The President And First Lady

4 01 2017

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The United States of America is a shining city on a hill.  It embodies the hopes and dreams of mankind.  It is not perfect, and no American is perfect.  But we try to do our best to honor ourselves, each other, and our fellow citizens of the world.

Our elections are over.  We have a new President and First Lady, Donald and Melania Trump.  We wish them well, because our fates and theirs are linked inextricably.  Our destinies are shared.  The future of our great and noble republic is entrusted to them.

May they serve wisely and prudently, and honor God.

president-and-first-lady

© 2017, Timothy D. Naegele

____________________________________________

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see http://www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/documents/TimothyD.NaegeleResume.pdf). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search: Timothy D. Naegele


Actions

Information

39 responses

4 01 2017
H. Craig Bradley

I completely agree, but sadly, like the Old South, there are many who still will not accept Trump as their President at all. The losers are real sore losers and hold a grudge.

Bill O’Reilly said this evening that there currently is some “Reverse McCarthyism” going on in Hollywood: If you perform for Donald Trump at his Inaugural Celebration (Ball) then your career in Hollywood is likely to be cut short.

Naturally, nobody wants to be blackballed from their line of work and the mere threat of it means few entertainers will risk crossing over the “picket line” to perform in Washington this year. This is in contrast to the parties when George W. Bush was elected in 2000. Pretty sad. It’s going to be a real long 4 years if the country does not “get over it” soon and move-on. No good will come of it, I predict.

Liked by 1 person

4 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Craig, for your comments; and Happy New Year to you and your family. 🙂

I grew up in Hollywood—aka Los Angeles—around movie stars and their families. I have friends today who are at the very top of that business.

Donald Trump won the “Flyover States,” or the rest of America. Your analogy to the Old South is an excellent one.

After our Civil War, many in the South had “chips on their shoulders” for generations. The best way to understand them is as a defeated nation living among their conquerors. In a very real sense, this has been true of the DDR, or East Germany, after a united Germany was formed.

Fortunately, Hollywood is not America. Its values are distorted. Indeed, my parents told me not to get involved with those in the movie business. I have an old friend who is a multi-billion and a true Hollywood mogul; and this person told me essentially the same thing (i.e., the people are “not nice”).

I have believed for quite a while now that the 4-8 years of the Trump presidency will be “under siege,” and that Donald Trump and Kellyanne Conway (among others) understand this fully. It will be like the Nixon years or worse. The Left will do everything possible to discredit and, yes, bring down the Trump presidency.

They and their Leftist media cohorts will gin up scandal after scandal, often out of thin air; and the elections of 2020 have begun already. Fortunately, it appears that the Democrats’ titular heads are Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi, who are going nowhere fast.

Next, the question becomes what if any role Barack Obama will play in this process. We know the role that he has been playing already, since the elections. Whether he continues to pursue this destructive path is anyone’s guess.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-9459 (“Obama Is Trying To Delegitimize Trump”)

Perhaps his epitaph and legacy were succinctly stated best:

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse.

See id.; see also http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article124842824.html (“The U.S. dropped more than 25,000 bombs, mostly in Syria and Iraq, last year”—”That figure . . . is likely lower than the actual number dropped because one airstrike can involved multiple bombs”)

Also, in a very real sense, Donald Trump is an Independent. He fought the Neanderthals in the GOP to get that party’s nomination; and he fought the evil Democrats to become our 45th President. When I left the U.S. Senate, I became an Independent, and have been one ever since.

Gallup polling during the last four years or so has indicated that approximately 42 percent of Americans identify as Independents. Having turned my back on both parties, as so many other Americans have. I welcome and salute our Independent president, and wish him well and Godspeed.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/#comment-3244 (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)

Lastly, three fundamental differences between Donald Trump and Barack Obama are that (1) Obama did not grow up on the American mainland, but in Hawaii and Indonesia, and his core beliefs are very different than those of most Americans; (2) he grew up with definite black racist views and core beliefs, which are set forth in his book “Dreams from My Father”; and (3) Trump does not drink or smoke, while Obama was a druggie by his own admissions.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man”)

Like

4 01 2017
Mary

May we all pray for President Trump and his family continuously. He will need our support every step of the way. I am thankful beyond my vocabulary for him as our next President. He has much to do; especially concerning judges, most notably those who will sit on our Supreme Court. I just can’t get enough of him. Thank you for acknowledging this man for our season.

Liked by 1 person

4 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Flexes Power Over GOP

President Trump

The Hill has reported:

President-elect Donald Trump tangled with Republicans in Congress for the first time since the election on Tuesday — and won.

Trump took to Twitter Tuesday morning to criticize House Republicans who had voted to curb the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). He argued that there were “so many other things of far greater importance.”

Within hours, an emergency meeting of Republicans on Capitol Hill had agreed to abandon the controversial proposal, which had originally been pushed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

There were other factors behind that decision. GOP House leadership figures, including Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), were opposed to the Goodlatte proposal, and lawmakers’ offices were subject to a deluge of angry calls from constituents after news of the measure broke on Monday evening.

But Trump’s rebuke was an important ingredient in the mix. His supporters say his swift victory burnishes his brand as an outsider who is willing to challenge the status quo, as well as displaying his instinctive feel for public opinion.

“Don’t catch him by surprise and expect that he will just play along,” said Barry Bennett, a former senior adviser to the Trump campaign who now runs a consultancy business with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Trump’s populist streak was an important factor in his election win, helping persuade blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt and upper Midwest that he was more concerned with their welfare than playing the Washington game. Staking out a position at odds with Congressional Republicans, as he did on the ethics issue, could help him maintain his bond with those voters.

Bennett said attempts by pundits and Democrats to downplay or mock the importance of Trump’s intervention would only backfire.

“The establishment will do him an enormous favor,” he said. “They will criticize him for what he did. But that does nothing but reinforce to his supporters that he is who he says he is.”

Democrats see things very differently. Democratic pollster Matt McDermott tweeted that “Progressive organizations spent the last 12 [hours] whipping calls to House offices. That’s the ONLY reason GOP backed away from gutting OCE.”

But some House Republicans said that even if the slew of negative news headlines and constituent calls to their offices had made it difficult to stand behind the proposal, it was Trump’s Tuesday morning tweet that effectively sealed its demise.

“This is an important issue to a lot of members who have been done-in in one way or another by that group; there are a lot of strong feelings on both sides of the aisle,” Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), a Trump supporter, told The Hill. He said the ethics overhaul didn’t fit in the GOP’s “overall agenda.”

Trump’s tweet “pushed it over the edge,” Webster said.

The broader dynamic between the incoming president and Congress will be of pivotal importance in the months ahead.

Trump won the White House despite support that was tepid, at best, from Capitol Hill Republicans. Ryan declined to campaign for Trump in the final weeks of the campaign and told colleagues it was up to them whether to support the GOP nominee.

The president-elect’s views are at odds with many Republicans on issues both foreign (relations with Russia) and domestic (Social Security reform). Stephen Bannon, one of Trump’s closest advisers, has made no secret of his disdain for the GOP establishment.

At the same time, Trump needs cooperation from the GOP Congress if he is to translate his campaign promises into legislative action.

Republican lawmakers also have their own political motivations to stay on the right side of a president-elect who elicits such enthusiasm from the party base.

“I think there are going to be some growing pains here,” said GOP strategist John Feehery, a former Capitol Hill aide who is also a columnist for The Hill. “A [GOP House] majority that has dealt for the past six years with an oppositional president has now got to figure out how to change their oppositional nature. Now they are shooting with live bullets.”

Of course, tension with congressional colleagues is hardly unique to Trump.

In early 2009, just after President Obama had first been elected, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told The Hill, “I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him.”

Some Republican lawmakers needed no cue from Trump to conclude that the move toward gutting the ethics office was a political misstep. In a Fox News Radio interview, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pronounced the original vote by his colleagues in the House “the dumbest fricking thing I’ve ever heard.”

Others downplayed the effect of Trump’s tweets, suggesting that the conference would have backed away from the Goodlatte proposal of its own volition.

The changes would have circumscribed the powers of the OCE and placed it under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who opposed the changes, said he had predicted an onslaught of negative media coverage by the end of Monday night’s vote. Watching TV coverage of the vote early Tuesday morning convinced him the provisions on the ethics body would be toast.

“I said, ‘Yep, this is gone,'” Simpson said.

But Feehery, the Republican strategist, asserted that it was Trump who played the decisive role.

“I don’t think they would have backed down unless Trump said something,” he said.

See http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312591-trump-flexes-power-over-gop (emphasis added)

Like

4 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Moving Truck Spotted Outside White House [UPDATED]

Moving out of White House

The Washington Examiner has reported:

A moving truck was seen on Wednesday parked outside the White House, where President Obama will live and work for just two more weeks.

The truck was parked on West Executive Avenue, a street inside the White House gates and situated in-between the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the West Wing.

A photo of the truck was tweeted by CNN White House reporter Michelle Kosinski.

See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2610901/; see also https://www.yahoo.com/news/amid-packing-boxes-tears-staffers-leaving-white-house-081546008–politics.html (“Amid packing boxes and tears, staffers leaving White House“)

No more Barack and Moochie.

How sweet It Is! 🙂

Like

5 01 2017
smilinjacksez

Is Obama looking for a war with Putin so he could stay president? (troops sent to Lithuania)

Like

5 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks so much, SmilinJack. Welcome back in the new year. 😊

No, my understanding is that the NATO exercises were planned a while ago.

See, e.g., https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2531054/america-special-forces-russian-border-lithuania-obama-putin/ (“WAR GAMES: US sends special forces to RUSSIAN BORDER as Nato is poised to strike back against Vladimir Putin’s ‘aggression’”)

Like

5 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

57 Percent Of Democrats Want Trump to Succeed

Donald Trump

The Rasmussen Reports has noted:

Even most Democrats want Donald Trump to succeed as president, but voters are far less confident that things will play out that way.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters think Trump’s presidency is more likely to be a success. Thirty percent (30%) say it’s more likely to be a failure instead, while 26% believe the Trump presidency will fall somewhere in between the two.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans think Trump is likely to succeed, a view shared by only 17% of Democrats and 35% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Just over half (52%) of Democrats believe Trump is more likely to fail, but only seven percent (7%) of GOP voters and 28% of unaffiliateds agree.

But 57% of Democrats want Trump’s presidency to be a success. Of course, that compares to 91% of Republicans and 73% of unaffiliated voters. Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters in Hillary Clinton’s party want Trump to fail, while another 17% are undecided.

Among all voters, 73% want Trump’s presidency to be a success; 14% want it to fail, and 12% are not sure.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 3-4, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters think major legislation to improve the country is likely to be passed during Trump’s first 100 days in office. That compares to 63% who felt that way about Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress just before he became president in January 2009.

Among voters who want Trump’s presidency to be a success, 53% say it’s likely to achieve that goal. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters who want Trump to fail believe he’s more likely to do so.

Men want Trump to succeed more than women do and are more confident that he will. Middle-aged voters are slightly more skeptical about his chances of success than others are.

Blacks think he is much less likely to succeed than whites and other minority voters.

Only 17% of voters who Strongly Approve of the job President Obama is doing believe Trump is more likely to be a success. Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of the current president’s job performance, 78% expect Trump to succeed.

Just over half of all voters now view Trump favorably, his high to date, although strong negative opinions still outweigh strong positive ones.

Trump in a TV interview shortly after Election Day made it clear that repealing and replacing Obamacare and filling the long-standing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court are high on his list of action items, and voters think that’s a good place to start.

