In Defense of the Iowa Caucuses…Or At Least Some of Them

161 Views

Well, it happened, pretty much as I predicted. The Iowa Caucuses are over, the candidates have moved on, and the Hawkeye State is the center of some controversy because we don’t know who actually won the caucuses on the Democrat side. As a result, the country is looking down at Iowa for being disorganized and incapable of counting beyond ten without taking off our shoes.

But here’s the thing. There were two sets of caucuses going on, not just the one for Democrats. The Republicans had one, too, which was more of a formality than anything else. President Donald Trump won the Iowa Caucuses for the GOP with 97% of the vote. How do I know?

Because the Iowa Republican Party has its shit together.

I’ve participated in the Republican caucuses and observed the Democrat caucuses, so I have an idea of what the internal processes are. The Republicans take their time, but not in excess because they’re there to complete the tasks before them and get out. Democrats, on the other hand, play a game of Red Rover where they try to attract/bully other potential voters to abandon their first choices if they’re not considered viable and add them to the roles of those supporting viable candidates. This process can be quick, and other times it’s more painful than watching the Socialist Socialite trying to explain how gum works.

Last night was the latter on steroids.

And it was made worse thanks to an app developed by the totally non-scary-sounding Shadow Inc. with a website listing none of its board members or leadership and made up of people who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Then again, given how her campaign turned out, I’m not sure I’d want my name out there on anything. Maybe there’s a Witness Relocation Program for failed Presidential campaign staffers, especially ones that couldn’t even win a rigged election….

Adding to the intrigue is the fact Shadow Inc. is associated with Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who just happens to be one of the Democrats running for President. Let’s not forget what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders in 2016, too, in understanding the magnitude of fuckitude we’re dealing with here. If the DNC were trying to exorcize the demons of 2016, they didn’t do a very good job of it here because these little niggling issues make it look like there is someone or something pulling the strings. I’m not usually one to indulge in conspiracy theories, but let’s just say I’ve made a tidy profit after investing heavily in tinfoil.

So many moving parts, and so many fingers being pointed at the wrong people, namely President Trump, Russia, and Iowa in general. The Iowa Caucuses are run by the Democrats and Republicans, and the President and Russia have nothing to do with the chaos that occurred with the Democrats. Iowa as a whole isn’t to blame, either. Remember, the Republicans didn’t seem to have trouble reporting the outcome, only the Democrats did. (Maybe the non-Democrats in Iowa need a hashtag, #NotAllIowans?) As such, the slings and arrows of outrageous commenters should be pointed not at the entire state, but at the Iowa Democratic Party.

But that can’t and won’t happen, thanks to the Leftist mindset. The Left hates Iowa and Iowans (but, surprisingly, not their votes and money). They consider us to be ignorant hicks lacking in the sophistication that can only come from living on either coast. They see us as a roadblock to progressive success and want us to take a back seat to what they want and what they feel we need. The caucus debacle only helps to make their case.

Or so they think.

When you dig a little bit deeper, you see this was a self-fulfilling fuck-up. The Left needed the Iowa Caucuses to fail so they could better make the argument why Iowa shouldn’t take such a prominent role in determining who gets to be the Democrats’ nominee. Just like with Obamacare (with a healthy hat tip to Tammy Bruce for making and inspiriting this same point), the solution to the problem was meant to fail so a larger objective could be achieved. In this case, the Iowa Caucuses served many purposes, including a continuation of the “Russia hacked our elections” narrative that has become gospel to the Left since Hillary Clinton lost. If the Left can repeat the notion our elections aren’t secure, they will cast doubt on whomever wins in 2020 (except, of course, if it’s a Leftist who wins because that only proves we were able to overcome Russian interference). Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Yet, the failures of the Iowa Caucuses only point in one direction, and it points to the party that claims to be smarter and more moral than we are. Oh, and who want us to adopt Medicare For All as a solution to what they think is a health care crisis. If they can’t run a caucus that they control, that makes the best argument for why they shouldn’t be allowed to run anything come November.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

295 Views

There have been some major news stories breaking over the past week, but none has been bigger than WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being arrested in London at the behest of the United States. Assange is a polarizing figure to many. To some, he’s an unsung hero who kept governments’ feet to the fire. To others, he is a dangerous individual who should have been arrested and jailed a long time ago.

