Who Let the Kids into the Chambers?

There are many times I find myself wondering if Democrats really behave like children as much as I think. I want badly to believe the answer is no. This simply can't be. They just disagree, right? Yet, their antics seem to confirm time and time again for me that they are actually just like children.

Remember Maxine Waters during Trump's first term out there chanting, "Impeach 45," like a schoolgirl denied her playtime, wanting to bring down the "evil teacher" who took it away? And what about Schumer going out recently trying to rally the crowd chanting, "We will win! We will win!" clearly oblivious to the reality that his team already had their shot, and they lost the game in a literal shellacking.

The Democrats just aren't getting the memo. Their playbook failed, yet they're still clinging to it like it's a guaranteed winning strategy.

Then we have the president's speech to the joint sessions of Congress. It was like watching a bunch of pouty, spoiled brats being defiant simply because they aren't getting their way. They wouldn't clap or stand for anything, not even for the families of slain victims or a little boy with a brain tumor being honorarily accepted into the Secret Service to fulfill a lifelong dream.

And what was with their corny circular signs on sticks that read, "Save Medicaid," as if Trump has done anything to take down Medicaid, or the words "False," and "Musk steals," or whatever other corny message they held up while moaning and groaning and shifting uncomfortably in their seats—seemingly being pelted by taser darts as Trump stood at the podium talking about American greatness, power to the people, and the Golden Age of America. He spoke directly to the American people on the issues they elected him to the White House to address, reaffirming law and order, common sense principles, and values, and it was literally driving them bonkers.

"No, no, no! This goes against everything we stand for. America is a horrible, hateful country! How dare you speak of it in such grand terms!"

The funny thing is this was a coordinated effort. It took time to plan. They must have held a special meeting to discuss their intended actions, and someone, of course, had to coordinate having those signs printed.

Why not spend their time figuring out why they lost the election and understanding why Trump is so popular? Or better yet why not start actually listening to the American people?

I mean, is it a stretch anymore to suggest that Democrats have no other purpose, and no other interest except to oppose Trump? That's their entire platform literally reduced down to one sentence. Do they really believe this behavior will win over the hearts and minds of the people they need to elect them? Those signs and their attitudes were essentially the same as waving a middle finger in the air at the American people at large.

It's absolutely gating to them to see unity. It's grating to them to hear the country being talked about in terms of strength and common sense. "My God," they seem to be saying in shocked incredulity. "Is he actually talking about one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?"

Because that's just not the world the Democrats want. They want everything to hurt. They want everyone to hate each other. They want suffering and pain to be felt economically and socially, and they want everyone to be a victim of something. Moreover, they want everyone to hate the core values of our founding fathers, because only through that kind of hatred can you fundamentally change what America is.

They've lost this fight, and their opportunity is slipping away, and they simply can't handle it. Just like children, they are having a temper tantrum and putting it on full display for everyone to see. I think most people are seeing the same thing I am seeing: their childlike behavior and how ridiculous it looks to anyone really paying attention.

It's not a winning strategy for them, and frankly, it's not a winning strategy for America either. Luckily, they are in the minority, and so long as they continue to act this way, ignoring the will of The People, and defying common sense, in the minority they shall remain, and probably in a growing way.

The jig is up, kids.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Musk's Discoveries vs. Media Distraction: It's the Language Game at Play Here

Elon Musk is facing criticism in the media for repeatedly using the R-word, which, according to federal guidelines, he should use the term "intellectual disability," as mandated by Rosa's Law, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010.

It's just more political correctness trying to take over the conversation. On the surface, is calling someone "intellectually disabled" really any different from using the R-word? If I tell someone they lack intellect, that's not really a compliment, is it?

Musk is using the term to describe his findings as DOGE delves deeper into the country's books, uncovering hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending by our government at taxpayer's expense. Isn't it abundantly clear, when you really take a hard look at the growing list of what's being spent on, that the people responsible for the expenditures weren't making the wisest decisions when they deemed any of this as a responsible use of America's money?

What else could it be? People with intellectual disabilities or R-worded people? Essentially, it's describing the same thing, especially when you consider the broader definitions of both terms.

Of course, steering the language, which is what political correctness is really all about, serves to shape, redirect and lead the conversation towards a different narrative. Would the discussion change if Musk used terms like ignorant, stupid, dumb, idiotic or insane?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

But regardless of what word is used, all of them accurately describe the spending Musk is referring to, including the R-word.

Criticizing Musk's use of the R-word is nothing more than a tactic to divert attention away from his findings and diminish their significance. The desired goal here, and Democrats and the media happen to be experts at this, is to shift the focus from the wasteful spending to Musk's character, thereby undermining his credibility and making his efforts appear more absurd than the wasteful spending DOGE is exposing.

It's not unlike a magician skillfully concealing his sleight of hand, showing you only what he wants you to see.

We've seen this exact same pattern in how the media and the Democrats portray President Trump. By focusing on his words and actions, we avoid discussing the actual impact of his decisions. It's a trick to effectively shift the conversation to a preferred narrative, rather than addressing the real issues underneath.