Most voters think Democrats should work with Trump once he’s in the White House, but Democrats strongly disagree. Still, voters are more hopeful about the parties cooperating than they’ve been since Obama’s inauguration in 2009.

Following Trump’s election, voters are more optimistic about the future than they have been in over four years.

With Republicans set to control both Congress and the White House, more voters than ever are expecting significant cuts in government spending.

A majority of voters have said for years that spending cuts help the economy. Americans are much more optimistic about their personal financial future than they were a year ago.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/january_2017/57_of_democrats_want_trump_to_succeed (emphasis added)

Like

5 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Democrats Fight Like The Japanese

Chuck Schumer

Years after World War II ended, there were pockets of Japanese resistance on remote Pacific islands—”fighters” from a bygone era, who maintained their vigilance never knowing that the conflict had ended. They were like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout (“Japanese holdout“) and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills#Etymology (“[Don Quixote] tilting at windmills”)

Many Democrats in Washington are the reincarnations of these abysmal misfits. Our elections are over, done with, decided. Yet, they are determined to fight on. The Wall Street Journal has reported:

This first week of the 115th Congress has been the coming out party for new Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and he isn’t disappointing his fellow Democrats. The New Yorker made clear in a speech on the Senate floor that he intends to do everything he can to use his 48-seat minority as a bulwark against Donald Trump’s agenda.

Mr. Schumer offered up the possibility of compromise on “issues like infrastructure, trade and closing the carried interest loophole,” though the public-works spending must be “significant, direct spending,” not tax credits. You almost have to admire his Stakhanovite dedication to the tiny carried interest tax provision, though we’re willing to bet Mr. Schumer will find other reasons to oppose a serious tax reform that eliminates it.

But that was it for the olive branches, saying that on most Republican priorities “we will resist.” He laced into Mr. Trump’s appointees as “stacked with billionaires, corporate executives, titans of Wall Street, and those deeply embedded in Washington’s corridors of power.” He did not mention that two of those “titans” hail from Goldman Sachs, source of many donations to Senate Democrats.

The Minority Leader saved his most partisan remarks for MSNBC, aptly enough, where he all but promised to block any Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. “We are not going to settle on a Supreme Court nominee. If they don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re gonna oppose him tooth and nail,” he said. When the MSNBC host asked if Mr. Schumer would do his best to keep the current vacancy on the High Court open, he responded “absolutely.”

Give him credit for candor. Democrats are sore that Senate Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after Antonin Scalia died in February. And they’re eager for payback.

But while Democrats can use Senate rules to stretch out a Supreme Court confirmation battle, they’ll need Republican defections to defeat a Trump nominee. Democrats will no doubt try to demand a 60-vote rule, but Republicans can use former Democratic leader Harry Reid’s precedent in killing the filibuster for lower-court judges and apply that to the Supreme Court too. Mr. Schumer will have successes in opposition this Congress, but on the Supreme Court his resistance is likely to be futile.

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/we-will-resist-1483574456 (“‘We Will Resist’“) (emphasis added)

Chuck Schumer is a smart guy, but a devout Democratic flamethrower, much like Nancy Pelosi.

I watched him carefully when he was on the House Banking Committee, and I was a banking lobbyist after leaving the Senate. While I often disagreed with him, I respected his intelligence, tenacity and humor. I am sure our President-elect sized him up ages ago, and knows how to deal with him, or not as the case may be.

The election is over, finished and done with. Yet, many Democrats seem bent on conducting a rear-guard action to take down the Trump presidency. In a real sense, they are like the Japanese soldiers after World War II ended.

The fact is that 57 percent of Democrats want Donald Trump to succeed, according to recent polling by the Rasmussen Reports.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/the-president-and-first-lady/#comment-9470 (“57 Percent Of Democrats Want Trump to Succeed“)

The best thing for the new Trump administration is if Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer commit hare–kiri between now and the 2018 elections.

They may be a “gift” that just keeps on giving.

Like

9 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

GOP Voters More Aligned With Trump Than Congress [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

The Rasmussen Reports has noted:

Most voters share the views of the president and the party coming to power, but Republicans identify a lot more with Donald Trump than with the GOP Congress.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 53% of all Likely U.S. Voters identify with the GOP team: 37% feel Trump’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues facing the country, while another 16% feel most closely in sync with the average Republican member of Congress. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say the views of the average Democratic member of Congress are closest to their own.

Among Republicans, however, 63% say that Trump’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues, while only 27% say that of the views of the average Republican member of Congress. Among Democrats, 72% identify with the average Congress member from their party, while just 16% think Trump’s views are closest to theirs.

Just a month before Election Day, 51% of GOP voters still felt that their party’s leaders didn’t want Trump to be president, although that was down from 66% four months earlier.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 3-4, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

More than half of all voters feel comfortable with the prospect of one party controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, as Republicans will do when Trump enters the White House on January 20.

Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 34% say their views most closely match Trump’s, while 16% are more aligned with the average GOP representative. Only 29% feel closer to the average Democrat in Congress, but 20% of these voters are undecided.

The Republican team of Trump and Congress earn majority support in most demographic categories, but the president-elect is the one voters are most likely to agree with.

Women, middle-aged voters and blacks lean more heavily than the others in the direction of the average Democrat in Congress.

Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of the job President Obama is doing, 76% say Trump’s views are closest to their own, compared to only 18% who say the same of the average GOP member of Congress.

Voters aren’t sure if the new Congress will be an improvement on the last one, but most want Congress to cooperate with Trump as much as possible. Fifty-four percent (54%) think major legislation to improve the country is likely to be passed during Trump’s first 100 days in office.

But only 48% of voters are confident that Trump and Congress will work together to do what’s best for the American people.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has gone from publicly criticizing Trump when he was the GOP’s presidential nominee to enthusiastically embracing him as president-elect. Following the election, Ryan is much more popular with his fellow Republicans and is better liked by all voters than any other congressional leader of either major party.

Last August, 47% of GOP voters [said] their party should be more like Trump than Ryan. Thirty-six percent (36%) felt it should be more like Ryan.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of GOP voters told Rasmussen Reports last March that Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their party’s base. That’s consistent with Republican voter attitudes for years but was the highest finding since we first asked this question just after Election Day in November 2008. Democrats have always been much more enthusiastic about their congressional representatives.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/gop_voters_more_aligned_with_trump_than_congress (emphasis added)

Lots of us left both political parties years ago, and only came back to the GOP for Trump.

Many of us believe that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and other GOP Neanderthals should have been defeated, and not returned to the Congress. We have zero loyalty to them, or confidence in them.

See also http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/voters_think_u_s_intelligence_agencies_play_politics (“Voters Think U.S. Intelligence Agencies Play Politics”)

Like

10 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

From The Political Grave: Hillary Clinton’s Latest Criminality [UPDATED]

Ed Klein: Guilty As Sin

Political pundit Dick Morris has reported that the potential criminal indictee, Hillary Clinton, has extracted money from foreign sources and Boeing to have a “Pavilion” named for her at the State Department in Washington, D.C.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-names-state-department-building-lunch-alert/ (“Hillary Names State Department Building After Herself“); see also https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/06/hillary-clinton-to-speak-tuesday-at-new-state-department-museum-bearing-her-name/ (“Hillary Clinton to speak Tuesday at new State Department museum bearing her name“)

She should be indicted, convicted and sent to prison for the rest of her life, not honored by the State Department.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-7185 (“Clinton Fatigue“); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/boycott-the-gop-and-ignore-foreign-naysayers/#comment-9556 (“Hillary Does Not Attend Women’s Marches“)

Like

11 01 2017
Ron Michaels

Great to hear from you, Tim. Happy New Year!

Ron Michaels

Liked by 1 person

11 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Have a wonderful year, Ron. 😊

Like

13 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump’s Enemies See An Opening [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“Fake news!” roared Donald Trump, the work of “sick people.”

The president-elect was referring to a 35-page dossier of lurid details of his alleged sexual misconduct in Russia, worked up by a former British spy. A two-page summary of the 35 pages had been added to Trump’s briefing by the CIA and FBI — and then leaked to CNN.

This is “something that Nazi Germany would have done,” Trump said. Here, basically, is the story.

During the primaries, anti-Trump Republicans hired the ex-spy to do “oppo research” on Trump, i.e., to dig up dirt.

The spy contacted the Russians. They told him that Trump, at a Moscow hotel in 2013, had been engaged in depraved behavior, that they had the films to blackmail him, and that Trump’s aides had been colluding with them.

When Trump won the nomination, Democrats got the dossier and began shopping it around to the mainstream media. Some sought to substantiate the allegations. None could. So none of them published the charges.

In December, a British diplomat gave the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who personally turned it over to James Comey of the FBI.

On Jan. 7, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his colleagues at the NSA, CIA and FBI decided the new president needed to know about the dossier. They provided him with a two-page synopsis.

Once CNN learned Trump had been briefed, the cable news network reported on the unpublished dossier, without going into the lurid details.

BuzzFeed released all 35 pages. The story exploded.

Besides Trump’s understandable outrage, his Jan. 11 press conference produced related news.

U.S. intelligence agencies had for months contended that it was Russia who hacked the DNC emails and those of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. Putin’s objectives, they contend, were to damage both U.S. democracy and Hillary Clinton, whom Putin detests, and to aid Trump.

Trump had previously dismissed claims of Russian hacking as unproved conjecture, and also as being advanced to delegitimize his victory.

Wednesday, Trump conceded Russia did it: “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” adding, Vladimir Putin “should not be doing it.”

The stakes in all of this are becoming huge.

Clearly, Trump hopes to work out with Putin the kind of detente that President Nixon achieved with Leonid Brezhnev.

This should not be impossible. For, unlike the 1970s, there is no Soviet Empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, no Warsaw Pact dominating Central Europe, no Communist ideology steering Moscow into constant Cold War conflict with the West.

Russia is a great power with great power interests. But she does not seek to restore a global empire or remake the world in her image. U.S.-Russian relations are thus ripe for change.

But any such hope is now suddenly impaired.

The howls of indignation from Democrats and the media — that Trump’s victory and Clinton’s defeat were due to Putin’s involvement in our election — have begun to limit Trump’s freedom of action in dealing with Russia. And they are beginning to strengthen the hand of the Russophobes and the Putin-is-Hitler crowd in both parties.

When Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson went before the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio demanded to know why he would not publicly declare Putin a “war criminal.”

The more toxic Putin-haters can make the Russian president, the more difficult for President Trump to deal with him, even if that is in the vital national interest of the United States.

The sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President Trump to work with President Putin.

The Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built:

“The investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select committee or an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full subpoena authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as possible of what they find.”

What the Post seeks is a Watergate Committee like the one that investigated the Nixon White House, or a commission like the ones that investigated 9/11 and the JFK assassination.

Trump “should recognize,” writes the Post, “that the credibility of his denials of any Russian connections is undermined by his refusal to release tax returns and business records.”

In short, when the investigation begins, Trump must produce the evidence to establish his innocence. Else, he is Putin’s man.

This city is salivating over another Watergate, another broken president. But President-elect Trump should be aware of what is at stake. As The Wall Street Journal writes:

“Mr. Trump’s vehement denials (of collusion with Moscow and corrupt behavior) also mean that if we learn in the future that Russia does have compromising details about him, his Presidency could be over.”

Yes, indeed, very big stakes.

