Predictions

With the New Year upon us, it's time for some predictions.

● Trump is going to do a much better job than expected and will have surprisingly good approval ratings by summer. The economy will recover. The foreign world will calm down. The Dems will try desperately to claim that this was all Obama's doing while pulling their hair out. HATE will become the new black.

● The Dems will try to block everything. The lesson they think they learned from the Republicans was to block everything and you will become popular. They have misunderstood this badly. I don't think people will respond well to their attempts at sabotage and resistance. They really are kidding themselves if they think the public will be with them.

● The Patriots win the Super Bowl.

● Angela Merkle will be unseated in Germany, but I don't think anything will change with their immigration policies.

● The Republicans will not be able to repeal Obamacare because the CBO will undercut them. They will instead start to tinker at the edges.

● I'm starting to suspect there will be a brief shooting war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

● Homelessness, AIDS and poverty will return in the news.

Thoughts? Additions?

Finally, Scott has his yearly "Where were you?" film article. Go check it out.

I'm Back!

Yo! I'm back. Had a great time... but... let me recommend that you all avoid Royal Caribbean (RCI). Here are some thoughts/impressions.

● The ship was not great. They apparently pool tips so none of the staff really cared. The result was an indifferent staff that was sometimes actually a little rude and was rarely helpful (our stateroom guy was fantastic). They were poorly trained too. I felt sad for the truly special staff members we met because they were held back by the others.

● Their water show was amazing. It was probably the best show of any type I've ever seen. Their other shows were good too.

● The biggest problem with the ship was that it utterly lacked elegance. It came across like a day at a mid-level mall, complete with gangs of Chinese teens walking back and forth pointlessly. That was the ship's target audience too, so there was nowhere elegant and nowhere to relax on the ship. Everywhere you went, even the formal dining room, they were playing pop music loudly. Disney, by comparison, was super elegant and super relaxed, but still offered lots of stimulation and excitement.

● Food is usually the biggest thing on a cruise ship. You expect original stuff, you expect high quality. It wasn't here. The main dining room reminded my of Applebys. Disney's food was some of the best I ever had.

● The most annoying aspect of this ship was that I came to see it as the SS In-App-Purchase because they stupidly nickled and dimed you throughout. To try to make and extra $2, $4, $7, they kept annoying us.

● Jurassic Park: We went to Labadee, Haiti. It turns out this is a little part of Haiti owned by RCI. It is gorgeous. It is also separated from actual Haiti by an electric fence. One of the comedians said it was like Jurassic Park, and he was right. I would have liked to see real Haiti.

● In Labadee, we took an excursion on a sail boat (1970's luxury yacht) with 6-7 other people. Oh my God, I have found my calling in life. You can't image how relaxing this was. Moreover, the Captain was fantastic. He told us all about Columbus's journey to Haiti and showed us several cool things about Haiti and then spoken generally about the world with us. We had an incredible time.

● Jamaica had the ideal port. There was so much incredible merchandise to buy. The only problem was that we got back so late that everything was closed as we raced to the ship. I was the second to last person back on the ship. Yikes! Still, Jamaica was fantastic. Last year, we visited San Martin and hated it. The people clearly didn't want us there and the tour guide spent all her time telling us how they ended slavery and now have KFC and Burger King just like you white devils - everyone seemed pissed. The people in Jamaica, by comparison, weren't hung up on the past and didn't want to be victims. They were happy, friendly, and made the best of what they had and created a pretty fantastic little country for themselves. The lesson is, live for the future, not to whine about the past.

Definitely a mixed bag. But don't get me wrong... we enjoyed the cruise a lot. We had a great time. I would definitely recommend cruising to everyone. But this is not the ship for you. There is nothing that they did that Disney didn't do better and cheaper. And frankly, I'm willing to bet that most every other cruise line does it better too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah To All

Peace be with you and your family.

Luke 2:8-14 “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And Happy Hanukkah too. Hanukkah, the Jewish Festival of Lights begins at sundown on December 24, 2016 and ends at sundown on January 1, 2017. The Story of Chanukah (Hanukkah)

Enjoy the Holidays!

A ramble about Impeachment, Conflicts of Interest, and some other things

By Tryanmax

Trump getting impeached is pretty much a foregone conclusion if the Democrats get a simple House majority at any point in his presidency. That in itself illustrates just how meaningless the notion is, politically speaking. Obviously, Trump hasn’t done anything impeachable yet, not having taken office, so the Democrats have basically announced that they're planning a fishing expedition. I don’t think it will work out like they expect.

First, let me remind you that impeachment doesn’t automatically remove a president from office. Neither of the two presidents who were impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were removed from office, and Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Democrats seem to forget this, so right away you know there will be disappointment when they rediscover that impeachment is merely Step 1.

But let’s talk about how an impeachment might occur. As far back as April, there was speculation that Trump could be impeached on day one of his presidency if Trump University were ruled to be fraudulent. Obviously, that has been diffused, so now Democrats look like they have their eyes set on conflicts of interest. I say “eyes set” but, if the pundit chatter is accurate, there isn’t much to set eyes on. There appears to be tremendous gray area around conflicts of interest in regards to POTUS. In other words, Trump's enemies are shuffling through uncharted territory in an attempt to get him. That’s a difficult proposition.

Trump’s position isn’t without risk, either. If conflict of interest rules that apply to lower offices are ultimately applied to the presidency, Trump could face impeachment, expulsion or, if he means to maintain the presidency, some amount of damage to his business and legacy. So why would Trump put himself in such a position? Well, if he succeeds in keeping the presidency AND his business in the manner he desires, it could establish a precedent that might lower a major barrier discouraging successful private citizens from entering public office. For those of us who believe the political sphere could use more business sense, that would be a great service to the nation.

If that is the path he is taking, Trump does have some advantages. He has a Republican House and Senate for at least two years. If nothing else, this keeps impeachment proceedings at bay for that long. If Obamacare can be passed in such a timeframe, surely some legislation clearing up the murkiness surrounding conflicts of interest could be hammered out. Trump has a firewall in the form of Mike Pence, a lockstep Republican who few Democrats would wish to see in the White House. That might extend his impeachment-proofing another couple of years. Also, Trump has the opportunity to nominate to the Supreme Court in his first year, so if he did end up before them, he could have at least one judge who is open to the idea that conflicts of interest laws shouldn’t be interpreted so as to prevent qualified, successful private citizens from entering public service.

Trump didn’t campaign on conflicts of interest issues, so I have no way of knowing if any of this speculation holds merit. I do know that this is a contest Trump didn’t have to enter. That makes it seem like he wants this battle. If you have any different ideas why Trump might pick this fight, let me know.

Electoral College Open Thread

So it's official. The Electoral College delegates met in their respective states on Monday and President-elect Donald Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence have official been elected by the States with an official tally of 305 to 232. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton lost delegate votes in Washington winning only 8 out 12 where Colin Powell got 3 and 1 vote went to Faith Spotted Owl took 1 along with votes going to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Elizeth Warren (D-Mass) for Pence. Texas cast the deciding votes that put Trump over the required 270 even though one of their delegates buck the system and cast his vote for Kasich.

Next this all goes to House chamber on January 6 to hear the results from the states in alphabetical order during a session set to be led by Vice President Biden. It will allow lawmakers to challenge the results or the votes of individual electors.

