Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Why DC Elitists Hate Trump - Why Middle Americans Love Him

American Thinker
By James Lewis

When George Will and other leading intellectuals started to rip holes in their warm comfort couches in despair at Donald Trump's long series of victories, culminating in his election to the presidency, a lot of us were scratching our heads.  What was it about winning that drove George Will, Jonah Goldberg, and Bill Kristol to despair? 

It made no sense. 

Their Conservative Cringe makes even less sense today, when Trump is carrying out a series of actions that we have long clamored for. 

Well, Mr. Will has finally identified his complaint in a WaPo opinion piece dramatically called "Trump Has a Dangerous Disability."

Donald Trump is suffering from a mental disorder, says Mr. Will, which doesn't actually appear in the psychiatric manual, but it still makes him mad as a hatter. 

What kind of madness affects Trump? 

Apparently it's his evasion of grammatical sentences.  It's syntactophobia, maybe, or dyslexia of the intellect.  Or something. 

Now, I happen to think that Trump's political jargon is a shrewd way to dodge the murderous hatred of our fair-minded media, the people Mr. Will spends his life with.  We know they examine every syllable emerging from Trump's mouth, ready to draw blood as soon as they can distort and lie about something he says that is perfectly innocent. 

Trump has developed an effective way to reach you and me.  We understand his private code, which leaves liberals foaming at the mouth.  They really don't get what he says – because, for one thing, they never listen to conservative talk radio.  About half of American voters have listened to Limbaugh and all the others over decades, on and off, enough to get the basic language.  Trump has to say only half a sentence, and we know how to fill in the rest. 

Conservative radio happens to reflect the ideas of the American Founders more than any other line of political discourse today, especially the cult language of snowflakes and space cadets in our universities.  If you can't even tell who is sane and who is not, of course you won't get Trump, either. 

That's the enemy-mined battle space for American politics today, and Trump has adapted to it more successfully than any conservative since Ronald Reagan. 

But if you live, as George Will does, in the airy-fairy cocktail circuit of Washington sophisticates, where you actually get to finish a sentence before howling leftists jump down your throat, you might not know that. 

Donald Trump has shrewdly and deliberately navigated the anti-conservative minefield.  His actions (as opposed to his words) are finely calibrated to achieve intelligent ends. 

Trump is on his third fabulous career.  First, the international hotel business, where competition is extremely hot.  Second, his showbiz career, where things are even more competitive, if anything.  And third, his run for the presidency, where the New York Times wants to kill you, bad, and will resort to Pravda and Goebbels methods to destroy your credibility. 

Having built three fabulous careers is not an accident.  Trump is a man who has achieved major career goals when he set his mind to it.  The normal standard of rational behavior is effective functioning in the real world.  When the world is mad, you have to figure out how to cope, and our national politics is both irrational and self-destructive. 

Among our presidents, there have been some who talked in complete sentences, like Obama with his two teleprompters, one to the left and one to the right, so he could fake sincerity in both directions.  Obama had his personal fiction writer to support his grandiose fantasy life in complete sentences.  Like his inaugural promise to lower the level of the seas.

Big deal. 

BHO talked well and acted like a jihadist.  One of his first appointments, one Elibiary, has just told us that Coptic Christians who were murdered in their church in Cairo "had it coming to them."

I would rather have a stutterer for a president than someone who supports the massacre of innocents.  Wouldn't you? 

We've had less articulate presidents, like Eisenhower, Truman, and Bush 41 and 43.  History will judge their actions, but I happen to believe they were genuine patriots.  They cared about the right things and did their best, while being sabotaged by the Demagogue Party. 

When a president does his utmost to achieve the best results for his country and the world, I could not care less about his syntax. 

After thinking about George and Jonah and Bill, who unanimously headed for the hills when Trump started to win, I've finally concluded that they despised Trump because he sounded low-class.  It's a class thing. 

Well, the D.C. establishment also despised Abe Lincoln as a low-class hick from the backwoods who spoke with a country accent.  But they adored Woodrow Wilson, a dreadful president, because he spoke in whole sentences.  He might have been horribly wrong about the League of Nations (now the ├╝ber-corrupt U.N.), but hey, he had a Ph.D. 

I'm sorry to see our guys destroy their reputations among ordinary conservatives over such a trivial matter.  But it means they can't tell the difference between reality and syntax.  That lack of common sense disqualifies them in my mind. 

By George Will standards, Barack Hussein was the greatest president in history, while Harry Truman was a syntactically impaired goofball. 

I happen to disagree. 

Don't you?