See http://buchanan.org/blog/trumps-enemies-see-opening-126410 (emphasis added); see also http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-campaign-staff/2017/01/13/id/768441/ (“Trump Announces 2020 Campaign Committee Staff“)

With all due respect for Pat Buchanan, unlike Richard Nixon, our new president would ride through it. He is loved by his faithful. And we live in a post-Camelot, post-Bill Clinton-and-Monica Lewinsky country, where anything goes including Bruce/Caitlin Jenner and sex-neutral bathrooms.

Yes, Washington politics will become more vicious than ever. However, if his good health continues, Donald Trump will slay dragons on both the Left and Right, and in Moscow, Beijing and elsewhere.

Having said that, he must always remember—and never forget—that Russia’s Putin is evil personified.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/the-death-of-putin-and-russia-the-final-chapter-of-the-cold-war/ (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“); see also https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-13/trump-team-shunning-davos-gathering-of-world-s-economic-elite (“Trump Team Shunning Davos Meeting of World’s Economic Elite”—”President-elect said to view attending as betrayal of populism”—”The group of billionaires and political leaders represents the power structure that fueled the populist anger that helped Trump win the presidential election”—”[T]he weak economic recovery following the global financial crisis has widened the gap between rich and poor, fueling a sense of ‘economic malaise’ that’s led to the rise of populist parties”—”The World Economic Forum wraps up on Jan. 20, the same day Trump is set to take the oath of office”)

Like

14 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

You Are Fake News: Trump and CNN’s Jim Acosta

At the very least, Acosta should be fired by CNN immediately.

If not, CNN should be boycotted.

See also http://www.investors.com/news/technology/att-could-spin-off-cnn-to-get-time-warner-deal-ok-says-analyst/ (“AT&T Could Spin Off CNN To Get Time Warner Deal OK: Wells Fargo“)

Like

20 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

A NEW DAY! [UPDATED]

See also https://www.whitehouse.gov/inaugural-address (“The Inaugural Address“) and https://www.whitehouse.gov (The White House—Donald J. Trump) and https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/first-lady-melania-trump (“First Lady Melania Trump“)

The President and First Lady

See also http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/mccain-trump-team-tillerson/2017/01/22/id/769814/ (“McCain: I Couldn’t Have Picked a Better Team”—”‘I have the utmost confidence in General [James] Mattis, General [Michael] Flynn, General [John] Kelly, Dan Coates,’ McCain said of Trump’s Defense Secretary, national security adviser, Homeland Security Secretary and director of national intelligence, respectively. ‘I couldn’t have picked a better team. So I’m confident that he’ll listen to them and be guided by them'”)

Bald Eagle and American Flag

Like

24 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

57 Percent Of Likely U.S. Voters Approve Of President Trump’s Job Performance

The President and First Lady

The highly-respected Rasmussen Reports has announced in pertinent part as follows:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-three percent (43%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 42% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 33% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +9.

. . .

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters think the country is heading in the right direction, the highest level of confidence in four years. It’s important to note, though, that this survey wrapped up the night before Trump’s inauguration.

Voters overwhelmingly followed Trump’s first day in office, but Republicans were a lot happier with it than others were.

Some media commentators were highly critical of Trump’s use of the phrase “America First” in his inaugural address to describe his trade and foreign policy agenda, but most voters continue to feel the new commander in chief is on the right track.

In his inaugural address, Trump also made it clear that he was distancing himself from the Washington, D.C. establishment of both major political parties. . . .

Voters are more comfortable than ever with the amount of power the president now holds.

. . .

Trump yesterday withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a mega-trade deal involving 11 Pacific Rim countries, saying it is bad for America. Just 27% of voters have a favorable opinion of the TPP.

Voters are not big fans of big free trade deals like the TPP and NAFTA.

Republicans historically have been the biggest fans of free trade deals, and Trump is likely to run into resistance from congressional members of his own party. But GOP voters identify a lot more with Trump than with the average Republican in Congress.

. . .

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan24 (emphasis added; charts omitted); see also http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan26 (“59%: Daily Presidential Tracking Poll“)

Like

24 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Boycott Fiat Chrysler!

Automakers meet with Trump

Fiat Chrysler’s Italian CEO Sergio Marchionne must be the dumbest person on the planet.

The photo above shows President Trump welcoming Ford’s CEO Mark Fields to the White House, with Marchionne in a sweater on the right.

This moron’s company, Fiat, was on the ropes financially in Italy until he came to the U.S. and received a “sweetheart deal” to buy Chrysler, which was in bankruptcy.

Now, he goes to the White House with other automakers to meet with our new president, and he wears a sweater to the meeting.

How much more disrespect can this Italian ragamuffin show to our president, our country, and to the American people?

Fiat Chrysler products must be boycotted by Americans!

See also http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/24/ford-ceo-mark-fields-excited-donald-trump-renaissance-american-manufacturing/ (“Ford CEO Mark Fields ‘Excited’ for Donald Trump ‘Renaissance in American Manufacturing’”)

Like

24 01 2017
Susan

Something was said about the sweater on CNBC and the response was that it was his “signature sweater”. Perhaps this is similar to Santa’s hat.

Liked by 1 person

24 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Susan, for your comments.

First, many Americans do not remember that Fiat produced “lousy” cars and was forced to leave the U.S. market completely years ago. It only reentered our market when it bought Chrysler, with taxpayers’ monies.

GM was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers too, but Ford was not. Now Ford is America’s best selling brand.

Second, there have been reports that like the past, Fiat [Chrysler] is producing defective and unsafe vehicles.

Third, “signature sweater” or not, Marchionne should be coming to the U.S. on bended knee and “groveling,” after his company literally avoided the abyss as a result of the U.S. bailout.

Fourth, the disrespect shown to our president, our country and to the American people today is inexcusable.

As one commenter has put it:

When meeting the President of the United States, or the head of state of any nation, protocol says one should act and dress appropriately.

. . .

I have several friends who work at FCA headquarters in Auburn Hills, MI. Not one of them has good things to say about Sergio’s leadership and decisions he is making on products and the company’s future. That company seems to be in trouble, unfortunately. And I am a longtime ‘Mopar’ guy.

See http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/24/ford-ceo-mark-fields-excited-donald-trump-renaissance-american-manufacturing/#comment-3118191356

That speaks volumes.

Next, unlike what Bill Ford and Alan Mulally did at Ford, Marchionne merely bandaged the wounds at both Fiat and Chrysler.

Perhaps all Marchionne accomplished was to postpone the inevitable, and put off the day of reckoning.

Lastly, you said that perhaps Marchionne’s “signature sweater” is similar to “Santa’s hat.” Or rather the Devil’s Pitchfork.

Like

25 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

President Trump Wipes Out Obama’s Immigration Policy With Two Executive Orders

Trump executive orders re immigration

The Washington Times has reported:

With a couple strokes of his pen, President Trump wiped out almost all of President Obama’s immigration policies Wednesday, laying the groundwork for his own border wall, unleashing immigration agents to enforce the law and punishing sanctuary cities who try to thwart his deportation surge.

Left untouched, for now, is the 2012 deportation amnesty for so-called Dreamers.

But most of the other policies, including Mr. Obama’s “priorities” protecting almost all illegal immigrants from deportation, are gone. In their place are a series of directives that would free agents to enforce stiff laws well beyond the border, that would encourage Mexico to try to control the flow of people coming through the southwestern border, and would push back on loopholes illegal immigrants have learned to exploit to gain a foothold in the U.S.

“From here on out I’m asking all of you to enforce the laws of the Untied States of America — they will be enforced, and enforced strongly,” Mr. Trump said as he visited the Homeland Security Department’s headquarters. “We do not need new laws. We will work within the existing system and framework.”

He also called for tripling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — his promised “deportation force” — to go after illegal immigrants in the interior.

Mr. Trump doesn’t break new legal ground, but instead pushes immigration agents to flex the tools Congress has already given them over the years to enforce existing laws. The goal, both sides of the debate said, is to push the U.S. border further south, including attempting to enlist Mexico as a partner, willing or not.

Immigrant-rights advocates planned a rally outside the White House to protest the moves, saying existing U.S. laws are broken and can’t be enforced. They’ve pushed for a complete overhaul and a redo that would grant most illegal immigrants already in the U.S. legal status.

In the meantime, the groups have asked the federal government to severely curtail — or in some cases to halt altogether — deportations.

On Wednesday, the groups vowed resistance to Mr. Trump’s policies, urging local officials to brave Mr. Trump’s threat to withdraw federal funding from sanctuary cities, and calling on immigrants themselves to rally.

“Those who are targeted by Trump and those that love us must protect ourselves and each other in these times,” said Tania Unzueta, policy director at Mijente, an advocacy group.

Mr. Trump signed two executive orders. One deals with the border, while the other encourages interior enforcement.

The orders would use existing federal laws to encourage foreign governments to take back their own illegal immigrants. Tens of thousands of criminals are released on U.S. streets because their home countries are refusing to take them. Cuba is the worst offender, with nearly 30,000.

Countries that refuse will see their visas stripped.

The Obama administration was reluctant to use that tool, pulling the trigger only once, in its waning days, with the Gambia.

On sanctuary cities, Mr. Trump said he would try to dry up federal money that flows to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with immigration agents. Hundreds of counties and cities have policies protecting illegal immigrants, to varying degrees, that their own authorities encounter.

The White House said the executive order calls on new Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly and the new attorney general to see what money can be cut off.

Overall, the orders try to create a tougher barrier — both physically and legally — for illegal immigrants trying to cross the southwest border.

Part of that is Mr. Trump’s wall, which the White House said the U.S. will foot the bill for — at least for now. But White House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted that “yes, one way or another, [as] the president has said before, Mexico will pay for it.”

The new executive orders push Homeland Security to “immediately plan, design and construct a physical wall along the southwest border.” The order says to use “appropriate materials” — which seems to suggest fencing, rather than an actual wall, could be used.

Beyond the wall, Mr. Trump’s orders seem designed to stop the loopholes that have emerged in recent years that allow illegal immigrants to come to the border, be caught, then released into the interior of the U.S.

Mr. Trump also called for a surge in detention facilities, so illegal immigrants can be held rather than released.

And one striking part of his orders would tap a little-known part of immigration law that allows illegal immigrants to be shipped outside the U.S. while their deportation cases go through the courts. That could be a severe deterrent to migrants, who currently make the journey with the belief that even if they are apprehended, they will be released into the U.S., where they can disappear into the shadows.

Mr. Trump campaigned on getting a handle on illegal immigration, running the strictest enforcement campaign of any major-party nominee in modern history.

His orders Wednesday are large steps toward his promises, though he did not revoke the 2012 deportation amnesty known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Under that policy, more than 750,000 “Dreamers,” or young adult illegal immigrants, have gained tentative legal status.

They are the most sympathetic cases in the immigration debate, and despite Mr. Trump’s promise to cancel the policy on “day one,” he has put it off.

Still, immigrant-rights groups said the steps Mr. Trump has taken were bad enough for the people they represent.

“These policies are a flagrant attack on immigrants and our values as Americans,” said Beth Werlin, executive director of the American Immigration Council. “Our laws dictate that everyone receives a just and fair process, whether they have been in this country for decades or are arriving today in search of safety and protection.”

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/trump-eviscerates-obamas-immigration-policy/ (“Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/illegal-immigration-the-solution-is-simple/#comment-9562 (“Remember Kate Steinle: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities“)

Elections have consequences!