In other news: The Russian Ambassador to Turkey was assasinated in Ankara, an "alleged" terrorist attack by truck at a Berlin Christmas market killed 12 and injured at least 50, and 3 killed in a Zurich mosque during prayers (no info on who/why). And current President Obama played golf...

The floor is open...

All I Want For Christmas Is...

Since Andrew is taking a little vacay, how about we take a day to relax and talk about something not related to the pending apocalypse. The House is recessed and the Senate is on their "We Can't Recess 'Cause The Pres Will Appoint Someone" mode, Pres. Obama leaves for Hawaii, and frankly until the Electoral delegates vote on Monday, nothing can happen.

So let's switch gears for just a tiny bit and talk Christmas or Hannukah or Festivus. Though many of us may be cis-holiday normative, we're are definitely not trans-holiday-phobics, here! And since each family tradition is slightly different, what does your family do to celebrate the holidays - Midnight Mass? Big Christmas goose? Neighborhood caroling? Baking (and/or eat) cookies, cakes, and other goodies until you drop? Sneaking a look at the presents? Let us know. Or share your favorite holiday recipe...

If that isn't enough to get you started, let's just cut to the chase - What's Santa going to bring you? Well, we assume you've been good little girls and boys but it's not until Christmas Eve that Santa actually checks his naughty/nice list. You still have plenty of time to tip the scales to "Good" 'cause it ain't over until the fat man brings the pressies or coal!

Please feel free to go off topic 'cause who knows what will happen next!

PS - Just in case you missed it, Martin Sheen and several others who make up the entire self-appointed braintrust in Hollywood have posted a YouTube video pleading with the Electoral delegates to vote against Trump 'cause...well, they are Hollywood stars and know much more stuff like ths than we mere hicks from the sticks. I could only get through about 30 seconds of it, so I have no idea what they promised to do. I would post a link, but I don't want to give them any extra clicks...just search "Martin Sheen" and you will find it.

Sailing Away

Folks, I am taking off starting Friday until after Christmas on a much much much needed cruise. This has been a hard year and I need a break.

If you need me, I'll be on this thing:

Just flag me down. We'll be stopping in Haiti and the Bahamas too. In Haiti, we're doing a sail boat thing or joining a voodoo cult. Should be fun either way:

Well, it's not far down to paradise, at least it's not for me
And if the wind is right you can sail away and find tranquility
Oh, the canvas can do miracles, just you wait and see
Believe me

While I'm gone, stay calm and don't believe what you read. Remember, the media earns their money by freaking you out. The Democrats are liars. The fringes are insane. The pundits sell narratives. And the internet is crawling with grade A a-holes and losers. So don't listen to these people. Use your own brains! Talk to each other here. You're the smartest group out there, I guarantee that!

And remember, this is the Christmas season. It's a time for loving, forgiving and good will. Life is only good when you are good, and the people in your lives need you to bring them happiness. Take care, folks. :)

A Safety Pin? Ha ha ha!

Just a quick comment tonight. Apparently, idiot leftists like Lebron James, whose opinion we're supposed to trust because he can dunk a basketball, are wearing safety pins as an anti-Trump symbol. It's supposed to mean something about them offering safety to all the people the evil right wing is now planning to round up, kill, rape, and then enslave. How brave of them... rolls eyes.

Anyways, how ironic that they would pick this symbol. The safety pin was designed for people who were too incompetent to use a regular pin... sound like liberals? Most specifically, it was meant for baby diapers... or punk rockers, who didn't understand the concept... sound like liberals? Baby diapers are full of sh*t... sound like liberals? And babies are the biggest purveyors of tantrums, just like liberals.

It honestly is the perfect symbol for them!

Electoral College - Why?

Why do we have the Electoral College that has the final vote to confirm the President? Anyone want to wager a guess? Read below:

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

From my perspective, the system was devised in an attempt to create equality between states of different population sizes. And as our country had grown from those 13 original colony/states to 50, it has become more important that the less-populated states from Pennsylavnia to Utah have an equal say in who is elected President as much as our elite, urban coastal states. And never has it been so important as when those elite, urban coastal states are so hyperventilating over losing the 2016 election cycle they want to scrap that mean, ol' Electoral College! If only because they forgot that there are actually real, honest-to-God citizens in all of those fly-over states who they think don't matter because they live in those cities, towns, and rural areas that urbanites would never deign to visit. I can relate somewhat because I just don't see the need to leave the island of Manhattan to explore Queens either, but...then I am an elite, urbanite.

Anyway, let's discuss.

Panic!!

Watching the Democrats right now is fun. They have been routed and they are acting like it by pointing fingers in every direction as they flee. Think about everything they've blamed:

● Their drones want to believe the election was stolen, because they couldn't lose on the issues, right? They decided to blame the Russians for miraculously hacking machines that weren't even connected online. Obama and Hillary said it didn't happen at first, but they do need a fall guy. So when Jill Stein decided to push the claim as a money maker, Hillary jumped on board (all the while claiming she wasn't). Sadly, Obama still stood in the way, so pissy Senate Democrats told him to change his mind. Suddenly the CIA says the election was hacked. The media has bought in too, even going so far as to say that the recounts that were stopped after showing a gain for Trump "would have" shown that Trump lost except for the Ruskies. All this will do is keep their drones from accepting needed changes.

● The Washington Post assures us "this was no landslide." Oh, and Hillary won the popular vote. So nothing is wrong. Ok, keep believing that.

● This whole business about "Fake News" reeks of three things (1) an attempt to gain the right to define what will be a credible news source, (2) creating a new tool that allows leftists to dismiss inconvenient truths without addressing them, and (3) explaining away the last election. Indeed, the Democrats who spew "fake news" about every Republican are whining that fake news did them in. Beautiful. What a way to make their drones even crazier and avoiding learning anything!

● Joe Biden blamed Hillary this weekend. He said that Democrats "paid the price" for Hillary's failure. Of course, it use to be thought that all politics is local and with the Republicans in disarray with some refusing to endorse Trump, I'm not sure how Hillary can be blamed for their collapse at the state level. And collapse it was:

Republicans control 68 out of 99 state legislative chambers. The Democrats control 31. Republicans control 31 governorships. Democrats control 18. Twenty-five states are completely under Republican control. Six are under Democratic control. Republicans hold 52 Senate seats. Democrats control 48. Republicans hold 241 House seats. Democrats control 194.

This is the worst showing for the Democrats since before FDR. Do you really think it was Hillary's fault? And if that's the case, then why was the last "good" Democratic election 2008? What explains their disasters in 2010, 2012, and 2014?

● Other people they continue to blame: Bernie Sanders, Wikileaks, the FBI, and Obama. Several articles this weekend said they just didn't match Trump for nastiness. LOL! Talk about the wrong lesson.

I never count out an entire political party, but this is as close as I will get. The Democrats have been screwing up hard and fast since December 2008. At every chance, at every sign, they have closed their eyes and picked up speed. What's interesting about the above is that it suggests to me that the Democrats have actually bought into their own propaganda and now can't understand why the real world isn't working out the way they lied to everybody that it would. It seems that there are no rational people left on the left. Fascinating.

Whiner Lives Don't Matter

Let's mock some whiners, shall we?