Ultimately, Musk has a manner of speaking much in the same way that President Trump has. They can be a bit over the top, and sometimes even insensitive. I will grant that. We don't have to like it, and it sometimes might even catch us off guard. But it shouldn't detract from the actual work being done, or in Musk's case, the discoveries being made. 

It's not so much about the words used; it's about the substance behind them that truly matters. And that's what all the hoopla is really about when Musk is criticized for the language he chooses to use—the substance of what's being uncovered.

It's like an old saying. If you can't win the argument, attack the person. They are attacking Elon Musk because they can't win the argument.

What Musk is uncovering is alarming, and that is of course what the Democrats and the media want us to turn our attentions away from. If they can effectively win the language game, maybe we won't see what's really going on behind the curtains.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

From Frivolous Spending to Fiscal Sanity: The DOGE Agenda

Why would anyone want to argue over DOGE? Is it purely because they hold a disdain for Donald Trump or believe Elon Musk is a whack job? The reality is that the government has been engaging in reckless spending for generations, leading our nation into massive debt. The truth is no one really knows where all the money has gone or where it's being spent now. DOGE simply aims to tells us and put a stop to it in the interests of the American people. It's a matter of common sense at the most basic level.

So far, the revelations being brought to light should outrage anyone who (by force, it should be noted) dutifully pays their taxes to the federal government each year. One would have the reasonable expectation that the taxes we pay would at least contribute to provide essential services and improve the lives of American citizens.

But consider this. How does spending $20 million on airing Sesame Street programming in Iraq benefit Americans? Why are we allocating $6 million to Egypt to boost their tourism? And what is the purpose of sending $2 million to Guatemala for transgender surgeries?

When you witness the careless and appalling waste of our money, which offers no real value to the American people who are forced to foot the bill, it becomes even more infuriating that anyone would dare to call for additional funds from taxpayers under the pretense of "improving the lives of Americans."

Poverty remains a significant issue. We are continually told that we can't afford to strengthen our police forces. Cities in California are engulfed in flames with little support or relief for those affected. Our infrastructure is crumbling and desperately needs attention. The Social Security system and Medicare are under immense strain, and the list goes on.

It's high time we have someone in the White House who is willing to ask the tough questions and get to the bottom of where all the money is going. Americans should be celebrating this effort, not opposing it. When you take a deep dive into how the money is being spent, it becomes all too clear that we are being taken advantage of as a society, and it's all for the benefit of others, not for us. The funds are going towards special interests that don't align with the needs of the American people.

Even what we consider to be essential programs like FEMA are misusing our money. For instance, what does sending $59 million to New York City to pay for hotels for illegal immigrants have to do with disaster relief, especially when people affected by Hurricane Helene and the fires in California are still struggling? On top of that FEMA spent $110 million to assist illegal immigrants with food and shelter programs, and another $77 million was given to communities willing to accept illegal immigrants to help cover the associated costs. 

That alone is a significant amount of money being spent to accommodate people who shouldn't even be here in the first place.

Trump is aiming to uncover at least $2 trillion in wasteful spending, and from what we've observed so far—which I believe is merely the tip of the iceberg—we're likely to find even more. I mean, from what we've learned so far, this thing runs deep. Musk even recently suggested that Social Security benefits are being paid to people who are 150 years old, which can only mean one thing: these people are clearly dead, and their benefits continue to be collected by their descendants, or someone else is fraudulently receiving the payments.

The president is just doing what any sensible person would do if they looked at their finances and saw ballooning debt and obligations that far exceed their income. Just as a household or business would collapse without intervention, America faces the same risk. This situation is unsustainable and has been left unchecked for far too long. 

As has been emphasized, regardless of what the left wants to argue, DOGE is not targeting or eliminating essential services. Instead, it intends to identify and eliminate frivolous and absurd expenditures that serve no real purpose but cost taxpayers substantially. These funds could be better allocated within our government or returned to the American people to benefit the real economy.

It's just common sense.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Squid Burgers and Politics: Hey Schumer, Are You Getting This?

The Democrats are an intriguing group, when you think about it. Are they even aware of their situation yet? Not only did they lose the presidential race, but they also lost everything, and decisively. The critical swing states all went to Donald J. Trump, who also managed to secure votes from the black, Hispanic, young, and even union demographics.

Yet, here we have Chuck Schumer rallying his supporters with chants of, "We will win! We will win!" For any rational observer, the question becomes, "How exactly do they plan to achieve this?"

Not that I have any interest in seeing Democrats succeed, of course. Considering their extremely radical ideas, I'm grateful they did lose.

What astounds me is their sheer lack of comprehension. They really believe they are still championing causes people care about, when, in reality, the American public has completely rejected their entire platform.

We don't want men competing in women's sports. We don't want tampons in boy's rooms. We don't want transgender people serving openly in our military. We don't want DEI initiatives. We don't want open borders. We don't want widespread smash-and-grab store robberies, and the list goes on.

We rejected their ideas and policies at the polls. Rather than listening to the American people—something Democrats seem incapable of—they are doubling down on even more radical policies and ideas. 

It simply defies logic.

Let's be honest. A great product will naturally attract customers. No amount of savvy sales techniques can turn a subpar product into a success. So, you have two choices—either acknowledge the shortcomings of your product and improve it or reach out to your customers to understand what they truly want that your product currently lacks. Otherwise, you're just beating a dead horse. 

