Eric Florack on May 23rd, 2018

It’s interesting if you think about it, that the computer age that we live in is driven by Logic. (If this, then that, and so on…)

So why is it then, with so much dedication to logic going on in our society these days, that we have such an extreme problem with analyzing cause and effect, on a societal level?

Why are we so afraid to talk about the real causes of all these school shootings by logical means?

I mean, look, prior to 1968 anyone on the planet could walk into a hardware store with cash and walk out with a gun and there wouldn’t be any questions ask about it at all. And yet back in those days these mass shootings were very rare indeed. So instead of listening to the left shrieking incoherently about the supposed “easy availability of guns”, if we were logical we would be asking what’s changed since then.

As an example of our reluctance to actually address the real issue, observe the attempt of Victory Girls to try to explain all of this:

We have forgotten the values that bind us together.

Family, respect for our nation, community, service, helping our neighbors, and respecting our elders and others with more experience and knowledge.

Today, kids are taught they’re special without having to actually achieve anything. They’re told they deserve a trophy merely for showing up. Grades are no longer an assessment of knowledge and hard work, and teachers are discouraged from criticism and issuing fair performance assessments.

Families are broken because we’re encouraged to go for whatever desire happens to strike us.

Exactly. Very good so far. But, watch where the writer takes this:

Some say the elimination of God from families is also a contributing factor. Church fosters community, communities work together to help one another, and accountability to a higher power makes us better people. I have nothing but respect for folks who go to church and who feel responsible to God, and more power to them. I’m not one of those people. My parents tried to instill religion in me; it never stuck. I don’t do the right thing because I’m afraid of going to hell. I do the right thing because it’s the right thing.

Now, understand before we proceed… I’m not going to argue this from a religious standpoint, but rather a practical one.

Consider that the founders, who, while they disagreed rather profoundly about the nature of our creator, agreed just as profoundly that such a Creator exists.

Consider also that the founders thought of our inalienable rights as a moral issue. Therefore, they thought of that Creator as a moral law giver… And so they believed that government, being populated by men and therefore subject to that creator, could not over rule those rights, that moral law. Thus, the passage in the Declaration of Independence regarding inalienable rights.

Now let’s approach the question with the absence of such a creator, with the absence of a moral law Giver. Without what I’ll call “the above”, which is to say a lawgiver is that is insuperable by man, what is to say that any given set of moral laws is more pertinent and valid than any other?

The answer of course is “absolutely nothing”.

Pol Pot, Mao, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, all took their actions personally as moral imperatives. They were able to do so because they created their own reference points. In effect, they made themselves out to be gods.

I don’t mean to pick on the author at victory girls particularly. The place is always worth a good read. But the argument that .,.

I do the right thing because it’s the right thing.

… Is patently absurd, and illogical in the extreme. Absent the external reference point, on what basis does the author determine what’s right and wrong? Simply put, they cannot.

Any set of moral laws without the external reference point of “the above” would by necessity be self-referencing, and therefore of equal value to any other moral view, including that of every tin pot dictator in history, every Mass murderer, and so on.

With all that in mind then, let’s really think about this, instead of allowing the anti-gun crowd to rule us emotionally which is what they’ve been doing, really. Let’s take this out of the realm of the emotional and stick to the logical for a moment.

Is it possible that the issue here is the collapse of the morality that the left has spent the last 50 years mocking deriding and dismantling? To say nothing of the underlying basis of that morality, of course.

Like it or not, our nation and for that matter Western culture as we know it today, was built on the foundational idea of our creator being the source of our rights… That whatever kind of government was in place, it was going to be answerable to a higher power at some point.

As a practical matter, what happens to a house when you remove the foundation?

On the other hand is it possible that our nation has been as great as it has been for so very long, because of the morality that comes from the concept of having someone above government that all men will answer to?

Folks, it is no accident that the very people that are trying to separate us from our 2nd Amendment rights are the very same people that by and large have been attempting to separate us from those concepts I’ve listed here. It’s fairly easy to understand their motivation. They believe in big government and believe that government is the ultimate Authority. It is their religion in fact.