● Fat Whiners Don't Matter: Some whiner is upset that "Santa" told her fat kid to lose weight, i.e. he "fat shamed" the little porker. Let's start with the obvious, this isn't the real Santa so let's stop pretending that he is. Now let's dig deeper. First, Santa was right. This kid needs to lose about half his weight before his health collapses, and SHAME on the mother who let him get this way. It is your fault lady, not the nine year old's. Secondly, SHAME on the mother who claims her kid was humiliated and then goes to the media to intensify his shame. You, honey, are a disgrace.

● Offended Whiners Don't Matter: So Jennifer Lawrence told a story on some talk show about rubbing her ass against some sacred Hawaiian rocks. Of course, the Internet of Whiners went crazy. They spewed culturalist and racist comments all over twitter about how white racist and culturalist Jennifer is. Waaa. (1) Who cares? They're rocks, they'll live. Get over it. (2) I'll bet not a single whiner even knows why they are sacred, so who's the real cultural derelict here? (3) Hypocritically, these same racist asswipes don't give a crap when people attack the sacred objects and places of things they don't like, like Christianity. (4) How lousy must your life be to sit around looking for reasons to be offended just so can avoid taking a look at your own pathetic "life"? (5) I love the fact this is yet another good liberal doing things to offended other liberals, thus proving that their sensitivities are all made up since even their own members don't know the rules.

● Racist Actor Whiners Don't Matter: Oh Matt Damon, you are a hypocrite of the highest order. You might recall Damon getting in trouble when his little production company chose only white males to direct a number of short films he was producing. At the time, Damon defended himself by saying that he wasn't being racist/sexist, he was just choosing the best people for the job. Ha ha ha! As if he would accept that from any of his targets. Anyways, now he's being accused of being white in a Chinese role. His defense? "The role was never written for an Asian, it was always written for a European!" How does that work? You could get around any charge of whitewashing by just saying it was always meant to be a white actor.

It gets better. This all started when some whiner Asian chick whined that Hollywood needs to get over the idea of whites being the only people who can save foreign cultures. Yep, that's called The White Man's Burden Trope and it's racist. It's also all Hollywood does, except when it goes for the Magic Negro Trope. Damon seems oblivious to this as he doesn't seem to get that the idea that a white man going to China to save Medieval China from monsters is racist according to his peeps no matter who the role is written for. Interestingly, a testy Damon attributed all this to "Fake News" showing that he reads leftist talking points. So the identity politics (bowel) movement is fake news? Interesting.

● Insulted Whiners Don't Matter: Perhaps you've seen the left squealing all kinds of vulgarities about Trump and the people who voted for him. Megyn Kelly even attacked the Slut Shaming of Melina Trump by the left, only to get the "classy" response "F*ck Trump" from hag Cathy Griffith and a round of boos from Hollywood whiners. Anyways, Kidd Rock has put out a clothing line with images like the US divided into red and blue states, with the red states labelled "The United States of America" and the blue states labelled "Dumf*ckistan." This has the left all incensed. It's not right that anyone be insulting to people who genuinely disagree with you about the election. Wow... they said that with a straight face.

● Rush To Judgment Whiners Don't Matter: A former NFL player was killed in a road rage incident in Louisiana about a week or so ago. He was shot after approaching the vehicle of a white man with a gun. The initial reports, spread by a liar, were that the white guy got out of his car as the black NFL player tried to apologize, somehow knocked the player down, and then stood over him and shot him. None of that is true. Surprise. Nevertheless, it looks like the white guy was the aggressor and his conduct sounds like murder masked as self-defense to me.

Anyways, when this first happened, the cops did not arrest the white guy. All the BLM types and their fellow whiner-travelers want insane. "Racist cops protecting a privileged white guy who hunted down an innocent black man!!" Of course, they took the false report as true even as it made no sense. And they started posting truly vile attacks on the police for letting this "expletive expletive cracker go." Well, after a few days, the cops arrested him, as you would expect. As the cops noted, by waiting, they allowed witnesses to come forward who helped make a pretty solid case against the guy, a case they could not have made had they arrested him initially. In other words, they did their jobs right and they likely preserved the conviction.

In the press conference, the Chief of Police pointed this out and said that people need to relax. He mentioned the BLM types and their rush to judgment and he read some of the vile tweets they had sent him. Ooooh, the whiners went crazy! Under deceptive headlines describing this as a "profanity laced briefing" they whined that the cops did not have the right to point out and counter the attacks and smears made against them. Indeed, for some reason, the police needed to remain silent on that point because... well, because! They even called it "bizarre" that the cops would "attack" the BLM types who were trying to stir up race hate with this incident. Notice they never call it bizarre when leftists like Obama warn all of us racists not to react to a terrorist incident. So apparently, they can throw tanturms and try to incite violence and try to intimidate and call for a knee-jerk action that ruins a case, but no one better ever call them on their bullsh*t because that would be wrong... somehow.

You know what? F- you, whiners. Go rub your asses against a sacred stone... and take the fat kid with you.

Preet Bharara Coup For Trump

Andrew mentioned one point in his post yesterday about some of Trump's "very encouraging" appointments that I did not have time to comment on, so I will now. This particular appointment is very near and dear to my political heart and very interesting for the politicians in New York.

Andrew wrote:

"He kept Preet Bharara as the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. This is where Wall Street gets watched and Bharara has been a take-no-prisoners guy whom Wall Street hates. This is a great sign."

Yes, that soon-to-be-President Trump specifically asked and Preet Bharara agreed to stay on at his present roll as US Attorney in the Southern District of New York is a wonderful coup. You may not know how important this is, but it really is. Yes, Bharara has taken on Wall Street despite what those who say the nothing has been done, but more importantly he has taken on the entrenched, ethically-challenged political machine in New York and that machine doesn't like it. I have written extensively about the wonderful work Mr. Bharara has done for the citizens of New York.LINK from 2015

As I have written, New York has a real problem with ethics amongst our political class. I have tried to keep an on-going list of elected official who are in jail, under indictment, or getting out of jail, but the list is just gotten too cumbersome - 28 and counting since 2010. If you read the link from above it will explain it all more thoroughly. But in a nut shell, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo promised during his first campaign in 2010 that he would make it his mission to clean up the corruption and ethics issues within our fair state. He was elected based on that promise and as one of his first acts, he formed "The Moreland Commission", a independent commission to investigate and root out ethics violations in New York - local and state. Well, as it so happened, the investigation came uncomfortably close to the Governor himself, so he abruptly decommissioned the Commission. Enter US Attorney Preet Bharara who smelled a rat and requested all of the documents and information that had been gathered by the Commission and opened up his own investigation.

This request led to the eventually arrest and conviction of our long-time Assembly Speaker and the most powerful State Democrat Sheldon Silver and Republican State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (both convictions are still out on appeal). And only last month, Bharara entered the indictment of some of Cuomo's closest allies in a pay-to-play scheme in Buffalo that may very well take down Andrew Cuomo. And Bharara is currently on the trail of Mayor Bill de Blasio - LINK - for his own pay-to-play schemes that may be the biggest catch of all.

Okay that is great. But what actually makes Trump's trump more interesting is that, with the encouragement of the Democratic Party in New York, our current President Obama decided, in a last desperate act to rid the poor unfortunate Democratic political class in New York of this giant thorn, he would to elevate Mr. Bharara to federal judgeship in the Eastern District of New York. It was just a very small article a few months ago, but even Bharara saw through this ruse. He said that he was interested and would love the appointment as a Federal Judge, but indicated that his assistant US Attorney was still going to keep moving forward with their current investigations into ethics violations in New York. So the fact that Bharara has agreed to stay on as the US Attorney of the Southern District is very important.