Speaking of beating dead horses, and not to necessarily beat my own, but I've often been saying over and over again, that if you don't understand why you lost, you can't know why you weren't winning.

The voters made it crystal clear—they don't want what the Democrats are selling. I understand the need to rally their most loyal supporters. However, it is astonishing to me that they don't get it, that their core base wasn't enough to win any part of the election. They should be addressing the masses who didn't vote for them. Instead of huddling in back rooms discussing better sales tactics for their unwanted products, they should focus on fulfilling the duties they were elected to perform.

To speak and act on the behalf of the American people!

How can they not grasp that their role isn't to reshape America into their personal vision, but to represent the desires of the majority? What's the point of pushing a platform that nobody wants?

If you're selling squid burgers and nobody's buying them—because, let's face it, squid burgers just aren't good—who in their right mind would continue trying to sell them? At some point, someone has to realize they'd be better off offering something more traditional.

That's not to say you can't try new things and present fresh ideas. Of course, you should do that. People might be interested. But they will also let you know when they think your ideas aren't good, and at that point, you move on. 

No matter how hard you try, or how much you want it, if people don't want your squid burgers, you will continue to fail while others succeed. Chanting outside your restaurant, "Squid, squid, squid!" in the face of defeat won't change anyone's mind.

The fact is, even if it's hard for the Democrats to accept, the American people said no. When that happens, it's time to change and adapt. Especially with radical ideas, it's wise to return to more traditional, commonsense approaches.

Like the squid burger concept, sometimes things just go too far, and when they do, you need to pull back on the reins a bit.

The more the Democrats pound their fists and push their failed agendas, the clearer it becomes to anyone paying attention that they are out of tune with the American people. It's like a guitar. It can sound good on its own when it is in tune with itself. But the moment you join a band, if your guitar isn't in sync with the rest of the group, it won't sound good and it will stand out as bad in the mix. 

If Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats want to win, they cannot hope to achieve it by acting against the views and interests of the very people they need to win over. Right now, all that Schumer and his buddies are doing is making it abundantly clear why they lost.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Hey Catturd, the Running Mate Does Actually Matter This Time

Catturd, a social media influencer who has made quite a name for himself over the past 5 years sharing his conservative viewpoints on X, formerly known as Twitter, was recently in studio with Tucker Carlson on his Tucker Carlson Encounter show and was of the opinion, when asked who he thought Trump should pick as his running mate, that the Vice President doesn't really matter all that much.

Most of the time I find myself in agreement with much of what he says. And I mostly agree with him regarding his statement with Tucker Carlson as well. Except for one thing.

Trump can't run again in 2028.

He mentioned he likes Vivek Ramaswamy. Certainly, he's been saying many things people want to hear, and challenging the status quo in similar ways to Trump. But can he win in 2028? Would he be the one to carry on Trump's agenda and capture the hearts and minds of staunch Trump supporters?

Because that's, I think, what we (or rather, Trump) needs to strongly consider regarding who he ultimately picks as his running mate. Who can carry the torch at the end of Trump's final term? And win!

If it were Trump's first turn at bat, maybe it wouldn't matter as much. Much can be said about Pence as his first pick being questionable whether or not he wouldn't have been just another George H.W. Bush after Reagan. 

Ultimately, Pence, I think it is safe to say, didn't matter. Besides, he was a polar opposite of Trump anyway. Had the election gone the way we wanted it to in 2020, Trump would have had his second term, much of the agenda would have been in place and working, and things in place would have been harder to undo.

What the country needs more than anything, and very clearly is a major turnaround, and it needs to be one that can stick. And that means we need to have not only a strong four years ahead with a Trump administration, we need someone who sits in the office of the Vice President who can carry that turnaround into another eight years after Trump's final day in the White House.

Unfortunately, I think this rules out many current known members of the Republican party, especially even the ones who ran against him in the primaries.

In order for Trump's legacy to succeed him, whoever is set to take his reigns in 2028 needs to be someone who aligns well with Trump's plan and vision, and who has the tenacity and strength in which that all gets carried out, who can gain the appreciation and respect and support of Trump supporters in a way that those voters can have confidence that the successor will be the right man (or woman) for the job.

Maybe Ron DeSantis is that guy? Who knows? I have to say I was not very impressed with his campaign even if I continue to think he's been a fantastic governor.

Catturd has it mostly right. At least in theory. Vice Presidents don't usually matter. But this is a different set of circumstances in that this is not a consecutive term for Trump if he is elected back into office. This is the only four years we are going to get. And Trump needs to pick someone we can have confidence in to carry us through a strong 12-year run of leadership that hopefully permanently reverses the attempt of progressive politics to change America into an unrecognizable place that we may never be able to escape from.

The running mate matters more than ever right now.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Stop Calling Trump's Claims Lies When We Haven't Investigated the Truth

In reading some of the reporting about Donald Trump's recent CNN Town Hall meeting, which ran 70 minutes long on May 10th, I tend to have trouble with the constant assertion that, when Trump speaks about election fraud or stolen elections, that he is lying.

