  • Donald Trump occasionally writes things on twitter or says things that many liberals take offense to.  He does so with no consideration as to whether or not these liberals have quick access to their "safe places" to help them deal with the micro-aggression. 

Certainly we can all see the comparisons here. Other than the oppression, work camps, assassinations of political opponents, invasion of other countries, war-starting, and the responsibility of millions and millions of deaths... Trump is exactly the same as the other two.

Of course, neither Hitler or Stalin was horrible enough to make politically incorrect twitter posts, or say politically incorrect things in other forums. Neither Hitler or Stalin were openly micro-aggressive to the 21st century liberal. This is important because it would seem that liberals equate their own feelings to the very lives of the Hitler/Stalin victims.

How would you describe Haiti?

  • The country has suffered 32 different coups
  • Has long history of Government oppression
  • Ranked as one of the 20 most corrupt countries

  • GDP has fallen or stayed even
  • Considered one of the poorest countries in the world
  • 66% of labor force do not have formal jobs
  • 75% of Haitians live on $2/day or less
  • 80% of Haitians with college degrees move out of the country

  • Poor roads. Many not fixed since the 2010 earthquake
  • Communications ranked 143 out of 148 countries
  • Water supply and sanitation considered a mess

  • Many still live under a racial cast system. 
  • The Mulattoes comprising 5% of the population control most of the political, economic, and social power. 
  • Ranked 145 out of 182 in the UN Human Development Index

Is Donald Trump primed to win Minnesota in 2020?

A new poll came out in Minnesota, showing that the state is fairly split on Trump's overall job performance, while approving of his handing of the economy. 

These are not terrible numbers for Trump in a state that has not voted for a Republican since 1972. While everything depends on what happens over the next couple of years here, there is already evidence that Minnesotans are at least pleased with the economy. That could signal another competitive race here in 2020.

Didn't someone once state: It's the economy stupid? 

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Media wrong again...

Spinal Tap

Not exactly sure why this song came to mind?

Btw... does anyone else realize that the only reason the shit hole comment is being talked about is because the Democrats were probably getting their collective asses handed to them in the immigration talks and were looking for some sort of distraction from their own failure?

A stroke of genius just in time for MLK day!

Still waiting for color and size preference from WP, Roger, James, and Opie... 

Friday, January 12, 2018

Good luck with that...

APA Calls for End to ‘Armchair’ Psychiatry
Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as “The Goldwater Rule.” We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.
The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context. Doing otherwise undermines the credibility and integrity of the profession and the physician-patient relationship. Although APA’s ethical guidelines can only be enforced against APA members, we urge all psychiatrists, regardless of membership, to abide by this guidance in respect of our patients and our profession.
A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. sychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.

APA is ready to make recommendations from among our 37,000 psychiatrist members, physicians who have the knowledge, training, expertise, discretion, and objectivity to perform a thorough and apolitical evaluation. Using psychiatry for political or self-aggrandizing purposes is stigmatizing for our patients and negatively impacts our profession.
Meanwhile, you have a handful of psychologists pushing back. Some are even suggesting that making random armchair psychiatric diagnosis regarding the President is their "duty" as "professionals". 

Ultimately, it's just another example where a select few Trump haters are willing to damage the credibility of their entire field for their own personal vendettas of hate.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Whom do you believe?

So, at the same time many on the left are running away from the Steele dossier, declaring that it could not have possibly been the trigger for the Russian/Trump collusion investigation; those who helped write the dossier, and those who published it are defending the report's legitimacy...

The question becomes, whom should you believe?

Do you believe BuzzFeed, who claims that the FBI considered it legitimate information, because they had been able to cross check it with other sources (including some inside the Trump organization)?

Or do you believe FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe who testified before congressional committees that as of December of 2017, that the dossier remains largely unverified?

Maybe had the dossier not included charges of prostitutes and golden showers, which even James Comey declared under oath to be salacious and unverified, it would have a bit more legitimacy. But to this date, we have been privy to the fact that many parts of it are flat out wrong... and so far we have not seen anything of substance from the dossier verified.

But that won't stop a lot of people from taking BuzzFeed at their word.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Trump to be "interviewed" by Special Counsel?