And, as you might expect, the Left has been conflicted over his work. When it was George W. Bush getting skewered, Leftists loved Assange. When it was Hillary Clinton catching his ire, he was a Russian asset. And when President Donald Trump said he liked WikiLeaks and asked them jokingly to get her emails, Assange became persona non grata to the Left. (Persona non grata is Latin for “person without cheese.” Or something like that.)

Time to delve into the wonderful world of WikiLeaks and Assange.

Julian Assange

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous individual who is a threat to international security

What it really means – a 21st Century version of a hired gun

The Left’s attitude towards Assange is no surprise to me because they’ve played this game before. Remember Cindy Sheehan? The Left loved her when she would protest against George W. Bush, but when she decided to run against Nancy Pelosi, Sheehan was painted as an unstable grieving mother who couldn’t find her way out of a ditch with a map, a ladder, and a sign. The Left will use whomever they want in whatever fashion they want until that person becomes a liability to them.

And Julian Assange fits that bill perfectly.

I’ve been following his efforts to shine light into the cockroach infested halls of government for years, and it’s clear he has no allegiance to any one ideology or movement. He is truly a merc with a modem. That can lead to some interesting discussions about the morality and legality of what he does. On the one hand, he is revealing information the powerful don’t want you to know (or in Hillary’s case relying on the stupidity of her campaign staffers to openly give out the information inadvertently). Knowledge is power, especially in the Information Age. Yet, what if that information results in an innocent party getting hurt? Some could argue people like Bradley “Chelsea” Manning were damaged by working with Assange. And he/she may not be the only one, just one of the more visible victims.

This raises a question that hits at both the legal and moral parts of this discussion: is disobeying a bad law for good ends justifiable? Not an easy one to puzzle out, is it? Once you factor in such elements as severity of the crime (stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family versus stealing a loaf of bread to kill your family), the frequency of the crime (a first-time offender versus a serial killer who uses baked goods to kill his victims), circumstances (a poor child versus a rich white man who washed out of culinary school and wants to take revenge on the world), and so on, the hard and fast solution we want becomes murkier and harder to obtain. Yes, Assange broke the law in at least 2 countries, and the reasons behind that lawlessness may be the result of a lawless process, but it’s hard to get past the fact the law was broken.

Of course, none of that means jack squat to the Left. They will justify lawlessness in pursuit of their own ends without fail. How do you think Al Sharpton keeps getting sweet gigs in spite of his criminal behavior? The minute Sharpton flips the script and sounds like Rush Limbaugh with a tan, the Left will turn on him faster than you can say Tawana Brawley.

But this relationship isn’t one way. Seems the Left had no problems wanting Assange taken out. I seem to remember someone from a recent previous administration who wondered out loud whether Assange could be taken out with a drone strike, but I can’t remember who that was…I’m sure it was nobody important. After all, the previous President would never let someone make a joke like that or make a similar joke about his daughters and the Jonas Brothers.

Anyway, even a joke like that would be enough to motivate him to counterattack in the only way he knew how: by releasing damning information about Hillary Clinton. Personally, I’m surprised he had the bandwidth, storage capacity, and patience to limit it to just her emails, but bully for him all the same.

Here’s where I part company with Assange. Although he’s shown he has no allegiance to the Left or the Right, I can’t quite trust him. Call it the David Brock Effect. Brock was a Republican (or so the self-professed liar said in his book Blinded By the Right), but then shifted hard Left. Whenever someone shifts that drastically, even if I agree with the outcome, I can’t completely trust that person. People with integrity can change their minds without it affecting their core convictions. I don’t get that from Assange, just like I don’t get it from Brock because I’m not convinced they have core convictions beyond the here and now. That tells me their convictions can be bought and sold depending on who’s cutting the check. What’s to say Assange doesn’t goes after Trump tomorrow if George Soros drops a few million dollars in his lap?

Granted, this is speculation on my part because I don’t know Assange well enough to say definitively. He may be as consistent and dogged as I am to get to the truth. We will see in the coming weeks and years whether he is an opportunist or a soothsayer. In the meantime, I will enjoy the Leftist meltdowns.

