Pages

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Drip, drip, drip....

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said “there’s room for a conversation” about whether certain barriers might be the best security strategy in some places along the border.
“I have a record of supporting barriers in the past, so I’m not running from that,” Thompson said Wednesday. “I just think that over time you have to develop and see whether or not there are ways of accomplishing what you want other than barriers, if it can be accomplished. Some places, barriers are probably the optimal.”
_______

“Smart border security is not overly reliant on physical barriers, which the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate are cost effective compared to better technology and more personnel,” House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said at the conference meeting.
When asked afterward if physical barriers are off the table, Lowey was noncommittal. “At this point, I’m certainly not going to give an answer to that question,” she told reporters.

Major Shutdowns

1995-1996 (21 days) - President Clinton / Republican House / Republican Senate
   (Media blames Republican House and Senate for shut down).

2013 (16 days) - President Obama / Republican House / Democratic Senate
  (Media blames Republican House for shutdown)

2018-2019 (35 days) - President Trump /Democratic House / Republican Senate
 (Media blames Republican President for Shutdown)

So the reality here is that no matter the reasons for the shutdown, the Republicans will always get blamed.

  • The argument back regarding the first shutdown in question was that it was up to the Republicans in the House and Senate to come up with a spending bill that the President was willing to sign (even though the Republicans had just taken over the House and Senate with one of the largest wave elections in history... picking up 54 seats in the House, and 8 seats in the Senate). 
  • In 2013, the argument was that Republicans only held one chamber of Congress and therefore, they should acquiesce to the President and Senate by matter of majority logic.
  • Of course today, the situation is completely reversed from what it was in 2013, therefor, so is the logic. Five years later, the majority argument is no longer valid. The House is now more powerful than the Presidency and the Senate. While that obviously makes no sense, the real issue in 2019 is that everything is the fault of Trump. 

Trump riles the left with Court picks

Trump nominates three conservatives for 9th U.S. Circuit Court 
The White House on Wednesday announced a trio of nominees to fill vacancies on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a move that comes after conservatives warned that the White House Counsel’s Office was attempting to cut a deal with California’s Democratic senators over picks to the court.
President Trump intends to nominate Daniel Bress, Daniel Collins, and Kenneth Lee to the San Francisco-based appeals court, considered to be the country’s most liberal, the White House announced.
Collins and Lee were tapped to fill vacancies on the 9th Circuit last year, but their nominations were returned at the end of the last Congress. Bress, meanwhile, was on the White House’s initial list of candidates for the appeals court.
The president also plans to nominate four others to federal district courts in California, including Patrick Bumatay, whom Trump nominated to the 9th Circuit last year, the White House said.
“We are relieved to see that the White House has decided to move forward with a list of extraordinarily qualified nominees,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.
So there was a lot of upset conservatives when it was reported that certain people in the Administration that were working to cut a deal with Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein to fill the vacancies with less conservative Justices. Trump obviously reacted to this criticism.

Harris and Feinstein put out a statement:


This is a big deal, as the balance of the 9th circuit court would now narrow to 16 Democratic nominated and 13 Republican nominated. That being said, the 13 Republican nominated Judges were not exactly Scalia types... as previous Republican Presidents have been limited by blue slips and the requirement to cut deals. 

Look, it's no secret that when liberals go judge shopping for a particular case, that the search is going to start and stop in the 9th circuit. It's not just a coincidence that most every controversial case that has come up during the Trump administration has gone through a District Judge in Hawaii, San Francisco, or other parts of the West Coast. 

If the liberals didn't have a sure fire circuit of "resistance" they would have to rely on the rule of law. Certainly, this is why Harris, Feinstein and other liberals are so upset that Trump is daring to nominate three conservatives to their politically motivated legal backstop. 

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Unexpectedly

U.S. added 213,000 private-sector jobs in January, ADP says
The numbers: Companies in the U.S. added 213,000 jobs in January, ADP reported Wednesday, another strong reading that suggests little letdown in a steadily growing economy. Wall Street economists had forecast an increase of 174,000.
We'll see what the BLS numbers look like, but the ADP (which only looks at private sector growth) look good. Of course, they are higher than expected... again.

Two more Democrats concede that funding a wall might be necessary

www.politico.com/story/2019/01/29/border-wall-government-shutdown
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries of New York told reporters Tuesday his party was “willing to support fencing where it makes sense, but it should be done in an evidence-based fashion.” And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wouldn’t rule the idea out in a discussion with reporters.
Drip, drip, drip...  Jon Tester from the Senate (who is part of the negotiating committee) and at least one other Democrat from that same committee are also on board with providing funding for some sort of border barrier. That would put a majority of the committee in favor of border wall funding.

Meanwhile, others from the Democratic Party (including some on the committee) are continuing to argue against any barrier funding what-so-ever. Pete Aguilar, for instance, is on record as saying that he could support the $5.7 billion for border security (or even more) as long as it does not involve any funding of sort of barrier.

I think that if there is an area where the Democrats can lose support for this, is to agree to much more money in border security, but hamstring the Department of Homeland Security in how they get to spend it.  At a certain point, it seems like a childish ploy to provide funding for border security, but tell the border security agency that they cannot spend a dime of it on what they call the "backbone" of their security efforts... because Democrats don't want to hand Trump any sort of political victory.

