A Clear Change Of Direction

The results of recent polling shows a clear change in political direction across the country.  Just six weeks ago, the mainstream media was filled with articles proclaiming a Democrat victory next November as "inevitable".  The House would surely go Democrat and even the Senate might follow suit.  After all, in the generic polling, the results were showing a double digit lead for the Democrats.  Then came the new tax law, the wave of bonuses, raises and other economic good news resulting from that tax cut, a series of other positive stories for the GOP, the Democrats government shut down debacle, the immigration plan put forward by President Trump and the disclosure that much of the Trump-Russia investigation was the result of nothing more than a Clinton/Democrat dirty trick.  The move in the polls was rather large.  Today, Monmouth released a poll that shows the President's approval rating at 44% with disapproval at 48% among registered voters.  That 4 point margin compares to a 16 point margin by which Mr. Trump was under water just a month ago.  The poll also puts the generic ballot question to the Democrats by 2% among registered voters.  Normally, such a margin means that among likely voters, the Republicans hold the lead.  It's an amazing turnaround.

The biggest news regarding this poll is what it does not include.  First, the people who were polled still think by a 12% margin that their own taxes will go up rather than down due to the new tax law.  By the middle of February, most Americans will find out that in truth some 80% of them will be getting substantial increases in take home pay thanks to the new law.  These raises are sure to provide a boost both to President Trump's job approval numbers and to the prospect for Republican victory in November.

Second, the polls were taken prior to last night's State of the Union speech.  We already know that three quarters of those who watched approved of what they heard including nearly half of the Democrats.  On top of this, we had the spectacle of Democrats sitting angrily in silence as the President ticked off some major accomplishments and paid tribute to some American heroes.  How will blacks react to watching the Congressional Black Caucus sit on their hands rather than applauding the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded.  How will the average independent react to Mr. Trump honoring the parents who daughters were slain by an MS-13 gang member while the Democrats scowled into the camera rather than joining in comforting those poor people?  How many people were amazed to see the Democrats refuse to clap for the parents of poor Otto Warmbier who was tortured to death by the North Koreans for the crime of being an American?  This has to hurt the Democrats badly.

No one knows what the next day or month will bring. There could be big events that change public perceptions.  One thing is certain, however:  the tide of public political support is moving in a Republican direction right now.

Another "Accident"

Imad al-Alami has died in Gaza.  He was one of the founders of the terror group Hamas.  The group announced that al-Alami had "accidentally" shot himself in the head.  While it is not impossible that the report is true, it is highly suspect.  Most likely, al-Alami was taken out by someone in the Hamas leadership who wanted him gone.  It's even possible that al-Alami was shot by an agent of Fatah or one of the minor terrorist groups that move through the Gaza Strip.  No matter what the cause, however, the fact remains that this terrorist is gone.  It's good news for the world.

How The State of the Union Was Received

The people who watched last night's State of the Union speech by the President liked what they heard.  According to a poll of viewers, 75% approved of the speech.  When asked if the policies outlined by the President would help, hurt or not affect them, the same viewers split 54% - help; 14% - hurt and 32% - unaffected.  Those are staggeringly good numbers.  There were slightly more Republican viewers than their share of the electorate and a slightly lower share of Democrat viewers, but that might have improved the numbers in the President's favor by 4 or 5% only.  Even with the viewership skewing Republican, the results show that the nation like what it heard.

Given the strong support for the speech, I was wondering how the media would cover it.  There were the usual slams of everything Trump, but the most surprising thing is the rather consistent attack on the President for "applauding for himself".  Trump did clap often during the speech, and because of the microphones, his clapping came through loud and clear.  For the most part, however, he was clapping as the he honored some rather extraordinary people sitting in the gallery with the First Lady.  He also clapped for things like the destruction of ISIS, the lowest minority unemployment ever recorded, the benefits to the nation from the tax cuts, and the like.  It seemed to me that he was cheering for the accomplishments of the country, not of himself.  Last week in Davos, Trump likened himself to a cheerleader for the nation; that's what I thought was on display last night.  The media disagreed, however, and tried to make it all just conceit by the President.

I like to think that the people who watched understand just how dishonest this media coverage is.  We will soon see if that is true.

The Defining Images of the State Of The Union

The President just finished his State of the Union address to Congress.  As is usual with these speeches, it covered a great many issues without going into much detail about most.  Also as is usual, the images that accompanied the speech seem as powerful as the words.  Three of these images stand out for me:

1.  The parents of Otto Warmbier, the student tortured to death by his North Korean jailors, stood sobbing as the President recounted Otto's story.

2.  The parents of two teenage girls who were murdered by MS-13 gang members on Long Island also cried as President Trump detailed what had happened to their daughters.

3.  The members of the Congressional Black Caucus sat motionless as the Republican side of the Chamber gave a standing ovation to the President's statement that African American unemployment is now at the lowest level ever recorded.

The first two images were a clear indication to the nation of the pain inflicted by the evil of the North Korean regime and the illegal alien gang MS-13.  The third image was a demonstration to the American people of the true depth of hatred by the Democrats directed towards the President.  Imagine, after decades and decades of high unemployment among blacks, we finally get that number to an all time low, and the Congressional Black Caucus cannot bring themselves to applaud that accomplishment because it came under President Trump.

I know that many of the pundits will focus on the President's words more than these images.  Nevertheless, for me, these were the most important aspects of the speech.

Overall, I rate this a highly successful speech by the President.  Still, it was limited by the SOTU format.  We will have to see in the coming days what the nation thought of it.

The Ever Approaching Memo Release is Spreading Panic And the Talking Points Won't Work

The House Intelligence Committee drafted a four page memo outlining its initial findings in the investigation of misconduct by the Obama Justice Department, the Obama FBI and the Democrats (including the Clinton campaign) in using the national security apparatus of the USA to spy on the Trump campaign.  That includes obtaining a search warrant from the FISA court based upon information known to be false that was paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  It's a memo that outlines the sort of misconduct that could lead to a great many people being fired or going to jail.  It's also a memo that would put to bed once and for all the investigation into supposed collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.  That investigation would be disclosed as nothing more than a Clinton dirty trick.  The committee has now voted to release the memo, and both the Democrats and their media allies are going into a panicked melt-down.  Consider this:

1.  This morning, CBS News actually described what the memo "purports to allege".  The reporter couldn't even bring himself to just say "allege".  He was desperate to try to undermine the document before it is released to the public.

2.  Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi was asked on CNN (of all places) why the public shouldn't see the memo.  Her answer was pitiful.  She went on about how America respects our people in the intelligence community and that every one of them would say that the release of the memo is reckless.  It was an obvious talking point.  Chris Cuomo was interviewing her, and he then said that the director of the FBI Wray, had reviewed the memo and had not come out against its release.  All Pelosi could say in response to Cuomo was that he "did not know what he was talking about."  Actually, Cuomo was completely correct.  Wray reviewed the memo and then went back to the FBI and forced out the deputy director Andrew McCabe who the memo supposedly purports to allege was involved in the illegal knowing misuse of false information to get a FISA warrant.  (sorry, I couldn't resist the "purports to allege".)

3.  Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat on the committee that wrote the memo.  For the last year, he has selectively leaked all manner of secret information hoping to undermine President Trump and to bolster the investigation by the special prosecutor.  Now, he is suddenly "horrified" at the prospects that the memo might lead to disclosure of confidential information.  But he's doing more.  He's trying to make the memo into some sort of conspiracy theory by claiming that since news of the memo broke, he has been receiving death threats and nasty phone messages.  Now I don't know whether or not Schiff has gotten death threats; I certainly hope not.  I do know that those threats aren't coming from the Republicans on the committee or from responsible citizens.  Schiff has been the cheerleader in chief for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax for the last year.  If the memo shows that the whole investigation was just another Clinton dirty trick, Schiff should pay the price for his behavior, but that is a political price.  If he did something illegal, he should be booted from Congress or even prosecuted. 

McCabe Goes And The Media Covers Up

Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe "retired" today.  According to reports, his departure was not voluntary, but rather forced by the FBI Director Wray.  It came one day after Wray read the memo put together by the House Intelligence Committee on misdeeds at the FBI and other intelligence agencies in connection with the Trump campaign.  It also came right after Wray got a draft report from the Inspector General regarding the same topic.  There must be some really big smoking guns in those documents.

One would think that the media would be forced to cover this story.  In fact, that is correct.  I heard it on CBS News on the radio.  But how did CBS cover the story?  They trotted out "expert" Larry Sabato to talk about how President Trump had once again "stepped on his message".  Sabato said that the story would take away from the coverage of the State of the Union speech and that Trump had blown it once again.  Of course, Sabato never explained how an internal FBI action with which Trump had no involvement was somehow a Trump mistake.  That's too much of a detail for an "expert" like Sabato.  Remember, Sabato was assuring people even at 9:00 on election night in 2016 that Hillary had the election won.  He's not much of an expert. 

