Month: January 2020

“A campaign commercial that writes itself,” tweeted Nate Madden, a congressional correspondent for Blaze Media. 

Another tweet: “The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents. If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened.”

These comments are echoing many similar comments and tweets in response to a segment on “CNN Tonight with Don Lemon” on 1/25/20. (Just to be clear, I do not watch CNN. I suppose that my cable service does provide access to it, but for some reason . . . nada on my TV. As an aside, CNN used to always be on the T.V in the Men’s locker room at my gym. Recently, that TV channel has been permanently switched to the Weather Channel . . . perhaps the gym personnel got tired of cleaning the floor in this locker room?!)

This CNN segment is drawing heavy criticism after guests Wajahat Ali and Rick Wilson spent some time mocking President Trump and his supporters as Americans who can’t read, write, or read a map.

From Townhall:

Wilson began the parade of insults when he said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find a Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and an actual crane. He knows this is an administration defined by the ignorance of the world. That’s part of him playing to their base.” (Emphasis, mine!) 

Wilson then used a southern accent to state: “Donald Trump’s a smart one and y’all elitists are dumb.” Host Don Lemon burst into laughter as Wilson mocked the voters.

“You elitists with your geography, maps, spelling,” Ali joined in. “Yeah, your reading. Your geography. Knowing other countries. Sipping your latte.”

Is this another “basket of deplorables” moment? Is this Hillary revisited?

As about 50% of the country were Trump supporters in election of 2016, how does it make sense to go out of the way to insult those who did not vote for Mr. Trump in 2016, and are now on the fence for 2020?

How does it make sense to mock and make fun of Middle America where some of the critical toss-up states are located? Granted, probably not much of Middle America is watching CNN on a Saturday night, but with You-tube this segment will be available to everybody.

Thank you, Don Lemon. Thank you Wajahat Ali and Rick Wilson . . . whoever they are!

Radio talk show host, Dennis Prager, has said innumerable times, that, on just about every issue, he always prefers clarity. I do not think that things could have been made more clear on the subject of abortion after this weekend. 

Whereas on 1/24/20, President Trump not only attended the March for Life rally in Washington D.C., but he became the first sitting president to address this annual rally. I listened to his entire speech at this huge gathering of pro-life supporters, and I would estimate that in addition, millions watched his speech on You-tube. He is against abortion at all stages of pregnancy. 

The following is from his speech:

“We’re here for a very simple reason, to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential. … All of us here today understand that eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God. Together, we must protect, cherish and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life.”

On the subject of abortion, he was crystal clear.

On the other hand, listen and watch Pete Buttigieg attempt to answer a question from a pro-life Democrat at a town-hall in Des Moines, Iowa. The questioner, Kristen Day, pointed out that there are about 21 million pro-life Democrats, and she was hoping that Mayor Pete would say that there is room for both pro-life and pro-abortion views in the Democratic Party. However he wouldn’t budge on the question concerning the pro-abortion language in the Democrat’s platform. On this subject, he was crystal clear!

So it appears that there is little room for confusion on this subject:

If you are pro-abortion, vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, as basically all of the viable candidates’s views on this subject are essentially the same.

If you are pro-life, follow your moral conscience, and vote for President Trump. Hopefully a good number of the aforementioned 21 million pro-life Democrats will either stay home and not vote, or will vote for the pro-life candidate, Donald Trump.

News flash! A source of mine just tweeted me about an impeachment scoop that he has:

“Overheard convo between two Democratic Senators who only watch MSNBC . . . ‘This stuff is surreal! I have heard all of this nonsense before. I thought it was all about something that actually happened. Half the stuff Schiff is saying isn’t true; we’re up sh*t’s creek. Hope the White House hasn’t got any more evidence.'”