As a little history lesson, this isn't the first time that the idea of elevating a current crusader for ethics to get rid of them has happened in New York. The Republican Party did exactly the same to a former NYC Police Commissioner/Assemblyman/Governor sometime in the late 19th/early 20th Century. You may have heard of him. His name was Theodore Roosevelt.

In all of Roosevelt's political positions, he tried and succeeded in breaking up the political corruption in the state. The power brokers did not like that, but they couldn't get rid of him. So the Republicans hatched a scheme to elevate Roosevelt to a very prestigious, yet powerless role as Vice President candidate to William McKinley in his re-election bid in the 1900 election cycle. Roosevelt was great running mate who helped McKinley get re-elected in a landslide thereby ridding NY State of this giant thorn. But as fate would have it, instead of elevating Roosevelt to a powerless position and eventual obscurity that is the fate of most VPs, McKinley was assassinated six months later and well, we all know what happened on September 14, 1901 - President Theodore Roosevelt.

Let's hope that our modern-day ethics crusader US Attorney Preet Bharara has as storied a political career as the ethics crusader Teddy Roosevelt. I have very high hopes that he will.

Even More Trump Thoughts

I have more Trump thoughts to share today. This whole transition has been fascinating to me and very encouraging.

● On Trump's summit with the media... At first, I wondered why he would do this. There is nothing to gain from kissing media rings except making them think they have power over you. But then Trump blasted them. Why bother though? The more I thought about it, the more I realized that what Trump did is pretty brilliant.

If the media has integrity, then they will listen to his complaints regardless of tone and will try to fix them. Unlikely, right? Yeah, but here's the thing. Going forward, they will either have this pressure to pretend they are being fair because they've already been called out, which means more fair coverage, or they will go batshit insane to mess with him, which will turn people off. Either way, Trump wins. What's more, by blasting these people in private, there is no video of him doing it which they can use to attack him.

● He's just called China's biggest bluff by calling Taiwan. In one phone call, he's just proved that all of China's bluster is all talk.

● He got Ford to keep a plant in the US. Oh wait, says the left, he didn't do that! Ford was never going to move the plant. Except Mexico confirmed they were moving. Then there was the Carrier deal, which kept 1,100 jobs in Indiana instead of them moving to Mexico. The media is now whining that Carrier is going to be raising prices... the same media who cheered protectionism throughout the election. Now he's won a commitment to invest $50 billion in the US from a Japanese billionaire.

● His political appointments have been great. Of the ones we know so far, many have been women and minorities -- much to the anger of the left: Ben Carson for HUD Secretary, Nikki Hailey as UN Ambassador. Also:

● His political team is headed by Reince Prebus, who ran the GOP very effectively. Effective.

● His military team will be run by a Marine General who commanded in Afghanistan and "solved" Iraq. No nonsense. Effective.

● His Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, will be a man who favors enforcement of laws and doesn't believe in racial spoils. No nonsense.

● For Dept. of Ed, he picked Amway billionaire Betsey DeVos, a school voucher and school choice advocate. She has been elected the chair of the Michigan GOP four times and she sits on the boards of various charities. She now opposes Common Core and says, "I do support high standards, strong accountability, and local control. ... Above all, I believe every child, no matter their zip code or their parents’ jobs, deserves access to a quality education." Before her appointment, Trump even met with Democratic school reform advocates.

● He kept Preet Bharar as the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. This is where Wall Street gets watched and Bharar has been a take-no-prisoners guy whom Wall Street hates. This is a great sign.

● He seems to be settling political disputes by bringing in all sorts of factions from the right. Former enemies like Cruz, Romney and Rick Perry have been brought in. He's even meeting with Democrats. There is speculation that he may appoint Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran from Hawaii who resigned from her Democratic National Committee post in February to support the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders. The left and right actually have a lot in common and that could be an interesting choice.

● He's already made nice with our two most important allies – Britain and Japan. He’s told Iran and Russia he won’t play around with appointments.

● Wiping out Christie was a warning to the rest that he won't stomach grandstanding.

● Even Bannon said something interesting. He said that with interest rates this low, it’s the perfect time to invest in infrastructure “to rebuild everything, from shipyards to iron works." He’s right too, and they are talking about a trillion in "investment"... worthwhile spending for once.

● He's already called out a lot of the perks the Presidents get, which shows a desire to make the government more efficient, and he's talked about not taking vacations.

All in all, this sounds like the best case we could have hoped for. It sounds like (1) Trump is much better verses with our foreign policy priorities, (2) he's not going to be cowed by Russia or China, (3) he rewards friends and offends enemies, (4) he's making friends of all his enemies, (5) he's listening to a broad set of views, (6) he's appointing non-white men which makes a mockery of the racist/sexist charge, (7) his economic plan is aimed right at middle America rather than Wall Street, (8) his picks are qualified and no-nonsense, and (9) he won't stomach political games.

That's all good.

Thoughts?

Women And The Draft

Here is an issue that has been before Congress for the last 11 months that has not found its way to main stream conversation - requiring women 18 to 25 to register for Selective Service System.

For those who want to know, a provision was added in the early drafts of the annual defense authorization bill this January to require women to register with the Selective Service just like young men of the same age have been required to do for generations. The provision even passed muster in the Senate. Unfortunately conservatives in both chambers objected to the provision when sent back to the House, and it was removed from final legislative draft that was passed last week.

As a little background: Since Jan. 27, 1973, the active draft lotteries that sent our young men into mandatory military service for two years were disbanded in favor of an all volunteer milititary. What has remained since that date is the continued requirement that men ages 18 to 25 be required to register with the Selective Service System just in case there is an need to quickly reactivate an actual draft call in a national/international military emergency.

Interesting to me though is that for all the talk of women's equality in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, women have been exempt from this requirement. Even more interesting is that, in all of the years of the feminist movement, there has yet to be one protest staged by college-age feminists/Women's Studies Majors/SJW's angry about the inequality of being barred from registering. Well, in fact, this is one issue that has never been an equality issue with feminists...at all. Not once have I ever seen a sign with the words "EQUALITY = DRAFT REGISTRATION!".

Now, call me a feminist (if you dare), but why aren't young women required to register? The common reason is that women can't carry heavy stuff and aren't equipped to fight. But even when we had an active draft during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (and pretty much ever single war ever fought), not all men were sent into combat on the front lines. Many were assigned and served honorably in non-combat roles that could easily be and have been voluntarily populated with women too.

What are your thoughts on this?

Oh, as an aside: Not only was the women draft registry requirement dropped from the bill, but now Congress is considering completely dropping the requirement for men as well.

The Democrats Are Jackasses

Some thoughts on Democrats.

● Liars and Hypocrites: Most people think the worst of their opponents in politics. If you step back and examine things honestly however, you generally discover this isn't true. Heck, even the evil Soviets weren't as bad as people imagined. With the Democrats, however, it is true. Their party is a wretched hive of scum, villainy, hate and treachery. Think about their recent behavior:

● Despite the actual impossibility of it being true, the Democrats are whining that the Russians hacked the election so they can de-legitimize the results. Think about that. They are actively trying to destroy the public's faith in the electoral system because they think it will benefit them.

● They lie as a reflex to aggrandize themselves and demonize their opponents. Harry Reid lies so easily that I'm not sure he understands the difference between truth and lies. Pelosi lies automatically. And the rest are no better. Then there are the media who make lies and bias into an art form.

