Two weeks before the midterm election you can’t ignore, as the mainstream media have tried to do, that President Donald Trump attracted over 100,000 people to a campaign rally in Texas.
It’s true that Texas is a red state, but 100,000 people in an off-year election when the vast majority of them had no hope of getting inside to actually see Trump is extremely impressive.
There is no one and no group on the Democratic side who can attract a crowd anything close to that size. It is also true that people attending a rally aren’t votes, but by the same token people who take the time and trouble to attend a campaign rally are not likely to find voting a burden.
Trump’s approval ratings are the highest they have been since he took office. It appears that the Democrats hate him even more since he won, but the Republicans love him more. Look at Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham who had been a Trump opponent and is now praising Trump.
The improvement in the economy is hard to beat. The country had been in the doldrums for so long that predictions were being made that high unemployment and stagnant wages were the new normal. It’s what academics and the media always report when the Democrats have ruined the economy.
Of course, according to former President Barack Obama, this is his economy.
It’s amazing that in his eight years in office he was never able to achieve anywhere near the economic growth that we’ve had since Trump took office. It makes you wonder why Obama didn’t do this when he was in office. Some might think that Obama’s policies were what was causing the poor economy and Trump’s policies are what is causing the economic boom, but according to Obama that’s all wrong.
The question the mainstream media refuse to answer about the caravan of refugees coming up through Mexico is, who organized it and who is managing the logistics.
It is not possible for 5,000, or now some reports are 14,000 people, to walk 2,000 miles without food and water. In fact, people walking all day need a lot of food and water or they will never make it to the US.
In the photos and videos I see shirtless men walking along carrying nothing. So they are going to walk 2,000 miles without a change of clothes or a bottle of water? Are these people going to be able to stop two or three times a day in towns that can feed them? How is that going to be organized?
So we are supposed to believe that 5,000 people descend on some small town with one cafe, and the workers in that small restaurant whip up 5,000 meals in a couple of hours? At breakfast they cook 10,000 eggs on their four-burner stove and 500 pounds of bacon that they happen to have in the refrigerator? It doesn’t seem likely.
Where is all the water coming from for these people? How are sanitation issues being addressed? Basic human needs have to be met whether people are inspired to walk 2,000 miles or not.
How did the whole thing get organized? It’s not believable that 4,000 people one day all decided to leave behind everything they owned and started walking to the US.
Finally, some reports are coming out about Pueblo Sin Fronteras as being one of organizations behind the march, but where did the money come from?
And, finally, the news media are admitting that they are not really walking but riding on trucks, which according to the media are driven by volunteers. You have to wonder how 400 or 500 trucks show up every morning volunteering to drive the “marchers” north.
The whole thing is well organized and well funded and even the mainstream media can’t ignore that for 2,000 miles.
Run, Hillary, Run.
The word is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is considering a third run for president. It’s a wonderful idea. I think the Democratic Party should get behind her 100 percent.
The fact that she beat outspoken socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is not even a registered Democrat, in the Democratic presidential primary only by cheating should not dissuade the Democrats from giving her another try.
I think what held her back before was selecting a normal politician to be her running mate. She should go ahead and name Huma Abedin as her running mate. We all know that Hillary Clinton cannot walk across the room without having Abedin at her side, so why pretend someone else would be the second in command?
In fact, she should name Abedin as not only her vice presidential running mate but her campaign chair as well. If you read about the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, Abedin making decisions without having any real authority in the campaign caused all kinds of problems.
I think the Clinton-Abedin ticket would be a winner.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are back out on the campaign trail. Sometimes they go out on the campaign trail in an attempt to gain power, but mostly it’s just for money.
Why haven’t we heard anything about the Clinton Foundation lately? It used to be that when they went out for money a big portion of it was laundered through the Clinton Foundation. Paying some absurd fee for a speaker doesn’t seem so bad if the check is written to the Clinton Foundation, but evidently this time they have given up that ploy and are just after cold hard cash.