Perhaps the bill should simply include an amount for border security, and we could allow the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Security Agency more specifically to draw up their own plans for the best use of the funding. If Democrats are right, then the agency would not waste a single penny on an ineffective barrier.

Old white guys lead Democrats

Politico/Morning Consult

Joe "dirty old white man" Biden - 33%
Bernie "crazy old white man" Sanders - 15%
Kamala "sleep your way to the top" Harris - 10%
Beto "fake Hispanic" O'Rourke - 6%
Liz "fake Indian" Warren - 6%

Only one real person of color in the top five here folks. Two who apparently identify as people of color. And two people who are as white as snow.

Is this a good reflection of the Democratic Party in 2020?

A bit nippy out there...

Temperatures to plunge to 'historic' lows not seen in decades
Forecasters warned late Tuesday that the harsh winter blast that has already killed at least five people would worsen dramatically on Wednesday, saying the expected conditions could be the coldest in a generation.
The National Weather Service described the polar vortex system surging from the north as "one of the coldest arctic air mass intrusions in recent memory." It said bitterly cold, very dangerous wind chills would spread across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country, "likely leading to widespread record lows and low maximum temperatures" plunging more than 20 degrees below zero in the Midwest.

If my dad was still around, he would have put on a windbreaker. Maybe even put on a pair of gloves. It's really that cold. Oh, and you know it's cold in Minnesota when they close hockey arenas. Not the outdoor rinks, but the indoor arenas.

I hear climate scientists are now worried about an upcoming mini-ice age. Wouldn't that just be a kick in the teeth.

An odd choice?

Not for this Party, in this year...

Stacey Abrams to give the Democratic response to Donald Trump 

So the Democrats have chosen a candidate who lost her election, then demanded she lost because of cheating, racism, voter suppression, white privilege, toxic masculinity, with a double dose of conspiracy. She demanded a recount, a revote, a passage back in time, and an apology from everyone who didn't vote for her.

If you wanted to roll all of the angst and anger from the left into one single person, your best place to start would be with Abrams. Something tells me that her speech will not exactly be one of unity, tact, compromise, and hope about our immediate future. 

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Where is Waldo Ruth?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been out of sight for 54 days

Gang of Seventeen try to hammer out a border security deal...

The seventeen includes nine Democrats and eight Republicans. At least one Democrat on the committee (Jon Tester) is in favor of providing funding for the border wall (which would tilt the balance in favor or pro-wall). The group is made up of people who are supposedly dealmakers.


That being said, the President puts the chances that Congress can make a deal at less than 50/50. I think he is being quite generous by even tossing out the idea of a coin flip (pun intended). If there is even one of those nine Democrats tied heavy to Nancy Pelosi (and her limit of $1.00 for a barrier), this entire concept of cutting a deal is a mirage, and the process an exercise in futility.


More to the point, even if the group of seventeen can come up with a deal that would get majority support in both chambers, as well as the President's signature, there is no way that Pelosi would allow it up for a vote.

Shocked that people lie in/around/to Congress

Honesty Police! Bob Mueller has as strong belief that being
 dishonest in Washington D.C. calls for FBI/Swat team raids!

Monday, January 28, 2019

Have you noticed the subtle shift in all of this?

So Roger Stone is known as a Republican strategist who specializes in opposition research. He has worked for the Presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and most recently did some consulting for Donald Trump.

To be clear, unlike Richard Steele (who is a foreign agent who illegally gathered opposition research for the DNC and Clinton), Roger Stone is an American citizen and can legally work to influence any sort of political campaign he wants.

Now as has been noted in our courts and history, there is nothing illegal about the media printing information that was otherwise gathered illegally. As long as these members of the media were not personally complicit in whatever crime was associated with the collection of the information, it remains perfectly legal for them to print it. There is no exception that states that publishing this type of information can be a crime just because that information might harm or help a political candidate.

So that makes this pretty simple here folks. The information hacked from John Podesta and the Hillary Clinton campaign and then published is fair game for political use, just as the information gathered by Richard Steele and his Russian connections was fair game for political use. Certainly nobody from Mother Jones was charged with a crime for printing stories about the dossier back in October of 2016 (an October surprise) - even though the information was gathered by a foreign agent.

But it seems like to some member of our illustrious media has been driven to to the point of suggesting that anyone associated with Trump, who sought to influence the election (even if influencing elections is their job description) should be arrested as part of a conspiracy. The conspiracy (of course) was attempting to prevent President-to-be Hillary Clinton from garnering her throne and attempting to install Trump in her place.

Because that is all that was being done here. Once those emails were hacked, and they were out of wikileaks, there is nothing in the law that states that a political strategists paid to help a campaign cannot use that known material. There would be nothing illegal about either speculating, wondering, or attempting to find out if there was more damaging information to come.

It's a certainty that Hillary and the Democrats had their sources knee deep in all of this trying to figure out what was going, as did every media outlet in the country. Doing so is not a criminal action.

But make no mistake. The media and the left are 99% of the way to believing  that any sort of campaign attempt to help Donald Trump win the election should be treated as a crime... even if it had nothing to do with Russia. Next thing you know, they will be coming after Trump donors and anyone who attended his rallies as well. Because they were all part of this grand conspiracy to get Donald Trump elected President!

