Tag Archives: Obama

Remember this Guy?

Of course some of you do. Remember my “Open Letter to Mr. Mattis” post? Well, that post was on 5 June, and to this day it is still getting hits (43 just today). At my last count it has gotten nearly one million views, and that does not count those who shared it. Why is that happening?

Yesterday I posted one entitled: “The Coming Coup.” Folks that one is already going crazy as well.

Call me a conspiracy nut if you choose. that’s your prerogative. However, I firmly believe something big is awry. The current crop of generals and admirals are a sorry lot. The Commandant of my beloved Corps is shredding it apart piece by piece. Daily I read of instances that prove to me this election will be the biggest fraud we have ever seen anywhere in the world. The Dems are so confident and you know why? Take a quick gander of this.

Feds Seize 19,888 Fake State Driver Licenses (Made in China) in Chicago O’Hare Airport – ALL Registered to Vote — ALL Democrat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are the Chinese making so many fake U.S. driver licenses?  Why are they being shipped to Chicago’s O’Hare Airport?  Why are ALL the names completely phony; yet ALL are Registered to Vote . . .  and Registered as Democrats?  That’s a disturbing little tidbit to discover, especially right before an election, right? Oh, and BTW, as best I can tell they are Illinois drivers licenses. I had one for way too many years, but no more! LOL

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the bulk of these fake U.S. IDs flooding into the country come from China and Hong Kong, with the rest coming in from South Korea and the U.K.

Officials in Chicago just confiscated a shipment of these fake IDs totaling nearly 20 thousand. Of course, the local news media in Chicago doesn’t see a connection to “voter fraud,” but most other people do. As a matter of fact, it’s the main thing that most people see with just three months before an election.

Okay, have I got your attention? Good, back to my favorite General, Mr. Mattis, who in my view is a POS, excuse me sir. No, I take that back, you don’t deserve a sir. You are not a retired Marine! in my view.

Hear comes a dozy of an article, -please and please comment, even if you think I am a nut case. Hell, I hope I am, but doubt it! LOL

September 10, 2020

There is something very wrong with some in the top ranks of America’s military

By Andrea Widburg

With Bob Woodward’s anti-Trump book about to be published, the media is focusing entirely on the easily debunked claim that Trump mishandled the Wuhan virus by “lying” to the American people. What the media is ignoring, however, is a much more serious claim, which is that former Secretary of Defense General James Mattis plotted to overthrow Trump and his administration. This fact, if true, supports my long-time fear about the damage Obama inflicted on the upper echelons of the Pentagon.

The Conservative Treehouse caught the Mattis item:

According to a pre-release excerpt from the Washington Post Bob Woodward writes about a discussion between General James Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats about a plot to overthrow the elected government of the United States.

What do you call a conversation between the Defense Secretary and the head of the U.S. intelligence apparatus where they are talking about taking “collective action” to remove an elected President?  That’s called sedition…. A seditious conspiracy.

It began to be clear last October that the Obama administration (with some help from Bill Clinton’s presidency) had seeded the Pentagon with leftist generals whose allegiance was to the Deep State, to cultural leftism, and to the infamous and profitable “military industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned about in 1961. In only five years, Obama had conducted a major Pentagon purge, firing almost 200 senior officers who held the old-fashioned belief that the military exists to protect America and should not be a social justice institution with limited firepower.

The upper-level officers who remained were hardcore Democrats. While still in the military, Admirable McRaven gave bin Laden a respectful, private burial. Once out of the military, he wrote an editorial for the New York Times, strongly suggesting a military coup against Trump. Barry McCaffrey, a Clinton White House officer, likened Trump to Mussolini because he canceled the White House’s newspaper subscriptions. And Obama’s Joint Chiefs Vice Chair, James Winnefeld, was deeply offended on behalf of ISIS terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi because Trump did the psychologically smart thing of telling al-Baghdadi’s followers that he died like a coward.

