China Virus Order and Comment

 I think I have written before that at the outset of the pandemic I, like most people, was willing to allow those who would ultimately be held responsible for the results of our response to err on the side of caution.

I, after all, was not going to wake up one day to discover that my inattention, indecision or error had caused a catastrophe.

That was then. This is now. Here is the only order, in my opinion, that any of us should be willing to obey given the vast amount of information we now have on the China Virus and its trajectory.

"If you are 60 years or older please stay at home as much as possible for the duration. You are at comparatively high risk of infection, severe symptoms and death. Wear a mask and distance when you must go out.

If you are less than 60 years old but suffer from heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and/or respiratory illness please stay at home as much as possible for the duration. You are at comparatively high risk of infection, severe symptoms and death. Wear a mask and distance when you must go out.

While you may be willing to take your chances, that would be unfair to your fellow citizens. Medical resources will be impacted unnecessarily and medical services to others for China Virus infection and all other issues will be adversely affected if those of us at highest risk are careless. Wear a mask and distance when you must go out.

If you do not fall into either of the populations described above, please go about your business, carefully.

Wear a mask indoors in public places and stay as far from others as practical."

I find myself more and more persuaded that the Chinese released the virus intentionally, or, once it spread in China, allowed it out of the country intentionally for the sole purpose of derailing the re-election prospects of the only man in the western hemisphere they fear. 

President Trump is the only leader who has stood up to them and has the nerve to stick to his principles. There was no chance of President Trump being defeated before the Chinese Virus entered the West. None.

They may have succeeded.

 

We Win, They Lose

Before Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980 he was visited by a fellow from New Jersey, who's name I have forgotten. The fellow wanted Reagan to endorse his run for Governor of New Jersey.

As the story goes, the visitor asked Reagan about his vision for the Cold War. Reagan's answer, as the story goes, was, "We win, they lose". The visitor dropped his interest in his own run and signed on to Reagan's campaign.

In 1984 Reagan won 49 states running against Walter Mondale.  Think about that for a moment, 49 states.

He also won 58.8% of the popular vote.

36 years later the idea of either major presidential candidate winning 49 states is unthinkable.

What has changed? Has the right become more right-wing? I don't see any evidence of that at all.

We remain the champions of limited government and individual freedom and responsibility. 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are, to us, sacred.

Has the left become more left-wing? 

Here is Mondale's 1984 platform.

The answer to my question is a resounding yes.

Free everything for everyone except those of us who pay taxes. Micro management of everything you and I do and what we are allowed to say.

My friends, tomorrow We Win. They Lose. Simple as that.

Be of good cheer and vote!

 

Do Not Believe Them

Considering the never ending onslaught of attacks on our President and our Country I thought I would take this opportunity to remind you not to believe a word they say.

As you have no doubt noticed, if President Trump does it, it is wrong, dangerous or both.

Kill one of the world's most dangerous terrorists...Oh no, Iran will be mad and start bombing us...oh, nothing.

Do what every President has promised to do since at least Ronald  Reagan and move our Israeli Embassy to Jerusalem...Oh no, the "Arab Street" will rise up in righteous fury and ....oh, nothing.

Does not matter what the issue is. As some clever person wrote, more or less,

"If Trump wants to tie the left in knots he should propose building the border wall with solar panels!"

If you want a metric by which to evaluate the polls we are seeing here it is.

How many of you admit to being Trump enthusiasts at work, at church, at your favorite restaurant?

Not many. Who wants to endure the nonsense and much worse that can follow such a declaration.

Do not let them get you down. They are screaming so loudly because they are losing.

Volunteer, donate if you can, Vote!

They Never Quit. We Can't Either. Updated

I will apologize in advance for drawing your attention, again, to the fact that the news media is bound and determined to demoralize us.

This headline appeared in my Yahoo! daily "news" email.

Trump defense on Russian bounty story falls flat, even with Republicans

Really? Let's count those "Republicans" for whom the "story falls short".

First up, former Republican and current dishonest pariah (to my great disappointment) John Bolton.

Liz Cheney wants to know why the President wasn't briefed on the issue. Not a word about the President.

Sen. Thom Tillis thinks if the Russians are really doing what has been reported they should be declared state sponsor's of terrorism. Not a word about the President.

Mitch McConnell. Not a word about the President.

I saved the best for last. Cindy McCain. Right, John McCain's widow. I am having a hard time imagining how her comment got in this story. Particularly in a way that implies that she is some sort of important Republican.

The article itself is a hoot. Some highlights.

"Trump has often spoken warmly of his personal relationship with the Russian president and has pursued policies that appear to align with Russian interests, including relocating some American troops from bases in Germany and seeking to have Russia readmitted to the G-7. Russia was expelled from the compact in 2014 as punishment for invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea."

The "punishment", now 6 years old, does not appear to have been very effective does it?

Trump has been very tough on Russia, as is well known. Two words. Fracking and sanctions.

Trump has explained his reasoning, to sum up, "We have a world to run". He wants them at the negotiating table where they can be brow beaten in person. He also suggested adding Australia, India and South Korea.

No doubt you have heard the saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". 

Trump wants to remove some troops from Germany. About 25% of our strength there. 

In the same way as NPR goes ballistic when we try and stop their federal funding, even though it accounts for less than 5% of their revenue, Democrats, who have been clamoring about getting our troops out of everywhere forever (and constantly insist, in addition, that our troops are a bunch of maniacal murderous psychopaths) suddenly think its a disaster and a gift to Putin to remove 9,500 of our 34,000 personnel in Germany. Yes, I think we should take their hysterics seriously, don't you?