Conservatives, Independents and moderate Democrats learned this too in 2009, when the first black racist was elected President of the United States.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

Like

25 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

President Trump’s Incredible Beginning

The President and First Lady

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

Rather than wait for his administration to have been in office one hundred days, set as the benchmark of a successful launch since FDR’s New Deal, Donald Trump has amassed a record in his first six days that is truly impressive. One hundred days, at this pace, would be staggering.

Here’s what he has done:

• Started process for approving Keystone and Dakota Access Pipeline

• Revoked US support for the TPP

• Ordered a hiring freeze in the executive branch

• Demanded that all politically appointed US Ambassadors resign at once

• Signed an Executive Order making federal agencies interpret Obamacare regulations in the most flexible, consumer-friendly, and broad way possible, setting the stage for repeal

• Ordered a moratorium on new federal regulation

• Decided to meet British PM Theresa May to deepen trade bonds with the U.K. in the wake of Brexit.

• Ordered the Commerce Department to formulate “made in America” rules for all steel used on pipeline construction.

• Ordered a streamlined and expedited process for approval of infrastructure projects

• Reappointed James Comey, perhaps signaling a continuation of the Hillary investigation

• Ordered an end to US aid to any international agency that promotes or provides abortion services

• Freeze grant-giving by the federal EPA

Wow. What a record for six days (including weekends). Any doubts that we have had about Trump’s focus, concentration, management skill, or knowledge of the federal government should now have been set to rest.

And any doubt that he has meant what he said when he told us he was a solid conservative with deep red stripes running through his personal world view should erased as well. To sustain the pace he has set — without serious embarrassment or legal overreach — is truly stunning and most encouraging.

The news media won’t cover the avalanche of executive actions except in a negative context. For them, the Trump Administration has been all about his claim that he lost the popular vote because illegals voted and about his comparisons of his inaugural crowds with Obama’s. But these side shows have nothing to do with the real Trump Agenda that just keeps ploughing up Obama’s misdeeds by the dozen.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/trumps-incredible-beginning/ (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/the-president-and-first-lady/#comment-9567 (“President Trump Wipes Out Obama’s Immigration Policy With Two Executive Orders“)

Like

26 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Peso Crushed, And Mexicans Express Shock And Dismay As Trump Turns Campaign Promises Into Reality [UPDATED]

Trump and Mexico

The Washington Post has reported:

President Enrique Peña Nieto on Thursday called off a trip to Washington, after President Trump launched his plan to construct a border wall and insisted he would stick Mexico with the bill. The incident opened one of the most serious rifts in memory between the United States and its southern neighbor.

Trump spokesman Sean Spicer added a stunning new detail about the proposed wall project later Thursday, saying that Trump intended to pay for it by imposing a 20 percent tax on all imports from Mexico.

Peña Nieto had been scheduled to meet with Trump on Tuesday to discuss immigration, trade and drug-war cooperation. He called off the visit after Trump tweeted that it would be “better to cancel the upcoming meeting” if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the wall.

Trump’s moves have rekindled old resentments in Mexico, a country that during its history has often felt bullied and threatened by its wealthier, more powerful neighbor. The legacy of heavy-handed U.S. behavior — which includes invasions and the seizure of significant Mexican lands — has mostly been played down by a generation of Mexican leaders who have pursued pragmatic policies and mutual economic interests with both Republican and Democratic U.S. administrations.

Both Peña Nieto and Spicer said their countries were interested in maintaining positive relations. “We will keep the lines of communication open,” Spicer told reporters in Washington on Thursday morning, adding that the White House would “look for a date to schedule something in the future.” The Mexican president tweeted that his government was willing to work with the United States “to reach agreements that benefit both nations.”

But Mexicans expressed shock and dismay as Trump moved to turn his campaign promises into reality.

Mexicans view a wall across the 2,000-mile border as a symbolic affront, part of a package of Trump policies that could cause the country serious economic pain. They include a crackdown on illegal immigrants, who send billions of dollars home, and renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

The treaty has allowed trade between the neighbors to mushroom. Every day, goods valued at $1.4 billion cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and millions of jobs are linked to trade on both sides. Mexico is the world’s second-largest customer for American-made products, and 80 percent of Mexican exports — automobiles, flat-screen TVs, avocados — are sold to the United States.

“When we are talking about building a wall, about deporting migrants, about eliminating sanctuary cities [for migrants], about threatening to end a free-trade agreement, or to take away factories, we are really talking about causing human suffering,” Margarita Zavala, a possible candidate for the presidency in 2018 and the wife of former president Felipe Calderón, said in an interview. “And after today, without a doubt, it is very difficult to negotiate from behind a wall.”

Mexicans had trouble recalling a time when relations were this bad with the United States or when an American president appeared to be such a threat to Mexico’s core interests.

“Never,” former president Vicente Fox said in an interview, when asked if Mexico had faced a comparable U.S. president in his lifetime. “And I never thought the U.S. people would go for a president like this.”

“We don’t want the ugly American, which Trump represents: that imperial gringo that used to invade our country, that used to send the Marines, that used to put and take away presidents most everywhere in the world,” Fox added. “That happened in the 20th century, and this is what this guy is menacing us with.”

Trump, for his part, faulted the Mexicans for damaging the relationship.

Addressing a GOP policy retreat in Philadelphia, Trump said Thursday afternoon, “The president of Mexico and myself have agreed to cancel our planned meeting” next Tuesday. “Unless Mexico is going to treat the United States fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless,” he added.

It was not clear exactly how the Trump administration would impose the new tax on Mexican exports. But Spicer said it would be part of a broader plan to tax imports from countries, including Mexico, with which the United States has a trade deficit.

“If you tax that $50 billion at 20 percent of imports — which is, by the way, a practice that 160 other countries do — right now our country’s policy is to tax exports and let imports flow freely in, which is ridiculous,” Spicer told reporters. “By doing it that way, we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall just through that mechanism alone. That’s really going to provide the funding.”

Peña Nieto’s decision to cancel the trip came a day after Trump signed an executive order to construct a border wall, one of Trump’s signature promises and a rallying cry for his supporters during last year’s presidential campaign. Trump has insisted that Mexico will fund it, but Peña Nieto and other Mexican officials have angrily denied they will do so.

The timing of the order was seen as further insult: Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray was flying to Washington on Tuesday when news broke about Trump’s impending border wall announcement. All day Wednesday, speculation was rampant that Peña Nieto might cancel his upcoming trip.

In the meantime, Videgaray met at the White House with Craig Deare, who is in charge of Latin America on the National Security Council.

Throughout Trump’s rise, Peña Nieto has been mostly respectful toward him, even inviting him to visit Mexico City as a candidate last August. Peña Nieto has tried to maintain a diplomatic approach to the new administration, suggesting that Mexico can negotiate with its largest trading partner and preserve good relations.

On Wednesday night, Peña Nieto sent out a recorded message saying that he “regrets and disapproves” of the U.S. decision to move forward with the wall. He repeated that Mexico will not pay for the wall but said he still planned to come to Washington to meet with Trump because of the importance of the negotiations.

But that decision changed after Trump’s tweet on Thursday morning.

During his speech at the GOP policy retreat later in the day in Philadelphia, Trump described NAFTA as a “terrible deal, a total disaster for the United States,” and said that the move of manufacturing to Mexico cost millions of American jobs and the closure of “thousands and thousands of plants” across the United States.

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexican-president-cancels-visit-to-washington-as-tensions-with-trump-administration-intensify/2017/01/26/ececc3da-e3d9-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html (“White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods“) (emphasis added; map omitted); see also http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/26/peso-crushed-after-mexican-president-cancels-meeting-in-twitter-spat.html (“Peso crushed after Mexican president cancels meeting in latest international Twitter spat“) and http://www.wsj.com/articles/gloom-descends-on-mexicos-free-trade-capital-1485449547 (“Gloom Descends on Mexico’s Nafta Capital”—As one Wall Street Journal commenter noted: “[W]e could put a 10% tariff on imported goods with little or no immediate increases in U.S. prices due to the decline in the Mexican Peso since the election”“)

Mexico will genuflex, quite literally, or be crushed.

President Trump and the United States will not bow down, like Barack Obama did.

See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2206 (“Obama Is A Despicable Fool Who Is Bowing Again!“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1870 (“Obama Wanted To Apologize For Hiroshima and Nagasaki, And Was The First U.S. President To Bow To Japan’s Emperor!“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1396 (“Obama Is Bowing Again . . . This Time To The Saudis“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-103 (“Now Barack Obama is bowing to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida!”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-358 (“Bowing To The Communists!”)

President Donald J. Trump

Like

31 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Deplorables Rise Up: The Media-Stoked Panic And Outrage!

Deplorables Rise Up

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

That hysterical reaction to the travel ban announced Friday is a portent of what is to come if President Donald Trump carries out the mandate given to him by those who elected him.

The travel ban bars refugees for 120 days. From Syria, refugees are banned indefinitely. And a 90-day ban has been imposed on travel here from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

Was that weekend-long primal scream really justified?

As of Monday, no one was being detained at a U.S. airport.

Yet the shrieking had not stopped. All five stories on page one of Monday’s Washington Post were about the abomination. The New York Times’ editorial, “Trashing American Ideals and Security,” called it bigoted, cowardly, xenophobic, Islamophobic, un-American, unrighteous.

This ban, went the weekend wail, is the “Muslim ban” of the Trump campaign. But how so, when not one of the six largest Muslim countries — Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey — was on the list? Missing also were three-dozen other Muslim countries.

Of the seven countries facing a 90-day ban, three are U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror, and the other four are war zones. Clearly, this is about homeland security, not religious discrimination.

The criterion for being included in the travel ban appears to be that these places are the more likely breeding grounds for terrorists.

Yet there are lessons for the Trump White House in the media-stoked panic and outrage at the end of his first week in office.

First, Steve Bannon’s observation that the media are “the opposition party,” is obviously on target. While Sen. Chuck Schumer was crying on camera that the ban was “un-American,” the media were into the more serious business of stampeding and driving the protesters.

A second lesson is one every White House learns. Before a major decision is announced, if possible, get everyone’s input and everyone on board to provide what Pat Moynihan called the “second and third echelons of advocacy.” Those left out tend to leak.

A third lesson Trump should learn is that the establishment he routed and the city he humiliated are out to break him as they broke LBJ on Vietnam, Nixon on Watergate, and almost broke Reagan on the Iran-Contra affair.

While the establishment may no longer be capable of inspiring and leading the nation, so detested is it, it has not lost its appetite or its ability to break and bring down presidents.

And Trump is vulnerable, not only because he is an envied outsider who seized the highest prize politics has [to] offer, but because his agenda would cancel out that of the elites.

They believe in open borders, free trade, globalization. Trump believes in securing the Southern border, bringing U.S. industry home, economic nationalism, “America First.”

They want endless immigration from the Third World to remake America into the polyglot “universal nation” of Ben Wattenberg’s utopian vision. Trump’s followers want back the America they knew.

Our foreign policy elites see democratization as a vocation and an autocratic Russia as an implacable enemy. Trump instead sees Moscow as a potential ally against real enemies like al-Qaida and ISIS.

There is another reason for the reflexive howl at Trump’s travel ban. The establishment views it, probably correctly, as the first move toward a new immigration policy, built on pre-1965 foundations, and rooted in a preference for Western-Christian immigrants first.

When the Times rages that “American ideals” or “traditional American values” are under attack by Trump, what they really mean is that their ideology and agenda are threatened by Trump.

We are headed for a series of collisions and crises, and what has happened in Europe will likely happen here. As the Third World invasion and growing Islamization of the Old Continent — which the EU has proven unable to stop — has discredited centrist parties and continuously fed a populist-nationalist uprising there, so may it here also.