This is not exactly big news, unless there was some expectation that Mueller would investigate for months and months, and then end the investigation without ever questioning the President. Even if that made sense from a pure legal and investigatory standpoint, the optics would never allow for it. It's probably in the best interests of both Mueller and Trump to go through some process of questioning or an interview.

That being said, investigators are not just allowed to pull in anyone they want to question without justification. Unless a grand jury subpoena offers that you are either a "target" of an investigation or a "subject" of an investigation, most of these interviews are entirely voluntary.

For all of the pomp and circumstances of media speculation, there is no official reason to believe that Trump is a "target" of this investigation. Both Trump and his attorneys maintain that he is not under investigation (suggesting that they have not received a target letter). They likely have a fairly significant degree of leverage. 

The President and his attorneys are said to be negotiating how this will go about. Likely offering written answers to written questions rather than a sit down with anyone from Mueller's team (something previous Presidents have done). Or they use the Hillary Clinton precedent, where they agree to particular amount of time to be interviewed, but refuse to allow Trump to be put under oath. Perhaps it will end up being a combination of both. It's extremely unlikely that the President and his attorneys would ever allow for a situation that could offer Mueller a chance to suggest that the President committed a "process crime" over misleading statements, etc. If that means requiring all questions be answered in written form, or at least have the subjects of the questioning up front, I think they will ask for it.

There is a lot of speculation as to what this all means. But if this is anything like the Clinton investigation, the eventual interview of Clinton was done at the very "end" of the investigation into her email scandal. That being said, Clinton was the target in that investigation. Trump is not necessarily a target at all. Either way, considering it's unlikely that this investigation ends without Trump at least answering some questions in some form, such an event could be a sign that we are nearing the end.

Eventually you have to ask yourself... who else is there left to interview. Either you have the evidence or you don't. Generally you use the evidence you have to expand and supplement your case.  However, it appears with this investigation that they are checking over there, behind this, and underneath that looking for evidence of something they have suspicion (but no actual proof) of. You can only legitimately so this for so long, before it becomes an exercise in futility.

Note: Others are suggesting that Trump should not testify.  Paul from Powerline suggests that it is a trap. He also points out that unless Trump is a "target" that any interviewed could be limited to testimony regarding information that Mueller could not otherwise get elsewhere.  Cristian Farias suggests that no sane lawyer would allow any interview. He contends that Trump is not a "controllable" witness from an attorney standpoint. Too willing to shoot from the hip and provide unnecessary information that could get him into trouble.

Monday, January 8, 2018

Watch the video...

Miller: Why don't you give me three minutes to tell the truth about Donald Trump. The Donald Trump that I know. The Donald Trump that the campaign knows.
Tapper: Because it's my show and I don't want to do that.
Tapper: You are speaking to an audience of one and you have wasted enough of my viewer's time.


This is clearly one of those situations where there is one guy (Tapper) who literally knows nothing about the inner workings of the White House, but believes he does... demanding that another person (Miller) who literally knows almost everything about the inner workings of the White House... talk about the White House from the perspective that his (Tapper's) own personal beliefs are correct.

When Miller refuses to play along... he basically tells Miller that nobody is interested in him telling his story about the President and the inner workings of the White House (other than the President) and that doing so is a waste of his viewer's time. Tapper, apparently doesn't realize that this 100% confirms the Trump criticism that CNN is only interested in negative stories about the President. Tapper effectively admits that anyone saying something good about the President is a "waste of time".

Meanwhile, Steve Bannon has come out and admitted that the new Wolff book not only misquotes him, but also mis-characterizes his beliefs. He specifically disowns the statements about the Trump Jr  Russian lobbyist meeting. He specifically states that he has complete faith in the President. In other words, anything Tapper suggests is the truth (based on Wolff quoting Bannon) was effectively wrong. Something I doubt he will apologize for.

Oprah for President...

Sure! Now is the time to run a pure Hollywood person for President, because of a speech they gave at the Golden Globes. This would go over really well in all those red states Trump won in 2016.

The problem is that while some may not see much difference between Donald Trump and Oprah Winfrey in terms of Presidential qualifications... there will be a significant difference in 2020. Donald Trump will have "been" President for nearly four years, making him the most qualified person (in terms of experience).  