Do not believe a word they say.

 

UPDATE: Those troops are being redeployed to....POLAND. On Russia's doorstep.

 

 

Seriously, Not Literally

I have mentioned before that President Trump's critics take him literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally.

The President's penchant for exaggeration and sloppy speech is well known. We are ok with it. He is, despite his habits, almost always right with respect to the heart of the matter.

Time after time his critics beclown themselves trying to "prove" that something Trump said was wrong. Either a completely clueless statement or just the opposite of the truth. Otherwise known as a lie.

The latest entry in this never ending sweepstakes comes courtesy of the Washington Post, a former "newspaper".

Our President, they claim, said that all of America's most dangerous cities are run by Democrats. They stutter in righteous indignation and go to great lengths to prove that Trump was wrong. Trump said "all". He was wrong. Indeed they go on to supply indisputable evidence of Trump's wrongness by taking him literally.

They use two metrics to make their point. In one metric only 95% of the most dangerous cities are run by Democrats. In the other, only 85% of the most dangerous cities are run by Democrats.

Literally, not seriously, no matter the absolute seriousness of the situation.





As is almost always the case, Donald Trump is correct by any reasonable accounting. He has driven these people far beyond reason and we should all thank him for that.

In this case they have done Trump's work for him and supplied all the ammunition he could ever require to keep making the point that Democrat run cities are the worst places in America to live and work. Only now he gets to Trump(et) that the Washington Post has confirmed his observation to an extent that all reasonable people will accept.

Keep up the good work!

Seriously? WWIII?

It is impossible for anyone to really believe that our assassination of an Iranian official government terrorist will spark a war. Impossible.

Is there any reason to worry about Iran attacking us with any serious result? No.

Have a look at this.

I don't know when the statistics were compiled. I suspect, given the oil output numbers used, that they are a few years old. Instructive none the less.

Scroll down to the weaponry and man-power figures for a laugh.

We have rendered Iran a basket case with our current sanctions regime.

Rather than President Trump killing this terrorist to distract from his supposed "impeachment", it is far more likely that Iran has been escalating its nuisance attacks on us and our allies to distract its population from their own displeasure with the maniacs that run that god forsaken country. A "sh--hole" as the President might describe it.

Killing terrorists is suddenly bad?

All of the yammering has one explanation.

Orange Man Bad!

They Just Cannot Help Themselves, Again

I keep pointing out the ceaseless bias in mainstream media for two reasons.

1) It is so much fun.

2) To remind all of us of the relentless, dishonest, destructive and dangerous campaign to discourage us and caricature President Trump.

The always reliably disingenuous Yahoo! strikes again in the aftermath of President Trump's post mission press conference regarding the killing of the ISIS leader who's name I will not mention.

Here is their headline.

"Trump says al-Baghdadi died 'screaming and crying.' U.S. officials aren't sure how he knows that." 

 

So he probably made it up right? Wrong.

 

Eleven paragraphs and two photo jumps later the "officials" explain the obvious.

 

 "I don’t have those details,” Esper said, adding that the president “probably had the opportunity to talk to the commanders on the ground." (Emphasis added)

 

Oh. 

 

By the way, the "officials" was one official, Esper, Chairman of the JCS. 

 

Volunteer and donate if you can.

 

They Just Cannot Help Themselves

This appeared on the Yahoo Home Page at 1:29 PM Pacific today.




"...that the president himself..." The clear intention of the headline, since this story is about our former ambassador to the Ukraine, is that President Trump did something wrong.

The actual story is relatively unremarkable.

An ambassador was removed and replaced because the President, at whose pleasure she served, was annoyed that she as interfering with his direct diplomatic efforts.

The "implication" is actually that he was personally involved in firing someone who worked for him. Oh my. Surely that is a criminal offense! Wait, its not? Well, surely it is an impeachable offense! Wait, it isn't any offense at all? Impossible, why else would it be front and center on Yahoo's Home Page? Because...Trump, of course.

 "The former ambassador says she was fired from her post after insisting that Giuliani's requests to Ukrainian officials for investigations be relayed through official channels, according to a former diplomat who has spoken with her. That former diplomat insisted on anonymity to disclose the private conversation."

Here comes the really good part.

"The diplomat was recalled from Kyiv as Rudy Giuliani — who is Trump's personal attorney and has no official role in the U.S. government — pressed Ukrainian officials to investigate baseless corruption allegations against Democrat Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who was involved with a gas company there." (Emphasis added)

"Baseless corruption allegations"? As far as I know there has been no investigation and certainly no believable non-corrupt explanation for a Ukranian gas company to pay the former V.P.'s son, who has no known expertise in Natural Gas or the Ukraine, something on the order of $50,000 a month while his father was in charge of Ukranian issues for the Obama administration. The payments continued into early 2019.

Did I mention that young Mr. Biden has no expertise that anyone knows of regarding the gas business or the Ukraine itself?

This is what passes for "news reporting".  Dangerous, destructive, infuriating.

Do not believe a word they say.

I think I mentioned Sarah Hoyt once before as saying that when she reads in the mainstream media that it is raining outside she goes outside to check, without an umbrella.

Do not forget that the mission of the media is to brow beat us into silence and discourage us from voting because everyone knows Trump is Toast.

I am looking forward to their furious lamentations when we beat them again in 2020.

Donate and volunteer if you can.