And Trump not only appears to have no desire to yield to his enemies in politics and the media, he has no choice, as he is now the personification of a surging Middle American counterrevolution.

Undeniably, there are great numbers of Americans who agree with the libels the Times showered on Trump and, by extension, his backers whom Hillary Clinton designated “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic . . . deplorables.”

But by whatever slurs they are called, Middle Americans seem prepared to fight. And history shows that such people do not calmly accept the loss of what is most precious to them — the country they grew up in, the country they love.

They have turned to Trump to lead them. Why should he not, having been raised up by them, and knowing in his own heart what the establishment and the media think of him and would do to him?

Ten days in, and already it is “Game On!”

See http://buchanan.org/blog/the-first-firestorm-126483 (“The First Firestorm“) (emphasis added)

This is war, every bit as much as a foreign crusade against our enemies. This time though, we are fighting the morally-bankrupt media and the entrenched “establishments” of both political parties—the truly evil far-Left Democrats, and the Neanderthals of the GOP—as well as America’s other enemies, both foreign and domestic.

By electing Donald Trump, we have come so far.

But we have promises to keep,
And miles to go before we sleep,
And miles to go before we sleep.

See https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/42891 (Robert Frost: “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”)

Like

31 01 2017
Rick

Excellent post. Spot on.

Liked by 1 person

31 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks so much, Rick. 😊

Like

5 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Democratic Party Is Worse Off Than Anyone Understands

Webster Hubbell and Chelsea Clinton

[Webster Hubbell and Chelsea Clinton]

Michael Sainato of the Observer has written:

Since Hillary Clinton’s presidential election loss, rumors have circulated that speculate about what she will do next. In trying to predict Clinton’s future—from running for mayor of New York City to hosting her own TV show—the idea has also been advanced that her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, may enter politics herself. Though being the progeny of the widely-disliked Bill and Hillary should disqualify Chelsea, the Democratic Party’s cultist obsession with her family’s access to a vast network of wealthy donors leaves any congressional race of her choosing open to Chelsea if she wants to run.

This would be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Instead of moving on—and being better off for it—another Clinton in public office would broaden the party’s disconnect with working and middle class voters. Electing Chelsea to a major role among Democrats would do little to convey a message of change and progression.

The Washington Post recently reported Chelsea Clinton has begun to show an interest in politics. “In recent days, we’ve noticed a different Chelsea Clinton—one more than willing to speak out, often a bit bluntly. And she’s speaking out specifically against President Trump, using his preferred medium: Twitter.”

Business Insider further dramatized Chelsea Clinton’s recent activity on Twitter by hyperbolically dubbing it a “crusade against Trump.” “Very grateful no one seriously hurt in the Louvre attack . . . or the (completely fake) Bowling Green Massacre. Please don’t make up attacks,” Chelsea Clinton tweeted on February 3 in regards to Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway’s “Bowling Green” gaffe. Conway responded to Chelsea by citing Hillary Clinton’s infamous “Bosnia Sniper Fire” lie and noted Clinton lost the election, to which Chelsea Clinton didn’t bother to retort back.

If the best the Democratic establishment can come up with in regards to the “resistance” against Donald Trump is sensationalizing tweets from establishment elites as legitimate opposition, the Democratic Party is worse off than anyone understands. Huffington Post, ABC News, New York Post, the Hill and several other outlets covered the brief series of tweets between Chelsea Clinton and Kellyanne Conway, attempting to portray Clinton as a formidable spokesperson against Trump. Touting another Clinton to oppose his administration will only help Trump.

Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign drove the Democratic Party into the ground. Doubling down on her flawed strategy, partnering with wealthy elites and establishment celebrities to “get things done,” continues to show Americans that the Democratic Party belongs to the top one percent.

Chelsea Clinton’s potential emergence into politics opens the door for Democratic opposition to continue citing the litany of scandals and disastrous policies championed by the Clintons. The only good to come out of this would be for Chelsea Clinton to lose a congressional race, thereby re-teaching a lesson the Democratic establishment has continuously failed to learn.

See http://observer.com/2017/02/chelsea-clinton-congressional-run-democratic-party/ (“Chelsea Clinton Is the Last Thing the Democratic Party Needs“) (emphasis added)

First, there is reason to believe that Webster Hubbell is Chelsea Clinton’s father, not Bill Clinton.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-7185 (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Second, if Chelsea Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren are the best that the Democrats have, they are in very deep trouble.

Indeed, their nationwide losses in 2018 and beyond may be greater than in 2016.

Third, Hillary Clinton may be indicted, convicted and imprisoned, which may be the result of her flagrant criminality and the failure of Barack Obama to pardon her.

Like

7 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

HYSTERIC DEMS: TAKE CHILL PILL [UPDATED]

Democrats are losers

As the Chicago Tribune has reported, this is the sobering advice that has been given to his fellow Democrats by Chicago’s mayor and former Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel, who runs perhaps the nation’s most crime ridden city:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has warned Democrats they need to “take a chill pill” and realize that they are not going to take back national power anytime soon.

“It ain’t gonna happen in 2018,” Emanuel said Monday at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business in California. “Take a chill pill, man. You gotta be in this for the long haul.”

As he did last month at an event in Washington, D.C., the mayor expanded on what he believes is the road map back to power for his party — putting moderate candidates such as veterans, football players, sheriffs and business people up in Republican districts, picking battles with Republicans, exploiting wedges within the GOP and fighting attempts to redistrict Congress on partisan grounds.

But this time he didn’t hold back on his frustration with some of his fellow Democrats.

“Winning’s everything,” he said. “If you don’t win, you can’t make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes, you’ve just got to win, OK? Our party likes to be right, even if they lose.”

He added, “I don’t go to moral victory speeches. I can’t stand them. I’ve never lost an election. It’s about winning, because if you win you then have the power to go do what has to get done.

“If you lose, you can write the book about what happened — great, that’s really exciting!” he said, sarcastically.

Instead, he said, Democrats should focus on the GOP. “Wherever there’s a disagreement among Republicans, I’m for one of those disagreements,” he said. “I’m all for it. The president’s with Russia? I’m with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, I’m for NATO! Why? (It’s a) wedge. Wedges have to be schisms, schisms have to be divides.”

See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-rahm-emanuel-national-democrats-advice-0207-chicago-inc-20170206-story.html (“Rahm Emanuel: Too many Dems care more about being right than winning“) (emphasis added); see also http://www.dickmorris.com/liberals-lose-election-move-left-commit-suicide-lunch-alert/ (Dick Morris: “After Liberals Lose An Election They Move To The Left And Commit Suicide”)

Emanuel is not a fool. He needs federal funding from President Trump to keep Chicago afloat. In the absence of Trump’s help, Chicago and Emanuel’s political career will be decimated.

Like

7 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Coming Crusade Against Trump [UPDATED]

Obama-gone

Ed Klein has written at Newsmax.com:

In my last report, I wrote about Hillary Clinton and what she sees when she looks into her crystal ball and plans her future.

This week, let’s talk about Barack Obama.

After three short days in rainy Southern California, Obama escaped the weather and boarded Sir Richard Branson’s private jet for the British Virgin Islands. There, with his hat on backwards and wearing shades, Obama chilled out with his wife, Michelle.

As ET on line reported: “Obama’s backwards hat was the talk of Twitter, with one [liberal] tweet reading, ‘Obama got his hat to the back like it’s 1990 and trump isn’t president. GET YO A** BACK HERE . . . with respect, sir.'”

Liberals don’t have to worry: Obama intends to be the most politically active ex-president in modern times. He’s tossing out the old rule book that says former presidents should remain silent for a decent interval to give their successors in the White House time and space to govern.

Spurred into action by his two significant others—Michelle and Valerie Jarrett—the 55-year-old ex-president is preparing to lead the progressive charge against President Donald Trump.

“He’s planning to make speeches and speak out forcefully against Trump,” said one of his friends. “He’s going to fight Trump’s executive actions, fire up the leftwing resistance to the Trump administration, and pave the way for the Democrats to retake Congress.

“He’s been given assurances by George Soros and other liberal money men that they will make a mighty war chest available for his crusade against Trump,” the friend continued.

“Among Democrats, there is no one on the national scene with the status and popularity to match Obama’s. He’s a towering figure on the left, with a constituency that is angry and begging for a leader to steer them in the right direction.

“And he has every intention of answering their call.”

See http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ed-Klein-Obama-Crusade-Trump/2017/02/07/id/772359/; see also http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/how-obama-is-scheming-to-sabotage-trumps-presidency/ (“How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency“)

In a desperate attempt to give life to his abysmal racist legacy, America’s former president is rearing his ugly head again.

How pathetic, but it is so true to his character.

In my first article at this blog, I wrote:

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

I believe his legacy will be that of a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history. Clearly, his naïveté was matched by his overarching narcissism, and he was more starry-eyed and dangerous than Jimmy Carter.

His presidency was a sad watershed in American history. Indeed, as mentioned previously, his epitaph and legacy are the following:

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse.

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/2/the-obama-years-stumble-to-a-cheesy-climax/

Like

7 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Sleazy Left [UPDATED]

Chuck Schumer

In an article entitled “Trump Starts His Revolution As Reporters and Judges Scream Like Banshees,” Canadian-born former newspaper publisher and author Conrad Black has written for the New York Sun (and the National Review):

Appearances are deceiving, and President Trump, although the launch of the 90-day travel ban was botched, cannot lose on the issue. His opponents, in the United States and the world, have absurdly overreacted; an arriving onlooker would imagine that the president had caused great loss of life in some frightful act of malice or negligence.

The President will eventually almost certainly be upheld legally, given the immigration legislation from 1952 and the constitutional powers of the president, which his six immediate predecessors have used. His abiding by the legal processes, if it does lead to judicial legitimization, will severely undercut his opponents.

Even if he is ultimately unsuccessful, he has made the gesture, which the apparent majority of Americans support as a national-security measure. His opponents will bear the responsibility if there are any incidents that could arguably have been avoided if his measure had not been challenged. Senator Schumer and others will regret their fatuous histrionics (“The statue of Liberty is weeping,” as Mr. Schumer himself pretended to do).

The whole escapade reeks of the sleazy Left, which, in the Congress, the press, academia, and the entertainment world, is almost all that is left of the fierce opposition to Mr. Trump. Jay Inslee, the smug, verbose, banal governor of Washington state, who was filibustering interviewers last week, went judge-shopping to get this silly stay order on Trump’s 90-day partial-entry ban.

Mr. Inslee found the inane, posturing rogue judge James Robart, who is a George W. Bush appointee, which the local Democrats trumpet as proof of his impartiality, and who could be relied upon to produce a provokingly hostile judgment. Judge Robart decreed that his ruling covered the entire country — quite a reach for a federal district judge.

The President should not have referred to Judge Robart as a “so-called judge,” but the whole business is a frame-up. The Democrats must have had in the back of their minds the hope that Mr. Trump would impetuously ignore Judge Robart’s order, as President Jackson famously invited Chief Justice Marshall to try to enforce a decision of his Supreme Court.

This would have enabled them to start already on the line they are bursting with impatience to raise — that this was grounds for impeachment. This too would be nonsense, but it would help them to ratchet up the righteous obstruction and start agitating for the complete immobilization of this unconstitutional billionaire megalomaniac who was assaulting constitutional propriety.

Instead, Mr. Trump has been more compliant than necessary, and gone through the charade of appealing to the notoriously flaky and leftist Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, and will probably have to go on to the Supreme Court, which could entangle this issue with the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on that court.