Wonderfully misleading headline!

Leave it to Politico!


Boy oh boy, what a bombshell. Everyone turning against everyone else. It's just a matter of time till one of these people turn on Donald Trump and spill the beans about that ever-elusive connection that ties Trump to Putin and provides all of the proof positive of election collusion!!!

Except....
While Corsi has said the information about him in the indictment is true, he stressed to Tapper that he never made direct or indirect contact with Assange. Instead, Corsi said his statements were due to deduction. 
"I was referring to, I had, I believe, figured out that Assange had Podesta's emails," Corsi said. "And I did tell this, not only to Roger, but to others. And it turned out that I was right. Now, that was deduction on my part, as best I can remember. It was putting together the dots. But I felt like that should have been valuable information, just that I figured it out, not that I had communications with WikiLeaks.”
So remember the connection here:

Trump/high ranking Trump official/Roger Stone/Jerome Corsi/Assange/Russian hackers/high ranking Russian officials/Vladimir Putin.

So once you get past Trump, a high ranking Trump official, and then Roger Stone, your next logical connection to Assange and Wikileaks (proof positive that Trump was  working with the Russians to manipulating the Wikileaks release) was a guy who never actually talked to anyone in Wikileaks, or a radio personality who once interviewed Assange but had no known contact with him surrounding the missing emails.

But you certainly wouldn't get that impression by reading the headlines of that story! All implications are that Jerome Corsi it the missing link and that he is about to share it all!

Hmmm... can you say fake news!

621 days and counting...

On May 17th 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate:
any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
How long on the job: 621 days
Indictments regarding links or coordination: 0

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Funny thing is, that this is exactly what I expected

Pelosi - "No negotiations until the Government reopens"
Pelosi - "No negotiations until the Government reopens"
Pelosi - "No negotiations until the Government reopens"
Pelosi - "No negotiations until the Government reopens"
Pelosi - "No negotiations until the Government reopens"
Pelosi - "No negotiations until the Government reopens"
Pelosi - "No negotiations until the Government reopens"

Government reopens. Now what?

Pelosi - "No negotiations. I thought I had been clear on that."

The funny thing is that I doubt that anyone in either caucus actually believed that Pelosi and the Democrats would negotiate in good faith, even if the Government was reopened. But many "pretended" during the national debate that the offer to negotiate once the Government was reopened was a valid offer.

The truth is that people on the left who claimed this, knew that it would not cost them anything if the bluff was called and they fell back to "no negotiations".  The media is never going to take Trump's side against anyone for any reason. His being right or wrong play zero part in any of their reporting.

People like Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham had to know that a temporary reopening of the government to "negotiate" would go nowhere, but probably figured it was a stop gap way of getting from point A to point B in a drawn out fashion. The difference between slowly peeling a bandaid off, or just ripping it off. Yeah, Romney declared that it was put up or shut up time. But I look for him to wilt like a 3 week old bouquet of flowers if the Democrats refuse to put up.

The question still becomes what happens in three weeks. Without a long term spending bill, the government goes right back into shutdown mode. Trump is learning (as we speak) that he got no credit for being the one to make a concession. In fact, most of the same people calling on him to make the concession for concession purposes, were the first to gloat that his concession was a personal loss to him. Pelosi is shoving this in his face every chance she gets. Largely because she believes that he will cave in three weeks too.

There is literally no reason to believe that if he agrees to sign a long term spending bill, that it will not weaken the President's position (with everyone) further. Even the idea of declaring a national emergency is not going to cut it. Because even if he ultimately wins in court (which he likely would if it got to the USSC) - people are still not going to report it as a win.

Honest journalists might be asking Pelosi and the Democrats today: "why take the chance that Trump will declare a national emergency, win in court, build the wall, and not be required to give anything in return? Wouldn't you be better off getting something in return (given the strong possibility that he can go around you to build it)?"

But our journalists today are not honest. Even if Trump gets his wall and the Democrats get nothing in return, they will figure out a way to report that it was still a loss for the President.

Sunday Funnies























Saturday, January 26, 2019

So what does the indictment of Stone really tell us?

It shows that there was no collusion with Russia

While the Special Counsel basically was forced to charge Roger Stone with the process crimes surrounding "congressional testimony" (making Stone the eighth person in seven decades to see these charges) the entire indictment is littered with innuendo about what sort of dealings Roger Stone may or may not have had with people associated with Wikileaks.

Of course, none of those dealings are criminal, but the implications are quite obviously red meat designed to raise some hackles with those on the left. I strongly suggest that the small army early morning raid of the Stone residence was a matter of overcompensation for having a "small package" of goods on this one. Something more for the sort of optics necessary to make people believe this was bigger than a series of process crimes (that never would have existed had our government not started investigating a whole bunch of people not accused of committing any crimes).

If  you piece this all together, what you will find is that shortly after Julian Assange released the John Podesta emails, that someone from the Trump administration contacted Stone, who then contacted a person by the name of Randy Credico who had previously interviewed Julian Assange, all with the express intent of finding out if any other damaging material would be released.

