On Trump’d first speech to Congress (plus full disclosure)

Trump poised to press ‘bold agenda’ in first congressional address

President Trump is planning to outline an ambitious first-year agenda tackling everything from immigration to infrastructure when he delivers his first address to a Joint Session of Congress Tuesday night, the White House said.

First things first. Full disclosure here. During the early stages of the 2016 primary campaign, my first choice was Gov. Scott Walker, who I still believe would make an excellent President. When he dropped out, not only was I very disappointed, but I was experiencing feelings of deja vu, as the same exact thing had happened to me in both 2008 and 2012, where my initial picks dropped out, were replaced by others who also then dropped out, leaving me to have to settle for the eventual nominees, McCain and Romney. This time around, I switched my ‘allegiance’ to Ted Cruz, and held out hope that he wouldn’t also disappoint by dropping out. Eventually he did, as Trump went on to win the nomination, and as we all know, the election.

All during the primary, in another social networking venue, I wrote some strongly worded posts detailing everything that was wrong about Trump, and writing the virtues of Cruz, all to no avail, and losing many long time on line friends in the process. Then when the general election time came, and my “choices” boiled down to what I characterized as the TV star, the Leftist Prog, the Libertarian dope smoker, the lunatic Green fringer, and this dude from Utah who claimed to be a conservative (but has revealed himself to be in line with the Leftist Prog), I held my nose, and marked my ballot for Trump, as he was, in my mind, the least worst of the “choices” that were laid out before me. To my, and many others, utter astonishment (and to be honest, not a little relief because of SCOTUS picks), Trump beat the Leftist Prog by a wide margin, and is now our President.

The whole time Trump was on the campaign trail, during the debates, and in interviews, I found, and still do, his speaking “style” (if you can call it that) to be, well, cringe-worthy, and I don’t like sitting through his speeches where he rambles off cuff, and often off message as it makes me, well, cringe. I won’t be listening to tonight’s speech either (at least, that’s my thinking right now – I reserve the right to change my mind, even if I am a guy), but I will read the transcripts tomorrow, as i do have an interest in what he says that will make the oppositions heads (and some on our side, too – I’m looking at you John and Lindsey) go all splody – because you know they will.

Last but not least, I’m still wary of Trump, and am watching what he’s doing with an unapologetic cynics eye. So far, there have been a few missteps that could have been avoided if someone had thought things through just a little bit more (the travel restriction EO imbroglio comes immediately to mind), but he’s also done several things that are laudatory, and best of all, he has the Dems on their heels, which is always a good thing in my book.

Over the next several years, I will continue to watch, and write about, our current President, calling him out when he makes a mistake – which he will, as he’s human – but also cheering him one when he’s doing something cheer-worthy. I am not a sycophant, rah-rah kind of guy like so many in the “professional media” have been over the last several years, so expect some negative posts along with the positive posts.

Okay, now that that is out of the way, let’s continue on, shall we?

The White House detailed Trump’s highly anticipated address on Monday, outlining what will be the president’s biggest speech since his inauguration. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump will push a “bold agenda,” while another White House official described it as an “optimistic” look toward the next four years.

Heh, as if what he has been doing so far hasn’t been bold. You can tell just how bold by the screaming, wailing, hair pulling, and gnashing of teeth on display by both the media and the Dems (yes, I know I’m being redundant). If Dem hysteria is the result of Trump’s actions, all I can say is, more please.

For the new president, whose opening month has been marked by rapid-fire executive actions but also a string of controversies, the primetime televised address is a critical chance to reframe some of the more contentious aspects of his young presidency – and reinforce campaign pledges that have yet to kick into action, like repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

As I’ve written before, those things that are claimed to be “controversial” and “out of the main stream” are only considered to be so because they offend Dems “sensitivities” and they don’t like that. The Dems and media (I know, I know) prefer it when they get to pick and choose what the agenda is to be, and have the Reps follow along behind, nodding their heads like so many bobble headed dolls. News flash Dems/media (is that better?) – ever since you guys force fed us the ACA, we’ve been reshuffling the deck on our side and putting conservatives in office who are definitely not bobble headed dolls that you guys can control. We still have some work to do to weed out some of the bobble headed dolls that remain, but we’re working on it.

As for not having the ACA repeal/replace legislation yet, that isn’t Trump’s fault. That’s on Congress. They’ve had the past six plus years to work on legislation that everybody can get behind, but no. As usual, stupid turf wars have been going on behind the scenes between this Rep and that Senator preventing legislation from being already written, and ready and waiting for Trump’s signature. These stupid turf wars are coming to light now to show that the GOP is in “disarray”, now that the GOP controls the House, Senate and WH. Before that, the media tended to ignore anything coming from the GOP regarding ACA repeal/replace because they figured someone else was going to win the WH.

Spicer said the goals outlined in Tuesday’s speech will also strike a balance on the challenges ahead, while reflecting a more optimistic, forward-looking tone that focuses on the “American spirit.”

That is always something worthy to focus on, and is something that differentiates Trump from his predecessor, which is definitely a good thing.

Such a tone would strike a contrast with Trump’s inauguration address, marked by gloomy warnings about the country’s economic decay and rampant crime which he vowed to fix. The official said the same team of speechwriters who worked on the inaugural speech were working with Trump on Tuesday’s address.

This is his first real chance to lay out his “I want to see this for America” wish/goal list, rather than the “This is where we are right now, and I will change things for the better.” realism speech. We, as a nation, needed to hear that we aren’t in the best of shape as a nation, that we can be and do better, and now we need to hear how we can be and do better, and tonight will be Trump’s chance to let us know what he plans to do.

Spicer also said the president would highlight “public safety, including defense, increased border security, taking care of our veterans, and then economic opportunity, including education and job training, health care reform, jobs, taxes and regulatory reform.”

All good topics to cover. Bravo. Let’s hear what he has to say.

Trump is also expected to reach out to Americans “living in the poorest and most vulnerable communities, and let them know that help is on the way,” Spicer said.

This is of particular interest to me, as, although I don’t physically live in, say Appalachia for example, I am empathetic to the plight of folks who do live in the poorer areas of our country, trying to cope with little to no job prospects, drug and alcohol abuse as coping mechanisms, being stuck in the place where they are with little prospect of escaping to better places. (Please note: If you live in and love Appalachia, please don’t beat me up for using Appalachia as a negative example. I only did so to evoke mental images in people to get a point across. I’m sure that there is much about Appalachia to appreciate that I am completely unaware of.)

Trump’s young administration has seen its share of growing pains.

Well yeah, it has. Just like every other administration before it, all the way back to George Washington.

Take this next paragraph one item at a time …

The president has faced sustained resistance from Democrats, over everything from his Cabinet picks to his border security plans.