Mr. Trump will get the political credit for trying to safeguard the country whether he is sustained or not, but can be almost a bystander between the raving Democrats and a serious Court when the issue arrives at one.

The Democrats have flogged to death the fact that Robart was a George W. Bush appointee. Once in a life sinecure, judges often evolve unpredictably. President Gerald Ford named John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court as a conservative, and he eventually became one of the most left-wing judges in the Court’s history, making William O. Douglas seem like “Hanging Judge” Jeffreys in comparison.

Richard Nixon had a similar experience with Harry Blackmun, and John F. Kennedy named Byron White to the high court as a liberal and he proved quite conservative. Judge Robart has metamorphosed into another northwestern liberal, seizing most opportunities to utter rabble-rousing left-wing battle cries.

Mr. Trump’s enemies are reduced to screaming like banshees at everything the president does. The effort to represent the firing of former deputy attorney general Sally Yates for rank insubordination as a frightful injustice fizzled. The country yawned and these events are piling up as Mr. Trump charges through the opening days of his presidency.

They have taken the bait again on the comment that the United States is not always innocent. Almost no story lasts more than a day or two, as Mr. Trump overwhelms the country with publicity that is given with animus by most of the press but that elevates him in stature even farther above his opponents than the natural preeminence presidents normally enjoy.

Those who wish Mr. Trump well should be reassured that he has played this astutely, after an over-hasty launch. He calculatedly incited the idiocies of Mr. Schumer and many others and has virtuously been a pillar of legal process since. His losses of temper and lapses of civility are sometimes signs of his large ego, sometimes of business method exercised for the first time from the presidency, but they are also sometimes cunning tactics to exploit the weakness and stupidity of the Democratic leadership and their brain-dead claque in Hollywood and most of the press.

The Democrats are becoming identified with the extreme left, like the 30 or so ninja-like vandals who trashed part of the Berkeley campus and prevented a conservative gay speaker from appearing (as he had been engaged to do by the campus Republican association), and like the obnoxious women shouting obscenities at the police at the Greenwich Village campus of New York University.

Obstructing the confirmation of his Cabinet nominees is churlish and will not succeed. The facts are that Trump is almost certain to produce a superior health-care system than the shambles of Obamacare, and he has slowed down the process to avoid the chaos of repealing one system before the next is in place.

He is almost certain to produce tax cuts for the middle and working classes. It is too early to say how his efforts to repatriate capital accumulations and jobs will go, but, because they are based on incentive economics, they are unlikely to be fruitless.

And the president is picking his opponents astutely. He will eat some of Wall Street’s free fiscal lunch, but give with the other hand as he dismantles the moronic regulatory excess of Sarbanes-Oxley. A group of bankers was in to see him last week, including former ostentatious Democrat Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, who was rewarded for his fervent support of Mr. Obama with a $13 billion fine over his handling of the (government-created) mortgage bubble. Mr. Dimon is now a Trump supporter, although Mr. Trump publicly criticized him for caving to the Justice Department without a fight.

The surest financial barometer of all of what very big, very smart money thinks is the disclosure that that other great Democrat, Warren Buffett, has invested $12 billion in the U.S. economy since Election Day. After only two working weeks as president, Mr. Trump is already chipping away at blocs of Democratic support, in the limousine-liberal business community and with selected labor unions, including some he knew from his career working with the rough building-trade unions across the country.

Mr. Trump has gone a long way to rallying the conservatives, including many intellectual conservatives, by nominating Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in an elegant ceremony. As noted above, his confirmation (he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to his current position as a federal appeals-court judge) might be necessary to get final approval of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, but the Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court are a great deal more substantial as jurists than the poltroon who gained his 15 minutes of world fame by starting this controversy.

It need hardly be emphasized that the Obama policy of appeasement of Iran, and of consistent diplomatic defeat at the hands of puny Russia (which has displaced the United States in the Middle East with 50 warplanes and only a few battalions of troops), is receiving the ultimate reset. At this point, it appears likely that the Iranian theocracy, intoxicated with the smashing victory it won with the nuclear deal, will continue to provoke Mr. Trump with missile test-firings and promotion of the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza and Lebanon.

This president will not hesitate to use overwhelming American domination of the skies to teach the ayatollahs a painful lesson, and everyone from Israel to Russia to Saudi Arabia will applaud him, as will his countrymen.

Two weeks are a very brief incumbency, but, so far, Mr. Trump is building his base and assisting the Democrats into a cul de sac with the loonies of the far left, by presenting them with phantom targets — the appearance of vulnerability because of the calculated and flippant bombast with which he proposes intelligent and vote-winning policies and the installation of high-quality people in senior positions.

It is difficult now to remember when Mr. Trump was routinely referred to as an exploiter and disparager of women, a racist, and a television egomaniac who could not run a two-car funeral. Also almost inaudible is the paranoid foolishness about “alt-right” extremism. It has been a grating performance at times, but a clever one, and it is impossible to feel any warmth for Mr. Schumer. It would be impossible for the Democrats to find a Senate leader more nauseating than Harry Reid, but Mr. Schumer is no Lyndon Johnson or Alben Barkley, or even Robert Byrd or George Mitchell.

Donald Trump is well embarked on his revolution, and likely to be the most important president since Reagan. The intervening regimes (the OBushtons) all seem, as the last of those families, Hillary Clinton, used to say, “so yesterday.” In urgent times in American history, the presidential office seeks the man.

It has now sought a septuagenarian billionaire with an uncommonly assertive manner and no direct political or armed-forces experience, one who appalls many, was scorned by almost all commentators, and continues to skate rings around his doubters and to lead in the right direction at an exhilarating velocity. For such a deliverance from the disasters of the last 20 years, America and the world can live with the loss of a few style points.

See http://www.nysun.com/national/trump-embarks-on-revolutionas-reporters/89891/ (emphasis added)

The Left and far-Left of America suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which may only get worse after they experience more defeats in 2018 and beyond.

They are hysterical now, and seriously unhinged mentally.

Like

9 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Like So Many Judges, Is Trump’s Nominee To The Supreme Court An Arrogant Buffoon, Or A Fool? [UPDATED]

Despicable Judges

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

President Trump’s choice to serve on the Supreme Court said in a private meeting that he finds Trump’s Twitter attacks on a federal judge ‘disheartening,’ after Trump went after a judge who ruled on his immigration order.

Gorsuch made his views known in a private meeting with Connecticut Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal.

‘He said very specifically that they were demoralizing and disheartening and he characterized them very specifically that way,’ Blumenthal said following his meeting with Gorsuch, who is in the midst of a round of courtesy calls.

‘I said they were more than disheartening and I said to him that he has an obligation to make his views clear to the American people, so they understand how abhorrent or unacceptable President Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are,’ he added, CNN reported.

Trump this weekend went after a district court judge who issued a stay of his immigration order – setting up a process that could land the order before the Supreme Court.

‘The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!’ Trump tweeted.

The comment was confirmed by the Supreme Court nomination team.

Federal district judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a stop to Trump’s immigration order last week while it is being adjudicated.

The order had the effect of reopening immigration from a group of seven majority-muslim nations that were deemed a threat.

The issue is certain to arise in Gorsuch’s confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Top Democrats are already making an issue of whether he can be independent from Trump.

Trump also drew widespread criticism during the primary for going after judge Gonzalo Curiel, who had ruled against him in a Trump University fraud case he ultimately settled after paying $25 million to students who claimed they were defrauded by the offer of real estate classes.

Blumenthal said he brought up Trump’s attacks on judges and that Gorsuch ‘didn’t disagree with me on that point.’

‘I said to him if a litigant before your court – and the President of the United States is in fact a litigant right now in the immigration ban cases – said what President Trump said, you would hold him in contempt of court,’ he added.

Gorsuch also met with Senate Demoratic leader Charles Schumer and reportedly gave similar assurances. But after his meeting with Gorsuch, Schumer said, ‘The judge today avoided answers like the plague.’

GOP Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas publicly criticized Trump for the twitter attack Wednesday.

‘Judge Robart, like every other judge in the federal system, is confirmed by the Senate after having been appointed by the president. He’s a judge. He’s not a so-called judge,’ he said bluntly, appearing on CNN.

‘I would say he wrote a so-called opinion, that didn’t offer a single legal reason for his conclusion,’ he added.

‘And again I think it’s best not to personalize these disputes. I understand the president is frustrated that this judge in Seattle has stayed his order. I don’t think that was the right decision. But I would probably focus on the merits of the case itself, and have confidence in his victory on appeal – because I think he should have confidence in his victory,’ he added.

Trump also criticized a federal Ninth Circuit Appeals Court that took up the immigration order Tuesday night.

‘A bad high school student would understand this. Anybody would understand this,’ he said, following a dramatic reading of a portion of the law Wednesday.

‘I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful. It was disgraceful,’ Trump fumed.

‘Because what I just read to you is what we have. And it just can’t be read any plainer or better. And for us to be going through this!’

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4205774/Trump-court-pick-finds-attack-judge-demoralizing.html (“Democratic senator says Supreme Court nominee found Trump’s attack on judge who blocked travel ban ‘demoralizing’ and ‘disheartening'”) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/illegal-immigration-the-solution-is-simple/#comment-9647 (“Trump Blasts Courts On Travel Ban“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/illegal-immigration-the-solution-is-simple/#comment-9594 (“Trump Immigration Order Restricted By Despicable U.S. Judges“) and https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-09/appeals-court-keeps-u-s-doors-open-during-immigration-fight (The worst federal appellate court in the nation “Keeps U.S. Doors Open During Immigration Fight’) and http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Blumenthal-Comments-Trump-Gorsuch/2017/02/09/id/772730/ (“Blumenthal: Gorsuch OK’d Me to Reveal His Trump Criticisms“) and https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-09/appeals-court-keeps-u-s-doors-open-during-immigration-fight (“Trump Dealt Major Setback as [lawless 9th Circuit] Appeals Court Sides With Immigrants“) and https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-syrias-assad-tells-yahoo-news-some-refugees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html (“Syria’s Assad tells Yahoo News some refugees are ‘definitely’ terrorists“)

Surely President Trump’s nominee to the Court is smart enough to know that a Democratic senator cannot be trusted, much less Blumenthal.

Has Blumenthal distorted Gorsuch’s words, or is Gorsuch a fool? We know that Robart is pure scum, and should be removed from the District Court. That much is clear.

What may also be clear is that President Trump should “yank Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and send up to the Senate a candidate who can keep his or her cool.”