Maybe he is. Maybe the whole stolen election thing is a complete and utter falsehood. But at the same time, I have long said that there are many questions which have been asked, and you'd think that it would be at least a rather big concern for anyone who has an ounce of patriotism in their blood.

Why haven't we ACTUALLY looked into it?

Instead, all we have done, really, is to turn a blind eye, claim it as fact that it never happened, and leave it at that. Well, that and point fingers at so-called whacky mindless MAGA nuts. Okay, and silence anyone asking the question or suggesting it could have happened.

If there is nothing to hide, and the left wants to assert without question it is in fact a lie, why not use it as an opportunity to have an open and honest investigation to find out if it did in fact happen? Why would it not be paramount to at least try and set the record straight once and for all rather than simply wave a hand and deny it ever happened?

And maybe, just maybe, that's why Trump is still such a threat to the left and continues to be made into a target. Maybe that's why they continually want to shut him down and silence him, and maybe even get an indictment good and solid enough to bar him from being able to run for president ever again.

Because maybe he knows something, and maybe if he once-more has control of the Justice Department, he may have the means to actually prove that the election was indeed stolen.

Why else would they be going after Trump so hard? They (the left) supposedly won the hearts and minds of the American people. They got their way. Trump's out and they're in. So why so much effort and focus on the former president?

I mean, I will grant you, it's more conspiracy theory stuff. But I think it is still something to consider. The effort on the part of the left is just too heavy to deny there might be at least some reason behind it. If Trump posed no threat, they'd just leave him alone to enjoy a happy retirement in Mar-A-Lago and be done with him.

And about that lying thing, something Trump was accused of all throughout his presidency and continues to be accused of now. 

How many times have Trump's words turned out to actually be right?

Too many times to count. Yes. Trump embellishes. He always has. But are those really lies? Maybe we could call them simple tall tales. Okay, fine. He's guilty. But speaking of lies, how many times has Biden been caught in outright, verifiable lies? 

Again, too many times to count.

Why hold a "liar" to account who happens to actually be telling the truth a lot of the time and turn a blind eye to an actual, verifiable and certifiable liar?

The bottom line is that I am simply frustrated sometimes by the manner in which "news" is reported and with the assignment of certain words to suggest a true statement when in fact the statement is actually an opinion. "Trump is lying about election fraud and stolen elections" is not a fact. It is an opinion because there has never been an actual investigation to prove that an election was not stolen. 

So, we can sit here and argue all day about whether or not someone is lying. But until there is verifiable and incontrovertible proof one way or the other, all of it is conjecture. It's conjecture that it was stolen and conjecture that it wasn't.

The word "lie" does not apply here and nor should it.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites to find all the things I write about and places I write.

No New Tariffs: Told You So

I AM NO MORE A FAN OF TARIFFS THAN ANY OTHER RIGHT MINDED CONSERVATIVE IS. Tariffs are bad, we all know it. So, you would think when I first heard President Trump utter the word "tariffs," I would have immediately and rightly cringed.

No sir. Don't do it. PLEASE don't do it. You will destroy every single economic gain you have achieved.

But I paid close attention to what Trump was actually saying. You had to dig deeper into the context of Trump's language to fully understand what the aim was here.

President Trump did not want to impose tariffs. What he wanted to do was bring some of these other countries, whom with we have serious trade deficits with, to the table to negotiate. 

You have to start somewhere. And for him, the place to start was to simply say, "Look, we have the economic might and power and we also have a very strong and robust consumer base that you (these other countries) have a strong desire to be able to gain access to. You are going to want to work with us to level the playing field a little bit."

More dollars in the American economy by providing more jobs to Americans also ultimately offers an opportunity to create more buyers for foreign made goods.

I had a strong, sinking suspicion that we would not see the tariffs Trump was supposedly wanting to impose. That sinking suspicion is even more now after the USMCA announcement which will replace NAFTA provided the three congress's can ratify it, and the announcement that Trump will delay raising Chinese tariffs for 90 days while more negotiations are underway.

The tariffs aren't coming, folks. Not from what I can see. And this will only further bolster the economy and lay more groundwork for increasing American jobs, increasing access to these other countries' consumers, and so the wheels of commerce will turn.

Everybody involved will see a benefit here. Everybody.

Quick Shout: Trump To Attend Bush Funeral

It is well known that former senator John McCain and president Trump had their differences. Despite that, I was quite surprised that when John McCain died, the president was not invited to McCain's funeral.

In my view, this was completely out of the realm of respect for the office of the president, and totally unbecoming of someone who otherwise (depending on your views) was an accomplished man. It was even borderline puerile for me.

So did president Trump and the Bush's have their differences, and still do. But, it seems that the Bush's also have a bit more decorum and dignity than John McCain did, and president Trump will be attending the funeral of former president George H.W. Bush.

I send my condolences to the Bush family, and am thankful that at least some of the legacy of George H.W. Bush will not be tarnished by the childish, winy behavior that was displayed by the McCain's.

Kid Rock SHOULD Have Been Kicked Out of the Parade

So look, I fully agree that Kid Rock made an err when he slipped the tongue a bit the other day on Fox & Friends on live TV and called Joy Behar a bitch. But should he have been pulled as Grand Marshall for a parade in Nashville?

