An Inability To Accept Defeat

Since impeachment is now about over and the Democrats have not only lost but lost bad, I decided to look at MSNBC to see how they were taking the defeat.  It was amazing.  I mean I know that the Dems and the media couldn't accept 2016, but that was a surprise that they weren't expecting.  The loss in the impeachment trial is something that anyone with a brain was expecting.  Nevertheless, the panel I watched on MSNBC just couldn't believe (or at least that's what they said) that Trump had won.  Even worse, they started raving.  I know that sometimes people write in colorful language to make a point, but I'm not doing that here.  The MSNBC crowd was truly raving.

Here's a good example:  a guy who is a former undersecretary of state (in other words a swamp dweller) "explained" to the audience that Trump had to be removed before he could have foreigners swing the 2020 election to him just like he did in 2016.  We had a two plus year investigation of the 2016 election by Robert Mueller and his all Democrat crew, and after that investigation, Mueller had to conclude that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.  It doesn't matter.  The facts don't matter.  The truth doesn't matter.  No, a former undersecretary of state says Trump will bring in foreign influence AGAIN into our next election.

It makes me wonder what the Dems are going to say after the November election when Trump wins again?  My guess is they will all shout "The dog ate our candidates' votes.  We need a do over."

Why Can't The Left Tell The Truth?

As a nation we've had to endure two and a half years of lies from the Democrats and new media (same thing) about how the President colluded with Russia in 2016.  That ended and we moved right into more lies about Ukraine and impeachment.  Those lies went on even after the transcript of the phone call with the Ukrainian president was released.  People like Adam Schiff just made up their own script and tried to replace the actual words with phony ones.  Then they lied about the urgency of passing the impeachment vote.  Nancy Pelosi said it was a matter of national security to rush it through.  Of course, then Pelosi waited for a month to bother to send the articles of impeachment on to the Senate.  I wonder why she didn't sign them while wearing a tee shirt that said, "Ok, so I'm a LIAR"  There's so many more lies.

But the Democrats haven't confined their lies to dealing with President Trump.  In my state of Connecticut we elected a governor in 2018 who promised he was against putting tolls on highways.  Very early in the campaign, he had mentioned that tolls were likely, but when people started asking about them, he backed away and promised that he would never support tolls.  Within a month or so of taking office, however, he started pushing for tolls.  There was a massive outpouring of opposition, but today the legislature is going to vote on a plan for, you guessed it, TOLLS.  The strange thing is that supposedly tolls are needed because the state doesn't have enough money to fix the roads and bridges.  Connecticut, however, has a gasoline tax that is dedicated by law to road and bridge repair.  It raised billions, but then the Democrats in Hartford took the money and spent it on other items that had nothing to do with roads.  Now, they hide that fact and claim the state is running short.

The problem with lies is getting worse.  In New York City, they announced a plan to combat congestion on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway.  They actually called for eliminating one of the three lanes so that there would only be two remaining.  That will REDUCE congestion, or so these morons claim with a straight face.

Isn't it time for people to catch on to the fact that these are lies?

Here's a New One For Bernie

It's just a few days until the Iowa caucus, so we're getting all the last minute garbage that the Democrats are famous for.  Of course, this time they're using it against each other.

Today, interviews surfaced from the 1970s in which Bernie Sanders praised George Wallace.  For those who don't remember him, George Wallace was the Democrat governor of Alabama who ran for president in 1968 on the slogan "Segregation Forever".  Wallace was an unrepentant racist.  There was an attempt to assassinate him in 1972 that left Wallace confined to a wheel chair for the rest of his life.

It's hard to imagine that something Sanders said in an interview nearly 50 years ago could make much difference, but with today's cancel culture, it just might.

I wonder what's the next dirty trick coming from the Dems?

Will it leak that Warren used to be a man?
Will we hear that mayor Pete is actually only 22?
Has Joe Biden been diagnosed with Alzheimers?

Stay tuned.

Twisting, Twisting, Twisting

Yesterday's big headline from the Q & A session at the impeachment circus seems to be about an answer that Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz gave regarding whether or not a "quid pro quo" is necessarily an impeachable offense.  The media has twisted his response to such an extent that an explanation is needed.

The President has a job to do.  The Constitution sets the broad outlines of that job.  Among other things, the President runs US foreign policy.  The President is to act in what he believes to be in the best interest of the USA.  If he is doing that, the Constitution makes clear that he is not committing an act for which he could be impeached.  For example, if the President tells Mexico that he will put tariffs on Mexican goods imported into the USA unless Mexico stops the caravans of illegal aliens crossing from Central America to the USA, the President is doing what he believes is in the best interest of the USA.  The Democrats in Congress may disagree with the President as to what is in the best interest of the USA, but the Constitution does not provide for them to impeach the President because they disagree in that way.  The President is just doing his job; he's running foreign policy.  If this threat to Mexico helps the President with his base in his re-election bid, it doesn't matter.  He is still doing his job and it is not impeachable.  Indeed, essentially everything a first term president does is going to help (or hurt) his re-election chances.

Applying this to Ukraine and the investigation of the Democrats and of the Bidens, the rules don't change.  There is an obvious issue of whether or not Joe Biden acted corruptly by misusing the power of his office to force a Ukrainian prosecutor out of office in order to protect Hunter Biden.  Were the President to tell the Justice Department to investigate the matter, it is a valid exercise of his role as head of law enforcement.  When he asks Ukraine for help in such an investigation, it is a valid performance of his job as president.  Whether or not the President does this and it also might help in his bid for re-election is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is an impeachable offense. 

That's a long way of restating what Dershowitz, in fact, told the senators.

This Is a Total Mess In New York

2020 is only four weeks old, but the early results are in on the effect of the new "bail reform" law passed by Democrats in New York.  During the first days of 2020, smash and grab robberies in New York City are up by 30 % over the same period last year.  This is the most common kind of street robbery.  A thug runs up to someone carrying something, pushes that person and grabs whatever he or she was carrying.  Most often, the target is a woman whose purse is taken. 

The key here is that on January 1 of this year, the Democrats new bail law went into effect.  In New York, someone who is caught after committing a misdemeanor or even a felony where no one was seriously injured cannot be held in jail awaiting bail.  The arrested person must now be released without bail on his or her own recognizance.  In essence, the criminal suspect just gets released back into society based upon nothing more than a promise to show up.

There have been many prominent stories about the effect of this crazy law.  There was the woman who attacked a Jewish mother and her child in the street, slapping them while screaming "take that Jews."  The court followed the law and released the perpetrator immediately.  On the next day, the perpetrator attacked another woman on a street in the same neighborhood.  The perpetrator was again released.  This time it took a few days before the perpetrator was arrested for yet another attack.  This time the perp was not released but was sent for psychiatric evaluation.

Then there is the guy who robbed four banks before he was arrested.  Under the crazy new bail law, he was released immediately.  Later that same day, the guy robbed another bank.

The Democrats have been pushing for this law for many years based upon the claim that bail is "racist" and is unduly harsh on criminals.  When the Democrats finally took control of the NY State Senate last year, they pushed through this new law which had been blocked by the Republicans in the State Senate for many prior years.

The individual stories about perps who get released to commit more crimes are good fodder for the press.  The new statistics, though, are general proof of just how bad the new law has been for New York City.  In the first month of the new law, there have been 30% more street robberies.  That kind of increase is amazing, and this was just the first month. Imagine what the criminals will be doing by the fourth of fifth month when they know that even if they get caught, there will not be any real consequences for them.

The Democrats have put the entire state at risk with this harebrained scheme.

Polls on the Shoals

Two days ago, I wrote about how the polling for the Iowa caucus was all over the lot.  Today we got yet another poll with yet another result.  This time the Iowa State University poll says that the race is between Sanders and Warren.  Bernie is at 24%, Warren at 19% with Mayor Pete at 17%, Biden at 15% and Klobuchar at 11%.  This is all further confirmation that the polls don't tell us who is leading or by how much. 

The Trump Plan For Israel and the Palestinians Already Rejected by Abbas

The late Abba Eban of Israel once said that "the Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity."  The Palestinians are proving again that Eban was correct.  The Palestinian leadership (so called) has already rejected the Trump peace plan that was released today.  In fact, president Abbas of the Palestinian Authority announced that he rejected the Trump plan about two months ago before he even knew what was in that plan.  Today's rejection was just repeating what Abbas had previously said.

It's sad.  The Palestinians could really improve their lives were they to make peace.  But agreeing to peace means that Israel continues to exist and Jews continue to live in the Holy Land.  Abbas and his group simply cannot accept that outcome.  Instead, the Palestinian leadership wants to keep its people without their own state just so that they can continue their futile fight with Israel.

The Trump plan represents a good faith effort to put together a realistic plan that ought to have been a great jumping off point for further negotiations.  The Israelis have already accepted that concept.  Once again, it is just intransigence from the Palestinians who cannot give up their hatred that has scuttled the deal.