In November, Sundance, at The Conservative Treehouse, pointed out that, even though Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman used back channels to try to counteract his commander-in-chief’s foreign policy solely because Vindman disagreed with the policy, the Defense Department invited him right back to the NSC. To Sundance, there was only one takeaway: “The United States Military is collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

All of the above says that there is something rotten happening in the Pentagon. The implications aren’t just in the past. They’re also in the future. Michael Anton has written the best article spelling out the fact that the Democrats are openly planning a coup if Biden doesn’t win. One of the crucial points about this planned coup is that the Democrats have been explicit about military involvement.

Their plan in the event Trump wins in a given state is to send their Democrat electors to the Electoral College along with (or even in lieu of) the Republican electors. In the chaos that results, which will spill onto the streets, Democrats trust “that the military would take care of the rest.”

Anton also says that retired military officers, such as the ones I discussed above (and I’m willing to bet that includes Mattis and McRaven), have already said that they will support a coup. I’ll add that it’s likely that they have allies still within the Pentagon, people who benefit from the perpetual wars that Obama, a supposed anti-war president, nevertheless fought and instigated, and who also benefit from the pipeline flowing from the Pentagon to that profitable military industrial complex.

The laughable Atlantic article about Trump disrespecting the military was intended, not just to get military votes on November 3, but to get military coup participants after November 3. Critical Race Theory training and eight years of Obama’s social justice policies have shifted many of the enlisted ranks from strong conservatives to equally strong Democrats.

The only way to put the kibosh on all of this is for an overwhelming Trump turnout on November 3, one that reminds Democrats no matter where they are – the media, Hollywood, the military, the defense contractors, your neighborhood – that the people are behind Trump.

As I heard someone say, the Democrats have ensured that, after the election, unless a bizarre miracle happens and Biden wins overwhelmingly on (not after) November 3, there will be upheaval. However, we know from the street battles in Democrat-run cities that, if Biden does win, the disruptions will spread. If Trump wins, the upheavals will meet the full force of the law (and due process), and America can once again get down to the business of being the best, freest nation on earth.

With all this notoriety I’m getting maybe I should lock my doors at night. Nah, let em’ come, they’ll leave on a gurney. LOL Be safe and try to sleep well my friends. Keep your powder dry though.

Originally posted 2020-09-10 16:40:33.

Why Trump in 2020?

Okay Folks, I’ve been silent long enuff, it’s time to speak up again. Here are the many  reasons why Donald Trump deserves to be reelected. If you disagree, you’ve been living under a rock!?

I like this guy, he doesn’t hold back., lays it all on the line, and I can find nothing wrong or incorrect with any of his facts. but then you be the judge. Six minutes and thirteen seconds of truth for which liberal Washington has no defense.

https://youtu.be/focODnV4qC8

 

Originally posted 2020-05-29 10:42:54.

A LAWYER WITH A BRIEFCASE

I tried to find out who wrote this so I could attribute such a great a piece to the owner, but could not. And I have not vetted that of which it speaks. The only thing I have to go on is my logical mind and common sense as to what has been going on around me for seventy-nine years of living.

It’s for your reading pleasure and you decide what you think. I believe it was Shakespeare who said, “Let’s kill all the lawyers.”  Not a bad idea. This isn’t meant to degrade all lawyers, I guess there are a few around who should be saved, but I don’t know one myself. They write the laws so you must have a lawyer to do certain things throughout your life–something stinks about that. Go to your local phone book and count the pages of Physicians and the lawyers. I’ll bet money there are many more of the latter than the former. Why?

I never thought much about the Democratic party being the “Lawyer Party,” but now it all makes sense, at least to me. What about you? Enjoy the read.

 

Every Democratic presidential nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democratic vice-presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.

Barack Obama was a lawyer. Michelle Obama was a lawyer.

Hillary Clinton was a lawyer. Bill Clinton was a lawyer.

John Edwards is a lawyer. Elizabeth Edwards was a lawyer.

 

Leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress:

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer is a lawyer.

Adam Schiff is lawyer.

Jerry Nadler is a lawyer.

Amy Kobuchar is a lawyer

Ex-Senator Harry Reid is a lawyer.

Elizabeth Warren is a lawyer.

Ted Kennedy would have been, but was kicked out of University of Virginia Law School for cheating.

 

The Republican Party is different:

President Trump is a businessman.

President Bush 1 and 2 were businessmen.

Vice President Cheney is a businessman.

President Eisenhower was a five-star General

Ronald Reagan was an actor.

 

The leaders of the Republican Revolution:

 

Newt Gingrich was a history professor.

Tom Delay was an exterminator

Dick Armey was an economist.

Ex-House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.

The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD is a heart surgeon

 

Who was the last lawyer Republican president? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago

The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the target of lawyers.

The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men and women who create wealth, like Trump, Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.

 

The “Lawyers Party” sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers Party grow.

 

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, Wall Street, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

 

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers.

 

Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side. Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine, but it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians, as lawyers, begin to view Americans as clients and opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.

 

We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers. Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.

 

America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.

 

When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

 

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers, who already largely dictate American society and business.

 

Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers, but rather from personal dreams nourished by hard work of American citizens—yes citizens!!

 

Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

 

The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers!

 

Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Lawyer Democrat Party

 

When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association go to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high vs the rest of the world—it is not simply greed as democrats would have you believe.

 

 

Originally posted 2020-05-21 15:34:04.

DID YOU KNOW THIS?

I rec’d the following this morning from a Blog to which I subscribe (Bunkerhill – God, Guns, and Guts Comrades). It is a very informative, truthful, well-researched blog filled daily with astounding facts very few are aware of, and this morning’s is a whopper. Today’s blog references an article from The Telegraph, the British News Service, dating back to 15 July 2015. The piece was written by Mr. Con Coughlin, the paper’s Defense Editor on the Iranian Nuclear Deal.

Obama’s Iran deal has just granted an amnesty to the world’s leading terrorist mastermind.

As head of the Quds Force in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Suleimani is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading terrorists. Now Barack Obama has effectively granted him an amnesty.

For a decade a more he has been the driving force behind an array of Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups, from Hizbollah to Hamas, which have orchestrated a reign of terror throughout the Middle East.

From a purely British perspective, he was responsible for training and equipping the Shia militias in southern Iraq who killed scores of British troops during the dark days of Iraq’s sectarian conflict following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and was reported to have trained the Taliban in the art of making deadly roadside bombs that killed and mutilated our Service personnel serving in southern Afghanistan.

So you can imagine my amazement when, leafing through the more obscure annexes of President Barack Obama’s “historic” deal with Iran (page 86 of the annex, to be precise), I found that Mr Suliemani – as the White House no doubt now refers to him – has been granted an amnesty and taken off the list of proscribed Iranians – together with a number of senior members of the Revolutionary Guards.

Thanks to Mr Obama’s scandalous capitulation to Tehran, Mr Suleimani has overnight gone from being one of the world’s most wanted terrorists to the White House’s newest best friend.

This is just one of the many troubling indications contained in the detail of the accord struck in Vienna between the P5 +1 and Tehran – that’s the official line, of course. The reality is this shoddy deal was worked out between the ayatollahs and the White House, with countries like Britain – which used to take a robust view of Iran’s endless procrastination on its nuclear activities – left impotent on the sidelines.

Another example of the craven concessions the White House had made to Tehran is the way future inspections will handled. Iran’s disinclination to make full and transparent disclosures on its nuclear programme is well-documented. Given the opportunity to cheat, they will do so. Which is why inspections by qualified teams of nuclear inspectors is so important.

Only from now on the onus will be on the West to make the case that Iran is not playing by the rules by handing over its intelligence to prove so. For under the terms of the accord, we must “justify” the need for inspections, which in effect means handing over all the intelligence we have on Iran’s illicit activities. Of course Iran has been desperate to find out how Western intelligence learned about the existence of nuclear enrichment sites like Natanz and Fordow and, if we comply with the requirements set out in the accord to the letter, this is what will happen, with all the implications that will have for all our sources who risk their lives to tell us the truth about what the regime is up to.

If I were Suleimani, I’d be organising an enormous party right now to celebrate a deal that is truly a “historic victory” for Tehran.

Should you not believe Mr. Coughlin, you may read the entire piece of trash (below) forced on America by a Muslim loving, narcissistic, incompetent POTUS and brokered by his  communist, lying, POS posing as his Secretary of State.

I don’t know about any of you, but I did not know any of this at the time, but there should have been some honest, caring , patriotic Americans at the time who should have been knowledgeable enough to raise holy hell. Now that we have killed the POS someone finds out he was given free reign to do as he pleased by our own hand. Did any of our illustrious MSM take the time to read the entire transcript or did they simply assume if it was brokered by the “Messiah,” it had to be a good deal. Our elected officials, and all the departments of government involved in over site and justice were obviously asleep at the wheel.

What have we become? Sheep!!!

Originally posted 2020-01-13 09:40:26.

Impeachment Coup Analytics

A very well written article by someone with a brain and knows how to use it, oh, and BTW, a Californian.

The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.

Victor Davis Hanson

– September 29th, 2019

Aside from the emotional issue that Democrats, Never-Trumpers, and celebrities loathe Donald Trump, recently Representative Al Green (D-Texas) reminded us why the Democrats are trying to impeach the president rather than just defeat him in the 2020 general election.

“To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice, would do our nation a disservice,” Green said.  “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”

Translated, that means Green accepts either that Trump’s record is too formidable or that the agendas of his own party’s presidential candidates are too frightening for the American people to elect one of them. And that possibility is simply not permissible. Thus, impeachment is the only mechanism left to abort an eight-year Trump presidency—on a purely partisan vote to preclude an election, and thus contrary to the outlines of impeachment as set out by the Constitution.

Consider it another way: Why is it that the House is controlled by Democrats, yet its leadership is not pushing through any of the policy proposals voiced so openly on the Democratic primary stage?

Why aren’t progressive representatives introducing bills to pay reparations to African Americans, to legalize infanticide in some cases of late-term abortion, to offer free medical care to illegal aliens, to confiscate AR-15s, to extend Medicare for all, to impose a wealth tax and raise top rates to between 70 and 90 percent, to abolish student debt and ensure free college for all, or to grant blanket amnesty to those currently living in the country illegally?

Simple answer: none of those issues poll anywhere near 50 percent approval. And no Democratic candidate would expect to beat Trump as the emissary of such an agenda.

If the economy was in a recession, if we were embroiled in another Iraq-like or Vietnam-sort of war, and if Trump’s polls were below 40 percent, then the Democrats would just wait 13 months and defeat him at the polls.

But without a viable agenda and because they doubt they can stop Trump’s reelection bid, they feel they have no recourse but to impeach. If Trump were to be reelected, not a shred of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” would be left, and the strict constructionist Supreme Court would haunt progressives for a quarter-century.

Why Impeachment Now?

The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.

Think of what we have witnessed since the 2016 election. Do we even remember charges that voting machines in the 2016 election were rigged, and the efforts to subvert Electoral College voting, or to invoke the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, and the 25th Amendment?

The “collusion” and “obstruction” fantasies of the Mueller investigation now seem like ancient history. So do the James Comey leaks, the palace coup of Andrew McCabe, the Trump tax records, the celebrity rhetoric about blowing up, shooting, stabbing, burning and variously killing off the president of the United States—along with the satellite frenzies of Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, Charlottesville, Jussie Smollett, the Covington Kids, and the Kavanaugh hearings.

What is left but to try the new “Ukraine collusion”—especially given three other considerations?

First, volatile and always changing polls appearing to favor impeachment roughly reflect Trump’s own popularity (or lack of same). Around 45-46 percent of Americans do not want him impeached and about the same or slightly more say they do.

Second, the hard left-wing of the party might not yet control all the Democrats, but it does not matter because they are clearly younger, more energized, and better organized. And they want something to show for all their social media and photo-op grandstanding, given their socialist agenda is mysteriously moribund.

Third, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is said to oppose impeachment on pragmatic grounds, but I am not sure that is right. It’s the equivalent of saying Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was opposed to the progressive character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh. Neither is or was true.

A better description would be that Pelosi and Feinstein simply go along with the perceived 51-plus percent surge of their party, and sit back gleefully watching the fireworks happen, willing to jump in or pull back depending on the atmospherics and polling. Impeachment, remember, will make the Kavanaugh hearings look like a seminar on etiquette, and so everything and anything can happen once dozens of unhinged leftists are unbound.

Be prepared for a half-dozen Christine Blasey Ford-type witnesses to pop up, and 20 or so unhinged Cory Booker-esque “I am Spartacus” performance acts, along with a whole slew of new Steele dossiers—all interspersed with breathless CNN bulletins announcing new fake news developments with “the walls are closing in” and “the end is near” prognostications. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is already reading fantasies to the House Intelligence Committee and passing them off as the text of Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s new president. Only after he was called on such absurdities did he describe his performance as a parody.

Facts Won’t Matter that Much

The Left is hellbent on impeachment and the absence of a case won’t matter. They do not care if they will sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

In the coming days, after all, we will probably learn that the whistle blower’s “Schiff dossier” was prepared by ex-Lawfare-type lawyers in service to House Democrats, who just needed a vessel to pass off the hit as a genuine cry of the heart, rather than a scripted attack with all the Steele dossier/Mueller report/Comey memo fingerprints: classification obfuscations, footnotes to liberal media hit pieces, pseudo-scholarly references to court cases, and lawsuit-avoiding, preemptive disclaimers about not actually possessing firsthand knowledge of any of the evidence, prepped hearsay, supposition, and the subjunctive and optative mood composition.

In a sane world, the impeachers would worry their charges that Trump forced Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to investigate his possible 2020 Democratic opponent Joe Biden might boomerang. After all, Trump never actually cut off Ukrainian aid. Nor did he outline a quid pro quo deal. Essentially he is accused of unduly asking a foreign president to clamp down on corruption in his midst going back to 2016. So what? Especially if there is something more to the strange antics of Hunter Biden and CrowdStrike.

Biden’s problems are not such thought crimes, but are confirmed by his own boasting: that he used the clout of the United States to help his own family financially, by threatening to cut off U.S. aid unless a Ukrainian state prosecutor looking into his own son’s suspicious lobbying was fired within six hours. And in Biden’s own words, “Son of a bitch,” he was fired.

In contrast, Trump might have been all over the map in his call, but he kept the aid to Ukraine coming without demanding the scalp of any Ukrainian official. In some sense, Trump’s culpability boils down to one issue: progressives believe that in not-too-veiled a manner, he threatened a foreign government to start going after the Biden family without cause, whose patriarch Joe might be Trump’s 2020 election opponent.

The other half of the country believes that what is material is not Biden’s current transient electoral status (he is not now and may not be the Democratic nominee), but the fact that he was vice president of the United States when he used his office to threaten the loss of foreign aid to stop investigations of his son, who was using his father’s position to further his own profiteering.

Given that Trump denies any quid pro quo and his call supports that fact, while Biden, on the other hand, openly brags that he made threats which made the Ukrainian to cave (“in six hours”), one can draw one’s own conclusions.

For now, we await more documents—with caveats that the canny Ukrainians, for their own self-interest, will predicate their release of information on the likelihood of which party will win the 2020 election.

The Left hints it has lots of incriminating documents outlining a quid pro quo threat; conservatives suspect that Ukrainian and legal documents will show the prosecutor was neither unethical nor uninterested in Hunter Biden, but was fired precisely because he was not corrupt and very much concerned with Biden.

As far as precedent, there is a good recent example. Barack Obama got caught promising to consider cuts in Eastern-European-based missile defense if Vladimir Putin would give him some room during his reelection campaign.

Translated into Adam Schiff’s Mafiosi parody lingo: Putin would calm down on the international stage to make the U.S.-Russia “reset” look good, Obama would then get rid of Eastern-European missile defense, and Obama would get reelected in 2012.

And all three of those events transpired as planned—one can surmise whether any of the three would have happened without Obama compliance with Russian conditions. Remember, Obama’s quid pro quo was caught on a hot mic on the premise that what he said to Russian President Medvedev was never supposed to be heard. “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved,” Obama said. “But it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space . . . This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Once that understanding was excused, and the media was mute about such collusion, can any notion of collusion as a crime still exist?

Conspiracy Theories

Finally, who are the winners in these impeachment psychodramas, both short-term and long-term?

Short-term, Trump may lose traction due to the media frenzy. He lost some of his ongoing momentum that had recently seen his polls steadily creeping up. He gave a fine speech at the United Nations and sounded presidential in his talks with foreign leaders—all overshadowed or now forgotten due to the impeachment psychodrama.

Trump’s critics have become emboldened, Left and Right. The Drudge Report has flip-flopped and is as anti-Trump as Vox or Slate. Many at National Review call for or anticipate impeachment without much regret. Likewise, some at Fox News—Shepard Smith, Andrew Napolitano, and Chris Wallace—are nonstop critics of Trump and hardly disguise their contempt.

The leftist media is on uppers, and completely ecstatic in moth-to-flame fashion, as if it were May 2017 again and Trump’s demise was a day away.

Because Joe Biden faces far more legal exposure than Trump, he is mentioned (if even to contextualize and exonerate him) in every news account of Ukraine. Whether or not Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or her erstwhile henchwoman, Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), was behind this gambit, does not matter. (Nothing much from either one had worked to slow down Biden in the last six months). Biden is simply not physically or mentally up to a year of cross-examination. And Hunter Biden is more unsteady than Joe and will thus be hard to locate.

We are starting to see the outlines of a progressive fantasy on the horizon: Biden will be sacrificed. The party will unite around Warren. The left-wing media narrative will be, “We took out one of our own, now it is your turn to depose Trump.” Chaos overload for two or three weeks might keep Trump’s polling low.

Long-term, however, Trump wins.

We still have a number of government audits coming from Michael Horowitz, John Durham, and John Huber—and the targets are not Trump. The Senate will not convict the president under any foreseeable circumstances. The full story of the whistleblower has not been told, but there are a lot of narratives to come about the sudden rules allowing hearsay, DNC involvement, and who knew far in advance about the complainant’s writ. Once the Democratic debates continue, the candidates’ screaming and hysterics return, and the impeachment hearings descend into a Kavanaugh-esque farce, the public will begin to get scared again by the Left’s shrieking Jacobins. Schiff’s “parody” is a small foretaste of what’s to come. Voters soon will surmise that the only thing between their 401k plans and socialism is Donald J. Trump.

Warren or her possible facsimile is a weaker candidate than even the enfeebled Biden. Her lack of viability will be of enormous advantage in NeverHillary-fashion to Trump. His fundraising, already ascendant, will hit the stratosphere. The idea that the new and old NeverTrumpers will be on the side of socialism will finally discredit them. Wall Street and Silicon Valley will keep trashing Trump, but privately write checks to stop Warren’s wealth tax that would be only the beginning of her Venezuelization of America.

So if Trump’s health holds out, if we don’t have a recession, if there is not an optional war, and Trump endures the next few weeks of 360-degree, 24/7 targeting, 2020 will be far more favorable than ever imaginable for him.

 

Originally posted 2019-10-06 09:31:20.