The truth is that McCabe's departure is way too late.  This is a guy who was forced to recuse himself from the Clinton investigation, but who didn't bother to do that until after the investigation had come to a conclusion.  That's not the way those things are supposed to work.  Then there's McCabe's involvement in the "insurance policy" that Strzok and Page wanted to have to deal with the possibility of a Trump defeat of Hillary Clinton.  The second in command at the FBI can't be involved in partisan hit squads.  It's not just unethical, it may well be illegal.

All I can say about McCabe's departure is a hearty "Good riddance."

From the 9th Circuit -- Wow!

The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals is the most liberal Federal appeals court.  That's why today's ruling on the right to counsel for illegal aliens facing deportation is so interesting.  According the Ninth Circuit, people facing deportation in an immigration case do not have the right to a government provided attorney.  If they want attorneys, they can hire them, but only at their own cost.

This is important.  It means that the countless illegal aliens across the land will not be able to flood the courts with deportation cases and then delay and delay again in order to clog up the system.

The law must be very clear on this point.  Otherwise, the 9th Circuit would have don't major contortions to get the opposite result.

The State of the Union

Every year, there is a State of the Union address given by the president to Congress.  It didn't use to be that way; for the first 150 or so years of the USA, there was just a written report delivered by the White House to Congress.  Now, however, we go through this annual festival of oratory.  First we have a few days of speculation about what will be in the speech.  Oh, the anticipation in the media!  For the rest of the country, there's very little, if any, anticipation.  Then we get to the entrance of the President into the chamber where the joint session of Congress is assembled.  The clerk of the House announces the President's entrance and we get two minutes of standing ovation.  (Will the Democrats applaud for President Trump?)  Then the Vice President introduces the President.  That's followed by yet another standing ovation.  (Are you bored yet?  I am, and the speech is still two days away.)

After all the opening pageantry, the President starts to speak.  I've listened to more State of the Union speeches than I care to remember.  Actually, the truth is that I really don't remember any of them.  Were there memorable lines spoken by the president of the day?  Not as far as I'm concerned.  The problem with these speeches is that they are not focused.  They are not restricted to one topic which can be fully expressed.  Instead, they cover points in a sentence or two.  It's a checklist approach.

Imagine the impact that this year's SOTU would have if President Trump were to open with "The state of the Union is good.  I'm sending Congress a written report on the subject, but I want to focus tonight on just two aspects of this message:  the economy and immigration."  Trump could then go down the list of explaining just how good the economy has become and what he proposes to improve it moving forward.  He could then spend twenty minutes with a big audience speaking directly to the American people about immigration.  There would be no more translation by the media of what the President is saying.  It would be direct communication.  Imagine Trump telling the American people about his plans to legalize DACA people as well as about the need to end the green card diversity lottery and chain migration.  Imagine Trump positioning the issue of the wall as something that will help cut off the flow of illegal drugs that flood our country and kill thousands of people a month.  We could have an in-depth review of the issue.  And, as I said above, the American people would hear it direct from Trump, not filtered through the media.

Imagine the Democrat response from representative Kennedy.  He would either stick with his prepared text which would wander over all sorts of issues and miss Trump's point, or he would extemporize and address the economy and immigration.  It would be nice for America to hear Trump's generous proposal for the DACA group which would then be followed by the Democrats denouncing that proposal as racist or mean-spirited as has been the case so far.  People would get it, and the result wouldn't be a very good one for the Democrats.

Of course, this strategy won't be used.  The SOTU is always the same.  By next week, no one will remember what was said.  And life will just move on.

She Must Be A Congenital Liar

What is it with Hillary Clinton?  She's out of the public eye now.  She has no political future.  She could easily start telling the truth.  Somehow, however, she just can't bring herself to do it.  The New York Times published a report detailing how in 2008, Hillary's "faith adviser" (you really can't make this stuff up) was the subject of charges by another staffer that he had allegedly sexually harassed and abused her.  The Times report points out that when the head of the campaign determined that the Faith Adviser should be fired, Hillary herself stepped in an protected him, thereby ignoring the woman's claims.  Now, I doubt anyone would be surprised to hear that Hillary Clinton protected a man accused of sexual harassment, abuse and misconduct.  We watched her do that all through the 1990's when similar charges were leveled at Bill. 

Hillary, however, had to respond to the Times story.  As a result, she tweeted the following:

“A story appeared today about something that happened in 2008. I was dismayed when it occurred, but was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed.”

Amazing!  Hillary actually says the woman "had her concerns taken seriously and addressed."  Actually, the woman had her concerns ignored and the creep who was allegedly abusing her had his job protected.  And to make things worse, that outcome was mandated by Hillary herself.

So here we have Hillary Clinton doing the usual; she's lying.  She knows what really happened, but she has to make up an alternate universe in which she did nothing wrong.  Maybe by next week she will tell us that the woman's claims were just part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- just like those claims years ago that Bill had an affair with Monica Lewinsky.

The Lizard of Oz

Ryan Lizza is back on CNN.  That's not something that anyone expected.  After all, the Lizard was thrown off the network when it was revealed that The New Yorker had fired him on the basis of alleged sex abuse.  Lizza denied the abuse charges, but it is worth noting that when The New Yorker fired him, the Lizard did not start legal action of any kind for a "wrongful" firing.  The Lizard just slunk away and waited.  Well, now he's back.

It will be interesting to see if Lizza remains the same self-righteous and sanctimonious reporter who always seemed quick to determine for viewers what was "good" and what was "evil".  What will CNN do next?  Maybe they can bring in Kermit Gosnell to report on trends in abortion.

The Truth Will Set You Free

It's time to tell the truth about immigration, especially illegal immigration and even more particularly those brought here illegally as children, the DACA crowd.  It may fly in the face of the commonly accepted wisdom, but the proof is now in:  the Democrats don't care one bit about the DACA group.

Consider this:
1.  When the Democrats had total control of Washington during the early Obama years, they promised to pass immigration reform that would protect the DACA group.  Instead, they didn't even bother to vote on the issue.  This is a Democrats only point; the GOP didn't have enough members of the House or Senate to have prevented Democrats from passing such a bill.  The Democrats chose inaction.

2.  Ten days ago, the Democrats announced that they would never vote to fund the government unless and until there was a law passed to protect the DACA group.  In the House, the Democrats all voted against government funding, but the Republicans had enough votes to pass the funding measure.  In the Senate, the Democrats filibustered the government funding and shut down the government.  People like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin announced that they were on a mission to protect the DACA group and would not stop until they achieved their goal.  Then, after two days of shutdown, as the polling came in and showed many Americans did not support that effort by the Democrats, Schumer and his fellow Democrat senators abandoned the DACA group.  They voted to reopen the government and got nothing in exchange.  An ignoramus like former national Democrat chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz even said that what the Democrats achieved was "the potential for momentum."  That's just a politician's way of saying that they achieved NOTHING. When the going got tough, the Democrats threw the DACA group under the bus faster than you can say Nancy Pelosi.

3.  In the last 24 hours, the White House presented its outline for a DACA deal.  One aspect of the deal is President Trump's position that all those who were brought here illegally as children would not only be able to stay but would also have a path to citizenship.  That's 1.8 million people in the DACA group who would be protected.  One would think that the Democrats would be ecstatic.  They're not even happy; the Dems are angry at the proposal.  Chuck Schumer has announced that the White House position is dead on arrival.  Other Democrats have denounced the White House offer as some form of white supremacist move.  Get that?  President Trump offers ALL of the DACA group a path to citizenship, but the Democrats reject the offer.  Once again, the Democrats make clear that they don't really care about the DACA group.  Schumer and his party are ready to watch the DACA group get deported rather than accept a reasonable offer from President Trump.

If the goal of the Democrats really were to protect the DACA group, they would accept Trump's proposal that clearly achieves that goal.  The reality, however, is that the Democrats goal is actually to have an issue for the November elections which they can use to try to portray Trump and the Republicans a mean and uncaring as well as racist.  The Dems don't want the DACA group protected; they just want to use them as props in some sort of electoral theatrics.

It would be nice if America were to realize the charade in which the Democrats are engaged.  Restoring truth to government would go a long way towards remedying the mess that the Democrats have made.

Here We Go

Yesterday, the NY Times reported that eight months ago, President Trump discussed with the White House Counsel that he wanted Robert Mueller fired.  The Times also reports that the White House Counsel talked the President out of taking that action.  The story is based upon anonymous sources, although it seems pretty clear that the source is not President Trump, and it is extremely unlikely that the White House Counsel would violate the attorney-client privilege and repeat discussions with his client.  Indeed, it is most likely that the story is false, just like much of the Fake News that we've seen over the last year.  President Trump has already denied that the story is true.