Monday, May 1, 2017

The Press Elected Trump

Did journalism “jump the shark” last year? Political commentator Joe diGenova says the public fury about media bias towards former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backfired, helping President Donald Trump win the White House.
DiGenova, a pithy former federal prosecutor, says “the American people are not stupid. They watched this uncritical love affair” the press had with Obama, where “he got a pass for every lie, every failure, and the most bankrupt foreign policy since World War II.”
He says outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN were “so drunk with adulation that they abdicated their responsibilities.” The press missed Obama’s lack of transparency and lies. He thinks the public took note, starting to rally to those the media clearly despised. To diGenova, the mainstream press became “bootlicks,” and are unworthy of the time-honored First Amendment.
Commenting on Trump’s his first 100 days, diGenova says he “is doing the exactly the right thing and a great job.”
“He’s solidified the Supreme Court for a generation.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gets an “A plus” from diGenova, too, for his stratagem on judges.
DiGenova adds Trump’s “instincts are superb. The best example? Look at what he has done with communist China on North Korea. He has changed their behavior in a couple of months by the use of raw military power and the persuasiveness of his conversations over some of the best ice cream in history apparently.”
He offers suggestions in this exclusive interview for The Daily Caller News Foundation focused on personnel. He says the biggest threat to Trump’s agenda is the burrowed-in Obama holdovers within the federal government. If the new White House finalizes their political appointments, they can thwart the resistance movement taking hold inside of the federal government, he says. FBI Director James Comey, for example, is someone diGenova calls “dangerous” and should have been replaced by Trump.
“The notion that a civil servant will not obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States is unacceptable in a free society. Civil servants are not self-actuating figures. The Democrats have empowered them to think they are indispensable. They are not,” he says.
The newest revelations of just how extensive Obama’s politicization and weaponization of America’s intelligence leaves diGenova startled. Democrats and some in the press and intelligence community have tried political machinations about phony Russian entanglements by Trump, and diGenova says this is a “political fight to destabilize the Trump presidency to bring his negatives up and try to delegitimize him.”
The former federal prosecutor says we have extraordinary evidence of Obama’s politicization of government intelligence that is supposed to be singularly focused on keeping Americans safe, pointing to investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s timeline.
The intentional targeting of Obama’s political opponents – even if they were members of Congress, reporters, business people, citizens is becoming more obvious. These victims of unlawful government intrusions were guilty of nothing except opposing  Obama’s agenda.
The former federal prosecutor notes that the unmasking by Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, John Brennan and Obama and leaking of this private and intrusive information should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. DiGenova calls for a federal grand jury to reveal the truth, the leakers and the abuse of power. Otherwise, he says, America is careening towards the KGB and Russian intelligence model where opponents of the state found themselves monitored because of their political views.
View the complete video  

Read more:

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

A Plan To Destroy America - Admittedly Thought Provoking (And A Matter of Opinion)

Michelle Malkin

I have had the pleasure of speaking and debating alongside former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm. In Colorado five years ago, we took on an open-borders contingent that was pushing for the illegal alien ID card known as the matricula consular (which I’ve blogged about extensively here.) He’s a true maverick–a Democrat who has long presaged the self-destructive impact of open borders. In 2004, Dick Lamm gave a now-famous speech at one of the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s conferences. The incisive speech, “I have a plan to destroy America,” went viral. I still have at least one or two readers e-mailing it to me every week. I’m reprinting it today.
It’s more timely than ever as the differences between the two major political parties on these fundamental issues blurs and as open-borders activists on both sides of the aisle work to marginalize critics and redefine all dissent as “hate.” You will not, after reading and digesting Lamm’s speech, feel like “calming down.”
I have a plan to destroy America
by Richard D. Lamm
I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:
1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”
2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.
4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.
5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.
Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –“because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.
8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” –this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed–please, please–don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” –Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Clean Coal and Global Warming - The Other Side of The Story

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Why Betsy DeVos Is On The Right Track

DeVos: "No child, regardless of their ZIP code or family income, should be denied access to quality education”

How can any politician who supports the needs and desires of our kids and their parents over the needs and desires of the teacher unions - possibly be against public school choice in our under served urban school districts. Read this and weep: 