● They scaremonger blacks with the idea that whites are trying to kill them or put them into slavery. Look at the cop killings they've caused.

● They scaremonger young women with the idea that some old religious dude is going to control their sex lives and with lies about them being cheated in the economy.

● They scaremonger Hispanics with the idea that they will be deported.

● They scaremonger Muslims with the idea that they will be rounded up. That wannabe terrorist in Ohio was acting because he believed them.

● They scaremonger gays with the idea that everyone else wants to criminalize who they are.

● They exploit their "the end is near" environmentalism to push leftist ideology rather than actual solutions, all the while telling kids the world is dying. They won't even change their own behavior. Do you think they believe this?

● They endanger national security to undermine GOP administrations time and again, consorting with the enemy, trying to harm American defense, smearing soldiers, lending aid and comfort to terrorists and murderous regimes.

● They exploit all tragedies for fundraising.

● And ironically, Wikileaks showed us their leaders don't even believe the crap they tell their drones.

● Not Easy Getting The Green: The Green Party's™ Jill Stein dropped her PA recount and thereby confirmed that she really took leftists for a ride. She just earned about $6 million she never would have had by starting a fight she knew could not be won and then stopped once she had her money. Poor Hillary got a black eye joining her effort. Beautiful! **The Green Party is a registered trademark of the Democratic Party.

● So, So Wrong: As an aside, here are some of the things the Democrats have been wrong about during my life.

● Jimmy Carter will be our best president ever... he's so smart. (stagflation)
● There will be massive starvation if populations keep increasing past 4 billion. (7 billion strong and fat as hell)
● We are on the verge of a global ice age!! Global warming will kill us all!
● Cities will flood because of global warming. (water level steady)
● There will be super hurricanes all the time. (lowest number in decades)
● Oil production has peaked and we will be out of oil in the next decade... repeat every decade.
● Ronald Reagan will be our worst President. (highest approval ratings, even liberals now claim they liked him)
● Ronald Reagan will start World War III. (ended risk of WWIII)
● Putting short range nuclear missiles in Europe will cause nuclear war!
● MAD is crazy and will kill us all (today: MAD kept us safe!)
● Reaganomics will not work. (4%+ growth)
● The Soviet Union is strong and unified and will never break. Their economy is too strong.
● You can't shoot down a missile.
● SDI will start a nuclear war.
● The Nicaraguan people love the Sandinistas. They'll vote them in in a landslide.
● We will lose if we invade Iraq and 60,000 American soldiers will die.
● Obama will be our greatest president ever... he's so smart.
● The public will accept Obamacare once we pass it.
● We can win without stupid white people. (worst showing since the Roaring 20's)

What kind of fool would trust these people to decide anything?

My Complaints With The NFL

Something definitely has changed with the NFL. It's just not as interesting as it has been. For the first time in my life, I didn't even watch a single game over Thanksgiving. But why? Well, I've given it some thought and here are the things that are bothering me.

1) There are too many games. I don't have time in my life for Thursday night games or Sunday morning London games. Three on Sunday and then one on Monday is already stretching things. Moreover, many of these are gimmicky, like the Thursday night onesie battles.

2) Parity. The NFL wants everyone to feel they have a chance. So the schedules are generic and devoid of classic rivalries. Everyone plays on Thursday and Sunday night even if they aren't good games. And the league treats Jacksonville v. Tennessee just the same as if it were Denver v. New England. This is wrong. They should promote the best and bury the rest.

3) Too many games get decided by referees. The vagueness of the rules mean that on any play, the referees can call holding, defensive holding and (on any deep play) pass interference. These penalties change the outcome of the game. It's the rare offense that isn't forced to punt when there is a holding call. Defensive holding gives offenses four new shots, often for meaningless infractions away from the play. Pass interference lets refs move offenses to the one yard line late in games. This is the perfect cocktail of too much discretion and too much power for a sport meant to be solved on the field.

4) Too many commercials. The NFL has crammed in an amazing amount of commercials. They've invented new breaks. They now sell time that used to be used for analysis. TD... commercial break... replay of touchdown, mention of review... commercial break... extra point... commercial break... kickoff... commercial break. Give me a (noncommercial) break! It is now more likely than not, when switching between games on the NFL package that the majority of games will be at commercial at any given random time. How can you build interest when you aren't interested in showing the game?

5) Announcers suck. In the old days, the announcers were professional broadcasters who could report what they saw and spin it into a compelling story. These days, they are ex-players who barely know the rules, spew only conventional wisdom, and couldn't tell a story if their lives depended on it. The NFL wants to wow you with fame, when they should be looking for talent.

6) Too many injuries. Every game, some star goes down for half the season. It's not fun to keep seeing the game's stars taken away hurt. Half the teams even scapegoat their failures on injuries. The uptick in injuries seems to be the result of less conditioning practice resulting from the last collective bargaining agreement.

7) Bad play. Lack of talent creates sloppy plays, especially among the offensive line. The lack of development of quarterbacks means most teams don't have a legitimate shot. Even worse, there seems to be a sense that teams quit when things go wrong because they take the approach of "there are enough games that each one doesn't matter."

8) Fake stars. The NFL is letting players use sticky gloves that make average receivers into great receivers. They celebrate guys who have three or four good games as the second coming before they fade away again. They celebrate big fantasy numbers earned in garbage time.

9) No stars. Who are the NFL's stars right now? Tom Brady, who is as much a villain. Russell Wilson, who gets written off as too white. Von Miller who isn't well known outside of the AFC West yet. Ezekiel Elliot, who just arrived. Failing Andrew Luck. Failed Johnny Manzeil. Failing RGIII. Failing Aaron Rogers. Injured J.J. Watt. Injured abuser Arian Peterson. Their most bankable star right now is retried Peyton Manning. The NFL rushes to make stars. When it thinks it has one, it clings to them to the exclusion of all others. They need to cast a broader net.

10) Too political. Kapernick and his band of forty whiners hurt the game. But they weren't alone. The bureaucratic process for handling misconduct... the after-the-fact fines each week... the concussion industry... the spouse abuse games... the constant investigations and the legal maneuvering of union and owners alike. It strips the game of its fun factor and replaces it with the sense that you are watching a regulated product.

11) The No Fun League. I get that the NFL wants its players to promote good sportsmanship, but it needs to let the players have fun. The only "fun" they are left to have right now seems to be brutal hits, which feels wrong honestly.

Thoughts?

Random Thoughts On Dictators

Yo! Long day. I didn't have time to put together an article, so let me share some thoughts about dictators. I've been watching a documentary on Papa Doc Duvalier recently, some stuff on Hitler and some stuff on Stalin (quit Stalin and get on with it! :) ). And here are some thoughts about liberals in particular as well.

1. Dictatorship is the herd instinct gone wrong in the extreme.

2. It is impossible to control another person... not a stranger, not an employee, not a friend, not a spouse, not a child. You can contain them for a while and you can make them pretend to be controlled when you're looking, but actual control is an illusion. And the more you try, the more they resist. This is why oppressive regimes always fall and why government control always fails.

3. You can't change humanity. We are creatures of our evolution and we don't change. So when your goal is to make humanity something it is not, you've already failed. Socialism, Communism, Religion, Political Correctness... none of it has been able to remake humanity. The only thing that changes humanity is experience, and even those aren't fundamental changes.