For Whom The Tolls Toll

I've lived in Connecticut for nearly four decades.  When my family and I first moved in, there were tolls on the Turnpike and some of the parkways.  It was always a mess.  Traffic backed up all the time at the toll plazas.  Thousands of cars inched along waiting to pay tolls, all the while spewing extra exhaust into the atmosphere.  Then there were those drivers who went around the toll plazas.  Since there was a toll plaza in my town, there were also frequent traffic jams as cars and trucks got off the Turnpike to use local roads so as to avoid the toll plaza.  When there were back ups at the toll plazas, the local roads also became super jammed.  We had frequent traffic messes on our streets that were unique because the majority of cars had out-of-state licenses.  Also, many times we could hear trucks roar by on Route 1 in the middle of the night as the truckers went around the Turnpike toll plaza.

Next week, the Democrats in Hartford are trying to push through a proposal to put tolls back on CT highways.  This time, it is supposedly a toll only on trucks.  Let's forget for the moment if such a plan is legal or likely to bring in much revenue.  In fact, the Democrats won't even give us estimates of the amount of tolls they expect this new measure will bring in.  Let's focus instead, just on the impact that these tolls will have on communities near the toll plazas.  How many local streets will suddenly get jammed with truck traffic as drivers try to avoid paying the tolls?  How many communities will have noisy trucks swarming through them in the middle of the night as the drivers try to avoid the tolls?  Who is going to pay for the repair of the local roads as all this heavy truck traffic hits them due to toll avoidance?

There has to be a better way to deal with highway needs than tolls.  There just has to be.

Hunter Biden Avoids Jail in Arkansas

For those who have missed the latest saga in the Hunter Biden soap opera, Hunter has managed to avoid going to jail for contempt of court in Arkansas.  The problem arose for Hunter in connection with the suit brought by a stripper whose child Hunter fathered.  The mother sought child support from Hunter.

Hunter handled this suit in a totally classless way.

1.  First he denied fathering the child and claimed he never met the mother.

2.  When a DNA test showed that he is the child's father, Hunter changed his story and admitted fathering the child.  Hunter claimed that he was broke, though, and that he couldn't afford to pay child support.

3.  Since claiming poverty, Hunter has been discovered to own a multimillion dollar estate in California.  Last wee Hunter was photographed arriving for lunch at the Waldorf Astoria in his 90,000 dollar Porsche.

4.  The judge in the Arkansas case regarding the child had ordered Biden to turn over his financial records so that it could be determined whether or not Hunter could afford to pay child support.  Biden refused.

5.  Then, the court in Arkansas gave Hunter until this week to turn over the records of else to go to jail for contempt.

6.  Faced with jail time, Hunter -- ever the loving father -- agreed to pay child support retroactive to last October.  The judge gave him another few weeks to turn over his actual financial records.

Hunter Biden is truly a mess.

He got tossed out of the military for drug abuse.
Despite being married, Hunter had an affair with his brother's widow.
After getting a divorce, Hunter dumped this sister-in-law and married a woman he had only known for two weeks.
While seeing the sister in law and also after marrying the new wife, Hunter frequented various strip clubs and had sex with at least some of the strippers.
When that led to the birth of a child, Hunter claimed he had no responsibility for his own child.
On top of this, Hunter used his position in the Biden family to get 1.5 billion dollars from the Chinese and also to get cushy jobs from companies like the Ukrainian natural gas giant Burisma. 
Even worse, Hunter involved his father in protecting Hunter's position with the Ukrainian and Chinese fiascos.

Old Joe Biden says that there is nothing to suggest that Hunter has done anything wrong.  Joe actually gets angry at reporters who ask about Hunter.  How dare they question Hunter's actions.

It's Joe, not Hunter who is running for president.  Still, Joe's reaction to the slimy actions of his son and Joe's own involvement in using American power to protect his son are more than enough reason to never vote for Joe again.

Maybe it would be a good thing if Joe were to let Hunter fend for himself.  Maybe he would finally grow up.

Victory For Common Sense At the Supreme Court

Under existing federal law, the government is not supposed to issue a green card to potential immigrants if they are likely to become a "public charge".  The idea behind the legislation (which was passed long ago) is that the USA ought not admit new residents or citizens who are going to have to be supported by the government for their day to day needs.  A while ago, the Trump administration proposed a regulation that defined "public charge" as including anyone who has spent more than the one out of the previous three years on welfare or Medicaid.  If someone seeking a green card can't support themselves for more than two-thirds of a three year period, then they are a public charge.

As one would expect, as soon as this regulation was finalized, a bunch of states run by Democrats raced to the courthouse to try to stop enforcement of this regulation.  A liberal judge in New York agreed and ruled that the regulation could not go into effect anywhere in the country.  The administration appealed this to the Supreme Court, and this morning the court announced that it had ruled that the new regulations can go into effect while the regular appeals from the trial court proceed.

What does this mean?  It's simple.  The Court has given back to the executive branch of the government the ability to make rules without everything having to be approved by one court or another.  The government is entitled to enforce new rules unless and until there is a final decision -- including all appeals -- finding that the regulation is improper.  No longer can lower courts be used to enjoin laws or regulations on a nationwide basis.

Look, it's hard to imagine an impartial court finding that one is not a threat to become a public charge if one has been unable to support him or herself for at least 2/3 of the time.  Nevertheless, the Dems found a judge willing to issue an injunction stopping such a regulation.  Even worse, the Dems found a judge who would enjoin the use of that regulation anywhere in the USA.  The Supreme Court is finally putting an end to this practice of out of control nationwide injunctions.

This is really good news.

Tlaib Proves Again Who She Really Is

Yesterday, Democrat congressman Rashida Tlaib of Michigan proved again just who she really is.  The story is the result of a sad event that took place around Jerusalem in Israel.  A seven year old Palestinian boy fell into a rain-swollen stream and drowned.  At the time the body was first discovered, one of the local Palestinian politicos sent out a tweet that said that the boy had been "kidnapped by a Herd of violent #Israeli settlers, assaulted and thrown in a water well".  This was totally untrue.  Of course, the fact that this was a lie made no difference to Tlaib.  She immediately retweeted the item to her hundreds of thousands of followers.  She was ready to accuse an Israeli mob of Jews of having killed a little boy for no reason.  When the truth came out that the boy had accidentally drowned, Tlaib quietly deleted the tweet, but she never apologized or explained.

Next time you see Tlaib as part of the so called Squad, just remember who she really is.

The Worth Of Polling

The Iowa Caucus is almost here.  It provides a "teachable moment" to use one of the media's favorite phrases.  Three polls are out on the race in Iowa.

Emerson has Sanders at 30, Biden at 21 and Klobuchar at 13 with the rest trailing.

USA Today has the top three at Biden 25, Sanders 19, and Buttigieg 18%.

CBS News has the top three at Sanders 26, Biden 25 and Buttigieg 21%

So the polls tell us that Sanders is either ahead with a big lead over, just slightly ahead of, or way behind Biden.  Mayor Pete is either close to the lead (CBS) or way behind the leaders (Emerson).

The good thing about there being so many polls is that one is likely to be somewhat close to the actual results.

Let's sum up the Iowa polls in one word: meaningless.

It's Bad Enough Without The Hysteria

The Wuhan virus is bad.  It has been killing people in China and it is spreading.  Right now it seems to be fatal in about five percent of cases, but it is way too early to tell if this percentage is correct.  We don't know how many people have been infected because there may be a great many people who have the virus but who have such mild symptoms that they haven't sought the treatment of a doctor.  It may turn out to be not much greater a threat than a strong strain of the flu, or it could be a major killer.  We just don't know yet.  Only time and more data will provide that answer.  We also don't know if existing anti-viral drugs are effective, even in a small way, against this new virus.  That is something that should be answerable soon, but this answer too will require time and more data.

There is no reason for hysteria in the face of what we know about the virus.  Unfortunately, the media doesn't seem able to discuss the virus in any way except by being hysterical.  For example, the banner headline on the Drudge Report as I write this is

VIRUS "STRENGTHENING"

The headline is actually larger on the Drudge Report, but this gives you the idea.  The headline attaches to a Reuters piece in which a Chinese official is quoted as saying that the Wuhan virus appears to be strengthening.  So what does that mean?  Did the official mean what the headline indicates, i.e., that the virus appears to be doing more damage to people infected as the days have passed?  I doubt it.  Most likely, the official spoke in Chinese and indicated that the virus was strengthening its hold on the human population meaning that it has spread far enough that eradicating the virus is no longer a very likely outcome.  There are too many people infected over too wide an area for authorities to track down and isolate everyone carrying the virus.  My guess is that the authors of the Reuters article know what the Chinese official actually meant but wrote it this way to have more of an impact and to draw more readers.  After all, hysteria sells.

The Lie Of The Day

I came upon the most obvious lie this morning which is related to impeachment.  Democrat senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that he had no idea where his fellow Democrats in the senate stood on the question of voting to convict President Trump because they hadn't talked about it.  Seriously, Murphy is pushing the obvious lie that the senate Democrats have never talked about whether or not they will vote to convict Trump.  Unbelievable!