It doesn't matter for the media.  This morning, the anti-Trump pundits are "explaining" what this episode means for Trump.  The anti-Trump Democrats (okay all the Democrats) are denouncing this event as a threat to the Republic.  We are in full bash the President mode.  It's a major effort to change the subject from all the good news for Trump and the GOP that came forward recently.

It's truly obscene to watch the media and the Democrats go off this way.  I don't mind if they criticize Trump; that's their right.  I do mind when they start with a story that is most likely false and then push it as if it were not only true but important as well.  They know that the story is neither.  After all, suppose that President Trump and his military advisers have discussed a nuclear pre-emptive strike on North Korea.  In fact, I doubt that is much of a stretch; it is more likely a fact.  It doesn't mean that a nuclear strike either happened or is imminent.  Discussion of something is not the same as doing what is discussed.  Mueller is still on the job; he wasn't fired.  No matter how many times the morons like senator Blumenthal of Connecticut talk about how the White House is imminently going to interfere with Mueller, there is still not one iota of evidence that there has been any interference.  What matters is actions, not what is discussed.

In November and December of last year, the Democrats and the media convinced the nation that only the rich and big companies would get tax cuts and that the poor and middle class would pay for those cuts.  It was a lie, and the Dems and media knew it was a lie.  Now that the tax cut is law, there are going to be major cuts for about 80% of all Americans with the biggest percentage going to the middle class.  Polling this week shows that the American people are starting to realize that what the Dems and the media said was a lie, but there is still a slight majority of all Americans who think (wrongly) that they won't get a tax cut.  Pushing lies like this has become the new standard method of Democrat politics and media "reporting".  It's dangerous and disgusting.  Hopefully, the American people will see through it and reject the purveyors of this BS.

What the President Discussed Doing Last June -- OH MY!!

According to the New York Times, eight months ago President Trump discussed with the White House counsel that he wanted to have Robert Mueller fired.  The same report says that the White House counsel talked President Trump out of doing that.  After that report came out, the media has gone crazy with the story.  Tonight, I periodically checked both MSNBC and CNN, and each time I looked, this was the story they were covering.

Think what this means.  It seems pretty clear that the media is getting worried that the recent revelations of bias in the investigation by the FBI and the special prosecutor as well as texts that indicate actual criminal wrongdoing by the FBI agents will destroy the Mueller probe.  Something has to be done to divert attention from all of the recent revelations.  That's why a story about something that was discussed eight months ago but NEVER HAPPENED is now breaking forth across the media.

First of all, I don't even believe the story.  Who exactly is it who told the Times about what the President discussed with his lawyer?  I don't think it was Mr. Trump who leaked the news.  I also don't think that the counsel violated the confidences of his client by leaking them to the Times.  So who exactly is the source of this news?  Not surprising, the source mentioned by the Times is unidentified.  It has to be someone who wasn't even there to hear the discussions between the President and his counsel.  In other words, it has to be someone with no first hand knowledge. 

Second, why does it matter that a possible course of action was discussed but then never followed.  Mueller wasn't fired.  Mueller was even told that he might be fired. NOTHING HAPPENED.  Nevertheless, the media is treating this as real news.

So far today, there actually has been some big news.  The President is in Davos and met with some world leaders.  The text messages that the FBI said were lost and could not be retrieved were uncovered by the Inspector General after just a few days of effort.  That puts a spotlight on the lies the FBI is telling Congress.  The White House put forward its immigration plan especially with regard to the DACA people.  There's more, but that's enough.

Despite the existence of some real important news, the media is focused on this non-story about something that NEVER HAPPENED.  I really am tired of all the Fake News.

The Immigration Plan For DACA, Etc.

The White House has put forth the outline of its plan for DACA, border security and changes to the immigration laws.  It's the first step on immigration and sets the parameters of the sort of law President Trump would sign.  Most likely, something like this plan will be part of the law which will be brought up for a vote in the Senate this month.  The key features of the plan are as follows:

1. The 900,000 people who registered under DACA will get a path to citizenship over 10-12 years.  So too will another 900,000 people who either did not register or who are illegals brought here as children who could not qualify under DACA.

2.  There will be a trust fund established of roughly 25 billion dollars for the border wall and another batch of about 5 billion for enhanced enforcement by ICE.

3.  The green card diversity lottery will be ended and the places used for other immigration.

4.  Chain immigration will be limited to the spouse and minor children of a new immigrant.  The close to five million people who have already applied for admission under the current chain migration rules, however, will still be processed in under the old rules.

The response to the plan has been just what one would expect.  The Democrats have denounced it as dead on arrival.  The conservative Republicans have protested the expansion of DACA, the path to citizenship for people who came here illegally, and the continuation of those who have applied under chain migration but who have not yet come her.  In other words, partisans on both sides don't like the plan.

It remains to be seen what the Senate will do when the bill is put up for a vote.  Nevertheless, the plan seems like a compromise that should greatly improve our immigration programs.  Personally, I don't like the expansion of the DACA group; those who registered should be included.  Those who did not register should not get some sort of special consideration now.  I also would not let the old chain migration rules continue at all after passage of the law.  My complaints, however, do not change one basic fact:  this is a reasonable plan which demonstrates the good faith of the White House. 

Not Missing Anymore

Earlier this week, the FBI reported to Congress that text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page for the most critical part of the FBI involvement in possible anti-Trump scheming had somehow gone missing.  This was extremely troubling especially because a few months ago, the FBI told Congress that it had turned over all of the text messages.  Suddenly, the FBI mentioned that five months worth no longer existed.

Well that was a few days ago.  Since then, two senators wrote to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and others to demand information about what had happened to these missing texts and also to request that attempts be undertaken to recover the texts.  Today, the Inspector General wrote back to the senators to tell them that by using "forensic methods", the IG had been able to recover texts between the two conspirators during that period.

Think about this.  The group with the most sophisticated forensic staff in the country is the FBI.  Nevertheless, these super sleuths somehow couldn't seem to recover the missing text messages.  On the other hand, the Inspector General's staff who are not well versed in recovery of lost information took a day or two and managed to "recover" the missing text messages.  Does anyone doubt that the FBI didn't want to find these texts?  This was an attempted coverup, plain and simple. 

And Then There's This

I just wrote about senator Mark Warner, the Virginia Democrat who denounced a classified memo detailing wrongdoing by the Obama FBI, DOJ and White House as inaccurate and as proving nothing only to then admit that he hadn't seen the memo in question.  Pretty dumb, don't you think?  Then two minutes later, I came across an article that discusses how Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi is repeating her charge that the $1000 bonuses being given to nearly five million American workers as a result of the new tax law is nothing more than "crumbs".  (That's five billion dollars of "crumbs", Nancy.)  Former chair of the Democrat party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz then chimed in to say that $1000 really doesn't go very far.  Now to be fair, Pelosi and her husband are worth more than $50 million, so she really may think of $1000 as petty cash.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz is also extremely wealthy, so maybe she too thinks that $1000 bills are just things one uses to line the bottom of the bird cage.  Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine better evidence that the Democrats are totally out of touch with the ordinary American working family than these comments.  I doubt there are too many people across America who would pass up $1000 because it is such a small amount.

I've Just Learned That "Warner" is the German Word for Moron

Mark Warner is a Democrat senator from Virginia.  Earlier today, Warner told reporters that the memo put together by the House Intelligence Committee about wrongdoing by Obama era FBI, DOJ and White House personnel is "sloppy" and proves nothing.  Warner was then asked if he had read the memo, and he said he has not.

Sometimes I think I have realized the extent of the stupidity of the Democrats in Washington.  Then something like this happens, and I realize that I have just begun to scratch the surface.  The idiocy of Washington Democrats is boundless.

Is This a Skit on SNL?

Today in Davos, President Trump held meetings with other world leaders.  At his session with the Israeli Prime Minister, President Trump repeated that the USA would no longer just send aid to the Palestinians unless they return to serious peace negotiations.  The President had announced a few weeks ago that the USA would cut its funding to UNWRA, the agency that supports Palestinian "refugees" from the 1948 Israeli-Arab war.  Remember, that war ended about 70 years ago, so there aren't many still alive who were affected by it.  Nevertheless, UNWRA still classifies the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the Arab affect at the time as refugees and supports them.  Basically, it's like a right to perpetual income for them and their heirs.

When President Trump announced that the USA would cut about $200 million from its UNWRA contribution, the Palestinian Authority denounced the move and said that it would leave children starving.  That was less than a month ago.  Today, the same Palestinian Authority announced that they had just purchased a private jet for use by president Abbas.  The jet cost over $70 million.  That's equal to more than a third of the funding cut off by the USA.  It makes one wonder whether the Palestinian leadership cares at all about children needing food.