NEW YORK, NY – More than 17,000 children were entered into yesterday’s admissions lottery for 3,017 available seats at Success Academy in 2017-18. Parents from every corner of New York City applied, driven by a severe shortage of high-quality schools and the network’s decade-long track record of achievement. This is the fourth consecutive year the Success wait list exceeds 10,000 kids. 
The extraordinary wait list underscores the urgency with which parents across NYC are attempting to flee hundreds of failing schools. Across the Bronx, for example, not even 1 in 4 students is on grade level in reading or math. More than 5,600 children from the borough applied to Success Academy — 15 for every available seat. Overall, applications from kids zoned to the city’s very lowest-performing elementary schools increased by 30%. 
Demand for a seat at one of Success Academy’s socioeconomically diverse schools was exceptionally high this year. More than 5,600 unique families applied for a seat at one of the network’s six schools that truly reflect the demographics of the city: SA Upper West, SA Bensonhurst, SA Williamsburg, SA Cobble Hill, SA Hell’s Kitchen and SA Union Square. 
“Every year, we’re heartbroken that we can’t serve more families — parents who want to send their child to a great school, but have so few options,” said Success Academy founder and CEO Eva Moskowitz. “And we’re stunned that City Hall continues to let the pleas of waitlisted parents fall on deaf ears.” 
Applications from District 2 — one of the top performing school districts in the city, but often overcrowded and lacking in diversity — also increased, by about 10% over last year, with more than 600 families applying to Success. The network is opening SA Hudson Yards in District 2 this year.
The network will open two new elementary schools in 2017-18, down from five last year, largely due to bureaucratic hurdles. The mayor has attempted to obstruct charter school growth by denying charter school students access to public space, even though there are currently 144,000 empty seats available in NYC public school buildings.  
Parent demand was similarly strong last year, with an additional 3,000 applications submitted for its pre-k program, which was suspended for this year as the network and parents fight illegal red tape imposed by City Hall in court. 
Additional highlights from the lottery:
  • The Network’s top five districts by application total include Districts 9, 10, and 11 in the Bronx and District 29 in southeast Queens with more than 1,000 children from each district submitting applications. This is up from two such districts last year.
  • After SA Bushwick’s successful first year, applications from the neighborhood (District 32) increased by 27% 
  • 615 students zoned to attend a Renewal school applied to Success
Founded in 2006, Success Academy Charter Schools are free public K through 12 schools open to all children in the state through a random lottery. With 41 schools across Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens, Success Academy enrolls 14,000 students, primarily low-income children of color in disadvantaged neighborhoods: 77% of students receive free or reduced-price lunch, 95% are children of color, 15% are children with disabilities, and 8.5% are English language learners. Ranked in the top 0.3% in math and the top 1.5% in English among all New York State schools on 2016 state proficiency tests, Success Academy schools received more than 20,000 applications for fewer than 3,400 open seats this year.

For more information about Success Academy, go to and

Friday, March 10, 2017

From The Associated Press - Not Another Right Wing Rant!