Here's the quote from the WaPo:

“It’s certainly possible there are Democrats that are going to vote no on one of the articles, two of the articles. And I don’t have a sense where everybody is on the articles. We haven’t talked about it.”

MURPHY WINS MY FIRST "LIE OF THE DAY" AWARD.

No One Cares -- No One

I've written previously about the paltry ratings for the daily impeachment circus..err trial.. in the Senate.  The ratings started very low and have gotten lower.  To put it in context, each episode of the Jeopardy Champions show drew twice as many people in one hour as the impeachment charade drew during a whole day of broadcasting.

Today, we learned two additional bits of evidence that truly blows one away when it comes to just how little the public cares about this charade.  First, the Senate gallery has been half empty during the trial.  There are not very many seats in the gallery in the Senate chamber.  The senators have tickets which they can give to those wanting to attend.  For this "historic" trial, half the seats have been empty.  HALF!!!!  That means that there isn't even enough interest for people to want to see this in person.

The second item comes from David Axelrod, the Obama political guru.  He said on CNN yesterday that he had attended a focus group of about 40 strong Democrats in Chicago the previous day.  During the focus group the subject of impeachment wasn't even brought up until 80 minutes in the event.  In other words, the strong Democrats in Chicago didn't care much at all about impeachment. 
One does have to wonder just who it is who does care about the games being played by the Democrats.  Will November arrive with the Democrats having not a single achievement to point to other than a failed but never ending attempt at impeachment and removal?

Are These Smarties Really That Dumb?

It's hard to believe the latest news from Yale.  Yale has long offered a survey course in Art History that covers the period from the Renaissance to current times.  Obviously, a course like that cannot cover everything.  The point of the course is to offer students some knowledge about great works of art that form part of the core of modern civilization.  Now, however, Yale is dropping the course after many complained that it did not provide adequate coverage of art from other areas that are not part of western culture.  The PC idiots running the art history department are so afraid of offending anyone whose favorite civilization is not represented in the course, that they are just dumping the whole course.

Think about this.  Imagine that there is a course in the history of music which focuses on European and American composers since 1500.  After objection the music department drops the course.  Or suppose that the History department offers European history as a course.  That too should be dropped because it doesn't include Asian or African history.  And then there's math courses that use Arabic numbers.  Should that be dropped because it belittles Roman numerals or other forms of numbers?  Should introductory courses in French be dropped because they ignore Spanish speakers?

If there are gaps in these courses, it would be easy enough to offer an introductory course in Asian art or African art to fill in those gaps.  The way to deal with this sort of problem is not to deprive the students of knowledge of art in general.

It's hard to believe that the geniuses on the faculty at Yale are really this dumb.

Wuhan Virus in Ten Thousand

China say fewer than 1000 have been infected by the Wuhan virus. That’s the official number. Experts now say that the real number infected is more than ten thousand. Most of those infected had few symptoms and may not have even known that they had more than a cold. Unfortunately, even those with mild infections can still give the virus to others who can be hit with severe consequences or even death.  If this is true, it makes stopping the virus that much more difficult for two reasons: 1. There’s no way to track down ten thousand people and all those with whom they had contact. 2. Some people affected won’t know to go for treatment because they won’t know they’re even sick. It’s a daunting problem for health officials. It makes a major epidemic much more likely. 

Losing What Little Audience They Had

Yesterday, I wrote about the amazingly small watching the impeachment circus in DC.  It was tiny.  Well now the second day ratings are in and the audience shrank by 22%.  There were less than 9 million people who watched any part of the impeachment trial between 12 and 5 in the afternoon.  That's about 2.5% of the country.  And this includes people who tuned in, saw what was on and then turned it off.  Most likely the real audience was like 4 or 5 million people who watched a substantial part of the Democrats' presentation.  The pundits on CNN called the Democrats' performance "riveting".  Actually, it seems just the opposite.  Virtually no one cared what the Democrats had to say.  I guess it goes with the old saying "Another day, another lie."

A Complete Lack Of Thought

Elizabeth Warren has plummeted in the polls among Democrats.  Not all that long ago, she was in first place in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Now she is in fourth place in both states.  Her collapse in the polls seems to be causing Liz to thrash about looking for some far left new issue that can raise her back up in the public's esteem.  It surely isn't working; Warren is just looking foolish.

Here's a good example:  Warren told a crowd in Iowa yesterday that men in prison who identify as women need to be moved to women's prisons.  Here's how she put it to the onlookers in Marshalltown,   “We have to stop putting trans women who are incarcerated into prisons with men where they are at risk. It is our responsibility,”

Think about this for a moment.  The subject here is people who are biologically male but who identify as women.  So we could have a 25 year old man who has the size and strength of a man of that age but who thinks he is a woman.  Warren is worried that this guy is going to get hurt in a male prison.  She wants to put this person into a women's prison where there are biological females who are much smaller, lighter and weaker than this 25 year old man.  In other words, Warren wants to put a biological male into lockup with women that the guy could easily dominate, beat, or even rape (if he decided that he was, once again, a man.)

What do you think a jury would say in a case brought by a woman who was beaten in prison by this 25 year old guy who claimed to identify as a woman.  Would a jury find that putting such a person in a female jail was gross negligence?  After all, who thinks it makes sense to put a violent prisoner into a position where he/she could easily dominate all the other prisoners?

Look, this kind of idea may play well in a faculty lounge at some isolated ultra-left college.  In the real world, though, Warren is proving how out of touch with reality she truly is.

Coming Back To Reality -- Just For Once

With the impeachment trial moving ahead, it's time to step back and return to reality for a moment.  It's easy enough to get caught up in some of the bizarre points that have been argued, but we need to get back to the basics in order to keep track of what is actually happening.  Here are a few basics and why they are important.

1.  As in any proceeding, it is up to the prosecutor (in this case the Democrats from the House) to prove that the defendant (in this case the President) is guilty of wrongdoing.  This has to be done with actual proof in the form of witness testimony or documents.  It is never enough to prove guilt for someone to guess what happened or to give evidence about what someone else said.  There has to be ACTUAL proof.  Think of it this way:  supposed you were on trial for robbing a liquor store and your neighbor came into court and testified that you had to have robbed that store because you are a heavy drinker.  The neighbor didn't see you rob the store.  The neighbor didn't hear you say you robbed the store.  In fact, all that the neighbor knows is that you like to drink.  That could never be enough to convict you of robbing the store because there is no proof tying you to the robbery.  In fact, in most courts, your neighbor wouldn't even be allowed to testify about your drinking habits.

So far, the Democrats haven't offered any proof of wrong doing of any sort by the President.  They have witnesses who say that Trump didn't follow the old ways of US foreign policy when it came to Ukraine.  Of course, the President doesn't have to follow the old ways even if the state department crowd doesn't like it.  The Dems have not a single witness who says that the President held up military aid to Ukraine because he was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.  Imagine that!  Not a single witness can actually testify that he heard Trump direct that aid be held up until the Biden investigation went ahead.  Oh, there are witnesses who guessed that this was what was going on, but that doesn't cut it.  Remember your neighbor who tied you to that liquor store robbery?  Suppose the neighbor said on the stand that he guessed that you were the one who committed the robbery.  The judge would strike such testimony as improper, instruct the jury to disregard it and warn the witness to stop speculating.  So there's no proof there.  (This is not to say that if there were such proof, it is an impeachable offense; that is a different argument.)

2.  The Democrats were in total control of the hearings and impeachment proceedings in the House.  Not a single Republican ever voted for any of the Democrats' impeachment moves, but yet they went ahead with strong support from most Democrats.  That's another important bit of basic information to remember when we get to the Democrats' big push now for new witnesses and documents to be produced in the Senate.  The Democrats had their chance, they did not act, and now it is not up to the Senate to do the investigation that was the obligation of the House.

Basically, the Democrats are saying that even though they had full control in the House, they still need extra witnesses or documents that they decided to skip in the House investigation.  Imagine a criminal trial where the prosecutor is asked by the judge what proof of the crime will be presented and the prosecutor responds that the state still needs to find witnesses who can testify about what actually happened.  That's just like the Dems saying that they need to question John Bolton or others.  The judge would dismiss the case and warn the prosecutors that if they ever do that again in his court, he will hold them in contempt.

So what the Dems actually have is no actual proof of wrongdoing.  That's why they want to try for new witnesses.  The Dems, though, chose not to question these witnesses in the House when they had total control.  Having made that choice, they are stuck with the results.

Remember these points the next time some fool tells you that even Trump isn't convicted, he obviously did something wrong.   The Dems/prosecution have no proof of wrongdoing.  And don't forget to throw in that the Dems have still been saying that they have overwhelming proof of wrongdoing -- even though they have nothing.  It's just like the Russia hoax where the Dems said they had overwhelming proof that Trump collude with Russia only to have the Mueller team investgate fully and find that there was no such collusion.  In other words, the Dems will say anything no matter the truth.