I say yes. And that may be somewhat surprising since I happen to support Kid Rock, and I also happen to be a conservative republican.

But that's part of the point isn't it?

I complain all the time when people on the left get to say whatever they want and get away with it. I complain all the time about the fact that, on the left, it is acceptable to say whatever they want and get away with it.

Is Joy Behar a bitch?

I have no idea because I have never met her. I can draw conclusions about her of course based on things she has said in the past and the way she conducts herself on air.

Is she a bitch? Again, I would not know, and personally I would refrain from classifying her as harshly. But what I do know is that she clearly does not have her head on straight, and she's dead wrong about more than just a few things, and she does not seem to have a full grasp of her faculties.

Did I just call Joy Behar and idiot?

Yeah. I think I just did. Either way I made it very clear that I supported Fox News making an apology, and I also supported Fox New's Steve Doocy immediately asking Kid Rock to apologize for what he had said on air. We, the conservatives, have a higher standard, and that's an important thing to recognize.

How can we go to anyone else and yell and scream, "Hold them accountable," if we do not also hold our own accountable? We have to better than the left. We have to have better decorum.

I say it all the time that what the left resorts to when an argument does not go their way is to start calling names. And that's exactly what Kid Rock did. His entire argument when he introduced Joy Behar into it, and called her a name, lost his entire argument.

Nobody heard what Kid Rock said before he called Joy Behar a bitch. All anyone heard was him calling Joy Behar a bitch.

It effectively made anything else Kid Rock said moot. Unheard. Dismissed. Irrelevant. It's the only thing making the news. What he called Joy Behar. Not what he said about the president or what he is doing for the country. Not why he values conservatism. Not why he thinks this country is on the right track and great.

I recently posted, regarding the whole Kid Rock thing, "You will always have to remember that one unique thing about conservatives, is that we don't look the other way when someone on our side says something not quite right, nor do we condone such actions." I stand by this statement. We do hold our own accountable and it is part of what separates us from the liberals. We do have decorum. And we don't want to be the ones who resort to shutting down an argument by tossing out name calling like Kid Rock did.

Because again, no one heard anything else but what he called Joy Behar.

We are conservatives. We have no need to rely on the tactics of the left to make our points known. We want to be the civilized side, and we need to be able to cite our beliefs and our values without tossing in jabs and calling names.

Anybody with half a mind who listens to Joy Behar can already determine her head is not screwed on very tightly. We can simply point to what she says, and then definitively explain with intellect why she is wrong.

So Kid Rock gets removed from the parade. I have to say if the shoe were on the other foot and Joy Behar was going to be the Grand Marshall, and called Kid Rock a bastard, or some such other dumb thing, and she was removed, I'd be applauding the action just as I applauded the actions taken against Kathy Griffin when she published a tasteless photo of her holding up Trump's severed head.

I cannot complain about there being a double standard if I do not also complain that the right should never be given a free pass like so many on the left often times do. So no. Kid Rock said something that was tasteless and rude, and he should suffer at least some consequence for that.

Murphy Brown Cancellation

SHOULD IT BE ANY WONDER that CBS is pulling the plug on the recent Murphy Brown reboot?

Look, the one thing that the liberals just aren't fully grasping is that despite their ill feelings, and their own misguided Trump Derangement Syndrome, President Trump is a far more popular president than anyone on the left will ever be able to come to terms with.

It's just a fact.

And despite what CBS is claiming, that the show was only ever intended to be a 13 episode run, the truth of the matter is that the show was so over the top with Trump bashing that it just turned audiences completely off.

CBS is not unlike any other network. It's aim is to put out shows and other programming that people will want to watch, and that advertisers will want to shell out their dollars to pay for. It's all about money and ratings. And if Murphy Brown would have captured an audience greater than it did the show would not be getting yanked off the air. It would be getting renewed.

I said it a long time ago that one thing Hollywood and all of the so-called holier than thou elites and superiorists are failing to see is that their uber liberalism is more and more going to start hitting their bottom lines.

You've already seen it with the fall of the NFL, and the near abysmal ratings of all of the other liberal media outlets like MSNBC and CNN.

People are just simply tuning out.

They are tired of the unfair attacks, and the completely biased approach to programming. It (liberalism) is simply not resonating with the American people, and Hollywood and the democrats are doing more damage to their brand than they could ever imagine.

Keep in mind, though, that they (the liberals) can't see it. They are so blinded by their hatred and so self-involved in their rhetoric, that they could not see reality if it hit them square in the face.

Will the result of the Murphy Brown reboot be the wake up call for the left that they need to severely tone it down? Will it be any affirmation for the left that their message is not resonating?

I suppose the answer to that question is anyone's guess. My guess? It will be business as usual. In an odd way I tend to think it might not matter to them if their wallets grow thinner in the process of making complete fools out of themselves.

A Blocking We Will Go

MOST RECENTLY I DECIDED TO CHANGE MY POLICY A BIT WHEN IT COMES TO BLOCKING OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS. For years my longstanding policy on social media has been to engage the other side in any debate, feeling that in order to have a well shaped opinion on any issue one must be able to take in multiple viewpoints, and be open minded when it comes to how any issue is perceived, reported on, and what the opinions of others are. Sometimes I actually do change my position if the opposing argument is strong.

I am a conservative of course. But despite what some hard core conservatives may say, there are actually SOME liberals out there who do have the ability to think and formulate a common sense opinion.

I will admit it is rare. But I am not being fair minded if I simply discount every single liberal as a total idiot.Which brings me around to why I have changed my policy on social media blocking.

There is a trend, and it is certainly not a new one, for many on the left (and let's be fair, some on the right do this too, guys) to, instead of return with a valid and cohesive argument, they will simply start lobbing unfounded accusations, character assassinate, and respond by calling people names.

Racist and Russian bot are all the craze.

When the opposing argument begins to resort to that sort of thing I am of the mind that 1) there is no valid argument the other side can make, and 2) there is no argument I can make to change a mind or make a case for. So, why bother really? What's the point?

Sure. On some days it can indeed be fun. But honestly, more and more it just becomes an irritation. A back and forth of wasted energy that just gets more and more ridiculous and crazy the more you go along with it.

And then there's those lists the left has resorted to creating. They don't even bother to respond. They just put you on some unfounded list that places you into a corner that you really have nothing to do with, and accuses you of having a position you don't have at all.

It does not bother me. I should be clear about that. It does not bother me anymore, really, than being called a racist or a bot or any other moniker the left wants to place on me simply because I happen to disagree with their view of the world.

But it does mean there is no longer an argument.

The thing for me is that I know where I stand on any issue, and so whatever I may be accused of is really meaningless and pointless to try to defend. You cannot rationalize with someone who is simply incapable of seeing the other side's view.

I know I am not a racist. And I am certainly not a bot. So what value is there in trying to defend myself from these kinds of accusations? No matter what I say to point to the contrary, it is going to fall on deaf ears anyway.

So again, why bother.

Part of my policy of not blocking opposing viewpoints was that I thought it was borderline childish. In my mind, every time someone on the left blocked me I would envision a 5-year old clamping his palms to his ears shouting, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you." So my aim was not to become that childish figure on the right.

The problem is that when I offer my viewpoint, I try to support it with facts and reason, and a dose of common sense. Of course I am not always right. I would be naive to think that I could never be wrong. Which is also part of the reason I enjoy a reasonable exchange of ideas, because I am adult enough to acknowledge that I may not always have the right answer or viewpoint, and sometimes the left does.

It's the crazy that closes the door for me. And the crazy is simply getting to be quite thick these days. Even more as Trump derangement syndrome is in full force and the left is all but losing their minds as Trump is clearly winning on a number of fronts. And that's not just my conservative bias saying that. It's obvious.

Speaking of bias momentarily, that is also the one thing that still surprises me just a little bit these days, that the right can have a bias, but can also offer praise to the other side when the other side gets it right and will lambaste even our own when we get it wrong.

I can count on my fingers how many times I have seen a liberal hold one of their own accountable for anything.

From Shitholes to DACA

THE DEMOCRATS WILL OBVIOUSLY STOP AT NOTHING TO TRY TO DENIGRATE AND DENOUNCE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And the latest accusation made against President Donald Trump that, in talks over DACA, referred to some foreign nations as shitholes is just another glaring example of this.

Whether or not the statement was actually made, to my mind, is not necessarily the issue. Granted, it is a bit of a poor statement to make. But, if you are thinking of it in more realistic terms, is it really that far from the truth?

The people of these countries, if the statement was made, is not what the president probably was referring to in any event. If the statement was made, it was more of a direct statement against the governments of these countries which defile their populace, and place their lives into chaos such that they potentially become less than desirable in their attitudes, and potentially even their impact in other communities in which they may become a part...

SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES IF THEY COME HERE.

Is it really racist to make such a statement? I don't think so. It merely points out the obvious in more ways than one. And what about the situation in, for example, Muslim countries. Are these people products of their environments? Their upbringing? Their religious and government leaders?

YES.

And so their attitudes toward life, liberty, economic status, societal contribution and any number of other things is influenced by the attitudes of their leaders, and the conditions in which they live in their own countries. If we make a statement about this it is not a racist statement. It is a simple observation of what are largely verifiable facts.

Democrat senator Dick Durbin of Illinois made remarks that he couldn't believe such racist and vile remarks had ever come from the Oval Office at any time in America's past history. But the reality is that there have been well documented reports of rather racist remarks made by even Lyndon B. Johnson. And certainly there had to have been rather colorful language even in the early days of the Office of the President, such as before the Civil War—granted, those were different times and this is now 2018.

But one can imagine what may have been more than a few comments during the Civil Rights Movement.

NONETHELESS, UNIMPORTANT.

The real reason the dems are launching, yet again, attacks against the president is because—and people should FINALLY be getting around to understanding this—trying to paint a narrative that the president is racist, vulgar, unfit, and even mentally unstable. None of which are particularly true. They so badly want this to be the reality that they will go to every length to make it seem apparent.

DO I APPRECIATE IT IF THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY SAID THIS? Like I said before I think if he did, it was a very poor choice of words, even if I believe the underlying point of that statement would have some truth to it. Do I think it ultimately matters if he said it?

Look, if we weren't concerned over the content of the emails between Clinton and her cohorts which were actually downright mean, and if we weren't concerned with the events of Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, or four dead Americans in Benghazi, and all of the events leading up to those events which actually harmed people, I think the entire narrative trying to be forced down our throats about this are made moot.

The president is working with highly combative and uncooperative democrats who have no other desire but to discredit and disparage the president at every opportunity. In the DACA talks I would be absolutely shocked to learn that dems were not engaged, in some form or fashion, in making every effort to lead the president into a snare just so that they could come back afterwards and make a public stink about the effect without reporting the cause.

What's more, perhaps even if the statement was not made in the manner in which it has been implied, the question is still a good one. Yes. Exactly. If they, the democrats, are so determined and adamant that these people deserve to be here and stay here, tell us why. Drop the rhetoric and touchy-feely garbage and actually come up with a compelling reason in favor of their argument that we should have a different thought about the program, the people, and the benefits or lack thereof of the whole thing.

Really, at some point the democrats need to just move on, get back to the work of the American people as the president is trying to do—and quite frankly just grow the fuck up. Their temper tantrum has gone on long enough and it is getting more than a little old—and quite frankly is terribly distracting.

Something, however, tells me that the democratic party, still not able to fully comprehend their dramatic loss in 2016, is incapable of being the adult in the room.

Biden Can Win 'Overwhelmingly' Against Trump in 2020?

OKAY, SO OLD UNCLE JOE IS A LIKEABLE GUY. Albeit, based on a number of pictures that have made their course across the Internet, he's also a bit of a creepy old guy. In other words, as horrible as it may sound, keep him away from the kids and the damsels in general.

But, the question is can he win the presidency?

According to ex-DNC chair Ed Rendell, he seems to think so. In his words, "Biden is just the guy the country is looking for."

WHILE I APPLAUD ED RENDELL on his analysis, and while I do also believe that BIDEN WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN A MUCH BETTER CHOICE THAN HILARY CLINTON AS THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY in the last election, and MAY have even given Trump less of an edge, the fact remains that despite what the polls suggest, President Trump is still highly popular after one year into his presidency.

Add in the fact that despite what the lamestream news media will tell you, things are actually getting done, and Biden loses handily in 2020. 

And let's face it folks. The news is only going to get better. The fact is that you cannot argue with something very fundamental in the hearts and minds of the American people, and most importantly the AMERICAN VOTER. 

That's their pocketbooks and wallets if you want to know.

FOR ONE THING, THE NEW TAX LAW WILL BEGIN TO SHOW IT'S IMPACT AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY. That is, that's when the withholding tables are changed to reflect the recently passed new republican tax law. People are going to see a boost in their bottom lines come February, and if you think that won't be noticeable you are living on another planet.

Along with that, nobody can deny that so many economic standards are in territories that have not been seen for at least a decade, and I'd argue not in two of them, people HAVE TO ALREADY BE TAKING NOTICE THAT THE ECONOMY IS IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE THAN IT EVER WAS DURING THE OBAMA TERMS.

GDP is up, Hispanic unemployment is at historical lows, and so is the black unemployment rate. Consumer confidence is up. Jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector are making a bit of a comeback, and there are now more incentives than there have been in a very long time not only for American manufacturers to keep their shops open, but ADD OR REINTRODUCE SHOPS, and for some foreign companies, to LOCATE shops here.

Foxconn, which will be breaking ground in the near future in Wisconsin that will employ better than 13,000 people making over $50,000 a year on average, is a prime example of what's to come. They have never operated in the United States before. So this is quite an amazing development to say the least.

AND REALLY FOLKS, THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBURG. The fact is that there are going to be many more stories like that now that the corporate tax rate has been lowered to much favorable rates. Add in the reduction in costs for things like transporting those goods across oceans and you have a recipe well poised for success. And believe me, JOBS will follow, and Americans WILL take notice of the increased availability of not just jobs. But good ones that support families in terms of wages.

Furthermore then, what does Joe Biden have to run on? How is he going to support what will be the ever more clear failed economic policies of an administration he was part of, downplay what will be ever more clear SUCCESSFUL POLICIES in economic terms under Trump, and position himself as a strong contender better suited for the White House?

UNLESS SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY BAD HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND 2020, I think the only rightful conclusion for Joe Biden's viability in 2020, and for Ed Rendell's analysis is wishful thinking.

But it also highlights a continuing disconnect, in my opinion, of the democrat party from reality. They are still unable to acknowledge the real reasons Clinton lost, and they continue to disregard what are real accomplishments and achievements of the Trump administration. They are really disillusioned. They are living in a fantasy world.

Look. Do I think Biden would make a bad president? I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that I think what we are going to see after the first four years is said and done with Trump in the White House is a highly successful presidency with undeniable and provable results that even the most staunch liberals in the lamestream media are not going to be able to deny, much less cover up or slant in their usual way.

Can Biden win against Trump overwhelmingly in 2020? If I am basing the idea on anything current, the answer is a resounding no. Trump will serve two terms. And those two terms are going to be a successful presidency that will mimic former successes like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, and okay...I'll give you Bill Clinton. You can't deny he was a successful president too.