Whether or not the consequences of this movement were intentional, is an argument for another time. The theological aspects of all of this are an argument for another time as well.

But it can hardly be ignored that as a practical matter, a cultural shift has occurred to the point where large numbers of people believe that we can no longer be trusted with the rights we once enjoyed.

I’ve mentioned Friedrich Nietzsche before, but I think it worth bringing up here. He understood very well I believe, the implications of erasing the Creator from our existence…. The removal of “the above” from our cultural value. Observe:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us — for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”

Friedrich Nietzsche was the son of a man of the cloth and the grandson of another. He rejected the concept of God, apparently never getting over his rebellious streak from his youth.

But for all that he rejected God, look at the imagery he uses to describe what happens when we no longer have an external reference point for in this case, a creator.

Ironically this writing was the foundation of the God is dead movement in the mid to late sixties… The period in time I referred to earlier, where Joe or Jane average could walk in off the street with cash in hand and pick up a firearm and walk out without any questions asked.

It was that “God is dead” movement which started us down this long destructive path. What is so seldom understood about this is that it was written as a warning, not as a guide map.

And so again I ask the question…

Is it possible that the issue here is the collapse of the morality that the left has spent the last 50 years mocking deriding and dismantling?

In answer I would suggest it’s well beyond possible and most likely a lock sure bet… and for far more of our societal woes than was encompassed by the original question.

Eric Florack on May 23rd, 2018

It’s waving bye-bye according to the most recent polling by Reuters… And keep in mind their polling very seldom leans Republican.

If you want evidence of the existence of the deep state and its efforts against this president, I can’t think of a better bit of evidence than this

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said financial records of President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen appear to be missing from his agency and the inspector general is investigating.

“Our inspector general is reviewing the issue of leaks. There is the appearance that some of the information may have gone out,” Mnuchin told the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday.

The New Yorker last week wrote about a law enforcement official who released documents to the media about Cohen’s banking records because he thought the information was being hidden.

The corrosive corruption that Obama left operating behind him is nothing short of Staggering.

davidl on May 21st, 2018

Glenn Greenwald, via Power Line:

[B]oth the Washington Post and New York Times – whose reporters, like pretty much everyone in Washington, knew exactly who the FBI informant is – published articles that, while deferring to the FBI’s demands by not naming him, provided so many details about him that it made it extremely easy to know exactly who it is. The NYT described the FBI informant as “an American academic who teaches in Britain” and who “made contact late that summer with” George Papadopoulos and “also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page.” The Post similarly called him “a retired American professor” who met with Page “at a symposium about the White House race held at a British university.”

In contrast to the picture purposely painted by the DOJ and its allies that this informant was some sort of super-secret, high-level, covert intelligence asset, the NYT described him as what he actually is: “the informant is well known in Washington circles, having served in previous Republican administrations and as a source of information for the C.I.A. in past years.”


Either these newspapers believe the FBI’s grave warnings that national security and lives would be endangered if it were known who they used as their informant (in which case those papers should not publish any details that would make his exposure likely), or they believe that the FBI (as usual) was just invoking false national security justifications to hide information it unjustly wants to keep from the public (in which case the newspapers should name him).

Greenwald has performed a public service.  Either both the Washington Post and New York Times, believed their sources or they did not.  If either the Slimes or the WaPo believed their sources that revealing the mole’s name, to with Stefan Halper, would in fact endanger his life, they could not have published unique personal detail without becoming a party to a felony.  If on the other hand the Slimes and WaPo did not believe their sources, they had no business reporting fiction as if it were news.  So which one is it?

In fact the stories reveal that neither the Slimes or WaPo are news services.  Rather they are merely stenographic providers for the deep state.

So says David French, this morning.