Popcorn, anyone?

Mob Injustice

165 Views

The Leftist Democratic party thugs in Antifa are doing exactly what former Secretary Hillary Clinton and Congresswoman Maxine Waters have told them to do. This is bullying, harassment, and inciting a riot. And this is illegal.

Not only should the assailants go to jail for their individual actions but so should the Democratic party leadership that encourages these actions. Inciting a riot is a crime and those responsible need to be held accountable. Congresswoman Maxine Waters and former Secretary Hillary Clinton need to be arrested, charged, and prosecuted for inciting a riot after each incident that takes place.

If this is not stopped it will only get worse. And someone will eventually be murdered by the angry Democratic party mobs.

157 years ago the Democratic party caused a war between the states. And it looks like they are on track to do it again.

Russia Influence in 2016 Election

163 Views

 

18 months after the 2016 Presidential Elections and Russian influence is still being talked about across the media outlets and social media platforms. I know for a fact that my vote in 2016 was influenced by Russia. And I voted for Donald Trump.

Given the international events of the proceeding decade, the United States was not getting anywhere on the global stage. We had lost our leadership position in the world. The once proud nation of America has become a front parlor joke at international conferences. A nation to push around and to bully.

Our friends and allies across the world no longer trusted us. Our enemies no longer feared us. And terrorism was on an increasing rise and even sleeper cells and home grown terrorism was beginning to raise its vial head.

At home, our economy was on a downward spiral that was going to cause another depression if it kept going. Our capitalist ideals were being scoffed. Businesses were “too big” to fail. Jobs were hard to come by and the thought of loosing one was very frightful. It would be the end of any American family.

With all these things Russia played a role in what could happen to the United States. It played a role in what direction the United States was heading. Russia influenced my vote in the 2016 election.

I could have voted for Hillary Clinton. But her stated policies would have made the dire situation worse. We would become a 3rd world country under that Clinton banner. Today’s Liberal mindset is anti-American values of free enterprise, hard work, being the best you can be and living the American Dream. Today’s Liberal mindset is anti-Christian. They would rather see the morals of our Founders who used the Holy Bible as a guidebook in the formation of this great nation tossed to the four winds. And Christian values discarded and replaced by all the evils of the world. So Russia influenced by vote there as well. We would become more like Russia under a Clinton Administration.

Hillary Clinton also lacked her husband’s charisma and the qualities that everyone liked about Bill Clinton. They are completely absent in that self-serving evil creature that ran for president on the Democratic ticket.

Of course I could have not voted. That is always an option but I think it’s a terrible one. That never helps anyone really. And if you don’t vote you loose your right to complain about the situation. So here even Russia influenced me to vote and not stay home that November.

Voting 3rd party is better than not voting. And someday we might get a 3rd party that can move ground. But for now we don’t have that option.

So that leaves me only with casting my vote for Donald Trump in 2016. The private citizen of Donald Trump has his flaws. Just as everyone else does. But his flaws were not as bad as Hillary Clinton’s. Having seen Donald Trump in various settings, I knew that he was a man of his word. He was not a “which way the wind is blowing” politician. He is very much like our Constitution. Says what he means and means what he says.

President Trump has a great track record of keeping his promises despite the opposition from both parties in Washington. Russia did make me vote for Donald Trump and because of that, there is peace in the world and prosperity at home.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

164 Views

Last week, the Left got its collectivist panties in a bunch over something President Donald Trump did. He…I’m not even sure I can say this without a warning, so…

Warning: What I am about to describe may cause men, women, children, and some household pets to burst into flames, fits of inconsolable weeping, or both. Post no bills. If you read this blog post backwards, you may find sardonic messages. Violators will be towed. Towers will be violated. Any unauthorized rebroadcast, televising, or description of this blog post is strictly prohibited by Major League Baseball, but may be overlooked with some money and/or cake. Side effects may include dizziness, temporary leprosy, involuntary narcolepsy and/or simultaneous explosive diarrhea, the desire to dress like Carol Channing, holes to appear in your nose and ears, and general discontent, discord, and otherwise icky stuff.