See http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-gorsuch-gaffe/89893/ (“The Gorsuch Gaffe”—”What’s so disheartening is to see such a promising nominee to the high court lose his bearings in a storm. What in the world was Judge Gorsuch thinking?”—”Judge Gorsuch . . . fetched up in the office of the senior Democratic senator from the People’s Republic of Connecticut, and starts wringing his hands about the behavior of the president who nominated him. It would be surprising to us if by chastising his nominator Judge Gorsuch gained any quarter whatsoever from the Democrats. Not even a micron of a quarter”—”It would not be surprising . . . were Mr. Trump to turn around and yank Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and send up to the Senate a candidate who can keep his or her cool”—”As the courts have thrust themselves into political questions, confidence in the Supreme Court has begun to decline”—”The percentage of Americans who had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court slumped to 3 in the decade ending in 2006, according to Gallup. Where Americans confidence reposes, it turns out, is in the military, the police, and religion. The Supreme Court’s slide is what’s disheartening”—”Mr. Trump is but one of the millions of voters who are upset by the politicization of the courts and he has emerged as a tribune for, among other things, millions of citizens who feel similarly”) and http://www.nysun.com/comments/340718 and http://humanevents.com/2017/02/08/a-maniac-is-running-our-foreign-policy-its-not-trump/ (“A Maniac Is Running Our Foreign Policy! (It’s Not Trump)”—”If only we were able to deport citizens, we could use Trump’s new policy of excluding those who are ‘hostile’ toward our country to get rid of Judge James Robart”—”[T]here is not the slightest question but that the president, in his sole discretion, can choose to admit or exclude any foreigners he likes, based on ‘the interests of the United States.’ The Clinton administration used the executive branch’s broad power over immigration to send a 6-year-old boy back to a communist dictatorship. The courts were completely powerless to stop him”—”The president’s authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy”—”[W]hen the president’s immigration policy is to protect Americans: Some piss-ant judge announces that his authority exceeds that of the president”—”The judiciary, both political parties, the media, Hollywood, corporate America and approximately 1 million lobbying groups are all working frantically to bring the hardest cases to our shores”—”Federal judges issue lunatic rulings to ensure that there will never be a pause in the transformation of America”)

Tragically, lots of us who have been lawyers for many years, if not decades, have little or no confidence in or respect for our judiciary or courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Like

9 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Crazies Are Escaping From Their Asylums!

Impeach Donald Trump

The Left and far-Left’s loonies like the black racists Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings are the worst of American politics. And judges like James Robart are a very close second, and a disgrace.

However, concerted efforts have begun to destroy the Trump Presidency, which must be stopped in their tracks. Online ads like the one above are appearing nationwide, with lots of similar efforts to come.

See http://sign.actiontaker.org/page/s/should–trump-be-impeached-la-ad; see also http://leftaction.com

Like

10 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

TRUMP MUST BREAK JUDICIAL POWER [UPDATED}

Despicable Judges

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?

A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.

Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

These episodes reveal much about America 2017.

They reflect, first, the poisoned character of our politics. The language of Warren – that Sessions is steeped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” – echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.”

Such language, reflecting as it does the beliefs of one-half of America about the other, rules out any rapprochement in America’s social or political life. This is pre-civil war language.

For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists? Apparently, you don’t. Rather, you vilify them, riot against them, deny them the right to speak or to be heard.

And such conduct is becoming common on campuses today.

As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.

Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who had presided over one of the trials.

Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.

When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.

FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.

President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out. And here we come to the heart of the matter.

Whether the roll-out of the president’s temporary travel ban was ill-prepared or not, and whether one agrees or not about which nations or people should be subjected to extreme vetting, the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.

That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.

When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are – usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.

Indeed, one of the mightiest forces that has birthed the new populism that imperils the establishment is that unelected justices like Warren and Brennan, and their progeny on the bench, have remade our country without the consent of the governed – and with never having been smacked down by Congress or the president.

Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.

Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable. As rightly they should.

Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution – to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.

A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.

See http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/ (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/justice-and-the-law-do-not-mix/#comment-9649 (“Like So Many Judges, Is Trump’s Nominee To The Supreme Court An Arrogant Buffoon, Or A Fool?“)

More than a “clipping of wings” is necessary. The dark and sinister, and lawless and tyrannical judiciary’s power must be broken.

Tragically, lots of us who have been lawyers for many years, if not decades, have little or no confidence in or respect for our judiciary or courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Will it take 9/11-like events that strike the judiciary directly—as well as the media, and the Left and far-Left—to shake them out of their sanctimonious and un-American attitudes?

See, e.g., http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bomb-scare-shuts-down-hollywood-highland-metro-station-el-capitan-theatre-974684 (“Bomb Scare Shuts Down Hollywood Subway Station, Chinese Theater Evacuated“)

Like

14 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Kremlin Is Starting to Worry About Trump

Putin is pure evil

Ivan Krastev (Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria) and Stephen Holmes (Professor of Law at New York University) have written for Foreign Affairs:

In 2016, a senior Russian official explained to a group of visiting foreigners why the government had decided not to celebrate the upcoming 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. Yes, it was a turning point in Russian history, he argued, and, yes, President Vladimir Putin sees today’s Russia as a successor to both the tsars and the Bolsheviks. But celebrating a revolution would send the wrong message to society. The Kremlin today is staunchly opposed to “regime change,” the visitors were told, and thus skittish about eulogizing 1917. It plans to use the centenary, instead, to draw attention to the catastrophic consequences of resorting to revolution to solve social and political problems.

The last thing the Russian government expected was that 2017 would bring it face to face not with a revolution of the past but with a revolution of the present — the radical regime change taking place in the United States as a result of the electoral victory of Donald Trump. It is Trump’s electoral revolution that has captured the imagination, and fanned the fears, of Russian elites today.

The search for a key to Trump’s mind-boggling and miscellaneous gusher of policy directives has tended to focus on his disturbingly erratic, vindictive, simplistic, narcissistic, insecure, and occasionally delusional personality, due exception being made for those conspiracy theorists who treat him as a kind of Manchurian candidate or sock puppet of the Kremlin. What most observers have been late to recognize is the extent to which, behind his mask as a showman, Trump views himself as a revolutionary insurgent with a mission to dismantle America’s “old regime.”

Trump’s tactics certainly belong to the classic revolutionary playbook. His shock-and-awe style of executive action is designed to rattle Congress, catch his opponents unprepared, and incite his base to wage war on the establishment. The extreme polarization he deliberately foments allows him to fend off an opportunistic alliance of the Republican elite with the Democratic Party in defense of the constitutional system, ensuring that protests will be largely impotent. In the words of White House strategist-in-chief Stephen Bannon, Trump is positioning himself as the global leader of an anti-global movement that is anti-elite, anti-establishment, anti-liberal, and nationalistic. “What we are witnessing now,” Bannon told the Washington Post, “is the birth of a new political order, and the more frantic a handful of media elites become, the more powerful that new political order becomes itself.”

Russian policymakers, obsessed as they are with the fear of “color revolutions,” may understand better than Americans and Europeans the radical nature of the political change that has descended on Washington. Indeed, when it comes to the ongoing Trump revolution, Russian policymakers are in much the same position as the German General Staff one century ago. In 1917, the German government concluded that the best hope for a German victory in World War I was for a revolution to erupt in Russia. It thus allowed some of the leaders of the Bolshevik party, Lenin among them, to pass through Germany and make their way back to Russia. The hope was that a revolution in Russia would pull the country out of the war — and the plan worked. But by the beginning of 1918, the German government started to fear that the virus of revolution that it had surreptitiously help spread to Russia might circle back calamitously to Germany itself.

Our conversations with Russian policymakers and experts indicate they are starting to have similar fears and doubts today.

There is no way of knowing if Russian interference contributed decisively to Trump’s upset victory. But it’s fair to say that the Kremlin viewed the outcome as a divine gift. Since at least 2011-2012, when Russia witnessed widespread popular protests, and particularly after the Ukrainian Maidan uprising — events that elicited heartfelt praise and encouragement from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Russia’s leadership had been convinced that her election would spell disaster for Russia and that it might even lead to war. So Russians did what they could to prevent Clinton from getting into the White House. But while they welcomed her defeat, they were wholly unprepared for the ensuing regime change in Washington.

Now that Trump is in power, political elites in Moscow have stopped cheering. They recognize that Russia’s position has become abruptly and agonizingly complex.

It’s true that Trump’s accession opens up the possibility of “normalizing” Russia’s relations with the West, beginning with a reduction or even elimination of sanctions. It also validates many of Russia’s ideological criticisms of the liberal order and may perhaps foreshadow policy reversals that Moscow has long hoped for: from Washington’s disengagement from the Ukraine crisis to its dissolution of the Cold War Western alliance. Russians also celebrate Trump’s unfiltered stream-of-consciousness diatribes as signaling a welcome end to America’s hypocrisy and condescension.

But Trump’s revolution is also ushering in a period of turmoil and uncertainty, including the likelihood of self-defeating trade wars. Still traumatized by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia’s present leadership has no appetite for global instability.

With Trump in the White House, moreover, Putin has lost his monopoly over geopolitical unpredictability. The Kremlin’s ability to shock the world by taking the initiative and trashing ordinary international rules and customs has allowed Russia to play an oversized international role and to punch above its weight. Putin now has to share the capacity to keep the world off balance with a new American president vastly more powerful than himself. More world leaders are watching anxiously to discover what Trump will do next than are worrying about what Putin will do next. Meanwhile, using anti-Americanism as an ideological crutch has become much more dubious now that the American electorate has chosen as their president a man publicly derided as “Putin’s puppet.”

What the Kremlin fears most today is that Trump may be ousted or even killed. His ouster, Kremlin insiders argue, is bound to unleash a virulent and bipartisan anti-Russian campaign in Washington. Oddly, therefore, Putin has become a hostage to Trump’s survival and success. This has seriously restricted Russia’s geopolitical options. The Kremlin is perfectly aware that Democrats want to use Russia to discredit and possibly impeach Trump while Republican elites want to use Russia to deflate and discipline Trump. The Russian government fears not only Trump’s downfall, of course, but also the possibility that he could opportunistically switch to a tough anti-Moscow line in order to make peace with hawkish Republican leaders in Congress.

It is emblematic that, in their first telephone call, Putin refused to press Trump on lifting the sanctions or on America’s discontinuing support for Kiev. Moscow has also chosen to ignore some harsh anti-Russian statements issued by certain members of the new administration. The renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine might seem like a counterexample, but the Kremlin swears that the Petro Poroshenko government in Kiev is the guilty party, aiming at getting the attention of anti-Russian U.S. Congress members and thereby providing a potent argument against Trump’s appeasement of Putin. In any case, Russia has been trying to find ways to accommodate the U.S. president, including, for example, echoing the White House’s denials that Ambassador Sergei Kislyak discussed sanctions with Michael Flynn before Trump’s inauguration as well as announcing plans to reconsider Trump’s demand to set up safe zones inside Syria—a proposal that was initially rejected by the Russians.

Trump’s presidency has also complicated Moscow’s relations with China and Iran. Moscow is interested in normalization with the West but not at the cost of joining a Washington-led anti-China coalition, which Trump seems insistent on creating. Moreover, Putin’s Russia hosts up to 20 million Muslims and therefore cannot indulge in the radical anti-Islam rhetoric adopted by Trump.

What is especially dangerous from the Kremlin’s perspective is that certain nationalistic circles in Russia are falling in love with Trump’s insurrectionary approach. In January, for the first time since Putin returned to the Kremlin in 2012, Putin was not the most frequently cited name in the Russian media; Trump was. And although most of Trump’s Russian admirers, such as Alexander Dugin, are loyal to Putin personally, they also dream of purging the globalist elites who occupy the rooms adjoining their president’s.

Anyone who spends any time in Moscow will quickly discover that ordinary Russians, in contrast with a majority of Europeans, feel surprisingly positive about Trump. One reason is that they are exhausted at Russia’s confrontation with the West. Another is that they share Trump’s cynical, borderline apocalyptic view of international politics. Like Trump, they never believed in win-win politics in the first place.

Most interesting of all, they readily compare Trump to an early Boris Yeltsin — impulsive, charismatic, trusting only his family, and ready to bomb the parliament if that works to cement his hold on power. The problem for the Kremlin is that Yeltsin was a revolutionary leader and Putin has decided to make 2017 a year for deploring, not celebrating, revolutions.