They are the party currently out of power, and as such, it is incumbent upon them to do just that – to a point. It is perfectly acceptable to stand up, state your case as to why you are opposed to a nominee, or to proposed legislation, or what have you, and then to sit down and vote your conscience. What is not acceptable is to be obstructionist “just because”, which is where the Dems are right now. They need to stop.

But other issues have drawn bipartisan criticism from some corners: late-night tweets; the rocky rollout of the controversial suspension of refugee and other admissions (actions on hold by the courts and currently being rewritten) …

You will never get this guy to stop tweeting. It’s just not happening, so stop trying, and learn to live with it. Are some of his tweets cringe inducing? Oh, yeah. But many are spot on, as well, and getting directly to the people, which is the thing that is most frustrating to the media and the establishment politicians.

The rollout of the travel restriction EO was poorly executed, is now held up in the courts, and will be made moot by two things – by the time it is completely litigated, the time period of 90 and 120 days will have elapsed, and there is a replacement EO in the works that will supersede the currently stopped EO.

… the forced resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn following reports of contacts between him and a Russian diplomat; White House leaks driven by infighting; and strained relationships with China, Mexico and Australia.

Flynn was forced to resign because he was not completely forthcoming to the Vice President about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the US, not because of those contacts. Let’s keep the facts straight on this, please.

WH leaks have been a plague of every administration, but this seems to be epidemic in scope for this group. Too many people strutting about like preening adolescent peacocks, who just have to appear as if they are the ones “in the know”, but not the idiot down the hall, so don’t talk to him/her. Meanwhile the idiot down the hall is saying the exact same thing about the other idiot down the hall from him/her. Some leaks have been of classified information to show that the leaker is “really in the loop”, while others have been made simply to make the President look bad. In any event, they really do need to stop since you people are coming across to the American people as complete idiots who can’t/won’t keep your mouths shut.

Trump has an opportunity Tuesday to refocus on his policy priorities.

Last but not least (because of Fair Use), I think Trump is focused on his policy priorities, but that this has not been communicated well, either by Trump himself, his spokespersons, or the media, with the latter doing the poor communicating due to having the Left bias that they do. As time moves on, I hope that the issues they may be having with effectively communicating what they are trying to do will be rectified, so that people can extinguish the fire in their hair, and get back to living their regular lives.

Good ol’ John, reliable as ever

McCain defends the media in NBC interview

In an interview on NBC airing on Sunday, Senator John McCain defended the media, saying “we need a free press, we must have it.”

In an interview with NBC News’ Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” the Republican senator was asked to respond to President Trump’s tweet on Friday where he called many media outlets “the enemy of the American people.”

McCain said that in order to “preserve democracy” you must have a free press. He says that without it he’s “afraid we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time.”

“That’s how dictators get started,” McCain added in a clip of the interview released on Saturday.

“They get started by suppressing free press,” the Senator responded asked if he was referring to Trump’s tweet.

McCain added that “the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press.”

The media’s ever reliable go to guy on the Republican side of the aisle, Sen. John McCain, has spoken up once again, willingly jumping at the bait that Chuck Todd laid out for him by responding to a question regarding President Trumps’ latest Tweet blasting the press.

Now, there is something I want to make perfectly clear here. We absolutely do need a free press that is not subject to suppression by government whim, as that indeed is the path to dictatorship.

However.

We also need the press to do their jobs by reporting the news as it is, not as they wish it was. We call people who work as journalists “reporters” for a reason, and that reason is that they are supposed to report, and leave the opinionating to the pundits.

Am I saying that reporters can’t have an opinion on what is happening in the world? No, as that would be an infringement on their First Amendment rights to have that opinion. What I am saying is, if your job description title says “Reporter”, then report. If it says “Opinion Commentator”, then by all means, tell us what your opinion is (and not what you think our opinion should be). Just do your jobs, reporters. Hash out your opinions with your friends and family like the rest of us do.

Now comes the part where John and I part ways, and is partly why I call him the media’s ever reliable go to guy on the Republican side of the aisle (along with his buddy Sen. Lindsey Graham). In the next snippet, John first says one thing, then denies that he really means what he just said, even though he just said it.

“I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator, I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history,” McCain said in the NBC interview. [Emphasis mine]

“I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator …” Uh, you just did, John. If not directly, then through inference and innuendo, which is fodder for both the Liberal media and the Alt-right fringers, both of whom will have a field day with that, and you know it, which is probably why you said it. And I also think he said it to maintain his more than friendly relationship with his pals in the media.

Now, what was I saying about what he said being fodder for the media? Just look at the headline at the linked NBC piece:

McCain Defends a Free Press: ‘That’s How Dictators Get Started’

It wasn’t a “veiled swipe” either. Rather, it was almost subtle in a blatant way.  You inferred it, they’re running with it. “I’m not saying …” even though you did say it.

That’s not how you win friends, John, but it is how you damage someone you don’t like.

About those leaks …

By now, you’ve heard, read, or have been told of the resignation of former NSA head Michael Flynn, brought about because ‘someone’ decided to leak details of one or more telephone conversations he had with a Russian diplomat, details which involved the previous administrations sanctions against, and expulsions of, Russian diplomatic officials due to alleged interference in our recently concluded national elections (which could possibly be a violation of the Logan Act). Remember that these phone conversations occurred in December 2016, before the current administration took over. Whoever it was is not currently known, nor is the explicit reason for the leak, but the most probable reason would be to deligitimize the incoming administration.

Leaks happen all the time, and have happened since the first governments assumed power back in ancient times. They are, to put it simply, a fact of life that each administration has to come to grips with. Leaks happen for various reasons from the “whistle blowing” leak to shine a light on something wrong being done, to the revenge leak, where specific information regarding someone or some program or operation of government that is sensitive information, is leaked to “get back at” someone for whatever reason, and various and sundry other types of leaks. The one thing you need to keep in mind about leaks is that they are intended to cause damage (yes, even the “whistle blower” leaks) of one form or another.

The two most common sources of leaks are hold overs from the previous administration who leak information for the sole purpose of undermining the new administration, and inner circle types who are engaged in some form of power struggle, and think that leaking information about those in the “other camp” will advance their “cause”, boosting themselves through the diminution of others. Leaks of any kind, in my opinion, are potentially lethal in that, if the information leaked is about a program or operation either in a war zone, or in a foreign land, people could get killed, and that must never be allowed to happen.

Leaks plagued the George W Bush administration, specifically from the intelligence community (I’m looking at you CIA), which I blame on too many Clinton administration hold overs who despised Bush, who amazingly enough, didn’t do much against the leakers. The previous administration also had their problems with leakers, but they pursued them with gusto, and managed to keep the lid on things to a certain extent. And now, the current administration has to deal with a plague of leaks, some of which occurred even before they took office, but are having to deal with now.