Then there's another story from yesterday.  Former secretary of state in the Obama administration, John Kerry, met with president Abbas and, according to people familiar with the conversation, told Abbas to hold out and not to give in to President Trump's demands.  Think of that.  Kerry is a private citizen now, and he is engaging in foreign policy as if he were still the head of the State Department.  That's a clear violation of the Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomacy.  More than the illegality of it, consider that we now have a former Democrat presidential candidate who is taking the anti-Trump hysteria to a point that he is trying to undermine the official foreign policy of the USA because it involves President Trump.

These are the sorts of things that no one would normally believe.  They sound more like a parody on Saturday Night Live than actual events.  But they are real!  Amazing!

Two Different Worlds

As the news moves on, it seems as if there are two different worlds in which Americans live.  In the first world, we have the mainstream media telling us all the time about the latest steps in the Mueller investigation of supposed Trump-Russia collusion.  To be fair, the Trump-Russia collusion story seems to have completely fallen apart, so Mueller's hit squad is now focused on possible obstruction of justice claims.  In this world, Mueller is closing in on Trump (although we still don't know for what) and as a result, the Republicans in Congress are dreaming up crazy attacks on Mueller and his team as well as on the FBI to divert attention and to subvert the investigation.  Then there's a seond world.  In this world, Congress has uncovered a mess of corruption at the FBI and within Mueller's team.  We hear that the FBI and the DOJ and perhaps president Obama himself used the law enforcement mechanisms of the US government to spy on the Trump campaign and transition team.  They also leaked all sorts of classified information and private conversations in order to orchestrate a campaign against Trump.  It seems that there was an organized effort at the FBI and DOJ at a minimum to overturn the decision of the American people to make Trump the President of the United States.  Now, it seems also that these plotters have been working to cover up their treasonous wrongdoing.

So which world is real and which is a fantasy?  So far, we've seen some evidence to support the second version, but there really isn't anything that supports the first.  The lack of evidence, however, does not seem to matter to the mainstream media and the Democrats; they just talk about overwhelming evidence, but never produce anything.  It may well be that we are about to witness the implosion of the main stream media narrative.  If so, that implosion will be so disastrous for the Democrats and many government workers, that we may soon see many of them with much bigger problems.

UPDATE:  For those who doubt the two worlds thesis, I call this to your attention.  On Monday, when the big news was that five and a half months of text messages between Strzok and his mistress Page are supposedly "missing", the total amount of coverage of the story on ABC, NBC and CBS evening news was zero.  They didn't cover the story.  They didn't report on how messages between two very senior FBI officials who were running an anti-Trump push at the Bureau just happened to be lost.  They didn't report on how the messages miraculously were found only for the period starting the day that the special prosecutor was appointed.  To call this fishy is an understatement.  It looks clearly like destruction of evidence by the FBI.  But the networks didn't think it merited coverage.  Proof of a like attack by the FBI on the elected president of the USA is destroyed, but CBS, NBC and ABC found other things to cover.

We Didn't Doubt It

Here's a recent tweet sent out by senator Dick Durbin of Illinois (who is the number 2 Democrat in the Senate leadership).

Dick Durbin‏Verified account @DickDurbin

I’m not going to let anything distract me from my singular mission: making sure that Dreamers have the protection and certainty about their future that they deserve.

 

Think about that for a moment.  The Democrats second in command in the Senate is focused solely on helping illegal aliens and won't be distracted by anything else.  That means healthcare, Social Security, national defense, infrastructure, economic development, jobs and law enforcement for American citizens are taking a back seat to helping some illegal aliens in the world of Dick Durbin.

 

The next time someone tries to tell you why the government was shut down by the Democrats, read them Durbin's tweet.  It explains everything.

The New Revisionism

The Democrats and the media have started to recover from the shock of the success of the tax cut law in generating major benefits for millions of average American workers.  We all have seen how literally millions of employees got large bonuses or higher wages as a direct result of the passage of the tax cuts.  Those bonuses began on the day the law was signed by President Trump.  As of now, between three and four million workers are getting bonuses of at least $1000.  Many others work for companies that raised pay, particularly for starting or low-level employees.  The tidal wave of raises has washed over the country and the while the media has not emphasized the phenomenon, they have had no choice but to report it.  Now, however, we are starting to see the excuses from the left wing about what the raises really are.  The new ploy is to say that the bonuses and raises are just the product of a tight labor market and that such a tight labor market is something for which president Obama deserves credit.  I've now seen four different articles that make this supposed "point". 

It's really sad that the Democrats and the media feel compelled to push a view that is so obviously at odds with the actual reality.  The law gets signed and within two days roughly 1.5 million workers get bonuses from multiple companies that credit the passage of the tax law as the reason for those bonuses.  That's the actual fact.  Now the "experts" are telling us on the mainstream media that despite what the companies say, the tax law and the raises were unrelated and the bonuses were just the inevitable result of things that Obama did years ago which had never before resulted in rising wages.  That's absurd.

I wonder if the "experts" who are pushing this political nonsense actually expect anyone to believe it.  I guess it is the same as the "experts" who credit Obama rather than Trump with the surge in the stock market which began the day after Trump won the election and continues until today. 

 

The Turks Continue To Attack The Kurds

In northern Syria, Turkish forces are attacking Kurdish militias.  That's a big problem for the USA since both the Turks and the Kurds are our allies.  It shouldn't be that big of a problem, however.  The Kurds fought valiantly with the USA and shouldered a principal burden in the fight against ISIS.  The Turks cooperated and did a little bit, but not much when it came to fighting ISIS.  During the Iraq War, the Kurds cooperated with the USA and their area of Iraq was the only one to be pacified without American bloodshed.  Simply put, the Kurds are America's friends.  They are also the only sizeable ethnic group in the region without their own state.  Indeed, it is the Turkish desire to suppress any chance for a Kurdish state that has led them to attack the Kurds now.

So what can the USA do?  First, we ought to be calling on Turkey to stop its attack immediately.  As a second step, we might tell the Turks that we may send forces to defend our allies the Kurds from any attack by other forces.  That can be coupled with advice to the Turks that we would also defend them should the Kurds attack.  In other words, we will defend any of our allies who are attacked.

The Kurds deserve their own state.  The USA should support this.  Hopefully, the threat of American intervention would stop the Turkish attack.  It's a high risk move, but America cannot just stand by and watch our friends and allies fight and kill each other.  In this case, the Turks are clearly in the wrong, and we should make that clear.

Something New In The Annals Of Good Faith

Senator Schumer let it be known today that he has taken his offer of money for construction of the border wall "off the table" in the DACA negotiations.  For the last six days, Schumer and his allies have been announcing that they offered money for the wall construction as part of an overall DACA deal.  Then came the shutdown and the miserable failure by Schumer to get what he wanted.  That was followed by total surrender by Schumer and the Democrats that reopened the government based upon a promise that there would be a vote soon on a DACA bill.  Normally, since the whole point of the Democrats' ill advised shutdown of the government was to get benefits for the DACA group of illegal aliens, one would think that the Dems would be trying to reach some sort of agreement with the Republicans so that a DACA measure could pass when put on the floor.  That would just be the exercise of normal good faith negotiations.  But there seems to be no good faith on the Democrat side.

Think about this.  Schumer is taking back something that might have led to agreement on DACA.  That pretty much guarantees that by the time the DACA bill is put on the Senate floor, it will not pass.  Will the Dems decide in three weeks to shut down the government again for the benefit of the illegal aliens?  That would be another mistake.  Is Schumer that poor a negotiator?  I don't think so.  Was his offer to fund the wall ever real?  I doubt that too.  This is just bad faith by Schumer.  He demands a deal on DACA and then takes steps to undermine the possibility that a deal will be achieved.  How two-faced can he be? 

Is The NFL Really Trying to Destroy Itself?

In the season that ends with the upcoming Super Bowl, the NFL found attendance at games down, TV ratings falling precipitously and team merchandise sales greatly diminished.  Many say that this is the result of the protests by players who kneel or sit during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner prior to the start of the games.  The league's response to these protests has been chaotic, but basically it has supported the players doing the protests despite the damage they are doing to the league's business.  Now, the NFL seems to have made yet another move that will repel huge numbers of fans.  The NFL sought an ad from a national veterans' organization, AMVETS, for the Super Bowl.  AMVETS produced an ad that simple asked fans to stand for the national anthem in honor of the vets who no longer can stand due to their wounds.  AMVETS was going to pay $30,000 to run the short ad.  The NFL, however, is refusing to run the ad.

Think about that.  The NFL was supposedly supporting free speech by players who knelt during the anthem.  When veterans who risked their lives for this country wanted to broadcast a simple and respectful message, however, the league is censoring them.  Super rich pampered NFL players get free speech in the NFL, but men and women who put their lives on the line to protect this country get censored.  Is the NFL kidding?

I have been a fan of the Eagles since I grew up in Philadelphia.  There is, however, no way that I am going to watch the Super Bowl if the NFL continues to disrespect our veterans.