Donald Trump made allegations last week of the Obama Administration spying on the Trump campaign in the heat of the presidential election last year continuing on through December. The mainstream media reacted with shock, claiming the allegations lacked evidence and substance, and counter-alleged that Trump’s assertions were merely “fake news.” Apparently the media magnates don’t read their own papers, for all they would need to do is read their own publications to validate the President’s claims.
On March 4, President Trump tweeted a series of messages. Although limited to 144 characters per tweet, his message was a shocking one. “Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!” he said initially. The first message was followed immediately with, “I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”
His final tweet concluded the allegation, “How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” What followed was a flurry of predictable media reactions.
The New York Times front-page story was titled, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” CNN’s news crawl proclaimed, “Trump’s baseless wiretap claim.” And the Washington Post, not to be outdone, exclaimed, “Trump, citing no evidence, accuses Obama of ‘Nixon/Watergate’ plot to wiretap Trump Tower.”
Interestingly, all of those publications have been printing stories over the past several months that provide the very evidence they said Trump was lacking. Just over a month ago, on January 20th, the New York Times’ front-page story was titled, “Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides.” That story went on to reveal, “The FBI is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”
In that one story, the NYT validates the following: that Trump aides were being wiretapped; data from the wiretaps were gathered; which government agencies (under the Obama Administration) were involved; that they’d accelerated their efforts (likely to forestall Trump’s inauguration); and that some of the data had been provided to the White House. And perhaps most significant, as far as Trump and his aides are concerned, they “found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.”
Following Trump’s tweets an Obama spokesman declared, “Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” Please note the wording, claiming they didn’t “order” the wiretapping. Was it perhaps suggested, intimated, or simply allowed? That’s unknown, but clearly Obama’s White House knew what the results of the wiretap were. And that’s according to the NYT. And frankly, if there was no wiretapping, there would have been no data to share with the White House.
Trump’s first tweet that morning intimated involvement of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court involvement in the wiretapping of the Trump Tower in New York. Even that is validated by, not Trump tweets or administration officials, but by the media.
According to news site Heat Street, “Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.”
The article continues, “Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October…While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.”
The facts surrounding Obama Administration FISA Court requests were later validated and reported by UK news sources, The Guardian, and BBC. Conspicuously absent was follow-up reporting by U.S. mainstream media. No wonder there is record low confidence in U.S. mainstream media.
And inexplicably, in the final days of his administration, President Obama in January “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections,” according to the New York Times. Obama’s directive expanded Executive Order 12333. As the Times reported, they “found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.” Yet, based on much of the information being leaked, it was obviously not just data and factual information that was shared, but also rumor, innuendo, and hearsay; in short, political propaganda.
The facts clearly lay out a systematic series of events and intelligence-gathering efforts where the Obama Administration was wiretapping and monitoring Trump and his associates in the midst of the presidential campaign. This is further confirmed and validated by the well-placed leak from the FBI of the discussions between erstwhile National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, and the Russian Ambassador to the U.S.
Clearly, based on news stories by the same media that is now denouncing Trump’s allegations, the Obama administration actively sought authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign, and was eventually granted that authorization. They continued to monitor the Trump campaign even after no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered. Obama then relaxed the national intelligence rules to allow evidence to be shared broadly within the government, virtually assuring that such information would be leaked to news sources.
Some claim this to be merely attempts at obfuscation of the “Russian meddling” in the campaign. This is highly unlikely since the only thing the FBI and the other 16 intelligence agencies have produced for all their efforts to link Trump to purported Russian hacking of the Hillary campaign, is the leaked Michael Flynn conversation with the Russian Ambassador. Even the allegations against Attorney General Jeff Sessions are moot since his first meeting with the Russian Ambassador included several high-ranking U.S. military officers, and the second was at an event organized by the Obama Administration.
Some, including Mark Levin, former chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan Administration, claim the Obama Administration’s targeting of the Trump organization, in the middle of a presidential campaign, was a more egregious abuse of executive power than Nixon exercised with the Watergate break in. He avers that it was tantamount to an attempted coup to prevent Trump from assuming office.
Regrettably, many government employees, who overwhelmingly are supportive of Democrats, are involved in the efforts to undermine, discredit, and delegitimize the Trump administration. These “public servants” who by a nearly 10:1 margin donated to the Clinton campaign, are obviously more loyal to their party than they are to the nation they are paid to serve. They are committing felonies with their leaks to the press, and arguably committing treason and sedition in attempting to destabilize the government.
These “deep state” government employees, including some in the intelligence services, are evidently colluding with three other factions in a veritable war against our democratically elected President. The others include, as one commentator refers to them, the “Snowflake Faction,” including paid protestors; the Democrat Party; and the mainstream media establishment. They are not just striving to discredit the President, but to destabilize the administration and destroy him utilizing every conceivable means available to them to do so.
The question is not whether the Obama Administration was spying on the Trump campaign, but how many laws they bent or broke for nearly exclusively political purposes in doing so, and whether anyone will be held accountable for it. The Watergate scandal pales by comparison.
Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at

Sunday, March 5, 2017

TIme Out For A Hearty Laugh!!

A man boarded an airplane and took his seat. As he settled in, he glanced up and saw the most beautiful woman boarding the plane. 

He soon realized she was heading straight towards his seatAs fate would have it, she took the seat right beside his.

Eager to strike up a conversation, he blurted out,"Business trip or pleasure?"

She turned, smiled and said, "Business. I'm going to the Annual Nympho- maniacs of America Convention in Boston." 

 He swallowed hard.  Here was the most gorgeous woman he had ever seen sitting next to him, and she was going to a meeting of nymphomaniacs. 

Struggling to maintain his composure, he calmly asked, "What's your business role at this convention?" 

 "Lecturer," she responded.  "I use information that I have learned from my personal experiences to debunk some of the popular myths about sexuality." 

 Really?"  he said.  "And what kind of myths are there?" 

 "Well, she explained, "One popular myth is that African-American men are the most well-endowed of all men, when in fact it is the Native American Indian who is most likely to possess that trait." 

 "Another popular myth is that Frenchmen are the best lovers, when actually it is men of Jewish descent who are the best." 

 "I have also discovered that the lover with absolutely the best stamina is the Southern Redneck." 

 Suddenly the woman became a little uncomfortable and blushed. "I'm sorry," she said, "I shouldn't really be discussing all of this with you. I don't even know your name..." 

 "Tonto," the man said,  "Tonto Goldstein, but my friends call me Bubba."