Now that we have that out of the way, I can tell you what President Trump did. He…called Russian President Vladimir Putin and congratulated him on his recent election victory! Against the wishes of some of his advisors!

How will we ever get over such a violation of diplomatic protocol? By talking about diplomacy!

diplomacy

What the Left thinks it means – being a good global neighbor by being willing to give up power in exchange for peace

What it really means – protecting our interests while exercising our strength

The Left loves to portray itself as the party of diplomacy and have pointed to people like former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry as examples of how it should be done. The problem? None of them are skilled diplomats, unless you consider constantly apologizing for being American the sign of good diplomacy. And, as you might expect, I don’t.

This isn’t to say Secretaries of State under Republican Presidents have been any better. In my lifetime, diplomacy has gone from strategic alliances that benefit all parties involves to Americans always having to say we’re sorry. Since the Cold War ended, the world stage may have gotten less chaotic, but it shouldn’t have meant our strategic alliances went the way of New Coke.

Unfortunately for us, our political leaders didn’t agree. Once the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and glasnost became a household word, the competent leaders decided to take a 20+ year nap on the diplomatic front and let the new guys (and gals) try their hands at it.

And, boy, did they screw it up.

Now, I’m not talking  an “Oops, I forgot to add mustard to the yolks when we made the egg salad” screw-up. When you screw up diplomacy, it tends to go very badly and get fixed very slowly. Thanks to Christopher and Albright, we saw radical Islam get bolder and spread further while we worried about global warming, unnecessary military actions in Kosovo and Bosnia, and whether the Commander in Chief was wearing pants at any given moment. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were a minor step up, but that’s not saying much given the folks who were in the office before them. Leftists called the George W. Bush approach to world affairs “cowboy diplomacy.” Say what you will, but it worked for the most part. Then, Clinton and Kerry got into office and gave us…ISIS.

Congratulations, American diplomats. You helped create a bigger mess than we had before you took office.

Going to the Trump call to Putin, the same foreign policy knuckleheads who said the Arab Spring was good went apoplectic. Some said we shouldn’t congratulate Putin because it would look bad, given the allegations of voting irregularities from the 2016 election linked back to Russia. Others said it would legitimize what appeared to be a questionable election.

And all of them are wrong.

It is commonplace for the President to call and congratulate the winner of elections with countries we’re friendly, sociable, or even just familiar with because…how can I put this gently…it’s good for diplomacy. Even if Putin is responsible for half the stuff his country’s accused of doing, that doesn’t make him any less of a world leader. And he’s a world leader who happens to be ex-KGB and isn’t above killing opponents. At the very least, we should try to stay on Putin’s good side.

On a global scale, Trump’s actions could help us down the road with other diplomatic efforts, namely the impending talks between North and South Korea. China has a vested interest in keeping North Korea in check, and Russia and China have become friendly. If we didn’t keep the big picture in mind, Russia and China would make the negotiations more difficult than putting together a piece of furniture from IKEA using only the description of the instructions as given by Joe Biden after 14 shots of Fireball. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, the congratulatory call was the right call.

Personally, I think the reason the Left were so upset that Trump congratulated Putin is because it runs counter to the image of Trump they’ve cultivated. Since Trump announced, the Left said he would lead us to World War III within a few minutes of taking the Oath of Office. Well, judging from the lack of a nuclear winter and radioactive mutants driving around Mad Max style, I would say their assessment was wrong. And Trump’s actions with Putin only underscores how wrong the Left has been about him and about diplomacy in general. The ultimate goal of diplomacy is to avoid war. If it takes calling Putin to congratulate him to accomplish this, why shouldn’t we take that step? And, no, protecting Leftist fee-fees isn’t a good enough reason.

Next time you hear a Leftist pontificating about diplomacy, remember their idea of diplomacy involves America genuflecting to every other world leader, regardless of whether they’re allies or enemies, but more often than not our enemies. That’s like trying to negotiate with the hangman’s rope as you’re swinging from it. Without a firm concept of what is actually good for America, our diplomats are the nerds of the UN lunchroom and we will continue to get atomic wedgies until we stand up for ourselves.