I can’t imagine paying a nickel to hear Hillary Clinton speak. She hasn’t had anything to say in 70 years. Bill Clinton is kind of fun. I wouldn’t pay to hear him but at least listening to him isn’t painful.
Journalists are liberals. They just are. The studies have shown that the percentage of Washington, DC, journalists that vote for the Democrat for president hovers around 90 percent. My guess is that the 10 percent vote for the Green Party, write in Mickey Mouse or work for Fox or The Washington Times.
This is America and people can vote for whomever they want. But for journalists to claim they cover Trump just like they covered Obama is wrong.
The New York Times published a 10-page insert largely based on Fred Trump’s tax returns. It represented an exhaustive search into the financial dealings of the Trump family for two generations.
When Obama was president nobody did exhaustive research into how he managed to buy his home the same day a controversial real estate developer, who later went to prison, bought the lot next door and then sold a piece of that lot to Obama at less than he paid for it. That deal could have been investigated and reported on indepth.
No one investigated how a poor student who may or may not have played freshman basketball at Occidental College got accepted at Columbia University.
No one looked into how Obama, who reportedly was from a very middle class family, could afford to travel all over the world during summer vacations when many of his fellow middle class students were working. Where did the money for those lengthy trips come from?
No one investigated why Obama was raised by his grandparents instead of his mother?
Trump has refused to release his tax returns; Obama refused to release his birth certificate. When he finally did release his birth certificate it proved to be as boring as most people’s birth certificates, so what was the rational for not releasing it?
In some of his early bios, he claims to be Kenyan. Did he at one time consider himself a Kenyan? Was he considered a foreign student by Columbia? It would explain how he got accepted, and it does not imply that he was born in Kenya. Since his father was Kenyan, did Obama ever have a Kenyan passport? There are plenty of people running around with duel citizenship. Some US citizens whose parents were based overseas when they were born are eligible and have dual citizenship. It’s not unusual.
Obama may have applied for and received a Kenyan passport even though he was born in Hawaii. His father was at one time fairly high up in the government. He might have obtained citizenship for his son without the younger Barack Obama even knowing about it and he might have taken advantage of that if it proved to be beneficial when applying to an Ivy League university.
Obama was a handsome, gregarious black man at a school with a small percentage of black students. Why don’t his classmates remember him? If a class has 19 white students and one black student, most of us would remember that black student, particularly if he had an unusual name.
By the same token, if there are 19 black students and one white student in a class, it’s hard not to remember that one white student. It’s not racist; it’s human nature to notice the difference.
Height would be no different. If everyone in the class is less than 6 feet tall and there is one 7-foot basketball player in there, if you don’t remember anyone else, you’re going to remember the guy who was 7 feet tall.
So why wasn’t Obama remembered by his classmates at Columbia.
How is it possible that during his eight years as the most powerful man in the world, the mainstream media showed no interest in his background?
But this same unbiased media is so interested in Trump that The New York Times does a special section on his father’s tax returns.
The New York Times ran a long article on Saturday about how terrible it was that long-term attorneys at the Justice Department were leaving because they didn’t like the policies of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Trump. The premise of the article was that the reader should be disturbed that attorneys who had no trouble carrying out the policies of the Obama administration felt forced to leave.
That’s not the way the article made me feel. Attorneys who don’t agree with the policies of the present administration should be made to feel so uncomfortable that they leave. Obama is not running the country; neither Eric Holder nor Loretta Lynch is the attorney general. It would seem that an attorney in the Justice Department might have a problem with the attorney general having a private meeting with the husband of a woman under investigation by that department, but evidently that didn’t faze them.
Others might have a problem with the flagrant abuses of the FBI in its surveillance of the Trump campaign. Or you might expect long-term Justice Department attorneys to be bothered by a senior Justice Department official being a backdoor conduit for the FBI with an investigator who had been rejected by the FBI for leaking to the media.
An attorney with the Justice Department might leave because the acting attorney general refused to follow a lawful order from her boss, the president of the United States. But evidently those types of abuses of power didn’t bother any of these folks because they were all abuses of power to oppose the sitting president.
