Month: February 2020

The other day when I went to the gym my elliptical happened to be positioned immediately in front a of TV that was showing an XFL football game. XFL ? What is that ? I learned that it is basically a new pro-football league, but with a number of rule changes that had been explicitly written into the league’s bylaws. For example, there is a running clock, and three different options for extra points, each with a different point score. Keep in mind these rules were in the original constitution of the league. The losing team cannot arbitrarily decide to increase the value of a touchdown or an extra point in the middle of the  game – the rules had been established at the inception of the new league. Likewise, if  the losing team was unhappy with the rules as they had been written, que sera,sera. No complaining if the opposition won the game because they made a three-point extra point . . .  that was the rule as written in the constitution or bylaws of the league.

After the impeachment acquittal, Katy Tur, a host on MSNBC said the following: “In case you missed it, majority doesn’t always rule in this country. Forty-eight senators voted to remove the President from office. Fifty-two voted to acquit. But the 48 actually represent 12 million more voters than the senators who decided to keep Donald Trump in the White House.”

OMG! . . . Is it possible that Katy Tur does not know that it actually takes a two-thirds vote to convict when someone is impeached. This is the way the constitution was written. These are the bylaws ! You can whine, but you cannot make up your own rules

But it gets worse. Ms Tur then asked Washington Post columnist, Philip Bump, about how Democrats could get more U.S. Senators. She asked, “So what’s the resolution to that? Is gerrymandering something that would help improve the situation?” OMG! . . . Is it possible that Ms. Tur  does not know that gerrymandering is something that occurs within a state, and that each state has two U.S. Senators. Gerrymandering has absolutely no relationship to the election of U.S.Senators? 

With the XFL, the coaches are well versed in football. They know all of the rules and how they apply in each situation, which is what I would expect!

Is it too much to expect that the commentators on MSNBC have at least minimal knowledge with regard to the U.S. Constitution? 
OMG! . . . I guess with MSNBC that is just too much to expect!

Did you know that President Trump held a rally in Iowa on 1/30/20? I learned about it by pure happenstance on 2/1/20. Neither news of this rally nor commentary about what the President said were reported in my local “news”-paper! Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that those on the left, including most of main-stream-media (MSM) in general, just do not report on Trump rallies. 

(Last week, he held a raucous rally in the “deep blue” state of New Jersey. People started camping out in front of the arena two days before the event. In an arena that held less than 8,000 people, there was an incredible demand for tickets with over 175,000 requests. I did not see a report on this rally in my local “news”-paper!)

I suppose that when he has a rally that turns out to be an dud, MSM will jump on it, but do not hold your breath waiting for a Trump rally to be under-attended or dull. So far all of the President’s rallies have been “sold-out,” SRO affairs, and the rally at Drake University’s Knapp Center in Des Moines, Iowa on 1/30 was no different. This arena seats 7,200 and it was filled capacity. In fact it was so full that dozens of the media were not allowed in by order of the Fire Marshall!

One of the reporters who did not gain entry to the event, despite arriving hours before it was to begin, was from the Washington Examiner. He then circulated through the crowd outside, and spoke to many who despite waiting in line for hours did not make the cut and were still outside. These hundreds, and perhaps a thousand, although tired and cold were still very enthusiastic, and they made for some interesting commentary.

Deborah Coburn, a Trump supporter, said, “I am way more for him in 2020.” She conceded, “Donald Trump can maybe be a bit crude and has been in what he says, but I actually appreciate that he’s not a typical politician. Crude talk,” she said, “has no bearing on whether somebody does or does not get things done.” The reporter was most impressed with statements that boiled down to that fact – President Trump had done what he had promised to do in 2016, before he was elected, “unlike most other politicians.” This sentiment came from 2016 Trump supporters, 2016 anti-Trump Republicans, and Democrats who had voted for Hillary in 2016. 

One previous Hillary 2016 voter said, “l decided to give Clinton a chance because of her experience. Then my mind was changed by how they attack [Trump] and how they belittle him in every decision he does. I have not seen this much smear in a president ever … I’ve never seen so much hatred towards a president.” 