4. Judging a person on their personality rather than their actions is stupid, but it's also very liberal. Papa Doc took control in Haiti with the full support of leftist/liberal journalists because they thought he seemed like a nice guy. They were shocked SHOCKED when he started having people beheaded. This is why liberals should never be allowed any say in power. They overlooked the fact that Duvalier decided to form his own secret police because they assumed he was nice. They ignored the fact these were murderers recruited out of prison because they assumed he was nice. They ignored his harassment and murder of opponents because they assumed he was nice and wanted to do good things. By the time he had killed all his enemies and bathed with their severed heads, it finally sunk in to these liberals that he was bad. Idiots. Judge a man by his actions, not your fondest wishes for who he is deep down.

5. Ever notice that dictators kill their friends? The official line is that they worry these people might challenge them. I suspect the reality is that their friends remind them that they really can't control other people and that becomes an obsession.

6. Dictators lie. They set up fake elections. They create false economic data. They invent excuses to murder their opponents. This is why truth is so important, Farrell, and why you can't say, "well, everybody lies."

7. It amazes me how sentimental liberals get about dictators. In Cuba, many liberals point to the ice cream parlors as a reason to love Castro. They routinely fall for photogenic images. They fall for flashy wardrobes. They fall for roguish sexual behavior. Are these really reasons to overlook the murders, the oppression and the destruction?

8. Ever notice that it isn't the intellectuals who take over after a socialist revolution? It's typically the most brutal thugs and peasants who float to the top. Then they ship the intellectuals to the gulags.

9. Did you ever notice that after authoritarians fall out of favor, liberals try to dismiss them all as deviants and psychological weirdos. I guess it's hard to accept that ideas you loved so much turned out to be evil.

Thoughts?

Alright, Let's Ease Back Into This Thing...

How was everyone's Thanksgiving? Good, I trust? Here are some easy random thoughts to stretch your mind and get you back into the week.

● Viva La Dictator: Castro died. Good. He never amounted to much more than a murderous thug. I would rank him with the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Kim Il Sung, Papa Doc Duvalier, Saddam Hussein. As always, the left loved him because he was photogenic and spoke in idealistic terms as he rounded up his enemies and put the torch to the institutions that made his country run. But hey, he did create an ice cream store where anyone could get cheap ice cream, so he wasn't all bad. Let them eat ice cream as Cuba burns...

● Colin Crapernick: Kapernick praised Castro for his education policy. Interesting. So should we praise Hitler for his highway policy or his policy on women in the workforce? Stalin for his emphasis on science? Mao for his policy on leaping forward? Idiot. Do yourself a favor, Colin: STFU until you actually learn something.

● Ha ha, wrong: Amazon is running these tolerance commercials, like the one with the Muslim and the Catholic praying together and then buying each other knee pads so they could pray more easily. Oh, how special. Anyways, they have a new one involving some kid who looks like a girl and is dressed like a girl, but apparently is male, but surprisingly isn't accepted by the other kids. The commercial describes him as "shy." Gee, I wonder why he's shy? Anyways, his neutered father buys him a superman costume and suddenly the kids gather around him happily. So is the message that commercialism makes you popular? Should we judge people on what they wear or own? Or is it that dressing your kid like the wrong sex is pathetic and the kid is better off dressed in a fantasy costume? Not sure, but none of this seems like the point they wanted to make. And why does the kid looks like Danny from The Shining?

REDRUM REDRUM!!

● Speaking of Wrong: Covergirl is using some "male" model in their ads. It's an obnoxious ad and the "male" looks like a freak and acts like a freaky drag queen. It grossed out my daughters. This is not the way to do whatever the heck they were trying to do. Yada yada tolerance freak you out beatches! Tolerance! TOLERANCE! BUY OUR SH*T YOU INTOLERANT BASTARDS!!!

● Black Friday Is A Mistake: Several deaths nationwide from Black Friday. The problem is that something that encourages people to fight and act crazy in public will draw out people who want to fight and act crazy or who don't have the values not to act like animals. Encouraging that is stupid.

● Not As Good: I don't like the new Most Interesting Man in the World as much as the last. This one seems to lack the class of the last. The commercial they've given him also seems a tad condescending and not very clever. If this one came first, I don't think the campaign would have caught on.

● Warm Up Stretches: All right, to get you back into things, let's do some warmups. I'll have some good things to say about Trump later in the week. But I think his spokeswoman is a disaster. She needs to STFU about Romney and stop shooting off without thinking. Also, who knew the Green Party worked for Clinton? So much for any credibility they have. Oddly, Obama has finally been acting like a President lately. Too bad for him he didn't start earlier... he might have a legacy other than his race.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! It's starting to look like we have a lot to be thankful for in the political world this year. Yay! Hopefully, things are going as well for each of you personally! :)

For those not in the celebratory spirit, let me ask the following:

1. Do you really have a favorite color or does your choice of a favorite color depend on what is being colored? Blue for this... brown for that... green for that other thing.

2. What is your favorite word apart from the meaning of the word?

3. Isn't it interesting that some music can calm you while other music makes your blood pump? What is your favorite song in each category?

4. Why aren't conservatives using the ballot process to get blue state Colorado to split its electoral votes proportionally?

5. It's funny. The NFL just did a game in Mexico City. The leftist ESPN announcers were all but cheering for the crowd to boo during the American anthem. They didn't... they cheered. It's the same way they turned a handful of anthem protestors into a vast movement that was growing each week even as their numbers shrank. It should come as no surprise that ESPN's outside watchdog has reported that ESPN has moved far left in their coverage. In response, an ESPN anchor actually said, "It's not about being left or right, it's about being correct." Yeah, no bias there.

6. Speaking of the left... the NFL turned Monday's game into a bit of "Americans and Mexicans are like brothers" theater. Yet, the left hates the NFL. Disney presents a happy inclusive view of history as well. Yet, the left hates Disney. Isn't that interesting? The left hates companies that present an inclusive view of the world.

Thoughts?

For The Record...Again

Since it is once again the anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy, I am updating a 2013 post on the same subject since, well, nothing it has changed...

Today is the 53rd Anniversary of the Assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. As a native of Dallas, I always feel the need to set the record straight just in case you are one of those who believes that "Dallas killed Kennedy". You would be surprised how many people do. So, for the record, one more time... I had nothing to do with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Yes, I was in Dallas, but I was 4 years old and probably taking a nap. There I said it. it wasn't me. I know you may think that it goes without saying, but growing up in the specter of the assassination and guilt that has been foisted on Dallas that has followed these 50+ years, you may be able to understand the guilt I may or may not carry. But really, I wasn't involved. With that out of the way, I also have no direct memories of the assassination either [naptime, remember?].

All that out of the way, I can admit now that I have spent many years wondering why Dallas has been held responsible rather than one lone Marxist assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald. Other cities have hosted assassins:

Washington D.C:

- President Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865 (died April 15, 1865).
- President James A. Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau on July 2, 1881 (died September 19, 1881).

Buffalo, New York:

- William McKinley was shot by Leon Czolgosz on September 4, 1901 (died September 14, 1901) in Buffalo, New York.

Yet, neither of these cities has been held responsible. But then, the shooting in Dallas was different and I finally understand why. In each of the other shootings, it was obvious who did the shooting. Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley were all shot at close range and their assassins were caught almost in the act. Boothe was killed, but he was clearly the assassin having shot Lincoln in full view of an audience of a theatre audience at Ford's Theatre during a performance of "Our American Cousin". Guiteau and Czologz were tried and were brought to justice in a court of law, and both were executed. Cases closed.