Telling the Truth Is "Shameless"

The spin from the left regarding the government shutdown has gotten to the point where it no longer seems remotely realistic.  I offer as proof of this conclusion, an article in today's Boston Globe by Michael Cohen in which he blames the GOP for the shutdown and calls their argument that the Democrats were favoring illegal aliens over American citizens "shameless".

Think about it.  In the House, the GOP voted for a bill that funded the government for a month, and all the Democrats voted against it.  Fortunately, there were enough Republican votes for it to pass.  Then, in the Senate, all but three Republicans voted to pass that spending bill, but essentially every Democrat voted against it.  Since 60 votes were needed to pass the bill and there are only 51 Republicans, the Democrats were able to defeat the bill.  That caused a government shutdown.  So WHO caused the shutdown?  WHO voted against the spending bill?  WHO flipped their position yesterday so that the shutdown ended?  It was the Democrats.

And how about this supposedly shameless argument that the Democrats chose the DACA illegals over American citizens?  The result of the shutdown was that the CHIP program that provides healthcare to nine million poor kids ran out of money.  The Democrats blocked that.  Another result of the shutdown was that millions of government workers were furloughed.  The Democrats did that.  A third result was that anyone with business before the government had to wait unless it was an emergency situation.  Thanks again to the Democrats.  And why did the Democrats do this?  They were demanding that the Congress pass a new immigration law that protected the 900,000 DACA illegals (who, by the way, are protected through at least March 5, 2018.)  Indeed, the Democrats only flipped their view on the shutdown when the GOP leader agreed to put the DACA issue up for a vote in the next few weeks.  So, the clear truth is that the Democrats favored the DACA illegals over the ordinary American citizen.  It's not shameless to state the truth, even if that truth is that the Democrats acted like fools.  In other words, Cohen's spin is something that makes no sense.

A "Secret Society"

In a truly amazing story, it was revealed today that starting immediately after the 2016 election, there was a "secret society" within the FBI that was actively working to bring down then President-elect Trump.  The secret society is referenced in a great many text messages sent between high level FBI agents who were involved in the Hillary email investigation as well as the Trump-Russia investigation.  It's hard to believe.  The FBI is supposed to be non-partisan and to enforce even-handed justice.  The idea that there are agents who start with a political agenda and then work to achieve political goals through criminal investigations is abhorrent.

There is not yet any identification of all of the agents involved, although we know that agent Peter Strzok who among other things helped squelch the Hillary email investigation, was in the lead on the Trump-Russia investigation, and even was part of the Mueller special prosecutor investigation (until he was fired for blatant bias) is involved.  So too is his mistress Lisa Page.  It is also possible that Andrew McCabe who is the number 2 guy at the FBI took part.

All of these people have to be fired, and fired quickly.  Then there ought to be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate and prosecute any agents (or Justice Department personnel) who participated to see if they committed any crimes by doing this stuff.  There's no way that the FBI ought to investigate itself.

One thing is certain:  if anyone was wondering how there were so many leaks at the start of 2017 from the FBI, we surely now know the answer.

The Democrats Blink

In the world of bizarre news, Democrat senate leader Chuck Schumer just took to the floor of the senate to claim that the Democrats had not filibustered the continuing resolution or shut down the government in favor of illegal aliens.  It was a strange way to end a failed effort to manipulate the system to get what they wanted.  Fortunately, the GOP and President Trump responded by steadfastly stating that they would not negotiate a DACA fix while the Democrats kept the government closed.  This made it perfectly clear that the Dems were elevating the DACA illegals to a position more important than the 300 million plus American citizens who Congress represents.

I haven't seen any polls on the subject, but there is no doubt that the Dems got poll results showing that the public was blaming them for shutting down the government.  For once, the truth made its way past the talking points of the Dems and their mainstream media allies.  Even the media was forced to admit that the Dems had shut things down to force a deal on DACA.  Every American could then understand that he or she ranked second to the illegals in the view of the Democrats.

I'm surprised that the Dems blinked this fast.  I expected that it would take a few more days before they caved.  After all, if the news reports are correct, the Democrats got nothing in exchange for their caving on the continuing resolution other than a promise by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring a DACA bill to the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks allowing fair amendment and voting.  That's nothing.  Remember, there's no definition of what the DACA bill coming for a vote will include.  Remember further that the House also has to pass a DACA bill, and there's no commitment that the House will even consider a bill passed by the Senate.  As I said above, this is nothing but a fig leaf to allow Schumer to claim he got something when he did not.

It's good to see that the Democrats' government shutdown was such a failure for them.  Maybe this will end these shutdowns for a while.  If not, there will probably be a countdown clock until the next possible shutdown that CNN will put in the corner of its feed.

Sometimes It's Hard To Watch

I have a friend who watches the Sunday morning "news" shows like Meet the Press or Fox News Sunday.  I don't.  Usually, these shows are just guests who spew talking points and panelists who say exactly what one would expect about those talking points.  After reading the news during the week, is there really any benefit to watching purported "newsmakers" rehash their views once again on Sunday?  I don't think so.  My friend tells me that he watches because he learns things from those shows.  I think that's because he doesn't pay close attention the rest of the time.

The current shutdown is a good example of what I am talking about.  It was discussed on each of the Sunday shows.  I know that without even watching them.  But here's my question:  how many people speaking on these shows said that there were points being made by both sides in the dispute?  My guess is that the answer is zero.  Everyone who spoke either blamed the Democrats (correctly) for the shutdown or else blamed the Republicans (incorrectly).  Then we got a rehash of talking points.

If I am wrong, let me know.  I don't expect to hear from anyone.

Shutdown or Shakedown?

So far today, my household has received reports from the President on his position on the shutdown, updates from Republican as well as Democrat congressmen and senators on the same subject and a whole host of requests for contributions.  The shutdown is now a fund raising opportunity extraordinaire.

It never fails to amaze me that no matter what happens in Washington, there's always some politician who tries to use the event to get contributions.  Sure, the shutdown is important, but why should America give money to people who request it because they can't decide how to spend the public's money?

Still, I'm waiting for the request from Chuck Schumer which starts out "With the recent difficult in collecting the trash in the snow, we need your contribution..."

 

How Convenient

The FBI has informed Congress that five months of text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his mistress agent Lisa Page have "disappeared".  The dates in question are the five months prior to the appointment of Mueller as the special prosecutor.  Remember, Strzok is the guy who took the lead in the Hillary email investigation and dealing with the Trump dossier who told Page that they needed "insurance" for dealing with a possible Trump victory in the election.  Page worked directly for deputy director Andrew McCabe who was involved in writing early drafts of the exoneration of Hillary Clinton months before she was interviewed and also before about 25 other witnesses were questioned.  Oh, and McCabe is also the guy whose wife got three quarters of a million dollars in "contributions" from Clintonites for a state senate contest in Virginia.  (You have to wonder how many contests for the state legislature have million dollar budgets.)  So, text messages that one would think would have a great many indications of Strzok or Page leaking classified or confidential info to the media to embarrass Trump have just "disappeared".  As the Church Lady used to say on SNL, "How convenient!"

This really smacks of destruction of evidence by the Comey let FBI in order to cover up wrongdoing.  In fact, were this an actual civil lawsuit, the judge would instruct the jury that the "loss" of the evidence by the FBI should be construed by the jury as indicating that those text messages contained information damaging to Strzok and Page and the FBI.

It really is amazing to watch the FBI probe and the Mueller "investigation" melting down in front of our eyes.  I can't wait to see the memo by the House intelligence committee.  It may well be the final straw.

Nothing Like Open Societies

I had never heard of the new movie "Jungle" starring Daniel Radcliffe (who played Harry Potter in all those movies) until today.  That's when I read that the movie had been banned in Lebanon and some other Muslim countries in the Middle East.  I read the articles on the subject to see what the movie portrayed that was so dangerous that these Arab countries would ban it.  It turns out that the movie is the story of a hiker who gets lost in the jungle in Bolivia (in South America) and lives for three weeks while looking for a way out.  It surely doesn't seem like much of a threat to Lebanese society.  But here's the punch line:  the movie is based on a true story and the guy who was actually lost in the jungle is an Israeli.  That's why it is banned.

Image a society where a movie is removed from screens because someone it portrays comes from a country the censors don't like.  If we were on a college campus, I guess the administration would just call the movie "hate speech" and ban it for that reason.  In the real world, the idea that a movie is banned for a reason like this shows just how close-minded and bigoted these Arab countries really are.

Worth Looking At The Lies

With the ongoing government shutdown, it's important to keep the truth in sight and to get rid of the many lies floating around in the media.