Is this trend (a prior Hillary supporter in 2016 that will be voting for Trump in 2020) more common that the pollsters realize? I believe that it is . . . and this is one of the reasons that I forecast a decisive Trump victory in 2020!

In basketball some teams use a full court press to surprise an opponent and to turn an apparent advantage of the other side into an advantage for their own side. Although not always 100% effective, it often shifts the momentum of the basketball game, especially for a team with a good coach. 

Coach Trump is running for re-election in 2020, and he realizes how important the African American vote is in his quest to be a two term president. He is presently using his version of a full court press. He started it with a first quarter Super Bowl ad featuring Alice Mari Johnson, a black woman who had served 22 years of a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense. The plight of Ms. Brown was brought to the attention of President Trump, and a week after he  learned of her situation, he commuted her sentence. Trump’s 30-second ad features Ms. Johnson discussing her clemency, saying she’s “free to start over” because of the president.

“Thanks to President Trump, people like Alice are getting a second chance,” the ad says. “Politicians talk about criminal justice reform. President Trump got it done. Thousands of families are being reunited.”

Of course, the libs didn’t like Trump’s ad. . . .  “Good start, Mr. President.”

During his State of the Union speech, the President called attention to and lauded multiple African Americans. For sure this was no accident. It was just a part of his full court press. 

He welcomed five black guests in the first lady’s box. One was 100 year old Charles McGee, one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, and his great grandson, Iain Lamphier, who is intent on being involved in space. Earlier in the day the President had promoted Mr. McGee to brigadier general. . . . “Nice strategy, Mr. President.” 

Mr. Trump also showcased Tony Rankins, a black Army veteran from Cincinnati. This former drug addict was now off drugs and working in an “opportunity zone,” a tax incentive to encourage investors to put money into very poor neighborhoods.

“This is the first time that these deserving communities have seen anything like this,” Mr. Trump said. “It is all working!”  

The libs are going ballistic, so this strategy must be working.

And finally from the New York Times: 

“As he spoke, Mr. Trump also awarded a so-called opportunity scholarship to Janiyah Davis, the daughter of a black single mother who, the president said, “would do anything to give her daughter a better future.” The mention of the scholarships — designed to allow low-income families to send their children to a private school of their choice — was meant to bolster the administration’s efforts to promote school choice, an issue popular with minority voters. Mr. Trump used the opportunity to plug the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act.”

“Keep pressing, coach!”

One only knows if the full court press worked by looking at the final score at the end of the basketball game. Likewise, only after the 2020 election will we know if the Trump full court press was helpful in electing coach Trump to a second term.

No I am not referring to Rocky Balboa, made famous in the movie of the same name, but Rocky Jones who was mentioned in President Trump’s State of the Union on 2/4/20.

How many knew who Rocky Jones was before this week? Probably only a few who happen to read the Fresno Bee, or those who live in Tulare County in mid-California. Much of what follows was taken from the Fresno Bee, as those who read the local San Diego paper as their source of news would know nothing about the tragic death of Rocky Paul Jones. 

It was during his State of the Union that President Trump mentioned Rocky Jones, and introduced his brother, Jody Jones. President Trump said, “In December 2018, California police detained an illegal with five prior arrests, including convictions for robbery and assault, but as required by California sanctuary law, local authorities released him.”

Within less than forty-eight hours after he was released, law enforcement said this illegal criminal, Junior “Gustavo” Garcia-Ruiz committed at least 11 different crimes during a 24-hour “reign of terror.” ICE at the time said those crimes could have been prevented if the agency had been notified of Garcia-Ruiz’s release from jail. The sheriff during a news conference in 2018 said the sanctuary state law prohibited him from communicating with ICE about the case.

“Tragically, there are many cities in America where radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal, illegal aliens,” Trump said in the speech. “…The state of California passed an outrageous law declaring their whole state to be a sanctuary for criminal, illegal immigrants, a very terrible sanctuary with catastrophic results.”