Yes, the attorneys who believed wholeheartedly in the Obama administration should be leaving; in fact, they should have already left. The fact that Sessions is finally getting around to making them so uncomfortable that they are leaving is one of the reasons that Trump hasn’t had much good to say about Sessions. He should have cleaned house almost two years ago.
The idea that the Justice Department is a nonpartisan organization that only looks at the law and not at the politics is absurd. It’s not that way now and hasn’t been for at least 50 or 100 years.
The attorneys who are leaving evidently believed that they could continue to work for Obama while Trump was president. And what is crazy is that they have been allowed to do it for a year and half.
Maybe this is a sign that Sessions, knowing his time as attorney general is coming to a close, has decided to roll up his sleeves and work for a couple of weeks. Maybe he is hoping to leave the Justice Department a little better than he found it. Maybe he’s finally figured out that he is the boss and all of these people who hate the president shouldn’t be working for him. Who knows, in his final weeks in office Sessions might even start acting like the attorney general. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Along those same lines, former US Ambassador to Mexico Roberta Jacobson, a long-time State Department employee appointed by Obama who resigned in May, wrote a mean column about Trump for The New York Times.
Let’s see, she was appointed by Obama, which indicates that she would have no love for Trump; her main complaint is that Trump didn’t communicate with her when he announced that he was going to end NAFTA.
She does mention Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, but only in passing. If she wasn’t receiving the information that she thought she needed, shouldn’t her complaint be with her boss, the secretary of state, not her boss’s boss, the president? Isn’t it the job of the secretary of state to make sure the ambassadors are getting the information they need? Is it the job of the president to make sure that all federal employees are fully informed?
Jacobson worked for the State Department when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and allowed one of her ambassadors to be unprotected on a compound in Benghazi on Sept. 11, where he was killed. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied about what happened. But evidently that was acceptable behavior as far as Jacobson was concerned because she didn’t feel called to write about it.
The fact that Jacobson so vehemently opposes Trump and his policies is simply more proof that Trump has been far too slow in cleaning the people who hate him out of senior positions in the government.
Trump may be famous for saying, “You’re Fired,” on television, but evidently in real life he is not so quick to fire people.
More fake news from The Washington Post, which ran a piece in a the “Reliable Source” column saying that Georgetown Prep, where Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a student when the alleged incident with Christine Blasey Fox occurred, was hiring a new employee to deal with all the bad publicity about Kavanaugh.
It is a pretty absurd assumption by The Post and turned out to be wrong, plus The Washington Post knew it was wrong when it ran the story because the reporter contacted Georgetown Prep and was told the job was first advertised in July, back when nobody knew anything about Ford. But if the story is detrimental to Trump, The Post doesn’t worry about the facts.
The Post did run a correction and the reporter claimed she didn’t read the email from the school carefully. How is that possible? You ask the school when the job was posted, the school responds, “July,” and you don’t notice the answer to your question?
If they would simply change the name of the column to “Unreliable Source,” everything would be fine.
Less than two weeks out it appears the Kavanaugh bump is going to go to the Republicans.
In this 24-hour news cycle, it’s always possible that something will happen between now and Election Day that changes the dynamics again. Up until Kavanaugh it appeared the tide was all in the Democrats favor.
Usually in midterms the party of the president loses seats, sometimes a lot of seats, sometimes not so many, but it is rare for the party of the sitting president to pick up seats in the midterm election. However, at this point it seems almost certain that the Republicans will pick up Senate seats. Some pundits are predicting a 55-45 split after the election, which is a big improvement on the current 51-49 split.
If that does happen, it wouldn’t make sense for the Republicans to pick up four seats in the Senate and lose 23 seats in the House. But what in politics does make sense these days?
If the Republicans lose fewer than 23 seats then they retain control of the House.
The real difference is in the speaker and committee chairmen. If the Democrats win it will be one investigation of Trump after another. Most likely even the Agriculture Committee and the subcommittee on space travel will launch investigations, just so they don’t get left behind.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as speaker is hard to imagine, but it could happen. It all depends on who gets out to vote.