1.  The overriding issue in this fight is the group of illegal aliens covered by DACA.  The Democrats have made clear that they have voted against funding the government because there is no fix for the DACA group included in the measure.  Think what this means.  The bill before the Senate which has already passed the House extends the healthcare program that covers over 9 million poor American children for six years.  The Democrats have said that they support extending the healthcare for poor children, but they are blocking the extension in order to favor the illegal aliens covered by DACA.  Will it take the deaths of children denied healthcare to get the Dems to move off their DACA effort? 
The bill also blocks the Obamacare Cadillac tax for this year.  That tax is a heavy charge assessed by the government on union workers who have very good health plans.  By blocking the bill, the Democrats are telling the working men and women who are union members that they are less important than the illegal aliens covered by DACA.  Imagine what those unions are going to say in the next election.  Then there's the basic functioning of the government.  The shutdown won't affect that many people for now, but it will still hit people across the country who need government services.  The Democrats are telling America that the illegal aliens covered by DACA matter to Democrats more than American citizens do.  And let's not forget the military.  Because of the government shutdown, our military is not getting paid.  They are also being denied things like the Armed Forces Network (which would have broadcast the NFL Championship games today) and the ability to call home for minimal cost.  Why do the Democrats think that illegal aliens covered by DACA are more important than our men and women in uniform?

2.  The Democrats are taking the position that the GOP is "using the CHIP program as a bargaining chip."  That's a whopper of a lie.  The House has passed an extention of this program for healthcare for poor children three times this session.  The first two times were done on a stand alone basis.  The last time was as part of this spending bill.  The Democrats in the Senate then blocked the spending bill.  Republicans want the healthcare for poor children in place.  That's hardly using it as a bargaining chip.  It's the Democrats who are holding the program hostage to get their way on DACA.

3.  There is no rush on DACA; the illegals covered by that program are safe until March 5 and probably beyond.  The order issued by President Trump ending the illegal Obama program that set up DACA only stops DACA on March 5, 2018.  Meanwhile, a federal court has issued an order staying enforcement of President Trump's order until the matter has been fully adjudicated.  The administration is appealing that stay to the Supreme Court, but even if SCOTUS takes the case, it will be unlikely to hear the argument and make a decision until many weeks or months after March 5th.  That means that not only are the Democrats pushing DACA a thereby elevating the welfare of less than a million illegal aliens over American citizens, but the illegal aliens are not even in imminent danger of deportation.

4.  There's a myriad of other excuses offered by Democrats but none of them have much support.  The truth is that the Democrats have decided to take a stand for the illegal aliens covered by DACA at to tell the rest of America (including 9 million poor kids who will lose health care) that they can go to hell.  It's a really evil move.

Good News On the Memo

The House Intelligence Committee has begun the process to declassify the memo outlining Obama FBI, and Obama DOJ violations of the law so that they could spy on the Trump campaign.  It will take about 20 work days to complete the process, but then America will get to see the truth.

The Left Loses It Totally

Yahoo News has an article now online that speculates that President Trump is having an affair with UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.  The article is quick to point out that it has no facts to back up the speculation.  It's just that Michael Wolff, the guy who wrote a book which he admits contains many lies, mentions at one point that there is a belief that the President is having an affair right now. 

The idea that a news organization would publish this sort of baseless stuff is truly insane.  Remember 2004 when none of the news media would publish the story of John Edwards affair and child until someone finally got pictures of Edwards leaving the woman's home late at night?  Then the media needed proof before publishing salacious stories about a national figure.  When Bill Clinton was having sex in the Oval Office with an intern, the media was also silent for a long period until finally proof was brought forward.  Today, a man puts a rumor with no name connected to it in a book he says is filled with lies.  There's no proof that the rumor is true, but the media rushes to print it and add in the name of the likely woman even though there's not one bit of evidence to support that claim.

I know that media hates President Trump.  Nevertheless, common decency and good journalistic practices at least require that there be some basis for the story. 

Think of it this way:  suppose the New York Post were to write that it is rumored that Chuck Schumer is sleeping with Dick Durbin?  There's no proof of that or even anything that indicates it might be true.  Is it okay for there to be an article on Page Six under the headline "Schumer likes Dick"?  I don't think so. 

The mainstream media is totally losing it.

Has The Sky Fallen Yet?

The government is shut down -- okay, partially shut down.  Have you noticed any effect from the shutdown yet?  If you have, I suspect you're lying.

The reality is that the partial shutdown of the federal government really doesn't affect much.  The biggest thing about the shutdown is that the media can't seem to stop talking about it.

The Weird Moments in Washington

The government shutdown idiocy is going full tilt on all the news networks.  It's a strange mess.  Think about it for a moment.  The House bill funds the government; the Democrats say that they are in favor of that.  The House bill extends medical care for about 9 million poor children under the SCHIP program; the Democrats say that they are in favor of that.  The House bill postpones the start of the Cadillac tax on high cost, mostly union, health plans; the Democrats say that they are in favor of that.  The House bill postpones the medical device tax; the Democrats say that they are in favor of that too.  That's the entire bill; in other words, the Democrats say that they are in favor of the whole thing, and yet, the Democrats are all voting against it so that the government will shut down.

Supposedly, the Democrats want the bill to address DACA, but there's no proposed legislation even written on DACA.  There are ongoing negotiations between GOP and Democrat Congressmen and Senators which supposedly are on track to get a deal by the March 5 deadline, but the Democrats demand something be passed now.

So what does this mean?  Nine million poor children will lose their healthcare, but the Democrats can tell them that some illegal aliens who are safe at least until March 5 maybe will get an earlier decision on their future.  A million government workers will be furloughed, but the Democrats can tell them that some illegal aliens who are safe at least until March 5 maybe will get an earlier decision on their future.  The soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen of our armed forces won't be getting paid, but the Democrats can tell them that some illegal aliens who are safe at least until March 5 maybe will get an earlier decision on their future.  Millions of union workers will get hit with new Obamacare taxes on their health plans, but the Democrats can tell them that some illegal aliens who are safe at least until March 5 maybe will get an earlier decision on their future.

It's truly bizarre that the Dems have chosen to fight on this bill that is composed only of things they claim to support.  It's even weirder that the Dems are fighting on an issue on which there is more than ample time to achieve a resolution through already ongoing negotiations.

 

Dick Blumenthal Crosses the Line

Here's a tweet senator Dick Blumenthal sent out a few minutes ago:

Republicans could have taken the bipartisan approach Americans want and deserve. Instead, they’re using kids’ healthcare as a bargaining chip, leaving #Dreamers in limbo, and pushing us toward a #TrumpShutdown. This is what failed leadership looks like.

 

Blumenthal frequently is dishonest in his tweets, but this one really crosses the line.  It's outrageous.  Let me explain:

 

The House yesterday passed a government funding bill that, in addition to paying for government operations, reauthorizes the SCHIP program which provides medical care for almost ten million poor children across the USA.  The Republicans put that reauthorization of the kids health program into the bill because several states are about to run out of money and shut down the program in their states.  That would deprive the poor kids of healthcare.  Extending the program is a responsible move to make sure that these kids keep their healthcare.  Now Dick Blumenthal is criticizing the GOP for reauthorizing that program.  You need to understand that Blumenthal has been tweeting and releasing statements for many months how he is "fighting for" these poor kids and will do all he can to make sure their health care continues without interruption.  Nevertheless, when all that is needed to get that healthcare reauthorized is for the Senate to vote to also fund the government, Blumenthal not only is going to vote against it, but he also is criticizing the Republicans for even putting the healthcare provision in the funding bill.  All Dick cares about is the illegal aliens covered by DACA who have months until they could be affected.

 

Blumenthal is aptly named; he truly acts like a real Dick.

 

Funding the Government

The House voted last night for a one month extension of government funding.  Now that bill is in the Senate.  The bill also extends the program for funding medical care for about six million poor children for six years.  It also temporarily stops two Obamacare taxes, namely the medical device tax and the so-called Cadillac tax on some really high cost plans (mostly covering union workers).  One would think that this is a plan which the Democrats would love.  They supposedly care about sick children, especially poor sick children.  If the plan does not pass, medical care for some of these kids will be cut off.  The Dems also supposedly care about union workers; helping them avoid high taxes on their medical benefits should appeal to them as well.  And the Dems also supposedly want the government to continue working in all aspects; remember, next to minorities, the biggest supporters of the Democrats are government employees.  Nevertheless, the Democrats plan to filibuster this bill and block it from passage.  They say that they are going to block the bill because it does not address the DACA issue.  Of course, the DACA program is in place for another two months whether or not the bill passes, so there is plenty of time to deal with it.  That means that the Democrats have chosen the 800,000 illegal aliens covered by DACA over the six million poor kids and the many millions of union workers and the entire American people who will be affected by the government shutdown.  And it means that the Dems will force the shutdown over an issue that doesn't need to be decided for another two months.