Now if you believe for a second that the Trump campaign was the only entity out there wondering if there was more coming from Wikileaks, then I have some ocean side property in Florida for sale I would like to show you. If you believe that this behavior of curiosity is somehow criminal, I will just admit to you that it is swamp land and still expect you are dumb enough to buy it anyways.

The reality here is not only was this behavior not criminal, it's actually quite exculptuary.

Certainly if the President and his inner circle were conspiring with the Russians, then they would not have needed to go to a friend of a friend of a friend to figure out what might be going on. In fact, they would have already known what Wikileaks had, and how many other shoes there was going to be to drop.

The fact that the Trump campaign was reaching out to Stone to see if he had any contacts that knew anything is evidence that the Trump campaign was otherwise in the dark. Obviously a Trump administration knee deep in Russian collusion would have never been in the dark.

Friday, January 25, 2019

Did Trump cave?

Certainly it appears that he gave up way more than he got. He provides the Short term reopening of the Government and basically got no money for his border barrier in return. At least in the short term, he blinked. He caved.

What he announced is that a group of Congresspeople (both House and Senate, both Republicans and Democrats) will set up a conference that will work with the Department of Homeland Security and Border Control Agency to come up with a plan of action.

He does know that the Department of Homeland Security and Border Control Agency will back him on the border barrier. There is no question that the "experts" in border control will be in support of the barrier.

So Trump blinked. But he now puts the pressure on Pelosi and the Democrats (who kept promising the Americans that they would be willing to negotiate once the Government is up and running) to follow through on their promise to negotiate. 

The question becomes what happens in this committee and what happens over the next three weeks. If we come to the end of the three weeks, and we are no closer to an overall agreement on a permanent end to the shutdown... then what happens?

Unless I am mistaken, there will not be a second shutdown. I just don't think that anyone will have the stomach for that. Trump declares a national emergency? Looks to find another way to fund the wall? These options seems way more plausible than another shut down.

Either way... this is gambit that the President is likely going to lose. His best chance of winning was to stick to his guns now. In a better system of government, where you could trust that members of both Parties would actually negotiate in good faith, then this might be a good move.

But we all know that the Democrats asking for the Government to reopen before negotiating, was not an honest proposal. They are not going to negotiate in good faith, as they likely believe (as I do) that there will be no second shutdown. Pelosi and gang knew that if they got the temporary reopening, that they would ultimately prevail.

Unless Trump has something else up his sleeve, he got rolled. Likely by members of his own Party who pretend to have more faith in the process than they should. No wall. No reelection. Blue wave in 2020. Pretty straight forward.

Is projection the biggest issue facing the country?

So here is a little social experiment.
  • Take a political wedge issue
  • Use your own basis for your opinion
  • Ignore the basis for the opposition opinion
  • Then judge that opposition opinion based on those variables.

Example. The wall. I might support the wall because the Border Control Agency says that it will reduce the amount of criminals, drugs, and guns that enter the country. If I ignore whatever the basis of your competing opinion happens to be, this allows me to suggest that you are against the wall  because you are in favor of criminals, illegal drugs, and illegal guns.


This is a form of projection. Not exactly the same projection where someone who is rude might constantly demand that others are rude (the classic projection of your faults to other people). But rather the projection of your way of thinking, as you judge the actions of someone who might think differently. 

This particular social experiment might take place where a conservative (such as myself) demand that a liberal (who might oppose the wall) does so because they would like to see more crime, especially sexual crimes against children (because statistics show that illegal immigrants who cross the border are seven times more likely to commit a sexual assault and do so frequently against minors). 

Let me tell you, a liberal being told he doesn't want the wall because he wants to see children sexually assaulted causes all sorts of things, including threats to take you to court and sue you for libel. 

But the reality is that this form of projection (using my reasoning to judge your actions) is no different than what liberals tend to do with people who (for example) decide to wear a MAGA hat.  Just because "you" believe that Trump is a racist and that the MAGA hat is a symbol of that racism, doesn't have any bearing what-so-ever as to why the person in question might support Trump or decide to wear a MAGA hat. The person wearing that hat should be judged on their reasoning for showing that support (not yours). 

I personally know many, many Trump supporters. Some even own a red hat. Not a one of them is a racist. 

In a nutshell, the person wearing the MAGA hat is no more a racist, than a person who opposes the wall is a promoter of sexual assault against children. In both situation that person is being unfairly judged because others are projecting their own opinions onto the person, and then judging those actions based on that projection. 

But in 2019, when the liberal media is 99.99% against Trump, projection (even at the national cable and print news level) is running rampant. Because the liberal media is a big circle jerk, and no outside opinions are every let it, they are not able to see the forest for the trees on this one. So they will continue to blame people like the Covington Students for run-ins with liberal activists, because they share the liberal activists projection that the MAGA hat is racist. 

The concept that an adult cannot prevent himself from being a complete ass to a child, because the child was "triggering" the adult by wearing a red hat would be an amusing concept if it wasn't so mainstream. This behavior is ultimately defended as acceptable and sometimes even applauded as a positive action by those who are willing to allow the stereotypes and bigotry to overpower common sense.