In other words, be prepared for a lot of wedgies.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

191 Views

It’s been a bad week for the Left, although you’ll never get them to admit it. Not only are the DNC’s coffers drier than a Mormon keg party, but their one hope to undo the 2016 election is coming to a close with no actual connection between President Donald Trump and Russia’s alleged attempts to rig the election in Trump’s favor. Yep, Mueller Time may be ending soon, and the Left are already pushing the denial meter to 11 because, well, it’s one higher.

As the end of this farce of a snipe hunt comes to a close, it’s time we add the term to the Leftist Lexicon for further review.

Russiagate

What the Left believes it means – criminal collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to win Trump the Presidency and subvert our democracy

What it really means – a scandal cooked up by Leftists to avoid admitting Hillary Clinton sucked as a candidate

We’ve talked about various aspects of Russiagate, but I’ve shied away from tackling it head-on for two reasons. One, I can’t fit my head in my old football helmet, and, two, I wanted to wait for more facts to come in. The Left and the Right ran with every piece of information they could to condemn or exonerate President Trump. Robert Mueller had an overdue library book in the fourth grade? Why, that’s proof his investigation is a witch hunt! Donald Trump’s brother’s cousin’s college roommate’s hairdresser’s little brother’s accordion teacher loves Russian dressing? Collusion!

Meanwhile outside of Bizarro World, people like me got tired of all the allegations being tossed about without any basis in evidence. Sure, Mueller got indictments of four members of Trump’s campaign, but a grand total of zero of them had anything to do with the campaign itself. Now, with the recent report saying Mueller found no collusion between the Trump team and Russia to disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, this fairy tale is coming to a close, and the Left has no answers left.

So, they do what they always do: pretend the truth doesn’t exist.

Within the past three or four days, I have seen several attempts by Leftists to downplay Mueller’s findings (or lack thereof). Some say the investigation isn’t over yet (which, technically, it isn’t), but let’s just say the fat lady’s on in five. Others say we’re misinterpreting Mueller’s findings when people say he’s exonerated Trump. Still others insist Russiagate is real, dammit! Just like white privilege, the Loch Ness Monster, and Jennifer Lopez’s talent, I just haven’t seen enough to believe.

That leads us to the most obvious conclusion: Hillary Clinton lost because she’s a bad candidate. I mean, it’s possible the Russians hacked her campaign so she didn’t campaign in three vital states that typically vote Democrat, but I wouldn’t put any money on it.

Although we haven’t seen any proof of collusion between Trump and Russia, there have been more than a few Democrats who have been caught red-handed (see what I did there?) dealing with the Russians. Under the Left’s own logic, that’s proof they colluded with a hostile foreign government, which is a threat to our country. But, of course, the Left exempts themselves from their own logic. Only Trump can be guilty of undermining democracy because they say so. And we know they never lie, right?

Say, I seem to have misplaced my $2500 savings from Obamacare. Has anyone else seen it?

Unfortunately for them, I don’t play by their rules. If you advance a particular argument, you had better be ready to defend it even at the expense of your own self interests. It’s that little thing called consistency that I try to live by and has done me well in my near 50 years of walking on this floating ball of rock we call planet Earth. The minute you start making exceptions for your arguments, especially self-serving exceptions, your argument goes the way of Kathy Griffin’s career options today.

And right now, the Left’s Russiagate argument is dying the death of a thousand goose chases, as it should. However, the investigation has opened up another avenue that should be explored, that being Democrats’ possible collusion with Russia. Let’s launch a full scale investigation, complete with Independent Counsel, and see where the threads take us.

After all, only those who would want to undermine our country would object to that, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

128 Views

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for the men and women of the FBI, namely because of the House Intelligence Committee and a little memo put together by Republican member Devin Nunes. The memo released this past Friday outlines a number of issues with a FISA warrant issued against the Donald Trump campaign, not the least of which being a little oopsie involving a questionable dossier that people like former FBI Director James Comey neglected to tell the FISA Court wasn’t fully vetted and was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. You know, like happens to us every day.