Rocky Jones was minding his own business at a gas station when he was shot multiple times for no apparent reason at close range by Garcia-Ruiz, who had been deported twice before. In a span of nearly 24-hours Gustavo Garcia carried out two killings, a carjacking, and an armed robbery, and even got into a shootout with deputies.

The White House said Rocky Jones was known as “a kind and gentle soul” who left behind a daughter and four brothers “who are still grieving the loss of their loved one.” Today I heard his brother, Jody Jones, again refer to the gentleness of his deceased brother, Rocky. This is a true tragedy . . . like other similar preventable tragedies that law-abiding citizens of California are continuing to have difficulty understanding.

During his speech, President Trump said he supports current legislation that would allow victims of crimes, committed by undocumented immigrants, to sue so-called sanctuary cities and states. 

“Senator Thom Tillis has introduced legislation to allow Americans, like Jody, to sue sanctuary cities and states when a loved one is hurt or killed as a result of these deadly practices,” Trump said. “I ask Congress to pass theJustice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act immediately.” 

One can only hope!

However, as long as the Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi control the House, don’t hold your breath!

Rocky Jones’ brother, Jody Jones, says lawmakers who support sanctuary cities share in some of the blame for his brother’s killing. I fully agree in spades!

As I have alluded to before, I personally hold the Democrat politicians in Sacramento responsible for the deaths of all who are murdered in California by illegals who should have been turned over to ICE. I find it amazing that any of these State Legislators can face the families of those that have been murdered by someone who should have been in ICE custody. Actually, true to form, they don’t! These cowardly Democratic legislators never do face the grieving families, and never apologize for their unexplainable positions. They hide behind an archaic law that deems that prejudiced politicians are not legally responsible when some innocent legal Californian is murdered by an illegal criminal . . . a murder for which they are morally responsible, and for which they will be held accountable . . . if there is a God!

Rocky Jones: Rest In Peace!

No, I did not record President Trump’s State of the National speech tonight . . . I watched it live. 

Surprise, surprise! I loved it!

The litany of the economic gains under his administration was a great lead off, and his strong message continued throughout.

What I thought was the most impressive to me was the behavior of the “white dresses,” i.e., the liberal women in the House. Keep in mind that only a month or so prior, the House Democrats, with a minimum number of exceptions, voted to impeach the President . . . also recall that all of the “white dresses” were anti-Trump on this issue. I understand them not standing or even applauding President Trump’s accomplishments, but they were OTL when it came to applauding the U.S. Despite your hate for the President, and no matter your political affiliation, some things should be applauded by everybody. Shame on the “white dresses!” Once or twice Nancy Pelosi gave these “white dresses” the stare-down, meaning “please don’t embarrass us even more than you already are.”

Who is watching the State of the Union? and Why is this important?

Republicans are watching. Democrats, not so much. Independents . . . I sure hope so! Towards the end of his speech the President laid out some of the striking differences in position on certain things such as late-term abortion, free of government health care for illegals, and sanctuary cities and states, protecting criminals. Certainly some Independents will be for some of these Democrat positions, and some will be against them – “you can’t please all of the Independents all of the time.” Hopefully a lot of Independents will be swayed by the President’s speech tonight, but more do I hope that a lot of Independents will be disgusted by the unpatriotic behavior of the “white dresses!” And to top it off, the pinnacle of uncouth behavior was Nancy Pelosi ripping up her copy of the President’s speech shortly after he had finished with the cameras still focused on her.

Thank you, “white dresses,” thank you Speaker Pelosi!

 

“Yes, Sir! Yes, Sir! Why of course, Sir. You are right, Sir.”

Is this sycophant really just saying, “You know that I will never disagree with you. I am your man, and you can be sure that I will always side with you.”

To me a person who attracts and covets fawners like this is basically unsure of himself, and thus needs this type of constant reassurance. Is this the type of leader that we want making tough decisions? To that question, I say not only “No,” but “Hell no!”