The rare case (like the vape shop worker who was fired for not serving a Trump supporter) where these actions are seen for what they are (bigotry and hate mongering) are few and far between. In fact, had it not been for the fact that the vape store was a chain that could ultimately lose business over the fiasco, who knows if anything would have been done there. You also had to go look for the video, as nobody in the MSM thought this situation was even worthy of a story.

The overall plan is clear. It amounts to nothing more or less than a widespread collective systematic social means of bullying. They label, they stereotype, and they ultimately judge others based on their own personal opinion. In fact, they will tell you that even his campaign slogan is racist, and you are racist if you don't agree with them.  Ultimately, the left doesn't like the fact that Trump is President, and they are willing to smear and attack anyone who dares show support for the reality that Trump is President. 

Keep in mind. Unless you want to admit that your opposition to the wall is because you support sexual assault against children, you should be careful when you demand that you can better identify someone else's motives than the person in question. 

For those of you who are not very bright...


Roger Stone was not charged with any crimes for his alleged communications with whoever it was associated with Wikileaks.... Because those allege communications were not criminal behavior. 

Mueller charges the rolling stones with process crimes


Correction:

Roger Stone, not the Rolling Stones

I was schooled, with a strap right cross my back!
Authorities raid Stone house!

So the latest buzz

Is that the Democrats will up their offer on border security to $5 billion in order to facilitate the end of the Government shutdown. But they will demand that the Border Security Agency cannot use if for what they would like to use it for.

Is anyone can make any sense of that... I would be very curious to hear it.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

For anyone who is still confused by this...


"I voted in favor of the President’s proposed compromise, which would have achieved both goals," Romney said in a statement following the vote. "When that measure failed, I also voted for an alternative proposal that would open the government and give the Democrats two weeks to put up or shut up — come to the table and agree to a final deal on border security and enforcement."

The key here was that six Republicans agreed in principal to what Lindsay Graham and others had suggested a couple of weeks ago. If the GOP would agree to reopen the Government for a short period of time, that they would expect that the Democrats would then be willing to come to the table and negotiate in good faith on a border security proposal that would include more money to expand on the southern barrier.

The problem is that most everyone understands that even if you gave the Democrats what they are asking for at this point (a temporary reopening of the government) that we would be right back in the exact same position on Feb 9th. Pelosi is already on record as saying that she pretty much "never" plans on making "any" concessions regarding a southern border barrier. Doesn't matter if we reopen the Government and start negotiating again, the Pelosi negotiations will never include more than $1.00 for a border barrier.

So you are kicking the can down the road so to speak. Not sure that anyone's opinion would change if we reopened the Government for two weeks, there was no agreement, and things closed back down again. Everyone would go right back to their same corners, make the same arguments, and dig in just as hard. 

Some clarification

There is a lot of buzz  about the fact that six Republicans broke lines to vote for the Pelosi/Democrat proposal, while only one Democrat broke lines to vote for the Trump/GOP proposal.

One of the major differences here is that the Democratic proposal was only a continuing resolution. In other words, six GOP Senators voted for a temporary funding of the Government through February 8th (at which point, the Government would shut down again and we would start this whole thing over again). That's only two weeks before we would be back at it.

Oddly, this was sort of the proposal that Lindsey Graham floated a couple of weeks back. Yet, he was not one of the Senators who voted for it today.

So since McConnell did not allow a so called clean spending bill for the entire fiscal year, it's impossible to know if any (much less all six) of these Republicans would promote the idea of more permanently reopening the Government without the President's demands for a wall.

Moreover, the threshold for a clean spending bill to pass (without money for the wall) would take sixty seven votes (two thirds of the Senate)  to override the President's veto. That would mean that Democrats would need all six of these Senators to back them in a more permanent spending bill and then attract another fourteen GOP Senators.

Meanwhile, the Trump/GOP plan would require them to find about half that many additional Democrats. While two Republicans voted against the Trump plan today, it was because they believe he gave away too much (the whole Ann Coulter Amnesty deal). I could be wrong, but I have a gut feeling that these Senators could be swayed to vote "for" cloture even if they would vote against the actual bill.

All that being said, I am sure that the MSM and others will use today's vote a proof positive that the President is losing support. All this means to me is that we are no closer than we were last week to ending the stalemate. I strongly suspect we will be still talking Government Shutdown through February (if not into March).

Here is something your MSM is not going to tell you!

Shave like a man!

BuzzFeed buzzkill !!!

BuzzFeed Laying Off 15% Of Its Staff; Cuts Hit 200 Workers Including News Division
It certainly has been a tough week at BuzzFeed. A week after Robert Mueller’s office raised doubts about the news org’s report that Donald Trump ordered his lawyer-fixer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress comes word that the one-time poster child for pure-digital growth plans to lay off a reported 200 staffers, or 15% of its work force.
Co-founder and CEO Jonah Peretti sent a memo to staff this afternoon announcing the job cuts, which will hit the web content and international units including the Ben Smith-led news division beginning next week.It certainly has been a tough week at BuzzFeed. A week after Robert Mueller’s office raised doubts about the news org’s report that Donald Trump ordered his lawyer-fixer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress comes word that the one-time poster child for pure-digital growth plans to lay off a reported 200 staffers, or 15% of its work force.