Lee Harvey Oswald, on the other hand, shot Kennedy from a longer range with rifle from a window overlooking Dealey Plaza. He was arrested later in the day, but was killed by Jack Ruby before any investigation could be completed. Another unique aspect is the Zapruder film. Kennedy's assassination was the first caught on film. It isn't a stretch for me to believe that one lone, crazy gunman with a grudge could do this. There have been many unsuccessful attempts on other President throughout our history by lone gunmen (or women) yet the conspiracies persist with this one.

But what do you think?

Here are some personal fun facts from that day in Dallas: My mother worked at Parkland Hospital and was at the hospital on the day Kennedy was brought in. She was the head therapeutic dietitian and was put in charge of Gov. Connally who was also shot by Oswald. She was almost fired because she fed the Governor chili. When he was able to eat, she went to his room to ask what he would like for lunch. Mrs. Connally asked what was on the menu and she told her that they were serving Texas chili. Mrs. Connally said then that would be just fine for the Governor. Later in the day, my mother's boss, Mrs. Lively, called my mother into her office and was furious that my mother gave the Governor chili! My mother, no shrinking violet, shot back (no pun intended) that it was what he wanted! Well, she wasn't fired...

A few years later, my mother was also assigned to Jack Ruby when he was in Parkland suffering from advanced lung cancer. My mother was so paranoid that someone would try to poison Ruby that she decided that only one of her trusted cooks or she would personally make his meals. But, on January 3, 1967 she was late for work. She was driving to the hospital with the radio on when a breaking report came on that Jack Ruby has died. In a panic, she got off the highway and went to the first payphone she could find and called in. She just needed to make sure that Ruby had died BEFORE he had breakfast! He had...phew.

Truth is better than fiction, right?

Trump Transition: Still Going Well!

Some perspective on Trump appointments.

● Trump is considering a Democrat, Hillary donor as Treasury Secretary. This is Jonathan Gray, the head of Blackstone Group. What’s interesting here is that Blackstone is a real massive estate group. They hold office buildings, hotels, homes and malls all around the world. This likely represents a fundamental change of perspective from the never-ending flow of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley people who represent stock traders and deal brokers/investment bankers. I like this a lot. The real estate perspective gives Gray a perspective on the “old school” economy where average people live and work, and where the public are seen as the cogs who make the system work. By comparison, the world of Goldman Sachs is the world of financial middle men who make money no matter what happens and who see the public as resources to be milked. I think this change could matter a lot.

● According to Politico, Jeff Session’s selection as Attorney General could spark an exodus from DOJ Civil Rights Decision. Good. Seriously, if this is true, then it’s fantastic news. This is a group of race-baiters and hardcore feminists who are trying to impose their twisted views one lawsuit at a time. The bad news is that they aren’t likely to leave because they are typical bureaucrats who can’t conceive of life outside the safety of a government office. Sessions looks like a lock, by the way, despite the Democrats whining about opposing him. He will be solidly conservative.

● It looks like Trump is leaning toward retired Marine General Matthis as Secretary of Defense. That would be a fantastic pick. Matthis was the top commander in Afghanistan and wrote the manual used in Iraq to beat the insurgents. He strongly supports NATO, hates Putin and points to Iran as the biggest danger in the Middle East. He would likely be a no-nonsense leader who would do a solid job preparing America to meet the challenges of our enemies.

● The Republicans are getting an agenda ready. One of the first things they plan to do is repeal large parts of the regulations Obama has issued. They have targeted 100 regulations so far to undo. They are also looking at tax reform and undoing Obamacare early on. As an aside, one thing slowing things down will be that House Conservatives prevented Paul Ryan from passing a budget last year, so the Republicans can’t use reconciliation to avoid filibusters this first year.

● Rinse Pre-Bus on the supposed “Muslim list” the left is whining about:

“There are some people within that particular religion [Islam] that we do fear. We don’t believe in religious tests and ... are not blanketly judging an entire religion, but, in fact, we will try to pinpoint the problems and temporarily suspend those areas from coming into the United States until a better vetting system is in place. We’re going to temporarily suspend immigration from that country, or region, until a better vetting system is put in place.”

Makes sense.

Thoughts?

Media Smears And The Transition

Wow. The media is in full smear mode with Trump right now. Check this out. In the past week, I have seen the following tactics used to smear Trump:

● They associate Trump with the words (not even acts) of random individuals. "That guy said New Balance is a white supremacist shoe! This is all Trump's fault!" When no random word/act has been done to fit the narrative, they've invented "intent" and held him responsible for the intent of people who may or may not even exist. "You know that's what they're thinking, right? And it's all because of Trump."

● Treat Trump's hyperbole as literal statements and question his judgment based on that. "What does he mean, 'to the moon'? How can you punch someone to the moon? This man must be stupid." Spin gracious tweets into sarcasm and label all responses as attacks and failures to respond as "silence" (i.e admissions). "He thanked Romney for his tweet, what a nasty attack!"

● Treat the attacks of his enemies claiming to have heard hearsay from unidentified sources as if they were true. All the rumors of a transition in chaos and enemies lists are coming from anti-Trumpers who weren't hired. What's more, some of this came from Christie people who got canned when Christie got canned. Disgruntled, anyone? Pence sounds like he's done a great job cleaning that swamp, and the transition looks pretty smooth actually and the names being floated are generally high quality and happy to serve.

● Speaking of swamps. The media went ape shit when they found out there were five possible "lobbyists" being considered. "How dare he break his promise!!" (A promise they were cool with Obama breaking.) Then Pence dumped those people. Now the media has flip-flopped and is whining that he's losing expertise and that not hiring lobbyists is "dangerous."

● Remember when Trump had no idea he needed to hire his own staff! No. That's not what happened. He expressed mild surprise at the number of people who needed to be hired, which apparently no one else knew either... least of all the people using this to attack him. It's supposedly above 4,000 people according to some sources. Clinton took years to finish his staff, btw.

● The media/left have accused Trump of inspiring hate, which is actually their own hate which they are themselves fanning.

● Apparently, there are now "thousands" of women he raped. Twenty+ was overkill... this reeks of casting.

● They accuse him of being intransigent if he doesn't change and then of flip-flopping if he does. Words like "betrayal" are being tossed around in articles as settled facts even when they only think he won't follow through on a promise.

● There are an incredible number of scare tactic articles:

● Trump will take away your healthcare.
● OMG, he will deport millions of immigrants.
● He's going to something something and gays dying of AIDS and end gay marriage.
● He's encouraged white supremacists to take back America, here comes slavery!
● One of his people praised the internment of Japanese! He's going to round up Muslims!
● OMG, the stock market dropped after a week of solid gains!
● OMG, the dollar will crash and destroy America/ OMG, the dollar has risen to a 13 year high and is destroying America!
● He's going to shut down Ford and GM.
● He will destroy Medicare.
● He's going to go to war with Russia! / He's going to knuckle under to Russia!
● He's going to wipe out the EPA! / He betrayed his followers and won't shut down the EPA!
● He's going to prosecute Hillary! / He betrayed his followers and won't prosecute Hillary! / He won't tell us if he'll prosecute Hillary, how dare he not prejudge a legal issue!
● He's going to use the military to round up Mexicans! / He's planning to betray his followers and not get rid of the Mexicans!
● OMG, his "wall" is only going to be a fence in some places!
● He's going to raise the interest on your student loans... and double the amount you have through magic!
● OMG! He wants to have oil independence from Saudi Arabia! The monster! (A democratic plank for a long time.)
● He wants to waste money on infrastructure which will make our debt grow! (A democratic plank for a long time.)