Let's also face it. Trump was a successful businessman to the point where his success "made" him a star and icon. Oprah was a television star who used her star quality to start any businesses she may now be successful at. That might be "argued" away, but that argument will always feel wrong. 

There are two people that Democrats should completely reject for 2020. The first is Hillary Clinton, the second would be "anyone" from Hollywood... whether that be Duane "Rock" Johnson, Alex Baldwin, Kanye West, or Oprah Winfrey.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Two people who claim to be geniuses

One is a multi-billionaire who was elected President....
The other is Roger....


Saturday, January 6, 2018

Donald Trump brags himself up....

Apparently Donald Trump called himself a better speechwriter than this own speechwriters and made the proclamation that he knows more about policies than his policy directors. Not just "some" policies, but Trump proclaimed that he knew more about "any" policy than his policy directors. It was also said that Trump does not need his daily briefings, because he is "among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet".

President Trump thinks very highly of himself!!!

Can you believe that a President would feel this way about himself? He must be delusional. Probably should be removed via the 25th amendment.

Friday, January 5, 2018

Then vs Now

(12/19/17) Economist/YouGov - Democrats +9
(12/19/17) Reuters/Ipsos - Democrats +12
(12/19/17) Economist/YouGov - Trump 41%
(12/19/17) Reuters/Ipsos - Trump 35%

(1/2/18) Economist/YouGov - Democrats +6
(1/2/18) Reuters/Ipsos - Democrats +7
(1/2/18) Economist/YouGov - Trump 43%
(1/2/18) Reuters/Ipsos - Trump 41%

Left is worried about the new Bannon Wolff tell-all book?

So apparently there are some people worried that the new book being written by Michael Wolf (attributed to the tales from Steve Bannon) will backfire. Apparently Michael Wolf's reputation as a truth teller is not exactly a good one.

For instance, there is apparently a claim that President Trump didn't know who John Boehner was. For many, this is exactly the sort of thing that the under-informed President would be guilty of... not knowing who his Party's own Speaker of the House was. I am sure many would be quick to believe such a tale. 

But the truth is that Donald Trump was fully aware of John Boehner. Trump had made numerous references to the speaker on his twitter account (even before running for President), had played golf with John Boehner while Boehner was speaker,  and Trump had even given money to a charity Boehner sponsors in his home town. They may not have been "friends" per sea, but they were at the very least personal acquaintances.

The reality is that this is just a perfect opportunity for the President to chide the press about another example of "fake news"  being written about him. Every time someone writes another story about the President that turns out to be false, it brings down the credibility of "every" story written about him. It's becomes very hard to take much of anything seriously anymore.

Thursday, January 4, 2018


Over the past year or so I have seen the value of my investments rise. I have seen the value of my home increase. I have seen my company's profits go up as well as garnering 3 billion in new investment. I got the largest raise I have seen since I got promoted to a Sr Engineer.

The market is up. Consumer confidence is up. The GDP is growing at rates that many economists suggested was no longer possible. Over 2.5 million jobs were created in 2017.

I have seen a tax cut bill pass, which will provide me with extra money in my paycheck. The tax cut bill will also provide business with a large break in their taxes. Some businesses have already announced investments, bonuses, and other positives based on this new law. European economists have suggested that international investment will likely leave the E.U. and end up in the United States.

I have seen a new conservative Justice on the Supreme Courts, as well as a record amount of conservative Appeals Court Justices confirmed. More nominations are awaiting confirmation, and more openings exist. Trump has a chance to drastically alter the judiciary for the better.

Illegal immigration is down. ISIS has been crushed. Syria has been quiet since Trump bombed the shit out of them after a chemical attack. North Korea is actually opening up communications with South Korea. We are no longer tied to several poor accords. Our allies in NATO have actually started to increase their own investments into the cause.

Certainly things are not perfect. They never are. But they seem better in nearly all aspects than they have been.

But our liberal friends literally believe people are out of their minds if they don't agree that Trump is the worst thing that has ever happened to our country and should be removed for being a combination of crazy and incompetent.

Why? Apparently much of it is because they don't like how he uses twitter.

It begs the question. Who are the real crazy ones here?