As a result, the Left has become a vocal proponent of the FBI. The fact the memo was even released was an affront to national security and would lead to everything from enemies getting our secrets to the New England Patriots winning the Super Bowl. But a day or so removed from Memo Day and nothing like that has happened.

However, what has happened is the FBI is undergoing scrutiny for what is perceived to be pretty shady dealings. That, and the latest entry into the Leftist Lexicon.

the FBI

What the Left believes it means – a group of devoted public servants who are being unfairly attacked by the Trump Administration and the Right to divert attention from the Trump/Russia investigation

What it really means – a group of public servants caught between duty and bad leadership

This is one point where I agree with the Left. The FBI rank and file are the backbone of our law enforcement community. They deserve to be held in high esteem, especially when they aren’t guilty of the things their leaders are being accused of doing.

Now, if you’re expecting a big “but” here, you’re right. There is a huge but here, and I cannot lie. The rank and file who are involved in the FISA court abuse are not the kind of people who should be in the FBI. However, they should be in Fort Leavenworth. One of the important decisions that any leader and his or her subordinates have to make is whether a particular decision is a worthy goal. The more honest you are, the tougher the decision becomes, and vice versa.

This is where members of the FBI’s leadership, including the aforementioned Mr. Comey, have a reason to be sweating more than Michael Moore running the first quarter mile of the Boston Marathon. Even if you are the top cop in the country, you are subject to our laws (Just ask all the Leftists who want Trump impeached.)

Which brings up a troubling point for Leftists. If they believe the President isn’t above the law, why would they believe the FBI (which is in the Executive Branch along with the President) should be? The Nunes memo lays out some pretty significant and damaging charges that even Lady Justice can see have some heft to them, contrary to the charges the Left have against Trump which are flimsier than a toilet paper negligee. If they want to hold the high ground on Trump, they can’t overlook the current issue with the FBI.

They can’t, but they will.

Another problem the Left has to contend with is their messaging related to the Nunes memo. In the past two weeks alone, it’s been portrayed as a bunch of lies, a “nothingburger”, a political hit job, and a threat to national security. And that’s just from Nancy Pelosi! To put it mildly, the Left has more faces on this issue than, well, Nancy Pelosi. So, when Leftists come out and say they support the FBI, one has to wonder if they’re telling the truth.

Consider just a year or so ago, these same Leftists voiced support for Black Lives Matter, a group with leaders and members whose attitudes towards law enforcement are less than favorable. In fact, some have even said they want to kill police officers.

Yeah, not exactly making a solid case today for backing law enforcement.

The Left is getting behind the FBI for political expediency and cover. As cynical as that sounds, it’s the only logical explanation. On the other hand, Republicans are staying consistent with their “Back the Blue” message. This may seem counter-intuitive given what appears to be happening, but the truth is they aren’t attacking the entire FBI, just the parts that have betrayed their duty to serve the country and its laws. No matter what these particular agents are alleged to have done, it doesn’t tarnish the entire FBI, just like a few bad police officers don’t tarnish the entire police force.

Of course, the Left doesn’t want you to remember that. They want you to ignore the misdeeds of the bad players and get caught up in the positive feelings we’re supposed to feel towards police officers. But without calling out the bad players, we can never get to a point where the good players are honored and held in high esteem.

Thank you to the men and women of the FBI. Just know some of us out here are rooting for you to have a brighter tomorrow once the rats within your ranks are brought to justice today.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

141 Views

Last week, the Left were giddy with anticipation with the news special counsel Robert Mueller was going to announce indictments in relation to his investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. And with the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, the Left were happier than Bill Clinton at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch while Hillary is on her book tour. They even have a term for Mueller’s investigation: Mueller Time. They’ve even printed t-shirts with the slogan, so you know they’re serious.

Of course, the enthusiasm has dulled somewhat now that it’s come out the scope of the investigation into Manafort’s involvement with Russia was when he was working…with the Democratic National Committee. But just you wait! Mueller is going to reveal the collusion between Trump and Russia just like Scooby and the Mystery Machine gang!

Meanwhile, let’s talk about “Mueller Time” for a bit.