Although I have no inside information, it seemed to me that President Obama was unsure of his ability to make tough decisions. Through his eight years in office I cannot recall hearing about any controversies in his administration. Was this because he had surrounded himself with “yes” men and women? It appeared that very occasionally he did act on his own, like for example, when he drew his infamous red line. As everyone is aware, his subsequent backing off (some may refer to this in a non-P.C. way as his “chickening out.”) will haunt him forever. Again is this the type of leader that we want making tough decisions?

Does our present Commander-in-Chief surround himself with servile flatters? It certainly does not appear that this is the case. He seems to surround himself for the most part with people that have strong personalities, and thus can have differing opinions. If two strong willed personalities have differing opinions and engage each other on a certain topic, only one of the two will come out on top. I would also assume that both would win out, but the President would win out more often, and that’s the way that it should be. The President was elected by the American people, and John Bolton was appointed to his position by President Trump! 

John Bolton’s conversations with the President should be protected by executive privilege, for at least as long as the President is in office. I say this for at least two reasons:

First, Every president needs a well-informed confidant that he can bounce ideas off of, and President Trump is no different. A free exchange of ideas is essential to good decision making, and this is one reason that John Bolton was hired in the first place. Whether Mr. Bolton was fired or quit is of no real consequence, as it is a reasonable bet that they had disagreed more than just one single isolated time. Certainly, if John Bolton quit, his feelings must have been hurt, and perhaps they were hurt even more so, if he was fired. Like a jilted lover, this can only lead to a “he said, she said” situation. If John Bolton wishes to write a book entailing his interactions with President Trump, so be it, but not until the President is no longer in office.

Second: If a president, any president, is going to suffer, because he sought counsel from someone with a strong personality, someone who is willing to disagree and argue with him, then what will inevitably happen  is  . . . “Yes, Sir! Yes, Sir! Why of course, Sir. You are right, Sir,” and our country will suffer as a consequence.

Now don’t get me wrong, I do not think that Donald Trump is the easiest person to get along with. He does not appear to be the type of person that is going to take sh*t from anyone. This, in fact, is part of his appeal and his unique . . . (I almost hate to use this word) . . . his unique “charm!”

The title of this piece is hijacked from a song by the so-called “Godfathers of Punk Rock” and I thought the lyrics were appropriate when thinking about the November, 2020 election. But first the background:

A poll from the New York Times shows Bernie Sanders with a seven point lead in Iowa. Sanders is at 25%. Currently, the RealClearPolitics (RCP) poll of polls in Iowa shows that Bernie is less than a point away from first place Joe Biden, 20 points to 19.3 points.

The most recent poll out of New Hampshire has Sanders up a whopping 12 points — 29 percent to second-place Buttigieg’s 17 points. In the RCP poll of national polls, Biden is in first place with 29 percent support. Bernie is in second with 23 percent. Warren is in third place but still far behind, with just 15 percent support.

Now while Sanders is ahead in some places and Biden is ahead in others, at this point this has seemingly turned into a two-horse race. The Sanders horse seems to have the momentum, despite the fact that he is now trapped in the Senate’s Impeachment trial, along with the Klobuchar, and Warren fillies.

If I was a fan of conspiracy theories I would surmise that because it is to Biden’s advantage to keep the Senate trial going for as lone as possible, “the Dems in the know” are secretly not only rooting for but also surreptitiously encouraging a longer trial . . . as long as Joe doesn’t get called as a witness, and he won’t! Keeping the Klobuchar filly, the Warren filly, and the Sanders stallion, or more likely the Sanders gelding, in the Senate stable can only be good for Old Joe. From my perspective, the only thing that this drawn-out skullduggery of this trial can do is to increase the “rah-rah-sis-boom-bah” enthusiasm of the Sanders backers.

I can hear the mumbling that these conspiracy theories are almost always nonsensical. However consider the following:

First from Breitbart: “There is talk now that the Democrat establishment is so freaked about the possibility of Bernie winning the primary, former President Barack Obama is thinking of coming out and publicly opposing Sanders.