Personally, aside from the medical care for the children, I don't think there is much of importance that will be affected by a government shutdown.  That, however, is not what the Democrats say.  They talk about the shutdown as if it is the end of the world.  So why are the Democrats favoring 800,000 illegals over the rest of the American people?

Release the Memo

There is a classified memo produced by the House Intelligence Committee which details the genesis of the Trump dossier, the misuse of FISA warrants by the Obama FBI and DOJ to permit surveillance of the Trump campaign and many other related items.  Those who have seen the document say that it is a bombshell and could lead to the firing or prosecution of a number of FBI and DOJ officials.  The committee just voted to release the document for viewing by all House members.  If you wonder what is in the document, all you need to know is that every Democrat on the committee voted to keep the information from their fellow House members.  It's hard to imagine them voting against showing the document to the other members of the House unless it truly does contain some very major damaging information to the endless Democrat campaign against the President.  Right now, the document is classified.  There are only two ways that this could be changed:  the House could vote to declassify it or President Trump could declassify it.  There is talk that there could be a vote in the House as early as today to declassify the memo; that would lead to its release in probably less than five seconds.

We have watched the Trump-Russia investigation go on and on for a year or more with absolutely no evidence of collusion ever being brought forward.  Now, we most likely have the results of an investigation that has documentary proof that the whole Trump-Russia collusion was a dirty trick dreamed up by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.  The country needs to know that; they need to understand just how disgustingly underhanded Hillary and the Dems really are.  RELEASE THE MEMO!!

Maybe They Were Embarrassed

I've written twice before about the polling on the generic congressional ballot, the poll that asks voters "if the election for Congress were today, would you vote for the Republican or the Democrat candidate?"  For some reason, Quinnipiac has come forth with polling results that cannot be correct considering the results on the same question in polls done by many other organizations.  Just last week, Quinnipiac released a poll that showed Democrats with a 17% lead while the other pollsters had the lead around 5 or 6%.  Now, today, Quinnipiac is out with a new poll taken in a period just three days later than the last one.  This time, Quinnipiac found a lead for the Democrats of 11%.  That's right, supposedly in three days the country shifted 6% towards the Republicans.  That's interesting since the news during those three days was all about whether or not President Trump called certain countries "shitholes", hardly a story likely to result in a major move towards supporting Republican candidates for Congress.

It seems pretty clear to me that Quinnipiac has realized that its bogus polls were just too far from the others; they just looked ridiculous.  That is why the margin suddenly shifted by such a big amount in a period when there was no reason for the shift.  To me, the big shift makes it absolutely certain that Quinnipiac is not polling, but rather trying to create Fake News so that the media can write about how the Democrats are a lock to win Congress in November.

California Will Fall Under The Supremacy Clause

There's a new criminal law in California that prohibits employers from helping ICE agents.  That's a simplistic way of putting it, but it is accurate enough.  The state says that if ICE agents ask about the immigration status of an employee (which the employer is legally bound to obtain at the time the person is hired), the employer cannot give that information to ICE absent a warrant or other requirement of federal law.  There's a whole host of other restrictions on the employers as well.  The new California attorney general who supports illegals over everyone else announced today that his office will prosecute employers who "assist" ICE in any immigration sweeps.  But there's a big problem here.  Federal law takes precedence over state laws.  Making a false statement to or obstructing any investigation of an ICE agent is a federal crime.  Under federal law, employers have to obtain an I-9 form from every employee, maintain those forms and produce them for inspection by ICE agents on three days notice (or sooner if there is a warrant produced.)  California cannot prohibit employers from following federal law.

This whole things smacks of just another bit of virtue signaling by California liberals which will ultimately be shot down by the courts.  What a waste of time.

The Really Just Don't Get It

There's an article at The Week today by lefty Paul Waldman headlined, "How Trump convinced America that character doesn't matter".  It's an amazing bit of delusional thinking.  Supposedly, President Trump has convinced the country that the character of the president is irrelevant, and that is why the media hardly covers the subject at all.  Really, Waldman argues that the media doesn't cover Trump's supposed character flaws.  I laughed for ten minutes after I read that howler.

In the last year, the mainstream media has covered in minute detail every supposed character failing of the President, no matter how silly or irrelevant.  Remember the news cycles devoted to the "expose" that Trump had two scoops of vanilla ice cream at a White House dinner while everyone else just got one scoop?  Oh, the horror!  And how about the outrage when Trump tweeted "covfefe" in an obvious typo which the media portrayed as everything from proof of racism to a harbinger of mental breakdown.  Those big character flaws got coverage along with a whole host of other imaginary failings of the President.

But let's be clear.  There is no question that President Trump acts in a different way from the typical politician of the past.  For the left, Trump's failure to speak in the platitudes of Obama while doing next to nothing is a character flaw.  For Trump, and for millions of Americans, it's results that matter, not saying things nicely. 

And while we're at it, remember that when it came to failings of character, it was Hillary Clinton who gave new meaning to the concept of a dishonest politician.  She was the one who used the Clinton Foundation to shake down tens of millions of dollars from people with business in front of the State Department when she headed that organization.  Hillary was the one who illegally stored classified information on a private unsecured computer system, a move that put America's national secrets as well as our fighting forces at risk.  If anyone convinced America that character doesn't matter, it was Hillary Clinton, because next to her, Trump was pure as the driven snow.

Shutting Down The Government

For what seems to be the fiftieth time in the last decade, the media is hyperventilating over the potential government shutdown if Congress doesn't pass another funding measure by Friday night.  All I can say is "who really cares?"  Remember, a government shutdown isn't really a shutdown.  Essential government services and expenditures will continue, and the person with total power over what constitutes essential service and expenditures is the Democrats' worst nightmare:  President Trump.  If the President says that it is essential that our men and women in uniform get paid; then they will get paid.  If he decides that border security is essential, then ICE and the border guards will be there.  If the President says that most of the regulatory bodies are not needed, then those edifices of the so called Deep State will shut temporarily.  Sure, the National Parks will likely be closed -- although most of them don't have many visitors in the winter either.  The grants to university professors researching things like the effect that smoking has on possums will also be halted (which will probably be a good thing for those possums.)  The reality is that nearly everything that will be affected will truly NOT be essential (although the media/Democrats will portray it otherwise.)

Remember, Medicare and Social Security will go on as usual.  So will Medicaid.  The reality is that the people who will be most affected are people who generally strongly support the Democrats and rely on the government.  Amazingly, the Democrats will be forcing this shutdown and inflicting this problem on their own supporters.

The truth is that there isn't really going to be shutdown.  If it were to come, I would hope that the President would make a speech to the nation and explain how this came to pass and what his plans for dealing with it are.  A direct statement to the American people would let Mr. Trump make clear who caused this mess.  That is not a fight that the Democrats will ultimately want to have (in my opinion.)  But hey, you never know!

The Delusional World of the Media

I just read an article by Matt Bai on Yahoo News.  Now I understand that Yahoo News describes everything in the terms of the ultra-progressive left of the Democrat party, but this article still is important for what it reveals about that group.  Bai's premise is that if the Democrats have large numbers of candidates seeking the presidency in 2020, it will destroy the party just like the large field on the Republican side in 2016 destroyed the GOP.  I'm not making that up.  In 2016, the Republicans won the White House, the Senate, and the House as well as two-thirds of the governors and a large majority of the state legislatures.  Bai considers that the destruction of the Republican party.  I wonder what he would consider a Republican success?  Most likely, the answer is if the GOP were to adopt all of the Democrats' views and remain a permanent minority.

It's hard to discuss things with someone who cannot recognize the reality around him or her.  For the far left, it is an entire group that somehow cannot seem to understand reality.  If someone like Bai actually thinks that 2016 "destroyed" the GOP (and I do not doubt the sincerity of his view), then there's no possibility of having a rational debate about issues.  That's one of the biggest problems in Washington right now.

Now It's Apple

Apple announced today that it expects to invest over 30 billion dollars in the USA over the next five years creating over 20,000 new jobs as a result of the new tax law.  This is just the latest very good news that is coming from the recently passed tax law.  This is just the sort of investment and job creation that the Democrats and media "experts" told us would never happen if the tax law were passed.  Boy were they wrong!

The key here is that Apple is not a company that would announce this sort of action to help President Trump or the GOP.  In fact, much of the tech community has been anti-Trump for the last year.  My guess is that Apple is downplaying what will actually be done.  Most likely, the news is even better.

More Proof of Polling Bias

Last week, I wrote about the polling bias being displayed by Quinnipiac in its generic congressional ballot polls.  That pollster gave the Democrats a 17 point lead when registered voters were asked whether they would vote for a Republican or Democrat candidate for
Congress.  The other polls showed a much lower margin, indeed a margin that could not be statistically blended with the Quinnipiac poll.  In fact, for the last few months, Quinnipiac has consistently put out ridiculous polls on the subject which were totally out of whack with the results from other pollsters.