When I spoke privately with my source, he told me about an additional confidential conversation between two Democratic Senators. He swore me to secrecy, so let’s just refer to them as Senator A and Senator B. Their exchange apparently went something like this:

Senator A: “This is crazy. We have to spend all day and half the night here . . . for what? Schiff, or as he wants to be called “Mister Impeachment Manager, Sir,” likes to hear himself talk. He spoke for almost three hours in his opening statement! Between you and I, his voice is one mere baby step above fingernails on a chalk board. I don’t know which is worse, Schiff’s voice or Jerry Nadler’s voice. When Jerry talks, he tends to drone on and on and on, and when he expounds, I tend to fall asleep. In fact I have programmed my phone to vibrate every five minutes, while Jerry is talking. After all, I don’t want the T.V. cameras to catch me sleeping. I should be out on the campaign trail. I should be in Iowa or New Hampshire today, tomorrow, and yesterday! Biden is out there campaigning while I am trapped here. Even I can’t figure out whether or not Nancy wants him to be called as a witness or not. Certainly both “Mister Impeachment Manager, Sir” and Jerry are taking their marching orders from Nancy. For sure, I know that Jerry is not smart enough to actually devise, much less carry out any plan. If there is a hell, it could well be something similar to being forced to sitting through this so-called trial! 

Senator B: “Quit complaining! You do not have to go out on the campaign trail in your state this year, as you are not up for reelection in 2020. I am going to be forced to defend my vote to convict the President Trump of . . . of something! I have actually forgotten exactly what President Trump is presently being charged with, as Nancy and “Mister  Impeachment Manager, Sir” seem to keep moving the target. The voters in my district think that this whole thing is a waste of time, but Nancy insists that we all vote for conviction, or else! At times I think that I am just a sacrificial lamb – my future political career being sacrificed for the good of the team! “Master Impeachment Manager, Sir” just insulted just about every American voter when he declared, ‘The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box. For we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.’ OMG, I am going to have to explain that insane statement to those in my district during my reelection campaign! ‘Cannot be decided at the ballot box,’ WTF!” On the positive side maybe most voters are not aware of this debacle. Most Americans are not watching. The first day had only 9 million viewers, compared to the Mueller report which garnered a then disappointing 13 million viewers, or the 20 million viewers for the Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. With a little luck most of the constituents in my district will be among the disinterested, won’t be watching, and won’t hold it against me.”

A second news flash!

I just got another tweet from my source. Apparently he made up the original “overheard convo!” 

BTW, my secret source is Joe Lockhart, a CNN political commentator!

On Tuesday, 1/21/20, the Impeachment trial began in the U.S. Senate. Who is watching such a circus? On Fox News it was basically on all day. It was on when I went to the gym in the afternoon and it was on well into the night. Actually, I was not really watching this spectacle, but would transiently flip back-and-forth during the commercials on whatever I was actually watching on other channels. Between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 1/21, I was watching a San Diego State Aztec basketball game, and during the breaks in the game, I would flip quickly back to the the fiasco taking place on the Senate floor, which to put it politely, was boring . . . with a capital B! 

Keep in mind that there is a three hour time difference between California and Washington D.C., and so this means that the shenanigans in D.C. were going on well past midnight eastern time. By pure serendipity I happened to catch what was probably the highlight of the that day’s proceedings. I just happened to tune in when one of the President’s lawyers, Pat Cipollone, was starting to speak. He was quite a good speaker, as he accused Jerry Nadler, part of the Democrat House management team, of disrespecting the entire Senate body by accusing it of a coverup. He was quite effective when he said, “the only one who should be embarrassed here, Mr. Nadler, is you!” (Mr. Cipollone was spot on, except that I don’t think that Mr. Nadler can be embarrassed.)
Mr. Cipollone then turned the floor over to Jay Sekulow, another counsel for the President. I have seen and heard Jay Sekulow before, and so at this point, the basketball game would have to carry-on without me. I definitely made the right decision when I opted not to change the channel. Whereas Pat Cipollone was effective, Jay Sekulow was awesome. This member of the President’s legal team make Mr. Nadler look like a partisan stooge by repeating parts of what Nadler had just said, (“executive privilege and other nonsense”) and rhetorically asking whether the same rules had applied when President Obama used executive privilege to protect his Attorney General, Eric Holder, from testifying about “Fast and Furious.” . . . Boom! Moreover he punctuated his short but powerful soliloquy by staring repeatedly at Mr. Nadler . . . BOOM! Fortunately, I did not miss any crucial parts of the basketball game, but even if I did, it would have been worth it.