In addition according to Charles Gasparino, Fox Business News:

“SCOOP: Dem Party sources who have spoken w @BarackObama say former prez is growing increasingly anxious about @BernieSanders rise in the national polls & where the avowed socialist would take the country; he is considering a public statement addressing it more now @FoxBusiness.“

At this point, I am hoping that all of this conjecture is true, and I’m wishin’ and a-hopin’ that the “Dems in the know” somehow go after Sanders and subsequently derail his nomination. With Biden becoming the nominee, I’m wishin’ and a-hopin’ that the Sanders backers will be so p.o.’ed that they will not show up to vote. 

Make no mistake, I think that Trump will defeat Biden, Warren, or any other late-entry, practically lame horse that the Dems decide to run. However, if the Sanders backers stay home in November, 2020, the subsequent lowered Democrat turnout will be a huge help for the Republicans running for either the House or the Senate.

Like the Standells sang in their 1966 hit, “Dirty Water,” . . . “I’m wishin’ and a-hopin’!”

Before I get serious, I want to quell a rumor that is being spread among liberals: “No, the corona-virus has nothing to do with the Mexican beer!”

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) just had a long article on the coronaviruses (HCoVs), and much of what follows is from that review article:

“HCoVs have long been considered inconsequential pathogens, causing little more than the common cold. However, in the 21st century, 2 highly pathogenic HCoVs—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—emerged from animal reservoirs to cause global epidemics with alarming morbidity and mortality. In December 2019, yet another pathogenic HCoV, 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), was recognized in Wuhan, China. On December 31, 2019, Chinese authorities reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, most of which included patients who reported exposure to a large seafood market selling many species of live animals.

The situation with 2019-nCoV is evolving rapidly, with the case count currently growing into the thousands. Human-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV occurs, is evidenced by the infection of 15 health care practitioners in a Wuhan hospital.” Most recently in Chicago the coronavirus was spread to a spouse living in the same household as a known case. The extent, if any, to which such transmission might lead to a sustained epidemic remains an open and critical question. 

Without question this strain of coronavirus has caused serious illnesses  and deaths. Again from JAMA: “While the trajectory of this outbreak is impossible to predict, effective response requires prompt action from the standpoint of classic public health strategies to the timely development and implementation of effective countermeasures.”

As would be expected, President Trump is concerned about this ongoing and  changing situation, and has been being briefed daily. Earlier in the week, Trump tweeted photos of a briefing session where he received updates on the coronavirus situation. “We will continue to monitor the ongoing developments,” the President said in his post. “We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!”

This, of course, is exactly what I would expect from a concerned national leader . . . and predictably CNN responded to the photos in its expected way!  One of the anti-Trump clowns from CNN . . . (sorry I did not mean to offend any real clowns) . . . as I was saying, a clown from CNN immediately compared Trump’s briefing photos to some photos from an Obama meeting during the Ebola situation many years ago. The comment from CNN basically chastised President Trump because his briefing was inadequate on their diversity scale. In other words the photo did not show their expected quorum of blacks and women. President Trump emphasized that he was consulting with experts from across the U.S., while in the Obama photo Susan Rice was positioned near the head of the table. Yes, the same Susan Rice, who went on multiple TV programs telling an outright lie, attempting to cover up the Obama administration’s incompetence during the Benghazi episode. Yes, the same Susan Rice, who was advertised to be a Foreign Policy expert, and who served as Obama’s National Security Advisor from 2013-2017, but, who as best as I can tell, has zero expertise in medicine, much less in infectious diseases! Yes, she is black, and she is a female, which is thus apparently sufficient to satisfy CNN’s diversity quotient. However, did she know anything about Ebola, other than what she had read in Newsweek?

The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro summed up CNN’s outrageous position when he asked, “So just to get this straight, CNN is objecting to a task force designed to stop an epidemic by focusing on…ethnic diversity?” 

( Perhaps Mr. Shapiro is being too harsh on CNN, as he is assuming that CNN is a competent news agency to start with. “Your expectations for CNN are way too high, Mr. Shapiro.”)