What The Democrats Have Accomplished

One bit of political information that has gotten no attention at all from the mainstream media is perhaps the most consequential result of the impeachment saga so far.  The approval numbers for the Democrats in Congress are tanking with the public.  The generic congressional poll is asked often to the public nationwide.  The question is "if the election for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Republican or the Democratic candidate in your district."  No names are used.  The poll really measures the feelings of the public towards the two parties.

There were two polls released the first week of the year.  In those polls, the Democrats had leads over the GOP of 8% and 10%.  Those are the sort of leads that indicate that the Democrats would maintain control of the House if an election were held at that time.  DSuring the week prior to the start of the impeachment trial, when Nancy Pelosi was still holding the articles of impeachment, there were also two polls released.  These two showed Democrats leading Republicans by 3% and 4%.  Those numbers indicate the control of the House would be a toss up were the election held at that time.  Today, the latest of these polls was released.  It shows the Democrats leading the GOP by 1%.  This is the worst performance by the Democrats in these polls in at least a year.  It's a result that indicates that the GOP would win the House were there an election today.  (The GOP wins because Democrats are concentrated in big cities while Republicans are spread more evenly across rural and suburban districts.)

These numbers should be extremely alarming to the Democrats.  The impeachment mess has managed to tar the Democrat party in a way that Trump hadn't managed to accomplish.  If the trend continues, it could quickly put the Democrats into a situation where they lose not only the presidential race in 2020 but also control of the House and any chance the party has to pick up seats in the Senate.

It's also important that the Democrats' impeachment moves have solidified Republican unity and support for Trump.  It's hard to imagine what else the Democrats could have done to motivate the Republican base more for 2020. 

It's a double blow for the Democrats.  They united and motivated their opposition while at the same time they have been bleeding off their own support.

Really, No One Cares

The carnival of chaos, the parody of propriety, the corruption of the Constitution that is the Trump impeachment circus, I mean trial, got a rather small audience on its first full day.  The total viewership during the day was 11 million people according to the ratings.  That's 11 million people when Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC covered the proceedings all day.  Indeed, what these ratings mean is that fewer people were watching TV than on an average weekday.  The ratings also mean that just about 1 person in 30 tuned in to see any part of this charade.  And remember, for this type of event, ratings normally fall off by at least 50% as the days goes by.

The Democrats have been hoping that they would be able to convince a TV audience to suddenly support impeachment and to pressure senators to voting to remove Trump.  That surely won't happen since the Democrats couldn't even make the whole thing interesting enough to keep an audience for very long.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Dems decide to skip tomorrow's session and just put on a rerun on TV.  No one could tell the difference since no one will be watching.

The Chinese Virus -- or -- Wuhan Woes

The outbreak of a new virus centered in the Chinese city of Wuhan has many in the media in a tizzy.  They are predicting a world wide pandemic that could be as bad as the 1918 Spanish Flu which killed over 50 million people.  A similar epidemic today would result in over 300 million dead.  Aside from selling papers or getting visits to websites, though, how real is the danger?  Is this just the next promised disaster that will turn out to be nothing?  Or will this be a true disaster, something that kills millions and causes major disruptions to human life on earth?

Let's start with what we know:

1.  The only deaths so far from the disease are in China.  Cases, however, have popped up in about ten other countries among people who have recently arrived from central China.

2.  It appears that the disease can be transmitted from person to person.  Medical personnel who treated some of those ill with the disease have contracted it.  It's not totally clear, however, what sort of mechanism is used by the virus to move from person to person.  It could require contact with bodily fluids (blood, vomit, etc) like Ebola, or it could be much worse and be transmittable through the air.  In the next week, we should know the answer for certain.  If contact with body fluids is needed, the threat from the disease is much less.

3.  There is no known treatment.  Since this is a virus, antibiotics are totally ineffective.  Antivirals might work, but it's hard to know just which one would be effective (if any).

4.  The pharmaceutical industry will drop everything to focus on a cure for this virus, but at the same time the virus might mutate.  By the time one strain is brought under control, a new strain might appear that would require a completely new effort.

Things we don't know:

1.  We don't know when the person infected becomes contagious.  It may be only once symptoms have appeared, or it could be early in an incubation period.  The latter would mean that someone with no symptoms could become infected and then spread the disease across a city just by going about his or her daily routine.

2.  We don't know how long it will take to find a cure.

3.  We don't know how deadly the disease is once it has spread through a large population.

4.  We don't know if certain people already have immunity to the virus as a result of previous illnesses.

Right now, we can't be sure what the future course of this disease will be.  It could be contained in China.  If it were to spread to a poor crowded country, though, the lack of proper public health measures could let the disease become widespread and essentially unstoppable.

You know, maybe the media isn't making a big deal about this disease for no reason.

A Totally Different Way To Look At Roe v. Wade

Today is the 47th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  From the moment the Supreme Court handed down that ruling, abortion was legal in all 50 states for the first time ever.  There are a myriad of ways to discuss the impact of Roe, but here's one that you don't usually hear.  Roe v. Wade prevented the Democrats from taking total control of politics in the USA.

Remember, Planned Parenthood, the nation's premier provider of abortion services was founded by Margaret Sanger as a way to reduce the population growth of those she considered undesirable, namely African Americans. In practice, that is exactly how things worked out after the Roe decision.  There are roughly 12% of the population that are African American according to the Census Bureau.  The CDC estimates, however, that fully 36% of all abortions are of African Americans.  Margaret Sanger would be so happy to see those numbers.  Abortions are keeping the numbers of blacks down.  Put in a way that the left will find familiar, abortion is a tool in the USA of white supremacy.

Think what would have happened if Roe had never been decided and abortion remained illegal in most states except under stringent conditions.  There would be millions more people of color across America.  If they voted anything like that community presently is voting, they would be enough to guarantee Democrat victories for the foreseeable future.  As I said above, this is something that you really never hear.

It's Not Just Hunter Biden -- Warren's Son In Law Gets Millions From Iran!

It will most likely get lost in the opening day of the impeachment trial, but new broke today detailing that senator Elizabeth Warren's family had an arrangement with Iran much like the one that the Biden family had with Ukraine.  Biden, of course, had his son Hunter who got over a million dollars a year to act as a member of the board of directors of Burisma, a company owned by an Ukrainian oligarch.  The Warren connection came through Warren's daughter and son-in-law.  Their company TriColor Films got millions from Iran to produce two movies over the last decade according to a report today.

Ever since her daughter and son-in-law got the "investment" from Iran, Warren has been a strong supporter of the Iran agreement under which Iran was guaranteed a path to nuclear weapons together with more than $150 billion from the US government.

Warren looks unlikely to get the Democrat nomination for president, but her family ties to terrorists and enemies of the USA need to be investigated.

Witnesses And Documents

The Democrats say it is "unfair" if the Senate doesn't allow them to call new witnesses and provide new documents in support of the impeachment of President Trump.  It's not just unfair according to Schiff, the lead manager for the Democrats; nope, it's unAMERICAN.  So here are a few points that we all need to keep in mind.

1.  In the House proceedings, the Democrats were in total control.
2.  When the Republicans asked to call witnesses during the impeachment investigation run in secret by Adam Schiff, the Democrats refused.  The Republicans got to call no witnesses.
3.  When the Republicans asked to subpoena certain documents during the impeachment investigation run in secret by Adam Schiff, the Democrats refused.  The Republicans got to issue no subpoenas.
4.  When Republicans said that this procedure needed to be changed, the Democrats ignored them.
5.  When Republicans asked to call certain fact witnesses during the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings run by Jerry Nadler, the Democrats refused.  The Republicans got to call NO fact witnesses to defend the President.
6.  When Republicans asked to subpoena documents during the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings run by Democrat Jerry Nadler, the Democrats refused.  The Republicans got to issue no subpoenas.
7.  When Republicans said that the procedures needed to be changed, the Democrats ignored them.
8.  During the House proceedings, the Democrats got to ask for testimony from every witness that they wanted and to seek every document that they wanted.  To the extent that a witness or document did not appear, it was because the Democrats didn't bother to go to court to get an order compelling testimony or document production; it was the Democrats' choice how to proceed.
9.  In the Senate, the Republicans have a majority.  When the majority sets the rules, the Democrats suddenly say it's unfair not to allow them new witnesses and production of new documents even though they were fine with depriving the GOP of any right to witnesses or documents in the House.

The whole argument about witnesses, documents and "fairness" is complete Democrat hypocrisy.  They should be ashamed to even say it, but shame is not an emotion known to congressional Democrats.

What a Surprise!

New York voters have swung strongly against a new law pushed through by the Democrats in Albany that gets rid of cash bail for those charged with misdemeanors.  The accused now must be released on his or her own recognizance.  The effect of this new law is that people charged with crimes are caught, brought before a judge and then released on their promise to show up again for their trial.  The NY Dems have brought the catch and release policy championed by Dems for dealing with illegal aliens to criminal courts across the Empire State.