Since that poll by Quinnipiac last week, two other pollsters have come out with polls on the same question.  These two polls put the margin for the D's over the R's at 5.5%.  It's just more proof that Quinnipiac is cooking the books on its polls.  It's settled statistics that these polls and the Quinnipiac monstrosity cannot both be correct.

Anyone want to bet that the next poll on the issue from Quinnipiac will show an even bigger margin for the Dems?  I think it will.  Quinnipiac is trying to make it seem as if the 2018 is already over and the D's have won.  Of course, that ploy didn't work too well in 2016.

How Predictable

This morning, I heard CBS radio news report about charges that New York State Senator Jeff Klein has been accused by a former staffer of forcibly kissing her outside a bar in Albany a few years back.  Let's forget about the accuracy or the gravity of the charge or why the two were outside a bar in the evening.  Let's focus instead on the media for a moment.  The report was about 90 seconds long, which for news radio makes it a major story.  I listened closely, and do you know the one thing that the reporter never mentioned?  Jeff Klein is a Democrat.  Somehow, the reporter managed to omit that fact.  Klein is actually a leader of an important caucus of NY Senate Democrats.

Why is it that even in a story like this the pro-Democrat bias of the media has to shine through.  We all know that if it were a Republican who had been charged, his party affiliation would have been mentioned at least two times.  It's just another manifestation of the source material for Fake News.

The Truth vs. The Democrats/Media

I've written many times about how the Democrats and the mainstream media were lying about the effects of the new tax cut law in order to oppose that measure for political purposes.  Not a single Democrat voted for the cuts and they all derided them as completely ineffective in helping middle income and poor Americans.  Well now, after only a few weeks since the passage of the law, the reality of the tax cuts is starting to hit home.  The Washington Free Beacon put together an interesting video which shows both the phony media/Democrat claims and the actual reality of what is happening.  It's worth the two minutes to watch it.

 

A Development Under the Radar

Here's another development in the Middle East and South Asia that should not be missed:  the Israeli Prime Minister is currently visiting India with a huge, high-level delegation mainly to promote economic/trade cooperation between the two countries.  The links between India and Israel have been slowly building for some time now, but this trip, which follows the visit by the Indian Prime Minister to Israel last year, greatly expands the relationship.  For many years, India followed its Islamic neighbors and kept its distance from Israel.  Now, Prime Minister Modi has decided that India will follow the behind the scenes warming of Israel's relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and other Arab countries, but that India will do so openly.  There is now substantial economic and even military cooperation between the two countries.

India is about to be the world's most populous country.  In just a few years, it will have the world's third largest economy.  Without a doubt, having India as a friend will a great asset to Israel.  Indeed, that friendship can serve as a counterweight to the hostility projected by Iran towards Israel (and every Sunni Muslim country as well).  The possibilities this opens up are big enough that they could alter in a major way the strategic balance in the Middle East.

What's Next? "They all look alike?"

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo seems to have trouble remembering the name of the Principal Deputy White House Spokesman, Raj Shah.  This morning on the air, Cuomo called Shah "Raj whatever his name is".  Earlier today, Cuomo called him just "Raj" and Cuomo did the same thing during an interview of Corey Lewandowski last Friday.  It can't be that CNN has been unable for four days to get Raj Shah's full name to Cuomo.  This is either intentional by Cuomo or it is an illustration of just how much of a moron Cuomo is.  No one seems to be calling out Cuomo for his disrespect for Raj Shah.  I wonder what Cuomo's excuse would be.  My guess, knowing it's Cuomo, is that he would just say "they all look alike."  In Cuomo's media world, racism is fine so long as the target works for Donald Trump.

What Utter Nonsene

There's an article in the Wall Street Journal that announces that the late Justice Scalia spoke favorably of the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump.  Oh, the horror!  A Supreme Court Justice supported Trump?  How could that be?  Or, putting the story into simple English, one of the members of the Supreme Court liked Trump, as did over sixty million other Americans.  Big Whoop!

Why is it news that Scalia liked Trump?  Would the Journal run a story that Justice Ginsburg supported Hillary (or Bernie)?  Nope.  No one would care.  Only in the world of the media where President Trump is somehow beyond the pale would an article like this one about Scalia be written.  It is an indication of just how out of touch the media truly is.

Manning The Barricades

In the "You won't believe this" section of today's news, Chelsea Manning has filed to run for the senate in Maryland.  The seat is now held by Ben Cardin and has been considered a safe Democrat seat.

For those who don't remember, Chelsea Manning used to be Bradley Manning.  Manning was the soldier who released enormous amounts of classified documents and was tried and convicted and sentenced to prison.  Despite the treasonous act, Manning was pardoned by president Obama just before Obama left office.  Oh, and while in prison, Manning got a sex change and became Chelsea rather than Bradley.  Maybe Chelsea was hoping for some motherly love from Hillary Clinton.

In any event, with Manning in the race, it will be interesting to see if any of the far left in Maryland decides to support the traitor rather than the current senator.  Were Manning to pull off the feat of winning the Democrat primary, it would make it possible for the GOP to win the seat.  I doubt either event will occur, but it is still interesting to consider.

So Much For The "New" Hamas

The Hamas terrorists who control the Gaza Strip in the Middle East supposedly turned over a new leaf some months ago.  The reached a "reconciliation" with the Palestinian Authority run by president Abbas.  Hamas also reached an accord with the Egyptian government of president Sisi.  Hamas claimed to be more "moderate" than it had been.  Now we learn that the moderation was all just another lie.  Over the last few months, the Israelis have discovered and destroyed four terror tunnels dug from the Gaza Strip into Israel and Egypt.  Israel has destroyed each of these tunnels.  The latest one was attacked last night by the Israeli Air Force.  Planes bombed the entrance of the tunnel in southern Gaza.  It stretched about a mile into Israel and then on into Egypt.  The tunnel was designed to permit weapons and soldiers to go from Gaza into Israel and also into Egypt.

What did this latest tunnel mean?  First, the tunnel confirms that Hamas is working with ISIS in the Sinai province of Egypt.  Hamas was actually sending weapons to the ISIS terrorists to be used against the local Egyptian police and military forces.  Second, the tunnel confirms that Hamas was still preparing for major terror attacks against local Israeli populations.

There is no way to explain four tunnels being discovered other than to conclude that Hamas is still preparing for terror against both Israelis and Egyptians.  The Hamas people claim that the latest tunnel was just for smuggling, but those who discovered it say that it was specifically designed to accommodate missiles.  It was not a smuggling tunnel.

There is now a fear in the region that Hamas may soon attack before all of its tunnels are destroyed.  The Israelis have a new system that is working quite well to discover the locations of these tunnels.  Hamas has taken money designed for rebuilding Gaza and relief for local populations and used the funds instead to build the terror tunnels.  The Hamas leadership is now watching all that work being destroyed.  Hopefully, they won't decide to use what they still have before it is lost.

It's worth keeping in mind that some of the funds used by Hamas in this effort came through UNWRA.  That's the agency of the UN that President Trump just cut off from American funding.  It certainly sounds like a good move.  Why should the USA send cash that Hamas used to build terror tunnels?

The Pollsters Are At It Again

I've written in the past about the huge differences in polls on the same question taken at about the same time.  Well, it's happening again.  In the last week, four pollsters asked voters which party they will vote for in the next congressional election.  This so called "generic congressional vote" question is a mainstay of the political pollsters.  Three of the four polls questioned registered voters while one questioned adults.  The results were all over the place.  The Democrats were ahead in all polls, but the margins were by 5, 7, 9 and 17 percent.  Normally, polls of adults show a higher performance by Democrats, but in that poll, the margin was 9 percent. 

So how can this be?  There is no way to square the poll that found a 5% margin with the one at 17%.  The difference is much more than the margin of error.  Quinnipiac at 17% seems to clearly be wrong.  The two polls of registered voters at 5 and 7% are reasonably close.  They line up with the poll of adults at 9%, because polls of adults normally show better results for the Democrats.  It's just the one at 17% that seems way out of line.

And what does this mean for the election itself?  The real question if how a poll of likely voters would come out.  At this point, none of the polls question likely voters.  We do know, however, that the normal result, especially in midterm elections, is that likely voters are more Republican than registered voters and much more Republican than polls of adults.  That would put the actual margin among likely voters at 3 or 4% for the Democrats.  In other words, as of now, the outcome of the elections is still far from decided.

That leaves the question of how Quinnipiac could put out a 17% poll.  If this were a one-time aberration, we could chalk it up to a poor sample or some mistake.  This, however, is a consistent result in the Quinnipiac polling.  For the last four months, Quinnipiac has been showing a double digit lead for the Democrats in this generic congressional poll, while all other polls save one were in single digits.  Quinnipiac is clearly showing a bias or else there is a massive mistake by every other polling organization for the last half year.  My guess is that Quinnipiac is skewing its polls.