Mueller Time

What the Left believes it means – a federal investigation into whether Donald Trump conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election

What it really means – spending federal money on an investigation that has zero basis in fact

I know it’s shocking to think a federal government that spent money on a bridge to nowhere, a money pit in Boston, and stealth bombers that don’t exist would waste money on an investigation that would make Don Quixote tell you to cool it with the cray-cray, but it’s true. The whole basis of the Mueller investigation is a poorly-sourced assumption driven by fever-pitch partisanship in the hopes of finding something, anything that can be tied back to the President in the hopes the 2016 election can be nullified and Hillary Clinton can be installed as President.

Meanwhile in the real world, some of us are shaking our heads and/or laughing said heads off at the sight of Leftists clinging to their anti-Trump fantasies in light of factual information.

Let me be perfectly clear here. I believe Russia may have had an impact on the 2016 election, but as of this writing, the credible impact appears on the Left not the Right. Of the two major party candidates, only Hillary Clinton received direct money from Russia in the form of a donation to the Clinton Global Initiative from Ukraine. Although it wasn’t a direct donation to her campaign, it is still a financial contribution to Hillary Clinton through a layer of plausible deniability via bureaucracy.

Of course, there are other ways Russia could have impacted our election, such as through Facebook ads and other propaganda purchased by Russians. One tiny problem: Mueller Time isn’t going into that depth, at least not yet. Even if they paid for agitprop, so what? It’s not like every voter is spoon-fed information from partisan sources. That’s strictly a Leftist thing. Besides, if we really want to go down that rabbit hole, we would have to go after just about every major media outlet for colluding with Hillary’s campaign by giving her mostly softball questions no tougher than “Where would you like us to kiss your butt today, Madame President?”

Which brings us back to Mueller Time. The investigation may open up far more than the Left wants us to know, such as…oh, I don’t know…the Clinton campaign having more actual hands-on contact with the Russians than the Trump campaign. That would explain why the Left’s argument regarding the Trump dossier went from “We need to find out everything in the dossier” to “We don’t need to know who paid for it, just whether it’s accurate.” And even that doesn’t get the Left out of the woods. If Mueller’s investigation proves the Left was in Vladimir Putin’s back pocket so much Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has permanent stitch marks on her butt, the narrative will switch to “This subject is boring. Let’s focus on Trump’s connections to Russia!”

In any case, the Mueller investigation will continue on with or without my support (but will continue with my money) and we will be in for…well, something that will be more disappointing than a striptease from Lena Dunham. Whatever happens, the Left will try to put on a brave face and spin every little indiscretion into a major scandal, but for those of us on the outside of the Leftist bubble, it will be like opening the biggest package under the Christmas tree and finding it full of the ugliest sweaters, socks, and underwear.

But for you Leftists out there hoping Mueller Time will get you into the White House, you’d be better off joining a tour group.

Endangered Swamp RINOs

203 Views

I for one am very thankful that Donald Trump won the election of 2016. And it’s not because I voted for him since the Iowa Caucus or that I am some sort of Trump fanatic or “cultist” either.

The President isn’t a regular politician. And like any man he does have his faults. I do not agree with everything he had done as President either. And I know he isn’t a Conservative.

But President Donald Trump does have common sense and many Conservative values are rooted in common sense. His Presidency shines a light into the heart of the dark swamp that is Washington D.C. and Establishment politics of both Republicans and the Democrats.

Had Hillary Clinton won in November of 2016, even with a Republican win in the US House and US Senate, we would have seen more of the same that we saw in the previous 8 years under President Obama.

The House and Senate would have passed the complete repeal of ObamaCare only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. Likewise they would have passed immigration reform and all the other changes they are now dragging their feet on. However, they would have approved President Clinton’s cabinet and appointees in record time.

We the People, would have cheered the actions of Congress. For moving swiftly with the change of power in the White House and for passing the legislation that would benefit the majority of the nation. And we would be duped into thinking and believing that Congress was the vanguard protecting us from Liberalism. That would be the world if Hillary Clinton had won.

Without President Donald Trump, those so-called “neverTrump Conservatives” would have fooled us into believing that they are Conservatives. But thanks to the light being shown on them from the President. We see that they are only RINOs (Republicans In Name Only.) And a year from now in the mid-term elections. We will send the majority of them packing their bags.