See http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/13/the-kremlin-is-starting-to-worry-about-trump/ (emphasis added)

Like

14 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Flynn Victim Of Obama Coup [UPDATED]

Obama-gone

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

The Obama appointees still inhabiting the bowels of the State and Justice Departments orchestrated the coup that brought down General Michael Flynn who quit as National Security Advisor only four weeks into Trump’s term.

Waiting until their confirmations as secretary of state and defense, neither Tillerson nor Sessions have had the time to replace the Obama appointees. But, in the interregnum, the Obama operatives used the time to slit Flynn’s throat, Washington style.

Flynn, anxious to head off Russian retaliation against U.S. sanctions, spoke with Moscow’s Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak to assuage his concerns over the sanctions imposed in the wake of Russian intervention in Ukraine and Crimea. Because he did so before Trump took office — but after his own appointment — he ran afoul of established protocol.

The alert Obama-era wiretappers pounced, taping the conversation and leaking it to the media. Former Obama officials were quoted in the New York Times as saying that Flynn reassured the ambassador that Mr. Trump would adopt a more accommodating tone on Russia once in office. They said that Flynn urged Russia not to retaliate against any sanctions because an overreaction would make any future cooperation more complicated.” One Obama official said that “he appeared to leave the impression that it would be possible” to ease the U.S. sanctions under the new president.

Then the former Obama folks at the Justice Department chimed in, gratuitously warning the incoming president that there was a blackmail risk that Moscow might hold the fact of the conversation over Flynn’s head as he served in office.

Finally, the former Obama folks at the Defense Department scrutinized a 2015 trip to Moscow by Flynn during which he received a payment to attend an anniversary celebration of a Kremlin operated TV station. The payment (it might have been a nominal gift of some sort) had to be reported because Flynn is a former general.

Essentially, the Obama team at State, Justice, and Defense acted as opposition researchers for Obama and the Democrats to frame the incoming National Security Advisor and leak his sins to the media.

Caught in the trap sprung by the Democratic operatives, Flynn, unfortunately doubled down and lied to VP Mike Pence, concealing the full extent of his conversation with the Russians. But never fear, the Obama minions helpfully provided the full text of the Flynn-Kislyak conversation that showed the former general had gone further in reassuring the Russians.

Once Flynn lied to the Vice President and Pence had gone out in public to defend him, a resignation was inevitable.

But the prospect of the political appointees in one administration using their powers and surveillance capabilities to bring about the resignation of a highly placed official in the incoming administration is, itself, a more alarming event than any perpetrated by Michael Flynn.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/flynn-victim-obama/ (emphasis added); see also http://freebeacon.com/national-security/former-obama-officials-loyalists-waged-campaign-oust-flynn/ (“Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn“) and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/14/fbi-needs-to-explain-why-michael-flynn-was-recorded-gop-intelligence-chairman-says/ (“FBI needs to explain why Flynn was recorded, Intelligence Committee chairman says“) and http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/14/exclusive-defiant-flynn-insists-he-crossed-no-lines-leakers-must-be-prosecuted/ (“In Final Interview, Defiant Flynn Insists He Crossed No Lines, Leakers Must Be Prosecuted“) and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/14/trump-asked-michael-flynn-resign-over-lack-trust/ (“Trump asked for Flynn resignation over lack of trust, White House says“) and http://www.dickmorris.com/flynn-forced-obama-operatives-lunch-alert/ (Dick Morris: “Flynn Was Forced Out By Obama Operatives”—”[T]here is a subversive group within the government of the United States, composed of former Obama appointees who still inhabit the bowels of these agencies . . . and these folks—who may linger for six months to a year—are using the power of the government against the president. It’s as close to an insurrection or coup d’état as you can have it in the United States. And Flynn is the first to fall to their efforts”)

The dark and sinister shadow of the racist, Barack Obama, and his operatives is ever present; and it must be purged.

See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/the-president-and-first-lady/#comment-9640 (“Obama’s Coming Crusade Against Trump“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Like

15 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Do-Nothing-Positive GOP Neanderthals

GOP Establishment Neanderthals

American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer Ann Coulter has written:

Let’s compare what President Trump has accomplished since the inauguration (with that enormous crowd!) with what congressional Republicans have done.

In the past three weeks, Trump has: staffed the White House, sent a dozen Cabinet nominees to the Senate, browbeat Boeing into cutting its price on a government contract, harangued American CEOs into keeping their plants in the United States, imposed a terrorist travel ban, met with foreign leaders and nominated a Supreme Court justice, among many other things.

(And still our hero finds time to torment the media with his tweets.)

What have congressional Republicans been doing? Scrapbooking?

More than 90 percent of congressional Republicans kept their jobs after the 2016 election, so you can cross “staffing an entire branch of government” off the list. Only the Senate confirms nominees, which they’ve been doing at a snail’s pace, so they’ve got loads of free time — and the House has no excuse at all.

Where’s the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?

The House passed six Obamacare repeals when Obama was president and there was no chance of them being signed into law. Back then, Republicans were full of vim and vigor! But the moment Trump became president, the repeals came to a screeching halt.

After the inauguration (gigantic!), House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a plan for repealing Obamacare . . . in 200 days. They actually gave their legislative agenda this inspiring title: “The Two Hundred Day Plan.”

TWO HUNDRED DAYS!

What was in the last six Obamacare repeals? If we looked, would we find “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” carefully typed out 1 million times? Seriously, what does Paul Ryan’s day look like?

This is the Silence of the Lambs Congress. They’re utterly silent, emerging from the House gym or their three-hour lunches only to scream to the press about Trump.

To the delight of the media, these frightened little lambs are appalled by nearly everything Trump does. They’ve been especially throaty about Trump’s temporary travel ban from seven terrorist nations — as designated by the Obama administration (and by everybody else who hasn’t been in a deep freeze in a Finnish crevasse for the past decade).

Just like the six Obamacare repeals, a refugee ban was already written and passed by one house of Congress. Then suddenly: the Silence of the Lambs. McConnell and Ryan are hiding under their desks, as Trump is being attacked from every side.

Way, way back, 15 long months ago, congressional Republicans didn’t have a problem with a total ban on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Not for a mere three months like Trump’s order — but permanently, unless the director of the FBI, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence personally certified that a particular refugee posed no danger to the U.S.

That bill passed the House with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, including 47 Democrats. Then it went to the Senate to die.

But when President Trump imposed a comparatively mild three-month ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq and five other terrorist nations, the same Republicans who had voted for a limitless ban on refugees whiled away their days calling reporters to denounce Trump.

A little more than a year ago, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, bragged in a press release that he had introduced the House’s refugee ban, calling it a bill that would “protect Americans from ISIS.”

But when it came to Trump’s three-month pause, McCaul told the Post that Trump’s order “went too far.”

I guess that ISIS problem just sort of faded away. (Or maybe we should check with Mrs. McCaul, inasmuch as it’s her family money that makes Rep. McCaul one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who voted for the House’s permanent refugee ban, demanded that Trump immediately rescind his travel ban, babbling on about the “many, many nuances of immigration policy” — which he must have learned about on one of his congressional jaunts to a Las Vegas casino.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said that Trump’s order “overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.” Evidently, he was suddenly struck by the realization that it’s “not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality,” despite having voted to ban refugees on the basis of nationality just 15 months earlier. (I’m OK with this, provided the Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis are sent to live on Justin’s street after being told about his support for gay marriage.)

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both rushed to The Washington Post with this refreshingly original point: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Why, thank you, senators! Where would the GOP be without you?

The Post also quoted spokesmen — spokesmen! — for Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining about not having been briefed on Trump’s order. The senators themselves were far too busy to talk to the press because they were — wait, what were they doing again? Words With Friends? Decoupage?

Since the election, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has been mostly occupied polishing his anti-Trump quotations to get a pat on the head from an admiring media. He complained about Trump’s order, saying it was “poorly implemented” and that he had to find out about it from reporters. (I wonder why.)

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for our entire lives, but Republicans in Congress refuse to do the people’s will. Their sole, driving obsession is to see Trump fail.

I am not presently calling for these useless, narcissistic, Trump-bashing Republicans to be defeated in their re-election bids, but they’re on my Watch List. To be cleared, they can start by getting off the phone with The Washington Post and passing one of those six Obamacare repeal bills.

See http://humanevents.com/2017/02/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs-congress/ (“The Silence Of The Lambs Congress”) (emphasis added)

The Democrats are pure evil and un-American, while many in the GOP are “card-carrying” Neanderthals and worthless.

This is among the reasons why so many of us left both parties years ago, and have been supporting Donald Trump, as a breath of “fresh air” in Washington’s polluted climate.

Like

16 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Wow! Trump Approval At 55 Percent [UPDATED]

President Donald J. Trump

The highly-respected Rasmussen Reports has noted:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2.

. . .

Questions are growing about the source of top-secret information leaked to the media to hurt the Trump administration. A plurality (47%) of voters believe America’s intelligence agencies have their own political agenda.

Nearly half (48%) also believe most reporters are biased against the president. Only 12% think they are biased for Trump, while 31% feel most reporters try to be fair and balanced. Needless to say, Republicans and Democrats strongly disagree in their assessments of the media.

While the president’s refugee freeze is tied up in the courts, the State Department has sped up acceptance of newcomers from the Middle Eastern terrorist havens targeted by the freeze. Most voters think that’s making America less safe.

. . .

Most voters support Trump’s plan to halt refugees and visas from certain countries until these newcomers can be properly vetted to screen out potential terrorists.

The president feels strongly that federal government overregulation is hurting the economy and has signed an executive order mandating that every time a government agency adds a regulation, it needs to cut two others. Most Republicans approve of Trump’s two-for-one deregulation plan; most Democrats don’t.

But voters have long felt that Wall Street got off lightly after the economic meltdown in September 2008. This helps explain why voters, including Republicans, favor more government regulation of the U.S. financial system.

Hillary Clinton recently declared that “the future is female.” Thirty-six percent (36%) of women [] agree, compared to 28% of men.

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology. . . .

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. . . .

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb16 (emphasis added; charts omitted)

55 percent

Nonetheless, the thoroughly-corrupt and pathetically-biased media continues to spin “Fake News” and the most outrageous stories.

See, e.g., http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trumps-press-conference-echoes-death-throes-watergate-i-critics-notebook-976876 (“Trump’s Press Conference Echoes Death Throes of Watergate“); but see https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/16/trump-triumphs-over-press/ (“Trump Triumphs Over Press“)

Trump Press Conference, February 16, 2017:

Like

18 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Boycott FAKE News! [UPDATED]

FAKE news

There is only one way to end or diminish FAKE news: boycott those persons and entities that purvey or dispense it.

I have been on the Internet since late 1992, almost a quarter century ago. I have not purchased a newspaper or news magazine (e.g., Time) in more than a decade. There is no need to do so: news is free on the Web, instantly.

See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/links.html

Indeed, newspapers are dead and dinosaurs. They are like the “horse and buggy” in this digital age. The world is linked, on the Web; and traditional media sources (e.g., The Times of London, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC) are relics of the past—vestiges of a bygone era.

See, e.g., http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Priebus-fake-news-danger-Trump/2017/02/18/id/774403/ (“Priebus: Public Should Take Trump Seriously on Danger of ‘Fake News'”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7377 (“More Than 100 Newspapers Dumped in Year“)

Newspapers are dead

Like

19 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trumps Speak At Melbourne

Trumps at Melbourne

Video of the Trump rally at Melbourne, Florida on February 18, 2017:

Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: