Republicans have an openly hostile relationship with President Trump. We all know this but it’s really difficult for a sitting President to be at war with his own Party. Trump has a strategy to fix this, but it involves pain. I don’t like that Trump keeps backing Establishment candidates in the various special elections that have occurred since he was sworn in; however, the electorate doesn’t mistake Trump as part of the Establishment. If Democrats take back either the House or Senate, it will be a different dynamic. Trump will be the beneficiary. Here’s how.
• It’s OK that Trump is openly at war with the Democrats because they are the other Party.
• Trump will get more legislation passed if he must deal with the Democrats. Trump will gladly take 65 or 70 percent of something he wants than 100 percent of nothing—which is what the current crop of feckless Republicans have given him. But what about the tax cuts? Folks, the tax cuts are temporary, and, in a few years, they will revert to the old rates unless Congress passes more legislation. Remember, Washington wants issues to campaign on; they are not in the business of fixing anything.
• Without incumbents in election races, Trump can back whoever he wants and there is no political downside for him. Trump can handpick a legislative team willing to work with him. Even if the Establishment doesn’t like him, they will be forced to publicly pledge themselves to working with the President.
• Trump is head of the Republican Party and can control where much of the campaign money is spent.
• The Establishment types love power more than anything so they will set aside their differences with the President if they think he can help them keep their jobs.
• Trump—like Reagan—can bring issues before the public and bypass the media and political class.
Truthfully, it may not require the Democrats to prevail in November. The thought that it could happen may be enough. If Republicans stand with Trump they will be OK but if they try to throw him under the bus, then they might be the ones looking to spend more time with their families after November’s ballots are cast. Trump’s name is not on the ballot this year, but he has a better track record than any Republican campaigning in this cycle. If Republicans in Congress run on their own record they will lose, if they run with Trump they will win.
Ok, I simply don’t get this at all. Why is it that the same generation that forced a Constitutional Amendment to change the voting age from 21 to 18, is the same group demanding that a person now be over 21 to buy a gun?
Back when I was a kid in the 1970’s, the Vietnam War was in full swing and the Draft was a way of life for the youth of America. Those wishing to avoid the draft could get a deferment by going to college or Seminary—which is one reason that the clergy in many churches are so damn liberal and don’t believe in God. As a last resort, many sought refuge by fleeing to Canada.
As it went on, Vietnam became a very unpopular war; the number of casualties and shear number of draftees increased all through the 1960’s. A tour in Vietnam was one year so those drafted at age 18, could serve their time and return to civilian life before they were old enough to vote in most states. This became part of the argument against the draft and was summarized in Barry McGuire’s Eve of Destruction:
You’re old enough to kill but not for votin’,
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’,
Known in my youth as “the footprint of the American chicken”.
Flash forward a few decades and now these same people and their voting aged offspring want to go in the opposite direction. Now they want to be able to vote that they are too immature to properly handle a weapon. Do you not see the irony of this?
Back in the day, carrying a weapon and voting age were proclaimed to be synonymous; their linkage went hand-in-hand, but now…
Truth Claim #1
When it comes to guns, 18 is too young to understand the consequences of your actions and thus you should refrain from the behavior.
Truth Claim #2
Isn’t this the mirror image of the logical fallacy that abortion supporters use?
When it comes to sex, Liberals proclaim that you should engage in the behavior all you want regardless of age but if there happens to be any consequences, we can remedy that…
A woman uses bad judgement and gets pregnant but somehow her choosing to abort the baby is praised as the most mature and loving decision that she can make. Liberals claim this is her rite to make with no input from family, clergy, or others. And please don’t give me the line about this being a decision between a woman and her doctor. That is a bald-faced lie. Most woman have never met their abortionist before and unless they need another abortion will never see the guy again. This is doubly true because a large segment of abortionists are not properly licensed to practice real medicine. Being “baby butchers” is the only gig many can get any more.
Liberals want a national standard that you can’t purchase a gun until you are 21 unless you join the Army and then its ok to kill strangers in faraway places when you are only 18. Why is this solution better than in 1969? Didn’t “the people” solve this in 1971?