The results have been predictable even though the law has only been in place for three weeks.  In case after case, people have been arrested and released under the new bail law only to commit another crime the next day.  Some have then been arrested again and released again under the new law.  The highest profile case came around New Year's Day when a woman in New York City was arrested after attacking a young mother and her child who were walking down the street.  The perp yelled anti-Semitic insults at the victims who are Jewish.  Since the mother and child did not require medical attention due to the attack, the perp was charged with misdemeanor assault.  She was back on the street within a day.  There was no bail.  On the second day out, she struck again.  The perp attacked another woman on the street.  This time she injured the victim.

That catch/release got a lot of attention, but there have been many others with similar results spread across the news.

The reaction to the new law has been particularly strong in the New York City suburbs.  the latest polling show that two-thirds of those questioned opposed the new no-bail law.  That's landslide like numbers. Even in the city, support for the law has plummeted.

My prediction is that there will be a quick change to this law.  If not, we may see it becoming a major issue in the November elections. 

None of the Above

There's a new poll out today from the Boston Globe measuring voter preferences in the upcoming New Hampshire Democrat primary.  It seems that the winner at the moment is "none of the above".  Bernie Sanders is in first place with only 16% of the vote from his neighbors.  Biden is second at 15%.  No other candidate breaks the 15% minimum needed to get delegates.  Buttigieg is third at 12% and Warren has fallen to 10%.  No one else even gets 10%.  Undecided or none get 29%.

Think about that.  After a year of campaigning and countless hours spent by this group of luminaries in New Hampshire, most Democrat voters have seen one or another of the candidates in person.  They obviously don't like what they've seen.  Bernie, Biden and Warren were well known in New Hampshire either from prior races or from national media attention.  The poll indicates that the New Hampshire electorate is yelling a collective "Eww!" at the choice they are being presented.

With the impeachment trial starting today, the news is likely to be centered on that for the rest of the time until the primary, so there won't likely be much that will change this collective perception.

The people not supporting any of the candidates may decide nevertheless to pick one once they hit the voting booth.  They may, more likely, decide not to bother to vote.  But wouldn't it be great if there was a write in movement for "uncommitted".  It would have a decent chance of winning.  Nothing could be a better indication of the low quality of the Democrat field than that result.

Hey New Hampshire!  Vote UNCOMMITTED in the primary.

A True Prostitute

Why do politicians think that the only way to win a race is to prostitute themselves to views that they really don't hold.

It happened again today when former mayor of New York Mike Bloomberg said that although impeachment is a bad thing, he would vote to convict President Trump if he were in the senate.  Just a month ago, Mike said he wouldn't vote for impeachment, and there's nothing new since then.  Apparently, in the Democrat primary, the polling that Mike was buying for his billions told him that he had to switch sides.

Not long ago, Elizabeth Warren was taking credit for a bill that she thought was popular on the campaign trail.  She just failed to mention that she had voted against that bill in the senate.

Old Joe Biden seems to switch sides on issues day by day.  He doesn't even do this intelligently.  After all, Joe said that in order to lower carbon emissions, he would issue regulations that would cost millions of jobs.  Biden was trying to get environmentalist votes and threw away the votes of workers in the process.

There are only three candidates I can think of who don't seem to change their views.  One is Tulsi Gabbard who has kept her views even when they have proven unpopular.  The second one is Bernie Sanders who remains the same angry old socialist that he has been for years.  I doubt Bernie will ever change his views.  The third, of course, is President Trump who has actually done what he promise he would do during the 2016 campaign.  Indeed, the Democrats and the media are so shocked by a president who has kept his promises that they label it unpresidential.

Virginia Is For Rapists?

This morning, I heard CBS News interview Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax about preparations for the gun rights rally at the state capitol today.  Fairfax praised the racist governor Northam for all the planning to keep the protest peaceful and "unlike Charlotte".  It was jarring to hear this guy on the radio.

For those who don't remember, Fairfax was accused a year ago by two different women of sexually abusing them.  One, a prominent college professor, said that Fairfax forced himself on her at the 2004 Democrat national convention.  After those allegations surfaced, a second woman stepped forward to say that something similar had happened to her.  The allegations haven't been tried in court, but they seemed extremely substantial and likely valid. 

I know that when the allegations surfaced.  Fairfax was dumped by his law firm and had to resign from a number of positions.  There were calls for Fairfax to resign as Lt. Gov. but apparently nothing came of them.  Indeed, having Fairfax in that position was a guarantee for Northam that he wouldn't be forced from office.  After all, would the Virginia Democrats want to oust a racist Democrat governor only to put Fairfax in his place?  I can see the headlines:  "Change of one letter -- Racist to Rapist."

A Truly Alarming Moment - The Virginia Rally

Tomorrow brings a very dangerous moment in Richmond.  The state government is in the process of passing some very restrictive anti-gun legislation.  As a result, there is a large rally planned for tomorrow in support of gun rights and the Second Amendment.  The rally is expected to draw tens or hundreds of thousands to the State Capitol grounds in Richmond.  These rallies are usually peaceful demonstrations of the commitment of those attending to their political views.  Depending on the size of the protest rally, they either influence the politicians or not.

The rally set for tomorrow in Richmond is setting up for a potential explosion.  First, there are some rather strange events that have happened.  Antifa in Virginia has said that they will be marching with the protesters in support of gun rights.  That's an odd alliance.  There are reports yesterday and today, though, that the Antifa group is planning to leave their black outfits home and instead come to the rally dressed as either military vets or Trump supports with MAGA hats and then to cause a riot which can be blamed on Trump.  That sounds far fetched if the group were anyone other than Antifa, but these crazies will do and have done about anything.  On top of this threat from Antifa, Virginia's racist governor Northam (you know the guy who famously dressed up in Ku Klux Klan robes and blackface for his med school yearbook) issued an emergency declaration banning any firearms from the State Capitol plaza where the demonstration is to be held.  It's hard to think of a more provocative action for the governor to take than to literally ban all guns from the Capitol Plaza when the group coming there is protesting the threat that the state will ban guns.  The governor has also arranged for the state police to be stationed at the rally with extra heavy weaponry in their arsenal.  If the Antifa group starts trouble, the state police may be tempted to use their arms to stop it.  It's not a formula for a peaceful assembly.

Hopefully, all this is nothing more than a false alarm.  If something happens, however, governor Northam really ought to be blamed and removed from office.

Keeping Positive

For the umpteenth time in the last year, I heard a TV pundit give the opinion that Americans vote for something, not against something.  It's one of those things that pundits say that sounds intelligent but which falls apart when you actually think about it.  Republicans mostly vote for Republicans but they also vote against Democrats.  Socialists vote for socialism, but they also vote against capitalism.  No matter what someone votes for, there's always the opposite that they are voting against.

I think that a better way to look at how people vote is that Americans vote for accomplishments or policies that have or will help them in their lives.  They vote against empty promises that are nothing but words.  It's a variant on the old adage that actions speak louder than words. 

Let's look at it this way.  In the three years since he took office, President Trump has presided over an extremely strong economy.  During those three years, wage growth has reignited.  For the first time in about a decade, wages for lower and middle income Americans have been rising even after adjusting for inflation.  Even better, wages for middle and lower income Americans have been rising faster than wages for higher income Americans.  Minority unemployment has dropped to the lowest level ever.  Jobs for women have grown faster than expected.  In short, all the groups that the Democrats claim to champion have done really well under Trump's economic leadership.  Trump's actual policies have resulted in some extremely impressive economic achievements.  On the other side of the ledger, you have what the Democrats have been saying.  In 2016, after eight years of Democrat control of the economy under Obama, the Democrats lamented the growing inequality of income in America.  The rich got richer, but the middle and lower income groups got nothing.  Three years later, some of the Democrats are still saying this.  Some have vague plans for the economy, while others just lament how bad the economy is.  Of course, the problem for the Democrats is that American voters are alive.  They know from daily experience what the nature of their lives is.  They recognize what the Democrats are saying regarding the economy as just words.  And they recognize those words as being unlikely to lead to policies that will help their lives improve in the future.

If you want to drive this point home, take a moment to consider how the economy would do if Bernie Sanders (who leads the latest polling) were to be president.  He wants to shut down the fossil fuel industries.  That means millions of people who work in coal, oil or natural gas industries would be out of work.  Bernie also wants to tax the big banks and the nation's financial firms out of existence.  That's millions more unemployed.  Retired people who supplement their social security payments with some income from their investments in stocks or bonds would see that income fade away and the value of the investments plummet were Bernie to be in charge.  These are not wild accusations of how bad Bernie would make the economy.  They are just basic economic analysis of the inevitable outcome.  Americans who understand this are almost certain not to vote for Bernie. 