Where is Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller? He has been abnormally quiet for the past couple of months. Could it be that his investigation, coupled with the House committees’ investigations are proving that the campaign that tried to illegally influence the election was not the Trump campaign but the Clinton campaign? So far Mueller has not indicted anyone in the Trump campaign for anything that has to do with the campaign, much less Russian meddling.
Paul Manafort is going to jail for cheating on his taxes, something the FBI had investigated years before Mueller came on the scene and decided not to prosecute.a Manafort is going to jail because he was Trump’s campaign manager. If he had never worked for Trump he wouldn’t have been prosecuted.
Even the liberal news website Politico is reporting that the Mueller probe is pretty much over and hasn’t found anything approaching proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in order to win the election.
If that turns out to be true that would bring about the utterly shocking revelation that Hillary Clinton lied about why she lost. As unbelievable as that may be, it appears it’s true.
It might be that Hillary Clinton lost because she is a terrible candidate who didn’t campaign very hard or very smart. She had no message other than I’m not Donald Trump and didn’t bother to campaign in key states she needed to win the election.
It appears that the smartest woman in the country was not aware that the president is elected by the Electoral College, not the voters. She thought that by hanging out in Hollywood with the glitterati and winning huge support in that state she would win, and she was right, except winning the popular vote and $3 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but not four years in the White House.
We won’t know for a couple of weeks, but I think the percentage of blacks who vote for Republicans in this election is going to increase significantly.
People vote their pocketbooks and black unemployment is at its lowest rate ever. A man or woman who has been looking for a job for years and suddenly finds not one but several to choose from is likely to consider which party made that job possible. The GDP growth is reportedly over 4 percent and going up.
The Democrats want open borders and open borders means more competition for jobs at the lower end of the economic scale. People know that’s what open borders have done.
Economics trumps just about everything else. Some folks are going to believe the Democrats who say that Trump’s policies had nothing to do with the economic boom, but most people, rightly or wrongly, blame the sitting president for a bad economy and credit the sitting president for a good economy.
So a man who believes he’s a woman but reportedly has all the male parts wins a women’s bicycle race. Evidently, those are currently the rules of the International Olympic Committee. If those rules stand, you can expect a lot of biological men to be winning gold medals at the next Olympics.
The whole reason that men and women don’t compete in sports is that men are bigger, stronger and faster than women. If women could compete with men, say in basketball, you wouldn’t see women playing in the WNBA for $50,000 a year when they could be playing in the NBA for a over $500,000 a year. In fact, I doubt if there is an NBA team owner who wouldn’t love to have a woman on the team because it would boost ticket sales.
Women don’t play in the NBA because they aren’t good enough; the same reason well over 99 percent of the men in the world don’t play in the NBA.
But if the International Olympic Committee is going to allow biological men to compete in Olympic events they might as well eliminate the women’s competition.
In some countries where the government has more control over its people than in the US, what is to stop a government from picking some of its male athletes that aren’t quite good enough for the A team in their sport to become transgender and take testosterone blockers, are whatever drug is required, as close to the competition as possible and have them compete with their superior male muscles almost intact? Russia was banned for a program to give prohibited drugs to athletes; what would stop Russia from giving a substance that is allowed to male athletes to allow them to compete in women’s events?
It will be a huge mess and the big losers will the women, who are the best women in the world in their sport but not the best person in the world. Not all the transgender women will win, but a lot of them will.
It’s amazing that the mainstream media seem to have to have no self-awareness when it comes to Trump.
They are all over Trump for not taking immediate action against the Saudis for killing Jamal Khoshoggi. First Trump has to find out what happened. It’s not like the Turks are the best source for accurate information.
But the Saudis have already had to admit that they did kill the man and the story of being killed in a fistfight didn’t fly, so they tried a choke hold, which is slightly more believable, and then that the team that was supposed to detain him instead killed him, which is getting closer to the truth.
A man comes in for paperwork so he can get married and a team is sent from Saudi Arabia by private jet to detain him? It seems much more likely a team on a private jet would be sent to kill him, which everybody now agrees is what they did.