The only sad part was that Jay Sekulow spoke at 12:10 a.m. eastern time and most of the country missed the highlight of the entire day’s proceedings. I would strongly recommend that each of you find and watch both these speeches as it is extremely unlikely that they will be shown on any of the mainstream media “news” outlets. Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow versus Jerry Nadler was like my #4 ranked Aztecs playing a mediocre high school basketball team.

First of all, one of the definitions of sexism is: “discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex . . . more commonly, this discrimination is directed against women.” However, nowhere can I find that sexism can only be discrimination against women.

On 1/19/20, the  New York Times announced the candidate(s) it was endorsing for president. In an interesting interesting progressive end-run, they endorsed two candidates, both women, Sen. Warren and Sen. Klobuchar. Could it be that the NYT could not afford to take the risk of potentially offending either one of these women by endorsing the other? Even though they are both progressive, their progressiveness is a matter of degree. Warren is far-far left, whereas Klobuchar is much more moderate although left of center. If the NYT was set on endorsing two candidates, why would they not endorse two candidates based on their policies? Why endorse two candidates that are not equal on the leftism scale ? To me this sounds as if they are set on backing a woman, irrespective of the differing policies of Warren and Klobuchar. Objectively this sounds sexist . . . back a woman, and devaluate men, irrespective of policy. The mere fact that they are endorsing two women sounds like they are purposely “poking a stick in Bernie’s eye” in response to his alleged comment on the possibility of a woman being elected. Clearly this NYT’s endorsement of two women was intended to be the coup-de-grâce for Sanders, his death knell, so do speak. 

I do not consider myself a sexist. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I voted for Donald Trump instead, not because he was a male, but because he was the far better candidate. Would I vote for a woman to be POTUS? Yes, in a New York minute! (No pun intended!) Give me a choice between a good female candidate and a mediocre male candidate, and I will go XX every time. For instance, I would have voted for Condoleezza Rice in the past and I would vote for Nikki Haley in the future if she were running for President.

When the NYT says, “May the best woman win,” is this sexist? Is this the 2020 version of being DNC-esque? Is the fix in ?

Does anyone think that it was just coincidence that Elizabeth Warren’s recent accusation surfaced just before the “CNN debate” last week? Supposedly over a year ago Bernie Sanders said something “nasty” about her, and indeed, women in general, with regard to the possibility of defeating Donald Trump in 2020. 

Although not confirmed one could certainly imagine a quid-pro-quo proposition that went something like this: “Ms. Warren, your campaign is in trouble as Bernie is surging ahead with those far left progressives. You need something to draw renewed interest in your campaign. We, at CNN, need something to generate better ratings in this coming CNN sponsored debate. Let’s make a deal. Give us something we can use, and we will make sure that you will look like the good guy with the white hat on the debate stage.”

Not possible, you say! Is there another reasonable explanation for CNN’s obvious blatant favoritism towards Warren during the CNN-debate ? I say the fix is in! 

Consider that this seemingly endless string of Democrat debates has been steadily losing viewership and thus ratings. Most of the country is losing interest in a bunch of hackneyed politicians saying “same-o-same-o.” If one had been listening and watching closely, it wouldn’t have taken a body language expert to pickup on the desperation in the CNN-persona over the last few weeks. To me it seems a bit strange that Sanders’ alleged statement about a woman not being able to beat Donald Trump happened serendipitously to surface just before the CNN-debate. If you believe that . . . I have a bridge that I want to sell you!