On the other hand consider how the economy would do were Biden president.  Sure, Biden's family would do really well if the past is any guide.  But we're not talking about greed and graft right now.  How would the average American do under a Biden presidency.  Biden is someone who doesn't really have policy proposals.  He talks about how the economy doesn't work for the average American, but that seems to be Old Joe just remembering how things were under Obama.  He really offers nothing much about his plans for the economy while still making clear that he doesn't care much about the average worker.  Remember, it was Biden who was asked if he would push for ending carbon all emissions even if it meant hundreds of thousands or millions losing their jobs.  Old Joe said "yes."

Each voter will have to make a choice:  continued prosperity under Trump with gains particularly for those who need it the most, or schemes from the Democrats that would likely cause a major depression.  Those are just words, I know.  On this issue, though, that choice is a reality.

Support For Terrorism

What do Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer have in common?  Sure, you're correct if you said that they are all Democrat presidential candidates.  They also each issued a letter of support for the Council on American Islamic Relations (known as CAIR) when that organization held its annual gala about two months ago.  The letters just surfaced in the media when the Washington Free Beacon reported on them this past week.

Remember just who CAIR is.  It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the case the government brought against the Holy Land Foundation for raising money in the USA for terrorist groups like Hamas.  The evidence presented at that trial showed the involvement of CAIR in this effort.

Let's be clear.  The problem is not just that CAIR is anti-Israel.  I don't agree with that view, but I respect the right of any American to hold it.  The problem is that CAIR is involved with groups designated as terrorists by the US Government.  Should any presidential candidate be supporting a group that raised money for terrorists?  I don't think so.

Look, it is possible that these three candidates issued these letters without knowing who CAIR really is.  Maybe they just thought that a letter like this would endear them to the far left anti-Israel crowd in the Democrat base.  But that really doesn't get these three off the hook.  If they didn't know in November who CAIR is, they know now.  Not knowing in November is a pretty good reason to show that none of the three ought be president.  Not rescinding the letter now, however, is proof that none of these three could possibly be a good president.

Here's the Key Question

OK, there's big news from Britain.  Harry and Meghan are giving up their royal titles and are going to repay the British taxpayers two million pounds that was spent fixing up their home recently.  Harry will no longer be his royal highness but will have to settle for being just another duke. 

That leaves a question.  Will baby Archie be a royal?  I don't know the etiquette for someone whose father was a prince when he was born but then gave up his title.  Maybe Archie isn't a royal highness anyway.  This has to be one of the big questions of the day.

The other question on this matter is this:  What's the over/under on how many days until Meghan or Harry files for divorce?  Last I heard the number was 1000 and the bookies were considering changing it due to an imbalance in the betting.  

The True March of the Left To Totalitarianism

In the last decade, we've watched the Democrats move further and further left.  At one point, they switched from being Democrats into being Democratic Socialists.  Around the world, there really aren't many folks who both believe in democracy and socialism.  Maybe there are some who are there at the beginning, but in most places, once socialism steps into power, it uses everything it can to keep that power.  For a while, the socialists keep the trappings of democracy, but they are in total control.  Look at Venezuela.  Chavez got into power.  His party and his successor Maduro are still in power thanks to rigged elections and then military control.  Socialism has destroyed that country, but the socialist kleptocracy is still ruling there.  Look at all the Communist countries both now and in the past.  There is not a single one that recognized the will of the people they claimed to represent.  Public opinion didn't matter; there were no elections because the government in control "knew better".  In Western Europe, there was a watered down version of socialism that was put in place, and in some places there it coexisted with democracy.  These places with long histories of elections managed to hold onto the structure of democracy.

One would have thought that the Democrats in the USA would move much like the social democrats in Europe.  That seems, however, to be wrong.  The basic rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution don't seem to matter to them.  Take freedom of speech, one of the most important rights of each American.  To most Democrat politicians, freedom of speech is a right that can be trampled if it gets in the way of what they want.  Think of so-called "hate speech".  Basically, hate speech is saying something that the Democrats don't want you to say.   We all know how far the limits of controlling speech have been pushed and how much farther the Democrats want to go in that effort.  Freedom of religion is a right of equal importance to free speech under the Constitution.  But if Democrats don't like what your religion demands of you, they try to use their power to have you compelled to ignore that religion.  Many remember the Obama administration trying to force the nuns of The Little Sisters Of The Poor to supply abortion drugs to women while doing so would be a sin under the Catholic doctrine to which these women devote their lives.  The courts stopped that attack, but it is just one of the many attacks launched.  I would talk next about the right to bear arms, but there's no need.  Anyone who hasn't seen the Democrats attacks on that constitutionally guaranteed right is blind.

How about the right to vote?  That's certainly a basic tenet of democracy.  For years, the Democrats have been screaming about imaginary voter suppression.  The Democrats claim that they want everyone to vote.  There should be no restrictions.  Illegal aliens should vote.  There are over 50 counties in the USA where the number of registered voters is larger than the population of the country in the last census; each such county has a long history of Democrat control.  The Democrats have a long history of trying to get more of the people (alive or dead) that they think will support them into the polls to vote.  But that hasn't worked.  The White House and the Senate are not under Democrat control.  So now they are starting the next phase.  NBC News published an opinion piece from one of its people advocating for the latest plan of the left.  This time the votes of groups of voters are to be ignored on the basis that these votes are racist.  And what makes them racist?  According to the article, white voters in 2016 strongly supported Donald Trump who "ran a racist campaign".  That makes the votes of these white voters "irrational" and "racist" so that they should be disqualified.  Get that?  If voters choose someone who is not the Democrat, their votes are simply to be disqualified as "racist".

This is the kind of totalitarian nonsense that would mean the death of America.  "One person, one vote" would be transformed into "one person (so long as we approve of him or her), one vote (so long as he or she votes the way we think is correct.)"  The government controlled by the Democrats will decide who the people have selected without regard to the actual views of the people.

The presidential candidates of the Democrats need to come forward now and denounce this nonsensical view as unAmerican and downright dangerous.  Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, though.

Once Again, The Democrats Go Too Far

It's a strange thing.  The Democrats mount offensive after offensive against Donald Trump and each time they shoot themselves in the foot.  They just don't know when to stop.  They always go to far.  We had another of those moments last night on MSNBC.  The big news from the left at the moment is that there's a witness, Lev Parnas, who supposedly has personal knowledge that President Trump knew that American government related operatives were pressuring Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden's conduct regarding the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor.  If you think about this, it is hardly big news, but the media is treating it as if this is finally the smoking gun that will do in the President.  Remember, the transcript of the phone call from Trump to Zelensky has the President suggesting Ukrainian help in an investigation of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and into Joe Biden.  Obviously, Trump knew of investigative efforts involving Biden; he spoke about it in the phone call.  In fact, the big hubbub about Parnas actually proves something that has been a problem for impeachment all along:  the Dems produced not a single witness with alleged personal knowledge of Trump's involvement other than what was said on the phone call (which was hardly an impeachable offense.)

But back to going too far.  The Parnas story is so big for the Democrats that Rachel Maddow made it into a two show interview to get the full story out.  Rachel, who spend two and a half years presenting constant claims of proof of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign in 2016 only to have her fantasy stories destroyed by her hero Robert Mueller, is the poster child for Democrat overreach.  Last night she focused with Parnas on the removal of Marie Yovanovich as US ambassador to Ukraine.  Yovanovich was a prominent witness at the impeachment hearings even though she had left Ukraine long before the Trump-Zelensky phone call and had gotten to Ukraine long after Biden had the Ukrainian prosecutor fired in order to protect his son's company Burisma from corruption investigations.  But none of that matters to Maddow.  She went all in and had Parnas tell his story that he knew that the President had tried repeatedly to have Yovanovich fired only to have the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor say no to that request.

Once again, it's time to take a step back.  One does wonder how a foreign national knew what Trump was saying to Pompeo and Bolton and what their replies were.  More important, if you think about the dynamic, you realize that this is a lie.  The President says fire this ambassador but the Secretary of State say no?  The National Security Adviser says no?  Really?  If the President wants an ambassador fired, his subordinates won't say no.  And if the President says repeatedly he wants the ambassador fired, there's no way in the world that the subordinates would tell him no.  So Parnas is now tied down in detail by Maddow in an obvious lie.  They went too far.  It's like Old Reliable.  Every time, the just go too far.

What's The Point Of Spending a Billion Dollars?

I just saw another ad for Michael Bloomberg.  I've seen this one about ten times already.  In it, Bloomberg attacks Trump for supposedly trying to destroy the healthcare system.  Of course, Bloomberg doesn't give a reason why the president would want to destroy the American healthcare system (there is none).

I get that Bloomberg is trying to make an impression, but wouldn't it be better to spend his billion dollars on ads that were at least true, or even believable?  Let me explain.

1.  Bloomberg says Trump wants to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions.  Bloomberg says this even though every time Trump talks about healthcare, he says that any new system will have to provide protection for people with pre-existing conditions.  Anyone who ever listened would know that.  So Bloomberg's point is false.