The link that is missing is that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered it. If everyone involved disappears, that’s going to be hard to prove.
But this isn’t the first time Saudi Arabia has killed anyone. The human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia are bad and have been for years. Why didn’t former Presidents Clinton or Obama severely punish the Saudis for human rights abuses? For the same reason that Trump is being so careful. The US needs the influence of Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. We have more than enough enemies in that region; we need a few friends.
The Saudis know this and the US knows it. Even the Democrats and the mainstream media know this, but they see a chance to make Trump look bad and jump all over it.
A fascinating part of the whole story is that the Turks say the Saudi team came armed with a bone saw. How do they know this? Did the team try to get a bone saw through security and was told they had to put it in checked luggage. It’s such an odd detail to pick out. No doubt they had other weapons, but it keeps being reported that the Saudis carried a bone saw with them as if this is an undisputable fact.
Since they don’t know how Khoshoggi died and no one has found the body, nobody really knows if they had a bone saw or not – unless the Turks have a video of one of Saudis walking into the embassy openly carrying a bone saw, and maybe they do.
A new rule on immigration under consideration by the Trump administration makes so much sense that the left is up in arms over it.
The rule would restrict the ability of people to immigrate to the US who want to come here to take advantage of the numerous federal programs to provide for poor people.
So people who want to come to the US to work, or who want to come to the US to buy a home and retire, would be moved ahead of those who want to come to the US for food stamps and free health care.
Why on earth would the US want to allow people to immigrate here so they can be a burden to the US taxpayers? These would be people who never paid anything into the system but want to take advantage of the system of care that many Americans believe is inadequate but is far superior to less developed countries.
It’s a policy that makes so much sense, I guess the Democrats would have to oppose it. But for a country over $20 trillion in debt to be looking for more ways to give money away doesn’t seem smart.
One of the aspects of the 2016 election the mainstream media missed, which made them so shocked at its outcome, was the momentum. In the latter days of the campaign, the momentum shifted to Trump. His people were energized.
It is just like a football game where sometimes the momentum shifts and unless the other team has an overwhelming lead they are likely to lose.
But in politics, just like in football, one play can shift the momentum back the other way. With the over-the-top protests against Kavanaugh, the momentum shifted to Republicans.
Whereas a few weeks ago the Republicans were fighting to maintain a Senate majority, now it appears that gaining four seats is within reach and the majority seems assured.
The House is more difficult to call but, if the momentum for the Republicans holds, the Republicans could maintain the majority in the House and gain seats in the Senate.
It would be a huge victory for Trump. Not as huge as 2016, but huge, and Trump knows it, which is why he is once again flying all over the country campaigning. He knows what is at stake, and holding onto the House appears to be in reach.
A fumble or an interception could shift that momentum back to the Democrats, where it was all summer, but with less than two weeks to go the Republican momentum is growing.
The Democrats constantly talk about the Republican tax cuts as tax cuts for the rich. And there is no doubt that the rich, along with the middle class and working class, did get tax cuts. The poor, who don’t pay taxes, didn’t get tax cuts.
But despite these tax cuts for the rich, the top 1 percent of income earners in this country paid 37 percent of the taxes and the top 3 percent paid over 50 percent of all taxes. Which means the bottom 97 percent only paid 50 percent of the taxes, and that doesn’t sound like a system designed for the rich.
I suppose the mainstream media never learn, or to be more accurate don’t want to learn. In 2016, all the pundits quoted by the mainstream media were wrong. Some predicted a Democratic sweep, others a win by Hillary Clinton and Democrats in close races but no sweep.
You would think that the fact that they are making the same prediction in the midterms would raise some eyebrows, but it’s all being reported as if these people knew what they were talking about.
This time they might be right. But if you predict that a coin is going to come up heads every time it’s tossed, you’ll be right half the time. If you always predict the Democrats are going to win, you’ll be right a good percentage of the time but the prediction is meaningless.
It’s like the vast majority of economists completely missed the Great Recession, but people still report what they say as if they knew more than the rest of us, which as it turns out is not true. If you completely miss the worst recession in 80 years, how good can you be?