Next MSNBC’s Joy Reid had a body language expert on her show. Does anyone think that it was just coincidence that this expert said that, in her opinion, Warren was telling the truth and Sanders was lying during their on stage confrontation at the debate. Next, apparently Joy Reid said scandals hurt more when they seem plausible and complained about Sanders’ “physicality” whenever the senator speaks to women. (I say “apparently” as my T.V. just cannot seem to tune into MSNBC . . . for some reason!) It again sounds to me like the fix is in.

Does the CNN-MSNBC “collusion” with Warren against Bernie Sanders sound familiar? Is this deja-vu? Is Sanders getting shafted again, just like he was shafted in 2016 by the DNC? Is Warren the preordained “favorite daughter,” so to speak, just like Hillary was in 2016? 

Just to be clear, I have no vested interest in Bernie Sanders. However, if I was one of his gung-ho supporters, I would be outraged at what is seemingly happening again in 2020. Are these supporters outraged enough and insulted enough that they are already considering that perhaps Bernie should run as an independent ? After all, he really is not a Democrat, but rather is actually an Independent. Wouldn’t a third candidate make things interesting in November, 2020 ?

Does any rational person understand the “why?” of these impeachment shenanigans?  At this point in this game, it seems that the Dems have lost it. For the most part they are acting like prepubescent teenagers . . . historic pens for all! marching the articles of impeachment over to the Senate! Beyond melodramatic to say the least. Of course these dramatics are all for show, and I am sure that Pelosi, et al are getting plenty of airtime on MSNBC as well as the anti-Sanders CNN, however this is hearsay, as I do not watch either of them. Will this charade be a big flop?

The way I see it, there are two options when faced with “why?”:

-They are all infected with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) which must be like an extremely communicable disease on the left side of the aisle, and the TDS has affected their ability to think clearly.                                                                    

Or

-They actually have a realistic plan; not a plan to beat Donald Trump in 2020, but rather a plan to try to take over the Senate. In order to take control of the Senate in 2020, they have to flip four seats if Trump is re-elected. Only three seats if President Trump is not re-elected. When the impeachment voting takes place in the Senate, the Dems hope to capitalize on the “No” votes of those Republican Senators who are up for re-election. They then hope that this “No” vote will fire up the Dem’s base, enough so that the turnout will be such that they can flip this seat. 

On the other hand, if any of those Republican Senators who are up for re-election, vote in favor of impeachment, they will be persona-non-grata in those states which support Trump, and thus the Dems might feel that they have a chance to flip these present Republican Senate seats. This assumes that the Dems have a plan and the wherewithal to follow through on it.                                       

Who are these Senators that might be susceptible to being flipped? According to the Cook Political Report, three Republican Senators are in a “toss-up” contest. These “toss-ups” are McSally-AZ, Collins-ME, and Gardner-CO. There are also two Senate races that lean Republican, but are not likely Republican at the point. These are an open seat in Kansas, and Tillis-NC. if all five of these Senate seats were to go to the Democrats, it would be most likely the Dems would take over control of the Senate . . . assuming, of course, that no present Democrat Senator gets flipped. (There is one Democrat “toss up,” Jones-AL, and one  present Democrat Senate seat contest that is rated as “leaning” Democrat, Peters-MI.).               

What I look for in September and October, 2020 is a lot of Democrat money being spent in Maine, Arizona, Colorado, and Alabama and likewise look for frequent Trump rallies in these same states. If the Republicans can retain control of the Senate, then Mr. Trump will continue to advance his agenda, especially with regard to his judicial appointments. If the Democrats retain control of the House, and also are able to win control of the Senate, look for another impeachment of Trump fiasco, probably in 2022!

Just in general, what do people use their cars for? 

Before your “final answer,” first think of how you use your car, and then consider the different ways your extended family uses its cars. Next think about how your friends and neighbors use their cars.

My general list goes something like this:

For the majority of people, going to and from work is number one. 

This is followed by some sort of recreational or leisure activity, going to the beach or taking the kids to the park, mostly on the weekends.

Going out to dinner occurs intermittently for some and perhaps by necessity, more regularly for others. 

Taking care of the necessities of everyday life comes next . . . getting groceries, going to the barber shop, the hair salon, the cleaners, the laundry-mat, the doctor’s office, or church.

For a number of younger families, transporting the kids to and from school and their various after school activities comes next. 

I am sure that this list is far from complete, as each of us could add our own auto-use idiosyncrasies to this list.

To start with, the vast majority of those who live in Southern California do not live within a few miles of where they work. Just look at the morning and the evening traffic on the freeways. Those who live less than a few miles from where they work are not on the freeways. However, the freeways are jammed during rush-hour, ergo the thousands upon thousands of cars on the freeways are there by necessity.

As far as the other general usages of our cars, how many of them can be done without perspiring? For most, would it be appropriate to show up hot or sweaty to work or to a social activity with friends? I think not! 

Certainly, if the grocery store was relatively close, most of us could use other modes of transportation instead of out cars. We could walk, bike, or even rollerblade to Vons. Of course, the carrying home of the groceries would present an additional challenge for many unless they went to pick up a small amount of foodstuff each and every day . . . as our parents did back in the Stone Age. And forget Costco. How many of us can go to Costco and come away with a only small amount that we could bring home in our bicycle’s basket or in a backpack? 

By this time most of you who use logical thinking are saying something akin to, “For 90+% of the things I use my car for, I would need my car and not a substitute, like a bike or rollerblades.”

For me it is more that just a bit of a stretch to conflate freeway travel and bike paths in the same sentence. Are they both a way to transport people? Yes, but are they on equal footing when it comes to how people get around from day to day? Get real! Who would actually think that that these two modes of transportation should be used in the same sentence? The answer my friends . . . San Diego Association of Governments, SANDAG, and its relatively new executive director, Isan Ikhrata. For those of you not familiar with SANDAG, it is the metropolitan planning agency for the county. This group of policy makers basically controls our future modes of transportation – our freeways, our roads, our rapid transit systems, and our bike paths. Isan Ikhrata  is the executive director of SANDAG. (According to those in the know, San Diego County was fortunate to be able to “steal” him away from L.A. County, where he has done an obviously wonderful job of dealing with the freeway congestion and the rapid transit system in L.A.!  Huh?! This “theft” is only costing SANDAG [more precisely, us voters] over $400,000 per year.)

Earlier this year, Ikhrata announced that the agency would abandon its previous transportation plans, which focused on improvements to the county’s network of roads, in favor of a transportation plan that boosts funding for public transit projects with the goal of moving the county away from the use of personal vehicles.

Ikhrata’s powerful argument for his recommendation: Unless the plan was modified, the region would never succeed in meeting a state climate law’s requirement that there be a 19 percent per capita reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, using 2005 emissions as a baseline.

Ahh! Now I get it! Ikhrata is a member of California’s new religion, which is anti-car and pro-bike. (FYI: As a faithful follower, he did allude to global warming in his full statement.) Because of some pie-in-the-sky beliefs of the liberal members of this religion, i.e. the Democratic politicians in Sacramento, Mr. Ikhrata states that the people of San Diego County will be forced to use more rapid transit, bike paths, and our feet in years to come. 

Always remember: These politicians are smarter than us and because of their religious beliefs, they feel obliged to tell the rest of us how we should go about our day to day activities, like going to work and going . . . or perhaps never again in the future, going to Costco!

One would think that it’s a bit early for their typical “October surprise,” as it’s only January. However this is not the usual run of the mill January, because it is the day before the next Democrat “debate,” and it is only a few weeks until the Iowa primary. Somebody in the Warren camp must have a bad feeling about the present status of their candidate. Perhaps a sense of panic. At least that is what it now sounds like. 

Consider the following:

Who stands to benefit from this latest unsubstantiated rumor? Certainly not Bernie, as this strategic missile is aimed directly at him, and most of the collateral damage is dependent on progressive Democrat females taking offense at his supposed remarks. I can envision the conversation of some of these liberal women sounding something like this . . . “He said what? And he said it right to her face? He’s got a lot of nerve! How dare he!“ You get the idea!
Now Bernie is in a real pickle. Of course, he has already denied that he said any such thing, but since no independent observer can affirm or deny the accusation, he is stuck with trying to prove a negative which is never a good strategy. Whether Bernie actually believes that a woman cannot beat President Trump is really a mute point at this juncture. The rumor is now out there, and the damage to his campaign growing.

Just for the record, Warren’s communications director Kristen Orthman has declined to comment. . . why comment one way or the other!? – just let innuendo take its course. At some point I would anticipate Warren to deny any culpability in this episode, but from her perspective . . . why hurry?!

To be clear if this was just a outlier, I could gloss over it. However, this is a tactic that is right out of the standard Democrat playbook. The difference here is that this “October surprise” was pulled against another Democrat.

Mention “Elmer Vasko” in 1961 in Chicago, and nobody would have a clue as to whom you were referring, but mention “Moose Vasko”, and everyone would know. Like most men nicknamed “Moose”, Elmer was big, but different from most men called “Moose”, as he could skate, and in fact he could skate quite well. Moose Vasko played defense on the 1961 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks.  He wasn’t a high scorer like Bobby Hull or Stan Mikita or an exceptionally smooth skater like Pierre Pilote or Todd Sloan. However, he was a very important piece of this championship team for he (along with Reggie Fleming) was the “enforcer”.

For those unfamiliar with hockey, the job of the enforcer in hockey is to respond to dirty or violent play by the opposition (Wikipedia). Moose would protect his teammates, maintain order, and retaliate, especially if the bullies on the other team took cheap shots against his smaller teammates. While Bobby Hull (5’10, 195lbs) could take care of himself, undersized Stan Mikita (5’9″, 169lbs) and slender Todd Sloan (5’10”, 152 lbs) knew that Moose (6’2″, 200lbs) had their back. Hockey is a very rough sport, and, the smaller guys on any teamwould take quite an unrelenting beating unless their own feared and respected enforcer had their back. The presence of an enforcer on a hockey team in essence was telling the other team, “Be careful because your actions will have consequences.” Everyone on the other teams knew that if they crossed the line against the smaller Blackhawk players that Moose would kick their ass. In fact he did his job quite well – well enough that the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup in 1961.

Well now one might say, “Interesting, but actually who cares about Elmer Vasko, aka Moose, and the 1961 Blackhawks other than some near-senile old Chicago hockey fans?” Actually an interesting analogy can be drawn between the 1961 Chicago Blackhawks and today’s world situation. Just as hockey is a very rough game, our world is a very rough place. If an opportunity arises, the bullies on the hockey rink would go out of their way to pick on and then beat up on the little guys, just as the world’s “bullies” abuse those who do not fight back. Just as the bad guys can become more and more emboldened on the ice, the bad guys on the world stage become more emboldened when they realize that they can act without fear of retaliation.

And this brings me to the Moose Vasko of today . . . President Donald Trump. The hockey game of today’s world is a rough game. The bullies feel that they can do anything they want, and just like in hockey, they will continue to throw their weight around . . .until someone says, “Be careful, as your actions will have consequences. You’ve pushed the envelope too far this time. We now actually have an enforceable red line, and you’ve crossed it by killing an American.”

Now granted the USA is not diminutive like the 1961 Blackhawks’ Stan Mikita or Todd Sloan, but whereas in the past the US has been very reluctant to backup a red line, and very reticent to throw its weight around . . . things are now different. Hopefully, Iran, just like the 1961 Red Wings, Rangers, Canadians, and Maple Leafs, realizes that Donald Trump is now the enforcer, and plans to fulfill this job description in 2020, just like Moose Vasko in 1961, whenever necessary . . . until he wins the Stanley Cup!