2.  Bloomberg says that Trump wants to have 134 million people with preexisting conditions lose their health insurance.  How?  Bloomberg doesn't say.  The problem, though, is that the item discussed in the years since Trump took office is Obamacare.  As of today, there are about 11 million policies that have been issued to individuals under Obamacare.  Not all of them have pre-existing conditions.  Somehow though, Bloomberg talks about a number that is like twelve times higher than the total number of people insured under Obamacare.  Bloomberg's number is not just wrong; it's ridiculously wrong.  Bloomberg might as well charge that Trump wants to raise the price of gasoline to $97.00 per gallon.  The whole thing is nonsense.

Someone ought to tell Mike Bloomberg that just spending on ads won't get him votes if what he says in those ads is obviously a lie.

What Does It Mean?

It seems that the Democrats are running the same playbook for impeachment that they used in a long list of other events in DC in the last few years.

When Bret Kavanaugh was up for confirmation to the Supreme Court, nothing happened to tarnish his reputation until a few days before the hearings and vote, Dr. Ford came forward to accuse the Judge of misdeeds when he was in high school.. Sure, Dr. Ford couldn't remember when it happened, where it happened, who else was there, or how she got home after the alleged attack, but the charges were still leveled at the Judge just a few days before he had to appear at his hearing.  Then as the hearings occurred,  lawyer Michael Avenatti came forward with a client who claimed she was molested in college by Kavanaugh.  This was before we knew that Avenatti was a charlatan, and a man accused of fraud, tax evasion, and theft.  The accuser he dug up turned out to have less credibility than someone claiming to be 200 years old.  Still, this entire mess was thrust on Kavanaugh at the last minute.  We later learned that the Democrats on the committee had known about the meritless charges against Kavanaugh many months before the hearing and then held them to spring on Kavanaugh at the last moment.

Just two days ago, Elizabeth Warren sprang an attack on Bernie Sanders over something he is alleged to have said directly to Warren two years ago.  All through the campaign, Warren has said nothing about this supposed outrage by Sanders.  Instead, she held the attack until the last major event prior to the Iowa caucus.  She came forward now in a last ditch attempt to save her failing campaign.

Today, we get both impeachment and the "new" evidence brought forward by the House committee regarding documents and statements from Lev Parnas, a guy who is under indictment for violating campaign finance laws.  Clearly this is all a way for the accused to try to deflect the charges against him.  Still, these documents and statements are not something that the House just got.  In their usual fashion, the Democrats in the House held onto this stuff until the last minute in the hopes of making a big splash.

In each case, these tactics have not worked.  It's just not a bombshell to come forward with obviously flawed charges that the Democrats have been sitting on for many weeks or months.  Strangely, the use of these tactics by the Democrats shows just how weak their position is.  Kavanaugh was confirmed (and Avenatti is in prison).  Warren is going to the ash heap of history.  Trump will be acquitted and re-elected.

USMCA Passes

The Senate passed the USMCA today by a vote of 89 to 10.  This treaty among the USA, Canada and Mexico replaces the flawed NAFTA trade agreement that was passed almost 30 years ago.  The expectations are that the revised agreement will bring faster economic growth in North America and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the USA (and elsewhere).  The treaty was negotiated and signed by President Trump in 2018, but then the House Democrats stalled and stalled and stalled before they had no choice but to pass it about a month ago.  The Senate quickly followed.  Once again we have something quite beneficial to the USA and America's working men and women that the Democrats tried to stop for purely political reasons.

This is a big victory for the USA and for President Trump.

A Little Critical Thinking

I happened to watch an interview yesterday in which the "expert" being interviewed said that the fires across Australia were "conclusive proof" of man made global warming.  The amazing thing was not that some fool said this, but rather that the reporter did not bother to question his conclusion.

Here are a few things that you need to know:

1.  The fires in Australia were started by arsonists who were protesting against global warming.  It's hard to understand how anyone could think that burning down an forest area larger than my state of Connecticut and killing millions of animals who live in that forest is a valid way to protest global warming.  But in any event, the fires were not naturally caused, but were set by arsonist/protesters.

2.  There were very dry conditions in the region of Australia that burned.  Conditions of this type appear periodically in Australia. 

So we have fires that were set by protesters which the "expert" said proved the existence of man made global warming.  That's crazy.  It just proves that the protesters were complete morons.

And we also have dry conditions in Australia that made the fires spread rapidly.  Let's say for a moment that the dry conditions were due to the weather.  What is there that tells this expert that the weather is due to human action?  There's no connection here. 

The problem is that so many people have bought into man made global warming that now everything "proves" it.  If it doesn't rain; it's due to man made global warming.  If it rains, it's due to man made global warming.  If it gets warmer, it's global warming.  If it gets colder, it's global warming.  When we went 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the USA, it was due to global warming.  When we got hit with four major hurricanes in the next two years, you got it; it was global warming.

Ratings Tell The Story

The ratings for the Democrats debate last night show that just over 7 million people watched at least some of the gabfest.  That's awful.  At 8 last night, NCIS drew nearly 11 million on CBS and the Jeopardy Greatest of All Time special drew nearly 14 million.  Seven million people means that about 2% of the country watched the debate.

To put this in context, the first debate among Republicans in 2016 had an audience of over 25 million.  To be fair, no one in his or her right mind would want to watch Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren argue over whether or not Bernie told her two years ago that a woman couldn't win the presidency.  Even fewer people would ever want to listen to Joe Biden ramble incoherently on any subject, so the low rating is not such a surprise.

These ratings should tell the Dems that basically no one cares what they have to say.

So What's Really Important?

Today, there is some big news.  The House finally got around to sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.  The USA and China signed phase one of the Trade Agreement that will mean jobs for at least 1,000,000 Americans, and an increase in income for all sorts of working Americans.  Both are historic.  Impeachment is historic because it is only the third time since 1789 that a president has been impeached.  True, this impeachment is more a joke than a real impeachment; we all know that the President will be acquitted and that this is just a political move by the Democrats.  It's still historic, though.  The trade deal with China marks the first time that the USA has actually taken on the Chinese for their improper dealings in international trade that have been used to steal so much from America.  It also  marks the first time that China has backed down in the face of concerted American pressure on their economy.  It's historic.

So how, you may ask, did the mainstream media cover this?  CBS, NBC and ABC evening news all started with impeachment.  That's no surprise.  These three networks are the Hallelujah chorus in the Democrats' impeachment oratorio.  I would truly have been surprised if any of the three had led with the China deal.  NBC had a separate report six minutes into the broadcast that gave a short summary of the deal and how it came about.  It was adequate.  ABC took nine minutes to get to the Chinese deal.  It came after weather and some other small items but it got coverage although it was less detail than NBC gave the deal.  CBS, however, was amazing.  It took fourteen minutes until CBS got to mention the China deal.  It came after coverage of a traffic accident in Florida -- and on the national news!  When CBS finally mentioned the China deal, it devoted eleven seconds to covering the story.  Basically, CBS said that the USA and China signed a deal today that is the first phase of an agreement to regulate trade between the two nations.  That was it.

Look, the China-US trade deal is a major piece of news.  The lives of millions of American will actually be improved because of it.  CBS News spent hours over the last year denouncing the President for the trade war with China and broadcasting opinions that the trade war would never be settled.  So when the settlement is reached, was CBS too embarrassed to tell the public that it was wrong for so long?

After a Year, What Do We Have

It has been a bit more than a year since the Democrats took control of the House.  It's worth taking a look back at the past year to see what they have accomplished.  Here's the list:

1.  Hearings regarding impeaching Trump
2.  Impeaching Trump without even alleging that he committed a crime.
3.  Holding up the articles of impeachment for no apparent reason
4.  Passing stop gap spending measures to keep the government funded.
5.  ?

This has been the Democrats going with all impeachment all the time.  As a result, they haven't accomplished anything.

Remember, the current "moderate" Democrats ran on the promise to do something about passing an infrastructure bill.  Not only didn't that happen, but they didn't try.

The same Democrats ran on fixing the healthcare system.  Here too, they did nothing and didn't even try to do anything.

These Democrats also said they would fix the broken immigration system.  Nothing done there.  No attempts to do anything made.

These Democrats said that they would stop President Trump from his "foreign adventures" (even though Trump has many fewer of those than Obama did.  Trump just had Soleimani killed -- properly so.  Democrats weren't able to stop that so that they could protect this mass murdering terrorist.

It has been a year.  NOTHING HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  It seems that the House Democrats think that if they say something on MSNBC, it means that they achieved something.

It's time to get rid of this bunch of losers.

The Trade Deal Is A Big Win for the USA

In the deal signed today with China, the USA got a big win.  The Chinese have agreed to buy between 205 and 215 billion of American products -- mostly agricultural and computer items -- and America is not imposing further tariffs on the Chinese and lifting a few that had already gone into effect.  There are other provisions, but until the entire text of the agreements is known, it is hard to determine exactly what else will be included.  We do know that the bulk of the US tariffs on Chinese goods have NOT been lifts.  There is still plenty to negotiate with China as we move on to phase 2.

The big point is this:  if the Chinese actually buy the products that they have now promised to buy, it will about double American exports to China.  The sale of 200 billion dollars of goods to China will also create something over one million jobs in the USA.  And keeping the tariffs on about 2/3 of Chinese goods will reduce imports into the USA from China, thereby making likely an increase in domestic manufacturing.

The media won't say much about this deal -- given that the Dems did their latest impeachment performance today -- but in the long run, this Chinese deal is much more important for the average American than the bogus impeachment scam that the Dems are running.

The Democrats Debate

Normally, I try to write about a presidential debate after it ends and before I hear what the people in the spin room have to say about why their candidate won.  After last night's debate I didn't even try.  I couldn't for the simply reason that I didn't watch the debate.  I already knew what the zombies who are running for president would say.  From looking at the transcript of last night's fiasco, my decision was correct.

There's a reason why these candidates hold rallies and relatively no one shows up.  The lines to use the rest rooms at a Trump rally have ten times more people than show up at one of those Democrat rallies.  A good example is the rally that Mike Bloomberg held the other day with Judge Judy introducing him.  He spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on TV ads to promote the rally, and then 45 people showed up.  FORTY-FIVE!  It came to something like ten thousand dollars per attendee.  And who knows how many of the 45 were paid staffers that were actually working the "crowd" for Bloomberg.

Anyway, the debate started with each of the candidates being offered the chance by CNN to condemn the missile attack that took out that murderous terrorist Iranian general Soleimani.  The candidates didn't disappoint.  They seemed to be elbowing each other to see who could get in the biggest condemnation of Trump defending American lives.  They each want to go back to the "good old days" under Obama when the USA said nice things and did nothing but appease the Iranians. 

After the Iran section, CNN got the debate eventually to the issue of whether or not Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren two years ago at a private dinner among "friends" that a woman could not be elected president.  Bernie seemed angry when asked about it, but, of course, Bernie always seems angry.  Ask him what he had for breakfast and he would probably say, "Scrambled eggs; what's it to you?"  CNN then just assumed Sanders was telling a lie, and asked poor victim Elizabeth Warren how she responded.  It was a disgusting moment and a totally dishonest one.  Remember, for two years, no one heard about this supposed statement by Bernie.  Then after two years, at a point where Warren's poll numbers are dropping really fast, suddenly the Warren people in the field in Iowa are all talking about what Bernie said at that dinner.  So we're supposed to believe that this is true?  Say what you want about Bernie.  He's an angry old and crazy guy whose views make Mao Zedong look like a conservative.  But Bernie is not a sexist.  Indeed, this ploy by Warren is roughly the opposite of someone trying to make Donald Trump look like a delicate snowflake.  It's ridiculous.

Other highlights of the debate came through in the pictures I saw.  Whoever did Amy Klobuchar's makeup apparently was trying to make her look like a clown, and that person was clearly successful. 

I'm just glad I didn't watch.  

Ooh, Ooh, Ooh Bombshell! Oh, Nevermind

I got a kick tonight to see the media excitement over the "new evidence" released by the House Judiciary Committee.  There's a letter from Giuliani to the new president of Ukraine.  Oh my God!!!!  there are some handwritten notes written by someone (we don't know who) that says get an investigation into Biden.  Oh my God!!

Wait.

We've known since the whole Ukrainian phone call stuff began that Giuliani had contact with the new president of Ukraine.  I've heard Rudy say this in interviews.  There's nothing new about that.  Rudy's note to the president doesn't say what the subject of the meeting was to be.  It's no bombshell.

Well what about those handwritten notes?  Again, nothing new there.  We've known forever that there was a desire for Ukraine to investigate both the 2016 election and Biden.  It's in the transcript of the Trump call with Zelensky.

this whole bombshell is like the last 39 bombshells that the mainstream media has been pushing.  It has the initials BS but hat doesn't stand for bomb shell.

War On Warren or Sandbagging Sanders?

Today's big story among Democrats is whether or not Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that a woman couldn't win the presidency in 2020.  Supposedly, Sanders said this at a private dinner held at Warren's home where Liz asked Bernie what he thought about the chances of a woman winning.  The Warren forces adamantly repeat that Bernie said a woman couldn't win.  The Sanders forces adamantly say that Bernie said no such thing. 

So who is telling the truth?  That's the question.

My vote is that Bernie is telling the truth.  Think about it.  Warren lied for years about being a Native American.  Warren lied about her Medicare for All plan; she put it forward and then when it got no support she pulled it back claiming that she never intended for it to be moved ahead.  Those are only two of the times that Warren has been caught in blatant and important lies.  Warren is a known liar.

Sanders is not always accurate, but there aren't instances that I can think of in which Bernie was just lying. 

Based upon history, any rational person would assume that Warren is making this all up.

Despite all this, the current outrage among the Bernie and Warren forces is going to leave a scar in the long term.  

The Coming Meltdown?

When it comes to the stock market, New York attitudes carry a lot more weight than those from elsewhere around the country.  That's not surprising since New York is the financial capital of the USA.  Still, the parochial attitudes of Wall Street traders may become a major problem for these stock market soon.  As of now, it appears that Bernie Sanders' chances of getting the Democrat nomination are on the distinct upswing.  Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg are sagging in the recent polls; Biden seems stuck in position and only Sanders is moving up among the four leaders.  So what does this have to do with New York attitudes?  The answer is that in and around New York City, there are many, many people who are certain that President Trump just won't be re-elected.  Even those who do think Trump will win or who support him don't say much in New York City.  The oppressive left wing culture is just too much in New York for many to take it on.  It's like Hollywood, San Francisco or Cambridge, Massachusetts, a center of the left wing bubble.  That means that many more people in New York think that Bernie Sanders could actually win a national race against the President.

Think about that.  If you invest in the stock market and America's large companies, what would be the inevitable result of a Sanders' victory?  We could start with a much, much higher taxes, a recession and then a depression.  Stocks would be perhaps the worst place to have investments.  So as Sanders looks like a truly possible (if not probable) Democrat nominee, what would a prudent investor do?  Many will think (correctly) that Sanders has essentially no chance of winning.  In New York, however, many will not be so sanguine.  People will start dumping stocks and that will tank the market.  We could see a stock market meltdown for no reason other than fear of what a Sanders' presidency would bring.

Spartacus? ... Notacus

New Jersey Democrat senator Cory Booker has left the Democrat race for president for 2020.

That may surprise many of you.  I bet you thought he already had dropped out.  Some of you may be surprised that he was ever in the race.  Nevertheless, Booker is now out officially.

There were two main reasons for Booker's leaving the race:  money and support.  Campaign contributions had dried up.  Support in polls had also vanished.  It was so bad that Booker could no longer qualify for the Democrat debates.  That's the point where he had no choice but to throw in the towel.

It's worth remembering that in the last three days Booker lamented how the impending impeachment trial might adversely affect his performance in Iowa and New Hampshire.  In other words, Booker was in danger of losing the 1% support that he had earned in the race.

There's really only one question that I would like to ask Booker as he leaves the race:  "Hey Cory, what took you so long to recognize that you had zero chance?"

The Phony "Imminent" Kerfuffle

The media is in an uproar over whether or not the killing of general Soleimani was due to an "imminent" threat.  Due to some loose language, there is an apparent difference between the President and some in his administration over the imminence of further actions by the Iranians.  This is a silly debate; whether or not the threat was imminent doesn't matter.  This all boils down to claims by the Democrats that the President had to get authority from Congress before he acted here.  That is a bogus point.

Let's start with the FACT that Trump already had authority to attack terrorists in Iraq.

1.  After 9-11, Congress passed two authorizations for the use of military force.  The first authorized attacks on terrorists.  The second was specifically an authorization to go after terrorists in Iraq.

2.  These authorizations were used as a basis for the Iraq War.  When that war ended and Obama withdrew our troops, Congress did not repeal the authorization.  It is still on the books.

3.  When ISIS terrorists rose up in Syria and Iraq, president Obama moved US forces into both countries and attacked the ISIS terrorists.  He did not get any new congressional authorization.  Indeed, when questioned about the authority for fighting ISIS, Obama said (quite rightly) that the authorization to fight terrorists in Iraq was still in effect and formed the basis for American action in that country.

4.  General Suleimani was a terrorist.  Of that, there can be no doubt.  He was officially designated as a terrorist and the group he led, the Qods Force was designated a terrorist organization by the US government 13 years ago.  That designation was in place during the Bush, Obama and Trump presidencies.

5.  General Suliemani was attacked in Iraq.  That makes him a terrorist in Iraq, just the target that Congress had authorized in the existing authorization for the use of military force.

So, Trump already had authority to go after Soleimani under existing authorizations.

The nonsense argument about imminence makes no difference.  It's just a red herring from the media and the Democrats.