I am sure it's purely coincidental that this was announced shortly after last weeks Buzzfeed fiasco. But that doesn't make it any less satisfying to know that fake news is struggling, even in this economy.

Senate to take up 51 renominations to the bench

Of the 51 Judges renominated, 9 of them are Circuit court appeals level Judges, and 2 of them being considered are for the 9th Circuit court (much to the chagrin of Diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris who did not turn in blue slips on either nominee). There is also a much coveted D.C. Circuit court opening. This is basically one step below the Supreme court, so you can expect some heated debate there as well.

Democrats are insisting on 30 hours of debate on every last one. This should prompt McConnell to do what he has done in the past, by requiring the Senate to work extra long days, work weekends, and work through any recesses... until all of the Justices have been confirmed. 

The other option being mulled is another "nuclear" style option, where on a 50+1 vote McConnell and the GOP votes to limit debate to something more like two or three hours. Generally these sorts of Senate changes take a supermajority. But thanks to Harry Reid and his need for immediate greed, the Senate has abandoned much of those protocols.

Time will tell which direction McConnell goes with this. But make no mistake, with the limited amount of things that will get done with a divided Government, the number one duty of McConnell and the majority will be to fill judicial vacancies.

Senate to vote today on shutdown

My prediction:


Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Truth in tweeting

Non-essential Government workers are looking for new jobs in the Private Sector!

More and more reporting on the fact that food stamps, garage sales, and unemployment assistance isn't going to help these people (who are now a month without work) short or long term. Since they are not working either way, there is no "back pay" coming for them. That's gotta be hard on the finances, even once the government is back up and running.

The best thing this shutdown could provide are new private
 sector jobs for non-essential Government employees!

Especially when their beloved Democrats refuse to negotiate to reopen the government. Apparently no-negotiations are good negotiations for liberals. If I was out of  a job, I might take issue with that. Reality is that Pelosi and Trump are arguing over the State of the Union Address, while I am raiding my retirement savings to pay bills.

How long does this go on before they decide to just find a new line of work. According to many in the know, these non-essential Government agencies do not accomplish much (other than providing people with a pay check for doing little or nothing). If it was me, I would already be looking.

Perhaps they get real jobs in the private sector and then go on to become Republicans!

Are Americans moving on the shutdown?

https://www.emerson.edu/sites/default/files/Files/Academics/ecp-national-pr.pdf 
Voters are split on who to blame for the shutdown with 42% blaming the President, 36% blaming the Democrats in Congress, 6% blaming the Republicans in Congress, and 16% blaming everyone. About 1 in 4 voters (27%) have noticed a difference in their personal lives because of the shutdown.
Voters generally favor increasing enforcement of immigration laws at U.S. borders with 55% in favor and 24% opposed. The wall is not seen as a solution at the border for 41% of voters, while 59% believe it could be a solution. 26% believe it is the best solution while 33% believe it is one of several potential solutions for border security.
I am still a little surprised that more people are not blaming everyone. It takes two to tango, nothing can get done till both sided compromise, etc... It's logically counterintuitive to give anyone a pass in this situation.

But I think that goes the heart of the matter. People are more prone to be partisan and absolute when it comes to these things in 2019 than they were a few years ago. Nobody seems to want to concede an inch on their political opinions. They are stuck in the idea that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. The reason you are seeing six out of seven people taking sides is because of our heavy ability to allow cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation control our collective brain function.

All that being said, a 42-36 percent split is about as close to even as we have seen so far. Not sure if the President's address and subsequent proposal moved the needle, but I would offer that the closer these numbers are, the better chance we have of getting something done.

The very next day

While chanting and playing ceremonial drums, a group of Native American rights activists reportedly led by Nathan Phillips attempted Jan. 19 to enter Washington, D.C.’s Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception during a Saturday evening Mass.
Nathan Phillips - professional instigator
The group of 20 demonstrators was stopped by shrine security as it tried to enter the church during its 5:15 pm Vigil Mass, according to a shrine security guard on duty during the Mass.
Video footage showed one supporter saying that the group had gathered at the shrine to listen to Phillips, and to hold the Catholic Church “accountable” for the alleged actions of the Covington Catholic students and for the “colonial violence that the Catholic Church reproduces every day.”

Yeah... there is definitely some bigotry going on here. But it's not the Catholics who are being intolerance and hateful here. It's the Native Americans who are being bigots and showing their hatred towards Catholicism.

Moreover, this is a long term pattern for Nathan Phillips. His actions the past few days are pretty consistent with his actions over the past several year. There is even a video of Phillips getting in the face of a fifteen year old girl.

He's nothing but a bully who wants people to see him as the victim.

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Guess which company now has backorders and enough profits to give to charity?

Egard Watch Company 



(https://www.egardwatches.com/collections/mens-collection)

2019 liberalism - you are responsible for my irrational bigotry

Issac Bailey

Issac Bailey
I'm talking about those high school kids in the video that went viral over the weekend, the one that showed the young men laughing and jeering while an older American Indian man drummed and sang. It seemed at first to be an obvious case of white bros acting shamefully, but then another, longer video showed the same encounter with more context and new characters -- a racist fringe group of black men, who identify as members of the Hebrew Israelites, and who seemed to have been the main provokers of tension and aggression.
This twist in the story gave the whole country a case of interpretive whiplash, feeding frenzied new rounds of argument over who the real victims were, and who was being disgraceful to whom.
    But that's a pointless debate. Based on independent reporting, those students should share in the blame, despite their denials stating they were innocent bystanders. 
    _______
    So to be clear, the issue here isn't who actually initiated the confrontation. It isn't who pushed the confrontation. It isn't even whether or not the children did or didn't engage those who were confronting them.

    The issue was that these children were wearing Make America Great Again hats.

    So even though these black (or Hebrew) Israelites were clearly the aggressors. Even though it appears that the children did their best to avoid the confrontation (instead deciding to chant school cheers and sing the school fight song). Even though the professional agitator (Indian drummer man Phillips) decided to do everything he could possibly do to provoke one of the children (who wasn't provoked).

    The blame for everyone else's poor actions resides in the fact that some of the children were wearing red hats. Moreover, the fact that this was unfairly and unprofessionally reported (originally) as the children being the aggressors is still (in many ways) their own fault, because (again) some of them were wearing red hats.

    What's a reporter to do? They were wearing red hats? My god!!!

    Herein lies the issue that many on the left refuse to see. Blatant and open bigotry, racism, and prejudice displayed by the media and liberals in general. They refuse to see it, because of course every bigot "believes" that their own bigotry is justified. The racist KKK member believes that blacks are inferior. The Nazis believed that Jews deserved to be put into gas chambers. Islamic fundamental terrorists believe that infidels must die.

    Liberals believe that people (even children) who wear MAGA hats are evil. Doubly evil if they are white. Infinitely more evil if they happen to be Christian.

    Of course a hat that shows support for our elected President of the United States is no more damning than the color of someone's skin, their religious views, or anything. You cannot judge blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Christians, men, women, gays, bisexuals, transexuals, or anyone else based on superficial issues or based on a lifestyle that you personally would not choose (or one that you do not approve of). Lumping everyone in a group of people under the worse common denominator is blatant bigotry. Even more so when your reasoning is pure partisan political disagreement disguised as something more nobel.

    The reality is that people who are triggered by a hat or a t-shirt are bigots. Plain and simple. They are no better than the KKK or any other hate group. When you see something like this, you understand it.

    The group of people who were "blamed" for a confrontation that they didn't start or even engage, were blamed because of the bigotry of those reporting it. These reporters wanted to believe that the Christian children with the MAGA hats were bad people. They wanted to believe it so bad that you could almost see their mouths foaming. How about the whole twitter threads about how "punchable" that child's face was?

    Liberal adults taking about punching an innocent child in the face because he was wearing a hat. Toss in a few death threats (because of a hat) and it must be a really really proud moment for the liberal cause.

    Make no mistake. This is no different than the KKK wanting to believe that all black people are criminals, lowlifes, or freeloaders. No different than the religious extremist who believes that everyone who doesn't share their cause is an inferior infidel.

    It's just a fucking hat.

    Monday, January 21, 2019

    Fake news at it's worst...

    Problem here is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still alive

    This displayed during a segment of Fox and Friends - can you imagine the response?

    Another Democrat opens up to the possibility

    'I would not rule out a wall in certain instances' along the southern border: Top House Homeland Security Democrat Bennie Thompson
    The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said that he “would not rule out a wall in certain instances” after President Donald Trump proposed a new immigration and border security plan Saturday in an attempt to end the partial government shutdown.
    “I don’t think Democrats are opposed to any physical barriers,” Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said. “It’s just the president constantly evolves his description of the wall, just as he indicated Mexico was going to pay for whatever was there. So what we have to do is sit down, work through this and let the public know exactly what we’re talking about and what they can expect. And we’re not there yet.”
    On "This Week," Thompson told co-anchor Martha Raddatz, "The notion that we can't have barriers is just something that's not true, but again ... you have to have a plan, and the plan that the president initially started with is not where he is now. And so we don't know where he will be tomorrow, but clearly, Democrats are for border security, but we're not for this constantly moving the ball just for a talking point."
    This is almost identical to what the California Democrat stated. It's not that Democrats are actually against a physical barrier, it's that they are against Donald Trump and his rhetoric regarding the wall. While some Democrats are still suggesting that a barrier is a "bad idea" in general, others are slowly but surely admitting that this is much more about Trump than it is about border security.

    This is a tough thing to counter. The more Democrats admit that this is about opposing Trump, the more it makes them look petty when there are 800K government workers not getting paid. Not that smart people didn't always inherently understand that this is a big anti-Trump temper tantrum.

    Did the President's speech move Americans? Time will tell. But it certainly seemed to have reset the conversation. All it takes is a handful of Democrats and a couple of big news organizations to start to pressure Pelosi and gang into coming the to the table, and Trump will be back on offense.

    The statement from Covington MAGA hat guy

    Updated at 8:30 p.m.: Nick Sandmann, the Covington student in the middle of the controversy, has released a statement. Here it is in full:
    I am providing this factual account of what happened on Friday afternoon at the Lincoln Memorial to correct misinformation and outright lies being spread about my family and me.
    I am the student in the video who was confronted by the Native American protestor. I arrived at the Lincoln Memorial at 4:30 p.m. I was told to be there by 5:30 p.m., when our busses were due to leave Washington for the trip back to Kentucky. We had been attending the March for Life rally, and then had split up into small groups to do sightseeing.