The current leak scandal that the media wants you to believe is the specific details of telephone conversations between Flynn and the Russian diplomat back in December, as well as details of conversations President Trump has had with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. That is what the media and the Left is focusing on and trying to get you focusing on as well, not the fact that the conversations were leaked in the first place.

In the wake of Michael Flynn’s resignation as national security adviser, President Trump and Republican allies on Capitol Hill are turning their attention to the potentially “illegal” leaks that revealed Flynn’s politically fatal discussions with a Russian diplomat and other sensitive details from inside the administration.

The president, after accepting Flynn’s resignation overnight, tweeted Tuesday morning that, “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?”

“Illegal”? Yes, in that any conversation between a foreign operative and an American citizen, the name of the American citizen is to remain masked. Any divulging of the name of the American citizen is illegal under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Flynn’s name was not masked, instead leaked to CNN, the WaPo, and the NY Times. So, now the House is going to be asking the FBI to look into these leaks, to try to get to the bottom of it all, and to see if any of them were coordinated.

“We are going to be outlining all of our concerns over the last 60 days that appear to all be related, maybe even coordinated in some ways,” committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox News. “I am going to be asking the FBI to do an assessment of this to tell us what’s going on here because we cannot continue to have these leaks as a government.”

Rep. Nunes is correct. We can’t afford to continue to have leaks if our government is going to be effective at home, and respected, and more importantly, trusted, abroad.

Dems hair on fire – again.

Trump says top priority is to ‘protect and serve’ America amid backlash over extreme vetting

President Trump’s order to suspend the country’s refugee program and temporarily ban immigration from seven mostly-Muslim nations erupted Sunday into a full-scale political battle — with Trump and top aides defending the move amid nationwide protests and congressional Democrats vowing a relentless Capitol Hill fight to undo the order.

First off, this is a temporary thing. It is not permanent regardless of what the media typists type. Second, this was promulgated poorly, in my opinion, as green card holders were not to have been affected, and yet were, hence the ‘clarification’ as you’ll see later in this article. I don’t know if this was simply a misunderstanding on someone’s part, or overt overzealousness. Somehow, from his statement, I don’t get the sense that it was the President’s doing, although he is taking the blame. Meanwhile, the Dems are up in arms, outraged, nonplussed, determined, and girding their loins. Lot of that going on lately.

Earlier in the day, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., staged a press conference with some immigrant children and adults impacted by the bans and vowed to fight them on Capitol Hill “with every fiber of my being.”

And cue the props, as “courageous” Sen. Schumer trots out some poor, poor immigrant folks (are they here legally, Senator?) in another grandstanding show, stating that he vows he will fight with every fiber of his being! Oooh, tough guy rhetoric coming from the guy who was SILENT for the previous EIGHT YEARS while his BFF ran roughshod over the Constitution. Oh, and lest anyone forget, he’s the leader of the LOSER party (for now, but I love typing that – it’s like the smell of napalm in the morning, you know?).

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she would introduce two bills Monday. One of the bills would rescind Trump’s order, while the other would give Congress greater oversight of the president’s immigration authority.

And California Democratic Rep. Lou Correa said the executive orders on illegal immigration “directly challenge the right to due process under the Constitution” and that he’ll introduce legislation to fund legal aid to those who are “targeted.”
Yeah, have fun trying to get any of those bills through a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress. Do these people have lizard brains? I mean, they keep saying they are going to do this, and they are going to do that, while totally ignoring the fact that – pardon me for repeating myself, but I can’t resist – they are the LOSER party and have no chance at getting the votes necessary to get these bills to the Presidents desk. Oh, one last thing. If they think he’d even think about signing any of them, then they do have lizard brains. I mean, c’mon. Seriously?

Congressional Democrats led by Schumer, who said he’s already appealed to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, will have a difficult task getting any kind of measure through the Republican-control Congress that would reverse the executive order.

Secretary Kelly, being the honorable man that he is, probably with grace, took time out of his busy schedule to hear the plaintive whines from Sen. Schumer, and then, again probably with grace (Marines can be merciful when necessary), after hearing him out, probably told him he was going to obey the President by carrying out his orders. Of course, Kelly also could have tore him a new one, too. I have no idea which version happened, but I’m leaning to the former, rather than the latter. Anyway, moving on.

“I doubt many Arkansans or Americans more broadly object to taking a harder look at foreigners coming into our country from war-torn nations with known terror networks. I think they’re wondering why we don’t do that already,” said Arkansas GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, who as an Army officer served combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. [Emphasis mine]

Why yes, yes we do, Sen. Cotton, and for everyone out there who still can’t understand how Trump got elected, this was probably the number one issue on people’s minds during the primaries, and then the general election that pushed him to the White House. After watching Barry open our borders to hordes of illegal aliens and then do nothing to stem the resultant tide (why should he, as they were potential future voters for the Dems), and then hearing Hillary promise more of the same, and watching as state and federal monies went to support those illegal aliens (any other phrase is merely a euphemism, and I refuse to use them – they are illegal aliens, period!) while American citizens were told to get to the back of the line, alarmed and angered the average American (and many legal aliens who were following the immigration rules, as well), resulting in what we have now. Trump in the White House, and Temporary bans on travel for people from a grand total of seven countries that terrorists call home.

If Congress and the previous President had done their jobs (I’m looking at some specific Republicans, as well as ALL of the Democrats), and actually enforced our immigration laws, we wouldn’t have this situation on our hands now – going from lax non-enforcement to what seems like draconian measures now. Speaking of specific Republicans who didn’t do their jobs … right on cue, it’s the usual suspects, with one minor surprise thrown in –

However, Trump is facing opposition for some congressional Republicans, including Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, of Florida, and Barbara Comstock, of Virginia, along with Sens. Ben Sasse, of Nebraska, Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and John McCain, of Arizona.

The one minor surprise here is Sasse, because he checks off all of the Conservative Republican boxes, but has been, and still is a NeverTrumper, so I guess it isn’t that much of a surprise after all. The other four? I would have been surprised if they hadn’t said anything.

“It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted,” Graham and McCain said in a joint statement. “Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

Not to let an opportunity to get in front of the cameras be wasted, Graham and McCain rushed to issue the above statement. While I nominally agree with the first part of it, they should have discussed this with President Trump first, instead of rushing to get in front of the media. If after discussing the subject with the President, and not getting their concerns alleviated, they should then have gone to McConnell, before going to the press, but no, not these two media hogs. As a result, you get a Trump Tweet. *headdesk*

So, what does the Executive Order cover?

The executive order Trump issued Friday imposes a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program and a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

That translates to a 3 month temporary travel ban, and 4 month temporary suspension of the U.S. refugee program by people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. From other things I’ve read/seen, for certain individuals from Iraq who have helped us (translating, providing intelligence, etc) in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda, the travel ban will be waived on a case-by-case basis, which is good, as those people have risked not only their own lives, but the lives of their families by helping us, and they should get deferential treatment, imo. Other than that, these folks are simply going to have to wait as the new administration looks at how these people have been vetted in the past.

That’s basically what this all boils down to, you know. The new administration looking at how the previous administration did things that affect our national security, to see if what they were doing worked, or not. If what they were doing works, keep on keeping on, with possibly some minor tweaks. If, however, it does not work, how can things be changed to ensure that policies and procedures do work?

And the Democrats are running around with their hair on fire over this? They need to get serious.

Dems threatening “Scorched Earth” tactics, might get burned by it instead

Democrats reportedly plan scorched-earth approach to fighting Trump

Well, that escalated rather quickly, but I’m not surprised. As the Dems watch item after item of their progressive, Leftist, agenda get rolled back, the more they get “outraged”, and begin yelling, screaming, name calling, having fits, and generally acting like a bunch of three year olds having a temper tantrum and stomping their collective foot. It’s almost as if they were totally unaware that this was a possibility … oh, wait. They didn’t think it was a possibility, because they were smugly assured of a Hillary win last November that didn’t happen, and that has them totally discombobulated.

For the past two months, Democratic leaders have been reportedly discussing ways to approach the presidency of Donald Trump and have largely landed on a conclusion: fight him at every turn in a ‘not-now-not-ever’ opposition.

So, basically, since that fateful day in November, 2016, when progressives saw their dreams of a Leftist Utopia go down in scorching hot flames?

I’m not surprised that they’ve been plotting against President Trump (it’s what Dems do you know – plot against Reps at every turn) but I am a little surprised they admitted it.

Politico reported that it conducted interviews with about two dozen Democrats in office who were willing to discuss the internal debate.

It apparently did not take very long for these politicians to determine that a working relationship was not possible, though Washington Gov. Jay Inslee told the magazine that there was a “grace period.”

“But it was midnight the night of the inauguration to 8 o’clock the next morning, when the administration sent out people to lie about numerous significant things.”

He continued, “It’s been worse than I could have imagined, the first few days.”

This is my State Governor speaking here. He’s a former Congressman who decided to bring his Leftist policies back home, and really screw up my state, but I digress.

Saying that any newly elected President has a ‘grace period’ of only eight hours is rather breath taking, and I would be saying the same thing about this if a Dem was in the office as President, and some elected Rep said that. And then to state that Trump has lied about numerous significant things without giving any examples is disingenuous on his part. Just a reminder, Jay: We here in Washington State can say the exact same thing about you, that you have lied about numerous significant things (Like you have made the state “business friendly” – Seattle is part of the state, right? Go talk to them about how “business friendly” they are!). Another reminder: the internet is forever. Just sayin’, Jay.

Sen. Kirsten GIllibrand, D-N.Y., is credited so far with voting the most against Trump, voting against three of four Trump Cabinet-level picks.

So, what does she win? A shiny gold colored star? It’s no surprise that one of Barry’s biggest sycophants in the Senate would vote against Trump at nearly every turn. She also marches to the orders of Sen. Chuck Schumer as well, so maybe she’s earned a pat on the head for being “anti-Trump”.

Another example of the Dems acting like three year old children was the boycott of the inauguration by about 50 or so Dem Congressmen and women, done because they didn’t want to “normalize” the man who was freely, legally, elected (by a landslide in the Electoral College, btw), claiming that he was
not “legitimate” because he didn’t win the popular vote, and that Russia “helped” him win. I’ve written on that subject before, so I won’t beat that, to me, dead horse again. I’ll just say that no Russian person came to me to whisper in my ear to say who he would prefer me to vote for, and not one other voter had someone tell them who to vote for, either. Well, unless it was your Crazy Uncle Murray who tells everyone in the family what to do all the time, that is.

The one thing that still amazes me, is that the Dems are convinced, and I mean totally assured, that the severe electoral losses they’ve taken over the last three election cycles (over 1,000 seats at the National and State levels, which is astonishing!) are merely aberrations, that the electorate is “acting out” a little, but will, in the next election, come to their senses and vote Dem again, like they’re “supposed” to.

Being condescending does not win you elections. Not even your “seminars on how to talk to people” (i.e, whites in blue collar areas – the people you took for granted) will do any good, really, because you aren’t going to talk to people, you’re going to continue to talk at people. There’s a significant difference there.

The next election cycle, 2018, is right around the proverbial corner, and there are 25 Dem Senate seats up, and 10 of those are in states that Trump won. I would think that those Dems would be a little circumspect on how much scorching of Earth they want to be involved in. If not, things could get a little hot for them (in a figurative sense – please don’t actually do what you see in the video, ok?), like what happens here.

Sen. Sessions to have a tough ride in confirmation hearings

Trump picks for attorney general, DHS kick off week of confirmation hearings

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees to lead the departments of Justice and Homeland Security will appear before Senate commitees Tuesday to kick off what is likely to be a contentious confirmation process.

Ok, that’s fair I suppose, as long as the ‘contentiousness’ doesn’t devolve into ad hominem hyperbolic attacks that are based in personal feelings, and devoid of facts. Oh, wait …

Late Monday, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., announced that he would testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the nomination of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. Booker will be joined by Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La. — the head of the Congressional Black Caucus — as part of an effort by Democrats to portray Sessions as out of the mainstream on civil rights legislation.

‘Out of the mainstream’ meaning that Sen. Session’s views don’t mesh with Democrats views, the supposed ‘mainstream’ position on anything, but especially race relations. Disregard everything Sen. Sessions has done in defense of civil rights (we’ll get to that below) and the testimony of those he’s worked with over the years, and because he’s white, and from the South, paint him as an automatic red neck, KKK loving, racist who will see to it that all civil rights legislation (pushed through by Republicans, btw – look it up) is either ignored or repealed. Or, you know, the usual.

Booker is believed to be the first sitting Senator to testify in a confirmation hearing against another sitting senator nominated for a Cabinet position.

Whoop dee do. All kinds of ‘glass ceilings’ being broken this election season.

“I do not take lightly the decision to testify against a Senate colleague,” Booker said in a statement. “But the immense powers of the Attorney General combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience.

A call to conscience? Seriously? You just happen to be the frontman in the Democrat effort to smear Sen. Sessions as a racist.

“The Attorney General is responsible for ensuring the fair administration of justice, and based on his record, I lack confidence that Senator Sessions can honor this duty,” the senator added.

After the previous two examples of ‘the fair administration of justice’ Ag’s, you’d think that statements like this would be kept at a minimum, but apparently due to a lack of awareness of just exactly what is being said, and that you can look things up on the internet, I guess we’ll be seeing more of things like this. It appears that Sen. Booker thinks that none of us out here in Fly Over Country knows how to use the internet.

Democrats don’t have the power to block the nomination of either Sessions or retired Marine Gen. John Kelly to head DHS, since Republicans control the Senate and only need a simple majority to confirm both men.

However, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are expected to try and paint Sessions as being out of the mainstream on issues critical to the party’s core voters — Hispanics, African Americans and women — ahead of the 2018 election cycle.

So instead of doing their jobs properly, which is to ask pointed questions to gain information – not an advantage – they think the obvious course of action is to paint Sen. Sessions as a racist, and in the most damning of ways so as to scare their constituents in the hope of boosting their electoral chances in 2018. What’s that one definition of insanity? Doing something over and over again, hoping for a different result? Yeah, go with that Dems. We’re not as stupid as you seem to think we are, and I’m including your constituents in that statement.

The next five paragraphs then set out to do the Dems work for them, painting Sen. Sessions in as unflattering a light as possible. Let’s break those down, shall we?

Sessions has been a leading advocate not only for cracking down on illegal immigration, but also for slowing all legal immigration, increasing mass deportations and giving more scrutiny to those entering the United States. He vehemently opposed the bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate passed in 2013 that included a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Cracking down on crime is only semi-ok, as long as it doesn’t involve someone not born here, but that is here without permission (In other words, an illegal alien)? Hmmm, seems to me that would be a feature, and not a bug.

As for slowing down legal immigration? Most legal immigrants come here seeking employment, and generally are willing to accept lower wages than an American worker, which then displaces American workers from American jobs. We’re talking about immigrants here, not visitors here on temporary visa’s, ok? These people want to stay. As long as they come here LEGALLY, I’m not opposed to them coming here per se, but at a measured pace. We need to control our own borders, and access to our country. Something that is anathema to Democrats, who would love to see all immigration restrictions relegated to the “dust bin of history”, as they like to say. That’s also why they don’t like that Sen. Sessions would like to see as many illegals as possible removed from our country.

As for Sen. Session’s opposition to the Gang of 8 “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill, that would have granted amnesty to at least 11 million illegal aliens (they aren’t “undocumented immigrants” – they are trespassers who have broken the law, hence illegal aliens)? Excellent!

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who worked with Republicans to craft the immigration legislation, indicated last week that he would have a hard time supporting Sessions, saying “he has been more anti-immigration than just about any other single member of Congress.”

No, Sen. Schumer, he has not been anti-immigration, he has been anti-illegal immigration. There is a difference, which you are purposefully eliding. You would think that someone opposed to people breaking the law would be held in higher regard, but since this is about slowing down the growth of the Democrat base, the Democrats in Congress are taking it as a personal affront, and when that happens, they lie, which is what Sen. Schumer just did.

In 1986, Sessions was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan, but was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee over allegations that he had called a black attorney “boy” — which he denied — and described the NAACP and ACLU as “un-American.”

I wasn’t there to hear Sen. Sessions allegedly refer to a black attorney as “boy”, so I can’t speak directly to that, except to say that if it had been proven true, and from everything I’ve seen, it has not, I would be opposed to his nomination as well. However, since it has not been proven unequivocally to be true, I am more inclined to take Sen. Sessions at his word.

As for calling the NAACP and ACLU un-American? Perhaps that is painting with too broad of a brush, but there have been several instances down the years where those particular organizations have indulged themselves in activities that have not been seen as having been in the best interests of America.

Last week, the NAACP staged a sit-in at one of Sessions’ Alabama offices, and its legal defense fund said it was “inconceivable that he should be entrusted with the oversight of our civil rights laws.”

To me, it’s inconceivable that people still resort to 1960’s style political grandstanding to make a “grand gesture”, rather than simply hold a press conference which would accomplish the same thing, but without the theatrics. But I guess when your argument is weak, you do what you feel you have to in order to deflect peoples attention from that weak argument.

Hank Sanders, a Democratic state senator in Alabama, points to cases Sessions pursued as a prosecutor against civil rights activists in the 1980s. “They called them voter fraud cases,” said Sanders, who won acquittals for the defendants. “I called them voter persecution cases.”

I would like to ask Mr. Sanders something. Were this case brought by then-prosecuting attorney Sessions on his own, or were they brought by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama? In other words, were this case brought because of a personal animus or bias, or was he just doing his job following up on allegations of voter fraud (which he lost, btw, which is neither here nor there really)?

I’d also like to ask Mr. Sanders what he would have done should the roles had been reversed, but that’s a hypothetical. I’m 100% positive that Mr. Sanders would have absolutely refused to do his job, and would not have brought charges against the defendants in that case, as it would have offended his sensibilities. Well, actually, no I’m not 100% positive of what Mr. Sanders would have done if the roles had been reversed. Just trying to make a point about stereotyping.

I’ll let Albert Turner Jr. have the last word on this point.

However, Albert Turner Jr., the son of two of those defendants recently said he believed Sessions “is not a racist” and “was simply doing his job” when he prosecuted the cases.

The final four paragraphs finally get around to stating positive things about Sen. Sessions, although not ONCE in the entire article is he shown the respect due to a sitting Senator, as the author(s) never refer to him as Senator Sessions, or Sen. Sessions. Not once. Yet, all other national political office holders are. Ok, rant over. I’m irritated by the omission. At any rate, here are the positives that the author(s) appended to the article, almost as an after thought.

Supporters describe Sessions as a man of integrity who fought for desegregation during his career as a local GOP leader, prosecutor and elected official.

Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist.

As U.S. attorney, Sessions’ office investigated and helped secure convictions in the 1981 Ku Klux Klan lynching of Michael Donald, a black teenager found hanging from a tree.

Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist. Rinse, repeat.

Greg Griffin, a black Alabama judge who worked as a state attorney when Sessions was Alabama attorney general, told the Associated Press over the weekend that Sessions “always treated me with respect” and called him “one of the best bosses I ever had.”

Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist. Rinse, repeat.

While in the Senate, Sessions voted to confirm Obama’s first attorney general, Eric Holder, the first black man to lead the Justice Department. He also worked with Democratic colleagues on efforts to combat prison rape and to reduce federal sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, saying the gap unfairly targeted the “African-American community simply because that is where crack is most often used.”

I think voting to confirm Holder was definitely a mistake, but I won’t hold it against him. As for the rest of what is stated in the paragraph? Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist. At least, that is what the Democrats want to paint him as, irrespective of any facts.

As for the other fellow this article was supposedly about, retired General Kelly, the nominee for the head of DHS? He gets a mere one measly paragraph that says he shouldn’t have any problems, but makes an error in stating that he’ll be the first non-civilian to ever head the agency. What part of retired don’t you get? Once you have put in enough time to retire, and do so, you are no longer considered active duty, therefore your status is civilian. Sorry. I keep forgetting that most “journalists” have never been in the military, so they have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to the military, and make all kinds of glaring mistakes – at least to veterans, and it’s annoying.

Neither man should have any real problems being confirmed, although Democrats are going to try to make Sen. Sessions squirm as much as they can before they concede the inevitable. I just hope they don’t take it to ridiculous lengths. Both men are good picks and should be confirmed.

The Time I Disagreed with

Steve Moore: My grade for Obama on his economic legacy? A gentleman’s C

Full on disclosure here. Mr. Moore is an actual real live economist, and has a firm working knowledge of this particular subject, while I am not an economist by any stretch, just a ‘regular guy’ that reads a lot. And after reading this opinion piece by Mr. Moore, I have a few areas of disagreement with him. Case in point is his opening sentence.

And so the era of Obamanomics mercifully comes to an end.

In actual point of fact, the effects of one President’s policies on the economy do not, contrary to popular opinion, end when they leave office and the next President is sworn in. Case in point is the recession at the end of George W. Bush’s term, and the beginning of the current occupant of the WH’s term. It was, has been, and continues to be referred to as Bush’s recession, and as noted in the article, it has been a long, drawn out process to pull the economy out of it, and I don’t think we’re done yet.

Now that Trump is the President Elect, does that mean that his policies are going to have an immediate effect, whether positive or negative, on the economy the moment he is sworn in? That would be great if they did, in a positive way, but we are not likely to see ‘immediate’ change, but more a gradual upward tick, if what everything I’ve been reading of late is true. I think it may take as long as six months to a year for our economy to really get going as predicted by others. I’m quite possibly wrong on that as I’m not an economist as I stated at the beginning of this, and quite frankly, I hope I am wrong. I hope the economy catches fire, and expands and expands, fueling not just job growth, but wage growth as well. Speaking of job growth …

It goes out with a whimper, not a bang as the final jobs report for Obama found 156,000 new jobs in December. That’s a mildly disappointing number and is consistent with a seven and a half year pattern of a 2 percent growth rut.

A mildly disappointing number? Are you kidding me? That’s for the entire country! With their respective populations and diverse industries, California and/or Texas should have been able to generate those numbers on their own, and in a normal world, they would have. Except for one thing. Well, actually many things. All of those job killing regulations from the EPA, OSHA, the IRS, the mandates of the ACA and the crippling costs associated with that abomination of a law (more like armed robbery perpetrated by the federal government), etc. which have kept business owners from expanding as they would like to do.

Oh, and those mildly disappointing numbers are consistent with a seven and a half year pattern of a 2 percent growth rut aren’t merely ‘mildly disappointing’, they’re a disaster waiting to happen down the road if we don’t get out of this rut. Because we’ve been in this rut, we’ve had to borrow more and more money from the Chinese to cover the ever rising costs of the federal government. It cannot continue. It’s not sustainable, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge that is a fool.

Obama is touting more than 11 million jobs created on his tenure, ‎but that is still at least four million short of the Reagan pace. This recovery has been a mile wide and an inch deep with growth rates in the economy that consistently fell behind the norm of recovery and for most Americans it felt like we were treading water financially.

I agree with what Mr. Moore says here about the economy being a mile wide and an inch deep, but he really doesn’t go into the why of it. Why is it a mile wide and an inch deep? It’s because the current occupant of the WH likes to play fast and loose with numbers. Case in point is his touting the 11 million new jobs figure. If I were him, I wouldn’t be so quick to brag on that 11 million job number. If you break that number down, using 8 years as your base line, you get 11 million jobs divided by 8 years = 1, 375,000 jobs added per year. That works out to a monthly average of a little more than 114,583 per month. Obviously, not every month during an 8 year time frame is going to be the same. There will be months of potentially double those numbers, while other months, the numbers wouldn’t be that good. But, any way you look at it, that’s rather anemic, if you ask me.

Even the 11 million jobs claim by the Obama team is more than a little misleading. About half the jobs under Obama fell into the categories of temporary employment and part time hiring, ‎those aren’t the kinds of positions you can raise a family on. Also, because the labor report survey counts a part time job as no different than a full time job, in many cases it took two Obama-era jobs to equal one full time job with benefits.

Here, I agree with what Mr. Moore has to say, but with some clarification. He says that it sometimes took two jobs to equal one job with benefits. Those would be two part time jobs, which usually do not come with benefits, so to say that two part time jobs – without benefits – equate to one full time job – with benefits (if you can get ’em) – is in error, as they are not the same.

From here, I agree with Mr. Moore, as he goes on to tell how the current occupant of the WH has, as mentioned above, ‘cooked the books’ on the unemployment numbers. The lower the job participation number, the lower went the unemployment number because those who had given up looking for a job were no longer counted as being unemployed once their unemployment benefits ran out.

Mr. Moore also informs us that wages ‘grew’ 2.9% in 2016, most of which was seen by the in the upper economic classes (and here I thought Democrats were for the ‘little guy’) while the middle and lower class wages flat lined, leading to voters opting for a change at the top.

Here’s the last paragraph that I’m going to include, and this is where Mr. Moore and I take vastly different roads, as you’ll see below.

I will close the books on Obamanomics giving this President a grade of gentlemen’s C. The economy did pull itself out of a deep recession and the recovery has been lengthy with 75 months of job gains. The stock market rose swiftly in Obama’s first term in the wake of the collapse.

There is only one sentence in that paragraph that I agree with Mr. Moore on, and that is the last one about the stock market, but with a minor difference. The stock market pretty much stood pat at first, while investors waited to see what the new President was going to do way back then, and after a somewhat shaky start, stocks again started to rise. But it wasn’t a swift rise to begin with. That has only been a recent development of the last couple of years.

I also disagree that the economy has finished pulling itself out of the long recession, irrespective of the ‘job gains’, insomuch as I showed above, that the job growth has been anemic at best, and with job growth, so goes economic growth.

What I really disagree with, however, is the final grade of a ‘gentlemen’s C’. Seriously? A ‘C’? He warrants no more than a D- at best, if not an out and out ‘F’ for failing to get the economy going again as well as his predecessors had been able to do in the past, not to mention the fact that to make themselves look better, this administration has used about every trick in the book to ‘cook’ the books, hiding numbers here, and inflating numbers there. Those type of shenanigans do not warrant a ‘C’ in my book.

When will we be free and clear of the current occupant of the WH’s ‘economy’? My magic crystal ball isn’t saying, but if my semi-educated guess about the effects Mr. Trump’s policies will have on the economy, I’m pretty sure we’ll all know from the sound of the BOOM.

At least that’s my hope.

We Can Do This Faster and Better

Republicans name first targets in drive to repeal Obama regs

House Republican leaders on Wednesday identified their primary targets in the long-standing effort to roll back President Obama’s “job-killing” regulations, vowing swift action to nix two environmental rules.

Ah, yes. Just what I like. Another article written by an unidentified AP hack writer. How can I tell? Scare quote marks around job-killing, meant to imply that there is some dispute to the fact that many, if not most, of the regulations pushed through by the out-going administration have been job-killing. Note to the AP – it is a fact that many, if not most, of the regulations have been job-killing. Need proof? Look at the sustained anemic economic (my turn!) “growth” numbers over the past 8 years.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Republicans would roll back one rule reducing methane emissions and another meant to ease the environmental impact of coal mining on streams. McCarthy argued the regulations limit the nation’s energy production, and said the GOP-controlled Congress will seek to invalidate the rules starting at month’s end.

All well and good, but this is short term thinking, and is liable to take much too much time, going through all of the regulations passed by the out-going administration. What everybody needs to keep in mind is that President-Elect Trump will have the exact same phone and pen powers as the out-going President has, and can issue a very simple Executive Order stating that all regulations not passed by both houses of Congress are immediately null and void – and the Democrats wouldn’t be able to stop him. They’d howl and yowl like scalded cats for sure, but is that really a bad thing?

So here’s what I would propose. Have the EO as I said above ready for Trump’s immediate signature, with a directive to both houses of Congress to come up with bullet proof legislation to prevent the EO from being rescinded until regulatory legislation is in place, and then hammer out bullet proof regulatory legislation that would be both pro-growth and have environmental/health/safety protections as needed. That way, we can get the regulatory jungle cleared out, getting the federal government out of the way of hard working Americans.

Republicans for years have clamored in vain about Obama’s attempts to move the country from fossil fuels to renewable energy using a mix of financial incentives and federal regulations. But with a Republican president coming into office, they will have the power to roll back some of those rules.

Roll back some? Why is it that, according to AP hack writers, when Democrats are in control, they always have the “sweeping powers” to enact their agenda, but when Republicans are in power, somehow they’re limited in what they can do? Note to the unidentified AP hack writer – we control both houses of Congress and the White House. The only things limiting what we can get done are A) the Constitution (as it should be) and B) the will to do the things that need to be done. From what I’ve been seeing lately, whenever Congress has seemed to get a little squishy about something, Trump has been quick to poke them with a stick, so too speak, reminding them of what they’ve promised the American people. Remarkably enough, they actually listen!

In his first floor speech of the 115th Congress, McCarthy said GOP House leaders will take a “two-step approach” to federal regulations – first, passing legislation to give Congress more power to repeal, and then repealing rules that are “harmful to the American people, costing us time, money, and, most importantly, jobs.”

All well and good, like I said above, but time consuming. We need regulatory relief now, and like it or not, 2018 is not that far away. Go the EO route, then enact legislation. Much more efficient, don’t you think? What? Oh, yes, yes I know – we are talking about the federal government here, but sometimes miracles do happen! If we go this route, this will make all of the lawsuits against the various agencies of the government go away, which would accomplish at least two things – saving tax payers money through not having to defend the case in court, and making the aggrieved happy by making the offending regulation go away. Sounds like a win – win to me!

The rest of the article then states that GOP leaders hope to bring about a more certain verdict through the so-called Congressional Review Act, a rarely used process that requires a simple majority of both chambers to approve a joint resolution of disapproval and the president’s signature to make a regulation invalid, (the act is more formerly known as the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)), and some other, fill in the rest of the page miscellaneous stuff.

Unfortunately, this would again be too slow and cumbersome which even Rep. McCarthy concedes, requiring taking votes in both houses of Congress, and getting a simple majority to present to the President for his signature. It’s highly unlikely that A) you could round up enough legislators to vote on repealing regulations (it’d be like herding cats!), and B) get enough Democrats to vote for repealing a regulation which they pushed to enact in the first place (and if you think that would happen, I have some prime ocean front property in Tuscon I like to show you).

We need to clean up the mess of too many unneeded and unwanted regulations passed by the out-going administration as quickly as we can, so we can bring relief to the American people, and grow our economy in the way that it can grow if government gets out of the way. The fastest way to do that is through Executive Order, then by enacting legislation to make regulatory reform permanent.

I know there will be some of you who will take issue with me over calling for the use of Executive Orders, but guess what? The precedent has been set by every President in my living memory (and probably before that – I’m too lazy right now to research it), and I go back as far as Ike. The current President abused the privilege to be sure like someone on steroids, and I know there are those of you out there who are deeply concerned that Trump will be worse. To a certain extent, I share those concerns. We don’t know what he’ll do yet, but that’s neither here nor there right now. The fact of the matter is that these regulations are hurting people and holding back the most dynamic economy the world has ever known, and using the “old ways” will take too long to bring the relief we need.

We must act quickly, but at the same time responsibly, to roll these unnecessary and unwanted regulations back.

Don’t Worry – This Can All Be Fixed On Day 1

Spree of Obama actions revives GOP concerns over ‘midnight’ regs, agenda

A flurry of big decisions out of the Obama administration just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office has rekindled Republican concerns about President Obama’s plans for jamming through so-called “midnight regulations” and other leftover items from his wish-list on his way out the door.

There’s an old saying that goes, “You can do anything you want on your last day of work. What are they going to do, fire you?”, and it appears that the current administration is well aware of that old saying and is stretching it out over their last six weeks to 2 months to do things that “fundamentally transform” not only America, but the world, and not necessarily for the better.

In the last week alone, the Obama administration blocked future oil and gas leases in swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans; granted a record number of pardons and commutations for a single day; and scrapped a dormant registry for male immigrants from a list of largely Muslim countries.

The first of the three highlighted items here is the blocking of future oil and natural gas leases in areas of the Arctic and Atlantic, which has outraged the potion of the oil and gas industry that does the majority of their work off shore, but this really doesn’t have any effect (that I am aware of – I could be wrong) on the shale producers who have thrived, boosting US energy exports (to the extreme consternation of OPEC), in spite of the actions of the current administration which we’ll get back to shortly.

As for the commutations and pardons, it appears as if the current occupant of the WH, aware that a large amount of what he has done will soon be reversed, is trying to install himself in the Guinness Book of World Records as a way of cementing his “legacy”. Oh, and that registry for males from mostly Muslim countries? It hasn’t been used since 2011, so it’s basically worthless anyway. Think of it like a cheap laptop or app, and ask yourself if you would continue to use it? Probably not, unless you’re like me – cheap when it comes to replacing perfectly functioning electronics, even if they are 10 years behind the times.

Defense officials told Fox News there is an effort underway to transfer up to 22 additional detainees out of Guantanamo Bay. And Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations stunned Israel on Friday by abstaining on a Security Council measure condemning settlement activity, allowing it to pass.

President Catchandrelease has been trying to empty Gitmo since he took over in January of 2008. First, he announced through then AG Holder that they were going to transfer the worst of the terrorists being held there to US prisons, with the idea of trying them in civilian courts, instead of the military tribunals as intended by the Bush administration. When that blew up in their faces, through public outrage and action by Congress, the current administration began to quietly inquire which “partners” in the Middle East would be willing to take in certain of the inmates, slowly but surely wearing down reluctant governments such as Qatar, and other governments of the Gulf States, ultimately being able to transfer more and more inmates to those now not so reluctant governments. The result? Approximately 80% or so of the released detainees have returned to the battlefield to take up arms against the US and our allies.

The problem that President Catchandrelease has been having lately though, is that of those detainees who remain, most are considered by other countries to be too dangerous to themselves to take them in, and are refusing to do so, possibly with the idea of waiting out President Catchandrelease’s last month to see what the incoming Trump Administration will do.

And Obama still has a month left in office. The most recent announcements were made while the first family was on vacation in Hawaii – leaving unclear what Obama has in store for when he gets back to Washington.

Although the fine details may not be obvious at this particular moment in time, I can tell you in general what he has in mind over this last month, and that is to cause as many problems as he possibly can for Trump, to the point where Trump and the Republican led Congress will “feel overwhelmed” by everything that is in front of them, and won’t be able to get around to undoing everything that President Legacy has done until it’s “too late”.

Hate to put a wrench in your plans there Barry, but I have a very simple solution that, if implemented, would be sure to wipe that smug sneer off your face. Remember that pen and phone you so heavily relied upon? We do. So, what do I propose? Here it is in a nutshell –

The very first Executive Order from President Trump’s desk, on January 20th, 2017, should read something along these lines:

“It is hereby ordered that ALL previous Executive Orders, with the exceptions noted below, are null, void and unenforceable, and are to be stricken from the record immediately.”

There are some necessary exceptions of previous EO’s, mainly having to do with National Security items (waivers and continuances of current laws), that were done before Barry and his cohort came into office.

Then the next thing Trump should do is propose legislation that would put an end to the Executive branch making extra-legal end runs around the Legislative branch by enacting a law limiting all future EO’s to those things that the Constitution mandates of the federal government, and nothing else, and that those EO’s that are issued have an iron-clad “use by date” built in where they expire automatically.

Will Trump do the latter of those two suggestions? I highly doubt it, as it would tie his own hands, but as to the former? If I were Trump, or at least one of his advisers, I would do that in a New York second!

This would permanently undo DACA, DAPA, the swallowing up by the federal government of millions of acres of land keeping it out of the hands of the People, open up responsible offshore oil and gas exploration, roll back extra-legal rules by agencies such as the EPA and the IRS, and the Iran “deal”, among many other things, returning power to the People through their representative government, instead of the dictatorial form of government we’ve had imposed on us for the past eight long years.

Concerned about your “legacy” Barry? Don’t be. It will forever be enshrined in the “ABJECT FAILURE” column. You, through your very own actions, have ensured that.

How do you like us now, Barry?

Another Exercise in Windmill Tilting

Minor update: I got the tally date incorrect at the end. It is now correct. Sorry for any confusion.

Martin Sheen makes big mistake as he pitches elector not to vote for Trump

A group of Hollywood actor-vists are leading the effort to convince electors not to vote for President-elect Donald Trump on Monday, a hastily-arranged last-ditch bid that has led to at least one embarrassing mistake.

Martin Sheen, who played fictitious President Josiah Barlett on “The West Wing,” is featured in a personalized video designed to sway a Kansas elector, Politico reported. The piece is titled “Mr. Ashley McMillan” and Sheen implores “Mr. McMillan” to follow the example of America’s Founding Fathers. He’s hopeful that McMillan will switch his vote and become one of the 37 Republican electors required to possibly deny Trump the presidency.

Just one problem with Sheen’s pitch: Ashley McMillan is not a man.

“It’s my job to represent the people of Kansas on Monday. It was Martin Sheen’s job to get my name right. He failed. I won’t,” McMillan, who plans to vote for Trump, told The Daily Caller.

Oops!

You’d think that organizations who put up “celebrities” to such ignorant wind mill tilting efforts would at least do the proper amount of research to actually know who it is they are directing their pleas to directly. But apparently the folks at Unite for America couldn’t have been bothered to do even the most rudimentary amount of checking prior to making their ill thought out video. Because I’m sometimes not all that brilliant (really!) at wording search queries it took me, oh, about two and a half minutes to find a listing of ALL electors for 2016 listed by state. Granted, not every name has any sort of a link associated with it for further research (most in fact, do not) but anyone with a passing ability to do a search on the internet could, in time, come up with the requisite information they were seeking. It’s a rare day on the interwebs when I can’t find at least something on the subject of a search I’m doing.

So, that’s one mistake UFA made when they made their “specific for Ashley McMillan” video, but they also made another mistake when they made the “generic” version of it, and then “doubled down” on it when they made the “specific” video, and that mistake is that they are trying to get the Electoral College voters to “vote their conscience” by not voting for Trump, preventing him from getting the needed 270 EC votes to win, and sending the election to the House of Representatives to vote. The mistake UFA makes is that, according to the 12th Amendment, if no one gets the requisite 270 votes, and the vote then goes to the House, they can only vote for the top three candidates receiving electoral votes. This cycle, there were only two candidates who received electoral votes, Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R).

So, since the Republicans are in the Majority in the House of Representatives, just who do you think it is more likely that they will vote for, should this fantasy scenario of UFA’s actually plays out, hmmm? I’ll give you a hint – I really, really, really doubt it will be the woman with a (D) following her name, which is the person UFA insists – insincerely, imo – that they aren’t advocating for. From their FAQ page:

FOR WHICH CANDIDATE DOES UNITE FOR AMERICA ADVOCATE?

Unite For America does not yet advocate for one particular candidate. Our mission is to research, develop, and support all public efforts yielding measurable results in safely resolving the 2016 Presidential Crisis. We mediate between groups, networks and unions from across the country and political spectrum to broker national grassroots strategy, messaging, communications and demands.

Our goal is to find a common message between groups in order to focus public efforts and prevent an unprecedentedly unqualified candidate from taking office. The Unite For America vigil campaign is a joint effort with groups nationwide to show that united we stand as patriots against tyranny. [Emphasis in original]

That’s quite a lot of gobbledygook to say that they intend to interfere with the lawful and peaceful transfer of power from the incumbent President to Donald Trump. They claim that they aren’t advocating for any one candidate, but that they are against Trump, calling him unqualified to sit as President, and that seating him would cause a “crisis” of “tyranny”.

Hyperbole much?

As I said, this is another exercise in windmill tilting that will accomplish virtually nothing. In the “real world”, however, a certain class of folks will be parted from more of their money in another scam. Caveat emptor!

Related articles can be found here, here, here, and here.

The EC electors will be voting later today, Monday, December 19th, 2016. Those votes will then be tallied, and made publicly official on January 6th, 2017.