The Left’s failure in the presidential election was glaringly obvious. You claim Trump is dishonest? So is Hillary Clinton. You claim that Trump’s financial dealings are shady? Let’s walk through Whitewater, cattle futures, and the Clinton Foundation. Trump is a predator? Voters who lived through the 1990s remember “bimbo eruptions,” Monica Lewinsky, a rape allegation, and a wife who consistently covered for her husband’s horrible behavior. The Clintons were a package deal, and that deal included a legacy of tawdry, shocking sexual scandal.

Hillary centered her entire campaign on the notion that Trump was a bad person. She was the worst candidate to make that argument. But when 2016 entered history, so did she. Her book tours and headline-grabbing gaffes notwithstanding, she’s largely yesterday’s news. The #Resistance, on the other hand, is fresh. And it has the moral authority that Hillary lacked. It can speak clearly about “norms” and “values.” It can condemn Trump’s multiple moral failings in the strongest possible terms, unencumbered by all that Clinton baggage.

At least until #MeToo.

French continues…

It’s difficult to overstate the extent to which conservative Americans have felt scolded and hectored. So how do you expect us to react when it’s revealed that all too many of the self-appointed moralists weren’t just the kind of preachers who’d run off with the secretary, they were the kind of monsters who’d press a button in their office, lock the secretary in the room, and assault her?

He’s accurate as far as he goes. There are other examples of course, indeed, too many to list.

Thing is, the double standards being applied here are not just limited to #Metoo.

Consider for example the spectacle of Barack Obama flying 72 planes to Paris to scold the remainder of the world about their use of energy as respect to global warming.

More recently there is the spectacle of Hillary Clinton arranging for dontions from the Russians to her fraudulent charity, ( for, in return, massive Mounts of uranium), while complaining falsely about Donald Trump colluding with those same Russians.

Then, while the Democrats are supposedly angry about Russion influence in the election… As yet far from proven, we have a Democrat Party seemingly bent on getting as many non-citizens as possible pulling levers in the voting booth.

This stuff has been going on for generations, of course. R. Emmit Terrell:

Democrats have been colluding with the enemy for years, going all the way back to the “Lion of the Senate,” Sen. Edward Kennedy. He colluded with the Soviet Union against then-President Jimmy Carter back in 1980, and in 1983 against then-President Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s foreign policy frightened Kennedy Democrats. The Lion of the Senate sought to establish a common front with the Soviets against the administration. A few years later, the president won the Cold War without them. It is a little amazing how rarely we hear nowadays that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War and Sen. Kennedy opposed him.

So now, after all this is been going on so blantantly, for longer than most people have been alive, we’re supposed to believe that the situation has taken a 180 degree turn and the Russians are now suddenly favoring the GOP?

Obviously, all this had to come to a head, eventually. Or, put another way if you like, the chickens had to back to roost eventually. That increasing unease.. nay, anger… is precisely why I suggested at the last cycle that we could elect a real conservative… A chance we simply have not had since Reagan. And thus my support, then and since, for Ted Cruz. Face it, Clinton was so bad a candidate (as French mentions) that about anyone would have beat her.

Is it any wonder that nobody believes the Democrats anymore? Is it any wonder that The Democrats were so soundly rejected at the last cycle?

Their double standards have caught up with them at last.

Now if only we can keep the establishment GOP from mucking it all up.

Sharyl Atkinson says:

“I think there’s a major fallacy in focusing on the 2016 election without understanding the bigger part of the picture: *why* bad actors in intel community were so desperate to not have Trump elected. It’s about what could be discovered about the past 10-20 years. Not just 2016.”

Well, yeah. We know Hillary von Pantsuit was worried about precisely that in her memos to her own people. We know this thanks to Donna Brazile among others.

“If that f***ing bastard wins, we’re all going to be hanging from nooses. You better fix this s**t”

-Hillary Clinton email to Donna Brazile on Oct. 17 2016

But just how deep does this thing go? How many people outside the DNC are involved? How much are our law enforcement agencies invested in political activities to support the Democrats?

We have always had indications and little Snippets of evidence is that our intelligence agencies have become weaponized political tools of the left. The problem is who do we get to investigate such matters and put things to rights?

Certainly not the FBI, they’re part of the problem.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks.

.And this is how they didn’t have to go to a judge, didn’t have to get a warrant to spy on these four people, and this is how the FBI was able to gather information on the Trump campaign with no judge needed. National security letter. Now, they did use a FISA warrant and include the dossier. They did do that, but they were using national security letters elsewhere. You know, one of the most amazing aspects of this, folks, is this story writes about reports on the Obama campaign spying on the opposition presidential candidate as though it’s nothing — as though it’s common and ordinary everyday practice!

I’m warning you right now is that the piece that Limbaugh refers to in the New York Times is set up by those trying to protect their little secrets. They’re trying to take the edge off of when all of this comes out.

This is the boiled frog syndrome, writ large.


.I’ll tell you what’s happening right now. The Mueller investigation is ongoing. It is a cover-up of basically what the New York Times has admitted to today. The Mueller investigation is designed to cover that up, to deflect everybody and to go through the motions of making people think there’s still something out there to find that Trump indeed stole the election. But things are falling apart for Mueller more rapidly than people admit — and how they end this, I don’t have any idea.

The problem is twofold.

First of all they can’t do that until at least the midterms. They have absolutely nothing to run on as I’ve suggested several times recently. So what we see here is that they’ve got to keep this chill game going at least until the midterm so they can salvage what seats they can in the Congress.

Secondly it’s becoming blatantly clear to Joe and Jane average that this entire Russia investigation is a huge nothing Burger, at least in so far as the Trump campaign is concerned. The real deal here is that every time another Avenue of Investigation is opened it does nothing but gray feel the corruption of the Democrats in and around Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Can’t have that. So all such evidence either gets suppressed to the degree it can be else it comes out in little dribs and drabs like the New York Times articles that Limbaugh refers to here.

(And who has the power and the mechanisms to do that by the way? Government. The FBI and the DOJ.)

The guys over at Q and O in conversation during last week’s podcast came up with an interesting suggestion.

Essentially Rod Rosenstein is refusing to provide congress with subpoenaed material. Rosenstein claims that the material is classified, despite congress’s oversight’s mandate. The president could order mr. Rosenstein to comply with the law and so far is providing congress with the material that they desire, which is completely legal and justified by the way, given that that is the law. Congress has oversight in these matters. If Rosenstein refuses, fire his sorry backside. I doubt there are many people who will not understand that if you got somebody that specifically refuses to obey the law, and Obey a presidential order to obey the law, they deserve to be on the street with an unemployment form in their hand. That scenario would put a pin in the balloon of this Mueller investigation, and I think it’s an Avenue that should be pursued.

Well done, guys. I wish you would Put something in writing on this point because I think it deserves examination.

Eric Florack on May 17th, 2018

I can’t help but think that UK FM would continue, and AM as well, if the government weren’t running it.

davidl on May 17th, 2018

It is becoming clear that the Fearless Leader, b/k/a Bobby Mueller, led investigation of all things President Trump is the result of the Obama regimes efforts to overturn the will of the People and the last national election.   To wit the supposed counter intelligence operation in the Trump campaign was based on fabricated evidence.   The deep state planted a spy in either the Trump organization or campaign.  Fearless Leader has no authority to indite a sitting president.   Lastly, Fearless Leader filed criminal charge against Russian entities and  persons without evidence.

At the least Fearless Leader is legally incompetent, and should be fired for cause.    Moreover, Fearless Leader should be charged with violating the civil rights individuals such as Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen and with sedition for attempting a coup against  a duly elected government.

From Austin Bay;

Yesterday Kim Kye Gwan, North Korean First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs,wiggled and yelped as he “sharply criticized American officials – especially national security adviser John Bolton – for suggesting that Libya could be a template for denuclearizing North Korea.” Kim added that North Korea’s nuclear program is far more advanced than Libya’s nascent program.

That’s true. However, the vice minister’s complaint ignores several facts, which is a good indication it’s an agitation-propaganda ploy to try to get the Trump Administration to accept something less that complete denuclearization.

Well, maybe there’s something else that you’re missing here, Austin. And it’s something that I alluded to yesterday in quoting John Hawkins…

Obama’s move to overthrow Gaddafi after he cooperated with us to get rid of his WMD program was one of the worst foreign policy blunders of the last 50 years.

It seems rather clear to me that the real fear here on Kim’s part is that he’s suddenly going to disappear the way that Moammar Kadafi did. Mind you, I don’t think Donald Trump will be that stupid. I reserve such stupidity for the likes of Barack Hussein Obama. That said, and knowing the way John Bolton loves to turn the screws, (something I’ve always loved about him) I can’t help but think that the reference to Libya intended this reaction from Kim. The military maneuvers going on right now between the United States and South Korea certainly didn’t hurt that image, either. The advantage here would be to keep Kim off balance and nervous as a cat at the Westminster Dog Show. The implication laid out by Bolton serves that purpose very well indeed. Subtle, but very effective.

Mind you I consider that Kim disappearing would be totally justified. As would his being hung by his heels rather publicly.

Kim knows it, too, in a sense. His coming to the negotiating table with Donald Trump just now is, if nothing else an admission of that desperate fear. Here is someone who knows that absent a Game Change, his days in power are numbered and is looking to reinforce his power structure in North Korea.  Historically, as a rule, the ends of deposed dictators have not been pretty. And remember that from the beginning, Kim has been making it clear both directly and through implication that his primary objective here is to remain in power.

So I’m thinking his threats of pulling out of the negotiations will come to absolutely nothing. Kim knows that if he doesn’t negotiate with Trump, he assumes room temperature.

I note with interest this morning an article in the American Spectator:

Pointing to “peace” organizations that the KGB saturated with dubious anti-American propaganda, Pacepa stated: “The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very likely a direct quote from one of these organizations’ propaganda sheets.”

Andropov would proudly tell Pacepa that the KGB’s Vietnam campaign had been “our most significant success.” Thanks to the manipulation of the American peace movement.

One can debate where and when John Kerry got his information. What is undeniable, however, was its value to America’s enemy: the Viet Cong.

In Unfit for Command, John O’Neill recalls the experience of one his band of brothers, Bill Lupetti, a Navy corpsman who had treated injured Swift Boat soldiers. Lupetti was stationed at An Thoi, where both O’Neill and Kerry had served. For Memorial Day 2004, Lupetti returned to Vietnam, painfully visiting Ho Chi Minh City, wandering through the streets earnestly looking to find out whether certain Vietnamese friends had survived the merciless communist takeover enabled by the American withdrawal.

Lupetti happened upon the War Remnants Museum. Inside, he came to an exhibit dedicated to “heroes” who had helped the communists win the war. A wall plaque at the head of the exhibit stated: “We would like to thank the communist parties and working class countries of the world.” This included the “wholehearted support” of various “progressive human beings.”

Among those progressives represented in pictures, Lupetti glimpsed American campus radicals from the 1960s. (In fact, Jane Fonda’s smiling face was captured in a photo in a separate Women’s Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, standing aside Madame Binh.) And there, Lupetti was staggered by the sight of a photo of John Kerry — the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee that year. There he was, John Kerry, in a special exhibit honoring those whose “heroic” contributions had helped the Viet Cong defeat the United States.

The communist Vietnamese never forgot John Kerry’s testimony in 1971. It had been a great help. And perhaps today, in Iran, Kerry’s words are again being heralded, this time by the world’s worst theocratic terror state.

And the left wonders why we question John Kerry’s motivation here.

I’ll more than grant that a some of this is inadvertent support for the enemies of America, but as best I can tell stupidity is not much of a defense for one’s actions. In fact such a defense is so thin that I tend to discount it out of hand.

There’s another who likes to wave his military service in our faces, that I will be getting to when the time comes. But let’s focus on the overt leftist for the moment.