Sorry but there is no age limit in the Constitution related to firearms. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it’s about using deadly force for self-defense. Hunting is just something to do with the weapon when you don’t need it for other things.
Our laws send mixed messages. How can a twelve-year-old in California legally shoot a deer and not be able to buy a gun? If purchasing and possession are different under the law, then what good is having an age limit? Some people can handle a weapon responsibly and others can’t. Our society relies of our use of self-government to make that determination. Training and experience are primary factors in the use of firearms, age is secondary. I killed my first deer at age 10 and my uncle killed his first Japanese soldier in WWII when he was 15 years old.
So, if you’re not mature enough to buy a gun until you’re 21—which is the same rule many states have for alcohol purchases—why should you be allowed to vote at 18? Voting wrongly—like for Democrats—can harm more people for a longer period of time than any Columbine wannabe. Democrats believe in genocide for the poor—abortion* , enslavement of generations not yet born due to irresponsible fiscal policies, euthanasia for the sick and elderly, and one set of rules for the rich & ruling class and another for the rest of us.
* Worldwide, Democrats and their fellow travelers kill 50 million children every year via abortion and yet somehow, they are regarded as champions of the poor. This is so illogical as to be farcical. Margaret Sanger said that she founded Planned Parenthood to “eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor” and called black people “weeds”. For those that can’t see the inherent problem with these truth claims try this: poor people voting Democrat is like Hindus thinking McDonalds and PETA were the same organization because both claim to serve beef.
Concerning raising the voting age, why stop at 21? Let’s require that you must hold a steady job for four years plus be say 40 years old and have a family and then maybe you’ll vote more responsibly. If you are young enough to confuse government handouts with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny then you are too young to vote.
A national law mandating age 21 to purchase guns is stupid, but its even more stupid to have all public property be “gun free zones” except of course where the lawmakers work and they have armed security, metal detectors, and x-ray machines—things they won’t let the rest of us have.
There is an old saying, “he who frames the issue wins the debate”. But what is supposed to happen is that after the debate, (eventually) the issue is solved or voted upon and then we move on. However, sometimes that doesn’t happen. Did you ever wonder why?
Before I proceed on this topic, please understand that I am the messenger. I wish to have readers look at my examples not in terms of agreeing with one side over another but as a political analysis.
I wish to begin with two topics that seem to have no solutions: abortion and immigration.
Abortion
Abortion opponents say that they wish to have government support life and will stop at nothing short of the human life amendment.
A Human Life Amendment can be both a unifying strategy for individuals and organizations and a powerful political tool to discern the true pro-life convictions of our elected officials. The ultimate goal of the pro-life movement
Abortion supporters want unlimited abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy—this is the status quo under Roe v Wade. Plus, they want you to pay for them with taxpayer dollars. Many see abortion—or the absence of child bearing—as the only way to have real equality with men.
As you can see, there is no room for common ground, compromise, or any other of the usual political maneuvering using such a binary equation.
Immigration
Some folks want to allow everyone that can get inside the borders of the United States to come and then once here, they wish to unilaterally confer upon them all rights and privileges of citizenship without them even asking for it. No assimilation is required. This includes voting, employment and education. Think California once Gavin Newsom is sworn in as governor.
Other folks say they want to deport everyone here illegally. For them, Trump’s wall is just a symbol of the protectionism necessary to insure United States sovereignty. They wish to keep illegals from accessing any of the programs or opportunities available to our citizens. Only those who followed the established path to Green Cards and citizenship are welcomed.
As you can see, there is no room for common ground, compromise, or any other of the usual political maneuvering using such a binary equation.
Yes, there is a segment of squishy people in the middle of both these issues but the people driving the issue tend to be on one side or the other.
My question is why can’t a political solution be found for either issue? My answer is simple. Neither side wants it solved. They would rather have the issue to get votes in the next election than fix anything.
Remember Obamacare and the Republicans? Republicans wanted the issue for campaigning but really had no plan to “repeal and replace” even though they campaigned on that promise for eight years. When they got the chance with majorities in the House and Senate plus a supportive and friendly President, they could pass no legislation because there was no plan.
In the same way, abortion is not about killing or not killing babies, its about votes. Democrats view being pro-abortion as a winning issue for them and most Republicans view being pro-life as being to their benefit. Again, this is just posturing.
I have been told by Liberal Republicans that they wish the pro-lifers would go away because social conservatives have ruined the Party. My response is “simple, get the taxpayer money out of the issue. If you do, abortion will no longer be a political issue.” Think about it, both sides have built their respective fortresses on the issue of “to fund or not to fund”. Yes, there are moral issues involved but without taxpayer money, it is a mute topic at election time for the vast majority of folks.
Immigration is a more complex issue but given a choice of fixing a defective and broken system or having the issue at election time, politicians of all stripes would rather have the issue than fix it.
Conclusion This ladies and gentlemen is the real gridlock in Washington. Both teams are happier playing “prevent defense” than winning. To strike a decisive blow for your side is to risk galvanizing the opposition. Think of it as trying to steal the other guy’s honey without being stung by their bees in the process. Get as much as you can and still make a clean getaway. This is what passes for modern statecraft.
Or to use a different analogy, we have entrusted our economic harem to the eunuchs in Washington hoping that they won’t screw us too badly.
Someone once said “it ain’t bragging if you can do it” or words to that effect. President Trump got roasted by the media yesterday when he said that he would run into a school to stop a shooting even if he wasn’t armed. The Left had a cow but guess what? He’s actually done something very similar before…
Trump’s lightly-educated critics ignore history, including a 1991 incident in which The Donald rush to stop a mugging in New York and chased the armed assailant away, despite lacking any weapon himself. As James Rosen reported at the time in the New York Daily News, “When he saw ‘a big guy with a big bat’ bashing another fellow, Donald Trump did what any self-respecting billionaire would do: He ordered his driver to pull over.” Trump confronted the armed assailant, who recognized him and claimed not to have done anything wrong. Trump reportedly asked the mugger, “How could you not do anything wrong when you’re whacking a guy with a bat?” The mugger then ran away. FLASHBACK: Donald Trump Rushed To Stop An Assailant In 1991 Even Though He Didn’t Have A Weapon
Trump the Negotiator
By the way, what even happened to the idea that a hero runs into a building when everyone else is running out?
I’m just wondering what things are like in your corner of the world? Here in the shadow of California’s capitol, I keep hearing how great the economy is but I think its wishful thinking. Prices of food and energy keep going up due exclusively to government policies. In my town, Elk Grove, the city council is spending money faster than a drunken Congressman with a new girlfriend.
The only fault here that any politician will admit is a housing shortage. What shortage? The only thing in short supply is affordable housing. Ten years ago, at the peak of the housing boom, it cost about $100,000 per lot just to get a building permit. Wages, taxes, and utilities cost much more than ten years ago, but real estate prices in my area have never recovered their peak values of the last decade.
Nevertheless, single people that I know at work are paying apartment rental that is double what my monthly mortgage is costing me. What is worse is that there is plenty of housing available. I have three empty homes in my neighborhood that are within a two minute walk of my driveway. Two of the three are not even listed as being for sale. Yep, they are just sitting there. One has been empty for about two years and another for six months, and the third for about four months. Another family on my street is closing up shop and heading out of state later this year. If this is a common occurrence then things are worse than I imagine.
I fear that by the time Gavin Newsom and the gang in the “bill mill” are done with this state, we will be comparing ourselves to Haiti or Puerto Rico. That’s when you know that California has achieved its goal of being the worker’s paradise that we have been promised. Oh, and then government will have created affordable housing to boot. Until then, buckle-up.
SACRAMENTO — For those who think California politics is on the far-left fringe of the national spectrum, stand by. The next election season, already well underway here, will showcase a younger generation of Democrats that is more liberal and personally invested in standing up to President Trump’s Washington than those leaving office.
