Civility Unrest

Back in 1960, my working class parents voted different parties; my mom went democrat with JFK.  My father voted republican for Richard Nixon.  I remember sitting at the dinner table eating “Spaghetti-o’s” listening to my folks tease each other about “canceling” their votes.

Over the decades, my friends and family members supported a wide array of politicians and I never had a problem with any of them.  In fact, I’ve interviewed seven presidents and respect them all for their service to America.  I even enjoyed my brief time with George McGovern, about as left wing as they come.

But today I simply cannot understand how any intelligent American can support Bernie Sanders, who despises the United States and wants to burn down our traditions.  I believe Senator Sanders to be a truly dangerous man and those who would allow him power, are putting my family in jeopardy.

Let’s start with Sanders saying, during the debate in New Hampshire, that America is “racist society” from top to bottom.  In order to believe that, you have to accuse millions of Americans who hold responsible positions of actively persecuting blacks and other minorities.

To buy into Sanders’ irresponsible statement, you must also believe that the United States’ social system, by design and execution, denies the equal pursuit of happiness to millions of its citizens based on skin color.

There is absolutely no factual basis to support that absurd point of view.  Yes, individual bias exists, but to allege it is national policy is a lie.

And Bernie Sanders embraces that lie.

The Senator also believes that private property is really federal property.  He promotes draconian taxation on corporations and wealthy citizens.  Beyond that, he wants to impose taxation on individual assets, acquired AFTER a citizen has paid income tax and other state financial demands.  This is his so called “wealth tax.”

To Sanders, it is a trade.  The federal government will pay for a citizen’s medical bills, dental expenses, eye glasses, hearing aids, elder care, child care, education from pre-k through college, and provide generous subsidies to low income Americans for every other life need.

In return, Sanders believes the federal government has the right to take whatever it wants from affluent citizens and private companies in order to pay for all the free stuff.  Sanders and Congress will decide how much of your pie will remain in the refrigerator. The feds will appropriate their “fair share,” and if you resist, you will be prosecuted.

So, if an American works hard, takes risks investing, and lives frugally in order to build long term financial security for his or her family, the feds would be able to seize those personal assets under the banner of “fair share.”

This frightening vision of Bernie Sanders would not only bankrupt the USA, it would punish every single American who has achieved economic success.

Therefore, folks who support Sanders and his socialist/communist viewpoint, are enabling a dangerous point of view that would directly harm me and my family.  So, I can no longer engage those people.  I must strenuously oppose them.

If I wanted to live in Cuba, and have the state determine what I can and cannot possess, I’d move there.

There is little economic difference between Bernie Sanders and the tyrants in Havana.

That’s the truth.




Barr the Door

The most important man in President Trump’s life right now is William Barr, the Attorney General of the United States.  Yet, Mr. Trump may not understand that. However, the hate-Trump media brigades certainly do.

If Mr. Barr were to turn against the President, his re-election chances would be damaged. Significantly.

That’s because William Barr is a tough, honest prosecutor who is trying to uphold the crucial constitutional mandate of “equal justice for all.”  That means a corrupt media is not the dispenser of justice, nor is a sitting President who may have a personal agenda.

The latest controversy over Roger Stone, accompanied by presidential tweets, has put the Attorney General in a tough spot.  Mr. Stone was convicted of lying to authorities about his role in seeking damaging information against the democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The sentencing recommendation from Justice Department prosecutors is seven to nine years in a federal penitentiary.  On average, a convicted rapist in this country serves four and a half years in prison so you know something is amiss.

Almost immediately, President Trump tweeted his outrage – targeting the prosecutors.  A short time later, four of them quit. That caused great joy and a spate of anonymous-sourced articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post, two organizations that are devoted to injuring President Trump.

Caught in the middle of the chaos is William Barr who then told ABC News that Mr. Trump’s tweeting about active criminal cases makes it hard for the AG to do his job.

Whereupon Fox Business Channel anchor Lou Dobbs questioned Barr’s “loyalty.”