In that vein I note John Hawkins on Facebook this morning:

Obama’s move to overthrow Gaddafi after he cooperated with us to get rid of his WMD program was one of the worst foreign policy blunders of the last 50 years.

I tell him:

Was it a blunder? I doubt it.
If you wanted to undermine the dominating nature of American foreign policy going forward, how would you act differently?

Once you understand that Obama’s goal was and remains the removal of the United States from its preeminent position in the world, it all starts making sense.

That becomes applicable to Kerry as well, as far as I’m concerned.  One cannot be that directly wrong that consistently without there being intent involved. Thus is the stupidity defense negated.

John Kerry was Obama’s Secretary of State because like any marriage, the two are of like mind. Then, too, there’s the family relationships of John Kerry to consider…

You see, years ago, we used to shoot traitors. These days they tend to join the Democratic Party.

Of course, there is Another Kind of Traitor who instead of joining the Democrat Party simply acts like a Democrat, and calls themselves a Maverick. And as I say I will write to that point when the time comes.

Tim Kennedy, former Green Beret has proven that John McCain, former USN aviator is a liar.   McCain opposes Gina Haspel’s nomination to CIA director because he alleges that water boarding is torture.  Kennedy proves McCain wrong.  Kennedy live streamed forty minutes of himself being water boarded, link here.   Kennedy can smile thru forty minutes of what McCain mistakenly called torture.   Time for McCain to publicly apologize for his libel of Haspel.   Better make it fast John.

davidl on May 10th, 2018

Don Surber seems to think that all New York State democrats are perverts, from the Pundit of Poca, b/k/a Don Surber:

New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand vouched for Eric Schneiderman when he ran for attorney general, saying he was the only candidate who stood up for women’s rights.

Now we learn that her father is connected to NXIVM, a cult of sex fetishists who brand women with the founder’s initials.

From Daily Mail(UK):

The father of New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand reportedly has ties to an alleged slave sex cult.

GOP senatorial candidate Chele Farley said on Monday that Gillibrand’s father, Doug Rutnik, was once a lobbyist for NXIVM and its founder, Keith Raniere.

Raniere was arrested by the FBI on Monday and charged with sex trafficking and forced labor conspiracy.

‘For Kirsten Gillibrand, the self-proclaimed #MeToo Senator, to claim ignorance about a notorious sex-slave cult, in her own backyard, is simply hard to believe,’ Farley said.

Senator Gillebrand(D – NY) not only endorsed Schneiderman for attorney general. She vouched for his character. So now it appears that Gillebrand was either ignorant or accepting of Schneiderman character defects. Now if further appears that Gillebrand was likewise ignorant or approving of her own father’s perversion. Did Gillebrand get branded?   Is  Senator Gillebrand trying to give dumb blondes a bad name?

With respect to all New York democrats being perverts, Mr. Surber may well be right. What say you?     Bonus, does Schneiderman out perv his predecessor Eliot Spitzer?

Eric Florack on May 10th, 2018

CNN is now shocked and amazed and quickly trying to bury their own polling data which suggests that the Democrat electoral Edge is just about gone as we approach the midterms.

Of course the reason for that loss is simple enough. Let’s examine their platforms….

Now, if we can keep the establishment GOP from screwing things up, and essentially joining the Democrats in this, we have a chance to save the country.

Eric Florack on May 9th, 2018

So, Obama famously said that 3% growth was impossible. So can somebody explain to me now, how it is that Obama is responsible for well above 3% under Donald Trump?

I mean, isn’t that what they’re telling us now , that Obama is responsible for the current economy?

Eric Florack on May 9th, 2018

For quite a while now we’ve been hearing from the Democrats about how Trump wants to start a war with North Korea.

(Oops… that didn’t work so well…)

… How withdrawing from the horribly bad Iran deal was going to start a war there

But let’s examine who really wants to start a war in the Middle East… And a nuclear war at that. The Democrats.