Here in the self-labeled “state of resistance,” the political debate is being pushed further left without any sign of a Republican renaissance to serve as a check on spending and social policy ambitions. Even some Republicans are concerned about the departure of Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who proved to be fiscally cautious after inheriting a state seven years ago in deep recession.
Normally I don’t recommend the Post as reading material, but this is worth a look.
Welcome back loyal readers, sorry for the long hiatus but I was convinced of a CRA led Coup-de-tat to take over the Presidency of this country so I had to batten down the hatches and look for shelter. Well, IM BACK! And suffice to say my rage is now firmly directed at the DA of San Francisco County, one George Gascon, who will now be referred to as George Gascan. Gascan the DA that “prosecuted” and I’m using that term very loosely; Jose Zarate, the illegal 5 times deported, 7 time convicted felon, and still on probation in Texas at the time of murdering Kate Steinle. Gascan lost the case on all serious charges, thankfully CRA hated, President Donald J Trump is having his justice department charge him federally. It is of the opinion of William and X that Gascan never wanted to try, charge or convict Zarate, thus a half assed trial occurred, with Zarate being only found guilty of 1 lesser charge. This blog post is not to focus on Zarate. It will focus on the policies recently enacted by the chief law enforcement officer in San Francisco County, George Gascan.
Gascan, for those of you in the CRA, or related by blood or incest to Aaron Park, has extreme amounts of voter given power. For example, run a red light or get caught speeding, a police officer gives you a ticket, and you will pay a hefty fine in court. Gascan on the other hand, has latitude to overrule police officers, and sheriff deputies. Kill someone in cold blood, instead of murder 1, you could get manslaughter charges, charges can be enhanced or dropped all together. I am of the belief power of law enforcement should be given to 1 elected partisan, and Gascan’s next move will prove my point.
On Tuesday, while the unwashed masses were watching President Trump give his brilliant State of the Union speech, Gascan issued an edict saying all prior marijuana convictions will be set aside if they are misdemeanors, and reclassified if they are felonies. Setting a conviction aside means removing it and sealing it from their record. Reclassifying a felony as a misdemeanor is far more troubling in my eyes. With my background in Human Resources I can tell you, if you had a misdemeanor in your background, you check letters of recommendation and you could hire the person in some circumstances, a felony was the electric third rail and was never even considered. This changes everything, because there is no way to tell if the misdemeanor was a reclassified felony, and for what the felony was for. Example, felony narcotic trafficking, could be reclassified as misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. See how Gascan is making a serious crime look very petty? Word to the wise, a felony conviction almost always carries significant jail time, now these crimes are being labeled as not serious.
I would not have as big of a concern if Gascan implemented this retroactively to when the initiative qualified for the ballot (recently passed in November) but he is going back all the way to 1975! Circa the time the war on drugs was being fought. This is why I have a strong dislike for executive type orders, it takes one do-gooder like Gascan to wipe records clean and create a new liberal voter universe. Orders like these should be voted on by the people, not enacted by an elected partisan hack looking for higher office down the road. Think about it, if you’re Gascan, you are instantly a hero to the anti-police, pro-drug, pro-crime liberal base of the party. Looks great on your resume if you desire to be Governor, or Mayor, or Supervisor in the near future.
However the future of your state/city will look bleak. The downside about San Francisco is what was a flourishing nice tourist mecca, has turned into a crime and filth ridden skid mark on the underpants of society. Seriously, would you go visit San Francisco? Does it even matter if during the day or at night? San Francisco is great if you are into crime, drugs, prostitution, the smell of human waste and urine, and apparently now anarchy is allowed. Remember it’s a sanctuary city now.
Now thanks to George Gascan in addition to prop 47 letting criminals out of jail early and de-criminalizing certain crimes, now we are retroactively removing convictions from people’s criminal records.
Til next time,
X
PS if you’re a member of the CRA you shouldn’t like Gascan, but I heard he might be against smart meters so I guess there is that.
Editor’s Note: When applying for employment with the State of California (STD Form 678), all questions related to criminal convictions have been purged from the job application form.