But an attorney general’s loyalty is to his oath to uphold the constitution, not to any human being and that includes politicians who sometimes defy the human description.

So, now, the President and the Attorney General are, well, let’s use the word “unsettled.”

The ridiculous side of all this is – it didn’t have to happen.  All President Trump had to do was wait until Roger Stone is sentenced and then issue a pardon.  Presto, Mr. Stone could go bowling with you that very night.

But waiting is not Donald Trump’s style, confrontation is.  If you read my book “The United States of Trump,” you know the President always relishes the fight.

But a battle with William Barr is not like the dustup with the weak former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Barr is not a man to be pushed around and he does not want his professional reputation sullied.  The crucial Durham investigation into federal corruption is underway and President Trump would be well advised to stay out of all Justice Department business and let those chips fall.

Mr. Trump should also understand that the national media is heavily invested in diminishing AG Barr because it fears what the Durham investigation might bring.  The President would be foolish to help his enemies marginalize William Barr, who could expose disturbing FBI corruption that damaged Donald Trump.

Finally, President Richard Nixon tried to manipulate the Justice Department and that finalized his demise.

History can repeat itself.




What’s Left?

After watching Friday’s debate, it is obvious the democrats have a conundrum.  Joe Biden’s campaign is falling apart, Bernie Sanders is leading, and Michael Bloomberg is looming.  All of that is good news for President Trump.

Let’s start with “say it ain’t so, Joe.” The man cannot seem to get a cogent sentence out of his mouth.  In addition to incessantly saying the words “in fact,” he has no central message, nothing for voters to rally behind.  

To use another of Biden’s overused phrases, “here’s the deal, Joe:” you say the current economy’s not good coming from eight years of economic malaise under you and President Obama?  Do you think that’s going to resonate when unemployment is the lowest it’s been in almost 70 years?  

You told the world you would not have killed Soleimani.  You also opposed the raid that got bin Laden, the only member of the Obama cabinet to dissent.  What kind of deal is that, Joe?

Now, it wasn’t your fault that Nancy Pelosi gave republicans a big stick during impeachment with the Ukraine stuff.  That tape of you getting a guy fired over there, as well as your son’s money grab, is hurting you. It’s possible to overcome that with a cogent message but, in fact, you don’t have one.

The same cannot be said of socialist Bernie. His message is loud and clear.  If he ever becomes president, America as we know it would be vaporized.  Consider the Sanders wish list.

– the federal government would pretty much run the private economy.  Profits and generous take home pay would be regulated by extreme taxation, and private property seized through a wealth tax.

– U.S. foreign policy would be totally non-confrontational even in the terrorist arena. Few American troops would be deployed overseas, provocations would largely go answered, and the military budget slashed.

– Criminal justice “reform” would replace punishment with “restorative justice” that seeks the “healing” of criminals.  That begins with no cash bail for most offenses and, upon convictions, alternatives to prison.

– the total dismantling of US immigration law. That means open borders and federal payments to all immigrants for healthcare and other necessities.

In short, Senator Sanders is a dangerous man.  He would destroy this country economically leading to staggering unintended consequences.

I wish I could analyze the energetic Pete Buttigieg, who is rising in the democratic polls.  But I cannot ascertain exactly what he’s talking about. I do know that he wants to “turn the page,” but what page?  What book?  What does he want to do?  I can’t figure it out.

With Elizabeth Warren no longer contending because few trust her, that leaves Mayor Mike Bloomberg who must be enjoying Biden’s collapse.  I will analyze Bloomberg as Super Tuesday comes closer, but for now I’ll sum him up this way: smart guy, ran NYC efficiently, likes what money can buy, humorless, hates Trump, loves America, climate change zealot, has trouble connecting with minorities, a key group for democrats.

So there you have the definition of the democratic conundrum.  The party isn’t over, not yet.  But midnight is approaching.

 



The No Gloat Zone

After enduring years of investigation for allegedly colluding with evil Russians and threatening hapless Ukrainians over the phone, the temptation for President Trump to gloat over the failure of these two “scandals” to destroy his presidency must be powerful.