    Covington students and Phillips the Indian drummer

    So I must confess, I didn't really understand what all of the fuss was about on this one. I saw what I "thought" was the video in question, and had a lot of problems reconciling what I saw with what I was hearing.

    To be clear the video I saw walked through the following events:

    • I saw a large crowd of boys who were gathered in an area outside of some buildings. It was later determined that they were waiting for their busses.
    • I saw some of them chanting and cheering (from most accounts they were chanting school spirit messages in response to a small group of protesters who were attempting to engage them).
    • Then you saw a small group of people wander into the middle of the crowd. One would have been Phillips (who was carrying his drum) and there were two or three others carrying what appeared to be a video camera, with portable lights (like you would see a news crew carrying). 
    • The man in question walked up to the boy wearing the MAGA hat and started pounding the drum and singing. The people behind turned on the lights and started filming.
    • The video was not close enough to see much, other than the student in question just sort of stood there. Some of the other students close by started turning around and watching the man. Some of them started to clap along with the drum beat and doing some sort chanting or singing.

    It was clear from watching this particular video (as I saw it) that the man in question was looking to get some sort of reaction either out of the boy in question, or others who were in the same crowd. I strongly suspect that this particular boy was chosen because he was wearing the MAGA hat. It was equally clear that the people with the video equipment were there to catch the action (or reaction) as it were.

    Now the troubling part for me was that the stories I had heard was that this poor old Indian man was just minding his own business, singing a song and beating a tribal drum, when suddenly he was surrounded by a bunch of high school catholic hooligans who were openly threatening him. The picture of the Indian Drummer and the boy in the MAGA hat was sold to the general public as the boy getting in the drummer's face (as opposed to what had really happened - which was exactly the opposite).

    Then you ended up with the Drummer telling people that all of these boys were mocking him, that he felt threatened by the boy in the hat, and that he felt that the crowd that had gathered around him was on the verge of a violent outbreak.

    Of course the violent outbreak never took place. Catholic high school students are not generally prone to beating up old men for no reason. 
    _______

    Lastly it turns out that your impression of these events were likely determined by which of the two videos you saw. Those who saw the video I saw (which was taken with a cell phone from a ways away) would see things much like I did. There is no question that the instigator in this situation (right or wrong) was Phillips, not the Covington Students.

    Those who saw the scripted video made by the videographers who were accompanying the Indian drummer likely saw exactly what the videographers wanted you to see. They saw a poor old Indian man beings surrounded, harassed, threatened, and mocked by a bunch of racist white privilege christian conservatives.

    Whether or not you saw the kids as either somewhat amused and confused by the events, or mean and mocking also probably was determined by which of these videos you saw. It simply isn't clear from either video what was in the collective mindsets or what exactly was being chanted. In fact, it's hard to determine exactly what percentage of the overall crowd was even aware of the drummer in question.  Much of this is left up to the best guess of the person watching, and likely whatever preconceived mindset is about the people in question.

    In other words, this is all bigotry and prejudices (assumptions and pre-judging).  But this is exactly the world we now live in folks and exactly why things are so tense. 

    Sunday, January 20, 2019

    Refs took it away from Saints... tried to take it away from the Patriots

    • One game, nothing is pass interference
    • The other game, everything is pass interference

    Patriots vs the Rams

    When you lost the Washington Post

    And Pelosi just lost the Washington Post!
    Mr. Trump’s offer should be welcomed but not accepted as the final word. There should be room to talk about the amount of money; how border security will be defined and enhanced; which categories of dreamers and TPS beneficiaries are covered; what their legal status will be, and for how long. But to refuse even to talk until the government reopens does no favors to sidelined federal workers and contractors.
    Unquestionably a deal would contain galling elements for both sides; that’s the nature of compromise. But a measure of statesmanship for a member of Congress now is the ability to accept some disappointments, and shrug off the inevitable attacks from purists, if it means rescuing the lives of thousands of deserving people living among us.

    The big lie

    From Pelosi to Schumer to every talking head on CNN news, the programmed talking points memo dishonest piece of shit pile of donkey doo coming from the left is that some how, some way (without any real explanation) is that Donald Trump can simple decide to "reopen the government".

    How dumb liberals believe that the Government shut down works

    Let's be clear. Donald Trump cannot simply "reopen the government".

    The only way that the Government can be reopened is if both the House and Senate pass a budget bill, it goes through committee, and both parties and both chambers can agree on one final bill. Then, and only then can Trump sign that budget bill into law, and then and only then will the government reopen.

    So what is it that the left would like here?
    What does the left believe is the "fair thing to do"?

    Apparently the left believes that the GOP in the Senate and the President should simply roll over and sign the bill offered by Pelosi and Democrats in the House. No negotiations between chambers, no give or take, nothing. Just take what Pelosi and the Democrats want 100% and then later, maybe, those same Democrats can negotiate for the things Republicans want. Of course, this time without any actual incentive to agree to any of it.

    Make no mistake. This is a dishonest pile of rhetoric.

    Liberals are just dumb enough to fall for it.

    Sunday Funnies