And of course:

● Wahhh! His evil daughter is selling the same jewelry she wore in an interview!!!

● He went to dinner with his family when he should have been working!

● Him taking only $1 in pay is a gimmick!

● Him saying he won't take holidays is evil because... well, because he's evil!

Notice a problem here? This is called a dishonest media. And of course, in the midst of all of this, our "unbiased" media is proclaiming that they "want him to fail spectacularly" and that they "will oppose" him and "will not be silenced"... as if anyone was trying to silence these fools. Sorry, idiots, there is no bravery required to speak liberalism in the US.

Anyways, don't fall for a word they tell you unless you hear the quote directly from the administration.

NYT Mea Culpa and Other Stuff

As if the world hasn't gotten crazy enough since Nov. 8, here are a few of my observations to discuss:

New York Times Mea Culpa (sort of):

In a Nov. 11 post-election Nov. 11 post-election letter to their readers/subscribers (who they have been shedding at an alarming rate), New York Times publisher/executive editor Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr. published this:

When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher

Dean Baquet, executive editor

But the New York Post, always looking for a way to stick to the Times, found that this one sentence had been scrubbed from the original letter when posted to all readers (paying or not) on their website on Nov. 13:

“We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.”

I know, you did a spit-take when reading that line, right? Considering that they have been all "Obama good/Republicans Bad" for 8 years and all "Trump Bad all the time" for this election cycle on their front pages and Op/Ed pages with scant reporting on Clinton issues like email, alleged Foundation/State Department co-mingling of assets and other issues. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt, right?

When questioned by the NY Post as to why that particular sentence was scrubbed from the original letter, a spokesperson responded:

A Times spokeswoman acknowledged the missing sentence, but insisted it is “no great mystery.”

“The letter was originally drafted with our subscribers in mind,” the spokeswoman said.

She said the paper made the decision to run the letter on the homepage because “we thought an honest dialogue on the issues raised by this election with all of our readers was important.”

“Given how broad the audience for the letter would be in that context,” she noted, “we removed the line to avoid it being interpreted as defensive.”

Now this sounds like the NYT had a "come to Jesus" moment, and realized that perhaps their reporting may have been just a little slanted and they just wanted to reassure their readers/subscribers that they promised to do better. Well, consider this. Trump is going to be the President on January 20th. So when they continue to report the "All Trump Bad all the time" it will because that is now real "Journalism" and they will be speaking Truth To Power.

Sanctuary Cities Bruhaha:

Apparently, come Jan. 20th, Trump is going round up all of the immigrants in the country and ship 'em all back home. Well, honestly he might try, but I doubt that it is really that easy. For background, there are 32 cities who declared themselves "sanctuary cities" which means that they refuse to report illegals (yes, I will use that term) to the INS or hold them for possible deportation hearings. In an article published by NBC News

'Sanctuary Cities' Vow to Protect Immigrants From Trump Plan New York City's Bill de Blasio, Chicago's Rahm Emanuel and Seattle's Ed Murray have declared that they will "continue a longstanding policy of refusing to hold people charged with civil infractions for federal immigration officials." Many other mayors of these "sanctuary cities" have followed suit. Of course, this is all in flagrant violation of federal laws, but whatevs.

Of course, NYC Mayor de Blasio, who is running for re-election in 2017, went a step further and threatened to scrub the data connected to our uniquely NYC ID program to protect card holders from the Feds accessing this information. Two years ago, the city began issuing free New York City ID cards so that people who did not otherwise have any ID could obtain one. The ID cannot be used for any ID outside of the city like airport security. Mainly these IDs were for our illegal immigrants so they would be able to access city services that require some form of valid ID - finding housing, get utilities, open bank accounts, and other services. And incentive was added that includes free museum memberships and other perks. Now maybe I am wrong, but scrubbing all the data would render the NYC ID useless because there would be no way of verifying the information. But I have never known De Blasio to think more than one step behind, so he probably didn't think about that.

Please share your thoughts and/or feelings...


This week

Let There Be Slavery!! Just Kidding

Interesting article today on the Colorado "slavery" issue (LINK). This article shows what's wrong with leftists, journalists, and the whiner movement. Here's the dealio...

This issue is this. In November, Colorado voters just barely (19,000 votes) voted against a change to our Constitution which would have changed this language: “There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.” by removing the exception for prisons.

What were we thinking, right? After all, slavery is illegal and immoral so why should we still allow it as punishment for a crime? Seems like a no-brainer, right? Yet, we got it wrong. Right? Well, it wasn't a no-brainer, and that's why just over half the public voted against it.

The reason is that the measure was pushed by a group whose ultimate goal is to eliminate the prison system. What exactly their intent is was not clear, BUT there was a lot of concern that what this measure would do would be to eliminate prison work programs and community service. A lot of people don't like that. Prison work programs are often the only way to reform criminals and it is often the only skills training they will get in life. What's more, without community service you would either need to let most small crimes go unpunished (essentially eliminating small crimes) or you would need to build more jails to hold people who currently get off with community service. Bad idea all around.

So why did nearly half vote for it? Because it sounds great to eliminate "a reference to slavery" in the constitution. (BTW, Colorado was never a slave state so the idea that this promoted slavery is nonsense.

And that brings me to the article. Rather than presenting what I just told you, the author presented it as a no-brainer. All they wanted to do was to eliminate "hurtful language" from the Constitution. Well, f*ck you. Do a better job of writing your proposed change if that's all it is. Besides, why are we tinkering with the operating document of a state merely to cater to the idiosyncrasies of the delicates?

Further, the author is outraged that the state voter guide dared to state the "no" position "when there was no organized opposition!" In other words, it's unfair to be impartial. How democratic. Moreover, you apparently only need to be fair if there is a recognized lobby on each side. Apparently, we should only hear approved opinions.

Third, he assumes the public was confused, when I suspect the public really saw through the confusion generated by the proposed change. In other words, the public looked past the sales pitch "it says slavery!!!" and looked at the substance of what could happen. We're not confused. He is.

Fourth, he finds someone who was never a slave but gets described as if she and her family were slaves to shame us. Go away. I don't own a plantation or want slaves... no one does, and if one word in the constitution ruins your life, then you have bigger issues than this.

Fifth, he never mentions the goal of the people who introduced this. He instead described the process, using that to make it sound like the legislature spontaneously came up with this idea.

Finally, he never mentions the reason people opposed it. He does, however, try to refute it with a throwaway statement from an expert that "gee, this never meant the end of work programs before." Of course, he omits the fact that this guy is talking about other states and that the Colorado Supreme Court can get batshit crazy whenever it comes to issues like this.

So basically, you have an author who can't understand why more than half the public opposed something, but who thinks it's probably racism or a secret desire to have slavery back. Sound familiar? It's the media in a microcosm. They can't understand why Trump won. They refuse to understand. It must be racism or a failure to understand the truth, right? And both are outraged that the opponents arguments were even presented to the stupid, racist public.

Thoughts?