BUT DON’T DO IT, Mr. President.

Because there are more “bombshells” in the pipeline and these will be truly terrible.

CNN has also been looking into credible charges that Donald Trump diverted money from his re-election campaign to buy powerful hair products.  Don Lemon has an exclusive on the allegation which will be followed by a panel of 17 people who despise both Trump and hair mousse.  Carl Bernstein is particularly incensed by this scandal saying: “even Nixon wouldn’t do that.”

Not to be outdone, Rachel Maddow is developing a story based on very secret sources that President Trump is fond of ordering the Air Force One pilots to circle unnecessarily in order to exacerbate climate change. Ms. Maddow already has one source who actually witnessed Air Force One landing, and is working on getting John Bolton to confirm the whole sordid scenario.

In addition, word is The New York Times has been told, by a person close to another person, that President Trump browbeat a Sudanese official on the phone.  The Times has even secured a quote by the President who allegedly said: “listen, buster, this is a perfect call but that won’t stop me from slapping a tariff on you people if you don’t come up with dirt on Buttigieg.

Not to be outdone, The Washington Post is developing a report that pinpoints the exact part of the Constitution violated by Mr. Trump when he labeled Mayor Bloomberg “mini-Mike.”  Some believe the newspaper may be interpreting the “disparagement clause” too broadly.  Nevertheless, Congressman Gerald Nadler will hold hearings on it, calling Randy Newman, who wrote the song “Short People,” as his first witness.

Finally, Adam Schiff has apparently been told by a whistleblower that President Trump spoke harshly about Robert DeNiro in the Oval Office.  That “venting,” as the whistleblower described it, has been classified but soon Schiff will also hold hearings on the allegation in the House Subcommittee on Unhealthy Obsessions.

So, in the face of all this, the White House should absolutely become a no gloat zone.

As the saying goes: it ain’t over til the fat lady runs out of bombshells.




A Fair Wind

Democrats are demanding a “fair” impeachment trial in the Senate where President Trump must be found guilty.  If he’s not removed from office, that’s not “fair.”

Got it?

It’s exactly like affluent Americans paying their “fair share” in taxes.   Is 50 percent of your income fair?  No?  60 percent?  Keep going?

The leftwing fairness doctrine is kind of like a little kid deciding how many Skittles to eat. What’s the fair amount?

All of them, that’s what.  Whatever I want is “fair.”

The media, most of it, wants Mr. Trump expelled, but the word fair is not often used in press circles anymore.  That’s because an even-handed examination of news stories will never again happen in America because the press is so proud of its liberal activism there isn’t even an attempt to fake objectivity these days.

Wait, I’m not being fair.  Recently, The Washington Post assigned a radical left columnist to criticize Rachel Maddow, a radical left TV commentator.  The Post knows its reputation as an objective provider of information is in tatters so the editors came up with that.

Everybody got a good giggle out of it with the possible exception of Ms. Maddow.

I think it is entirely possible that no one in this country believes the impeachment exposition is fair.  Certainly, those who support President Trump see no even-handedness in the exercise.  And the “Resistance” against Trump can’t possibly see any fairness in his likely acquittal.

So, finally, all Americans agree on a political issue: impeachment is not fair.  Common ground at last.

And while we’re on the subject, was the hysteria surrounding the “Russian-collusion” allegations fair to Donald Trump and his administration?  Did you see any “fairness” in that presentation?

This column is not about defending the President.  He and all other Chief Executives should be scrutinized.  There is nothing unfair about opposing or criticizing any politician unless you embrace dishonesty in the process.

But this destructive impeachment thing should not have happened.   President Trump can be removed by the voters in ten months.  A partisan play to force him out of office may be legal but it’s certainly not fair, especially to the American people who deserve problem-solving in Congress, not partisan scheming.

The cliche is “fair is fair.”

The reality is the entire concept of fairness may be on the verge of obsolescence.

Fair warning.