Question 10 used to read: “Have you ever been convicted by any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? ”
Question 11 used to read: “Have you ever been convicted by any court of a felony? ”
Also in the last few weeks, any information on salary history has been forbidden on the form. It has been replaced with the words, “No Longer Required”.
Donald Trump is working wonders in Washington DC. People in Congress are “self-deporting” as Trump has forced them into the spotlight and begun to expect results from them. Trump gets Liberals (and some Conservatives) all upset about what he says on Twitter—as if it mattered—when it’s really a distraction to let him accomplish things behind the scenes. Trump is rightly being compared to Ronald Reagan. Please understand that I love Reagan but Trump may far exceed his accomplishments.
Following the State of the Union speech, I heard some “watercooler talk” at work about what Liberal people thought. They don’t understand that Trump is a negotiator. Much of what he asked for was his opening position to negotiate. Democrats give some ground. Trump gives ground, and they meet in the middle with each side getting some of what they want. This makes senses to a guy who once authored a book called “The Art of the Deal” however, in Washington, the definition of bipartisan is when Republicans capitulate and agree with the Democrats without getting anything in return.
The best thing about Trump as President is that nobody under age 50 has ever seem what a vibrant economy is capable of doing when government gets out of the way. This epiphany for the American people is the weapon the will transform the American electorate. When Trump succeeds, America succeeds.
When I was young, the difference between a politician and a statesman was that a politician was only interested in the next election, a statesman in the next generation. Today, the difference could be defined as a statesman will pay for something with existing dollars while a politician will pay for it with your grandchildren’s economic freedom.
If you want further reading on Trump, start with these articles:
Rep. Trey Gowdy announced Wednesday that he will retire at the end of the year, becoming the ninth Republican chairman of a congressional committee to decide to leave Congress at the end of this session.
Media mogul Oprah Winfrey has no interest in running for U.S. president in 2020, she said in an interview with InStyle magazine published on Thursday after weeks of speculation and calls to run fueled by a speech she made at the Golden Globes. Oprah says ‘not interested’ in 2020 U.S. presidential
Oprah Winfrey’s name is being floated as the Democrat candidate that can rid the political world of Donald Trump and reestablish the Democrat brand in Washington. Under her leadership, we will get a person much like Hillary but with a reputation of making us feel better about being a second rate people.
In the wake of her Golden Globes speech Sunday night, Oprah’s people were talking up the prospect. Her longtime partner Stedman Graham told the L.A. Times, “It’s up to the people. She would absolutely do it.”
My wife came home from work yesterday and I asked her about this and the Liberals at work were joyful that Oprah would be their candidate. They were ready to go vote now. The lunch room was ecstatic at the prospect of Winfrey in 2020 and retaking the White House.
However, would Oprah subject herself to the scrutiny of a campaign?
Truthfully, I think it will never happen no matter how good a friend and supporter of the Obama or Clinton clans that she has been. She has much baggage that will haunt her. Below are a few reasons that she will never run.
Here is one photo that actor James Woods shared on Twitter.
Oprah loves Harvey Weinstein
Another factor that would kill her candidacy is her residence. Lest you forget, Oprah lives in Chicago. Yes, the murder capital of America. This place is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by Liberals. The guys running this place into the ground are her friends and supporters. Most of the violence is blacks murdering other blacks. Where is Oprah while this carnage is occurring? What has she done to help in her own backyard? She has armed security, drivers, and doormen to care for her. She can never claim to be “one of us” even if she came from an impoverished background.
Oprah is just the latest generic candidate. Remember Colin Powell? Everybody liked him until he started taking positions on issues and then his political stock fell like a rock. He lost my interest when he came out for abortion on demand and defended Roe v Wade. Powell was just another RINO in a shiny uniform. Likewise, Winfrey is just another Liberal in a different package. If she is really as smart as people claim that she is, she won’t run but will bask in the praise of the moment.
Liberals can’t beat Trump this easily. Besides we just got rid of one President named “O” from Chicago, I don’t think we need another.