BEYOND ALL THAT, I think based on his age alone, Biden will be a nominee if he decides to run, and I think he just might. But he will never be in the White House again. Trump's going to be too successful, and the clock is not on Biden's side. Just saying.

Flynn Resignation A Sign of Strength in Trump White House

The media is going to, of course, slant the news of President Trump's national security advisor's resignation as a sign of upset and chaos just a month into Donald Trump's administration. It's what they do, just as much as they made former president Obama's administration look like it was just going swell and peachy with nary a hitch.

We all know the truth about that. Well, those of us who were actually alive and had a brain that we actually used.

National security advisor Michael Flynn resigned after it was reported that he misled Vice President Pence about his ties with Russia. He in fact had more than a few ties with Russia, and this of course presents a conflict of interest when it comes to how the Trump administration deals with issues like sanctions, the Russian Syrian relationship, oil and other matters.

Like I said, the media is going to slant this. But those of us who are paying attention are simply seeing exactly what we were told we would see during Trump's campaign. He was going to drain the swamp. No matter how the resignation is reported we all can confidently assume that Flynn did not just simply hand over a resignation letter to the president. He was asked to leave. Essentially he was fired.

This is a sign of strength in Trump White House. Draining the swamp is not limited to people outside of his administration. It is most certainly applied to everything he does, and everyone on his staff. President Trump has said time and time again that part of the problem in Washington are back room negotiations, and politics as usual. He doesn't feel that is effective and he is going to ouster anyone who tries to do it.

And thus, Flynn is out.

What do you think of Trump pulling out of the last Fox News debate before Iowa?

In a word? Puerile. Look, I like Trump. I think he'd make a perfectly fine president if he does exactly what he says he will do—well, aside from some of the crazier things like getting Mexico to pay for that wall which he will not be able to get done. He won't be deporting anyone either honestly. But this is the sort of thing Trump does that always irritates me, and that is his constant need to make personal attacks which I think simply overshadows his real message and aim. Want to make America great again? I want to let you do that. But that means we need to be substantive. It means we need to be able to take a few dishings out of insult and injury. We need to be thick-skinned. We need to avoid resorting to name calling.

I think what Trump was hoping to do by rallying for the vets cause and funding the Wounded Warriors Project in lieu of the debate was to detract from the real reason he is supposedly not attending the debate.

Megyn Kelly will not be removed as a moderator.

And to me if I may put it so bluntly that is simply childish. It really, really is. Look, one thing we know about Trump—and again I need to make it clear I like Trump, but I also have to be honest with myself here—is that he is a man who gets things done. But he is also someone who is used to getting what he wants. Often times Trump is likely the most powerful man sitting in any board room, or sitting at any negotiating table. He's used to having people nod and do his bidding because they want a piece of the offered prize. They want the opportunity to do business with the mogul. And in some ways that may work well in business, but when it comes to politics, and when it comes to dealing with world figures, and especially when it comes to dealing with the American people, you have to be able to accept that you cannot always win, that you will not always have people on your side on a given issue, and that that's okay. That's a part of the beauty of our system. We have enough trouble with a whiny crybaby in the White House who wants what he wants, and doesn't care if anyone agrees, and uses the mighty pen to push things through other channels against the will of the people, and frankly outside the foundations laid out by our founding fathers.

Trump's antics sometimes inadvertently pares him to what will be considered eventually as the worst president America has ever known—Barack Obama. And I don't think the American people want that anymore, that kind of leadership (and I am using the word leadership very loosely here folks). Perhaps calling Obama a dictator is too harsh, but given the opportunity I think that is exactly what Obama would be. I think it is without question. But Trump's antics in these kinds of matters at least suggests he may have the same attitude.

"Fuck them (the Congress). If they don't go ahead with my plans I'll simply go around them because they are too stupid to understand why it is so important, why it is so grand an idea..."

I can actually hear loud and clear Trump saying something exactly like that. I really can. And if I heard as much from Obama, which even if he has not said the same thing directly his actions certainly imply it more often than not, my jaw would drop. I'd be outraged and appalled. And quite honestly, terrified.

To be quite honest Obama does terrify me, and with the chance that Hillary Clinton might make her way into the White House despite all common sense and logic—I am shitting my pants at a rate far faster than my underwear supply can keep up!

All I am saying here is that enough is enough with the name calling, with the personal attacks, the all night Twitter sprees insulting one for their face, their weight, their whatever. It is simply detracting from what could quite possibly be a remarkable story about a man who conquers the world and restores the country in what could be described as an era of greatest divide since perhaps the Civil War.

Mr. Trump. We've had enough of having a fuck-up in the White House. We've had enough of having a president who has distanced nearly every single foreign leader from us. We need someone strong and strong-willed. But just like the guy with the biggest muscles in the room is not as strong as the guy with the biggest brain, bully with intelligence. Not with insult and low-brow comments. It's as ineffective as the guy with the muscles in the room simply punching someone in the face to get his point across.

Go to the debate. Stand your ground. Be a man. Show us you can do that. Show us you can stand proud even in a situation that may be uncomfortable. Show us you can be mightier than your strongest opponent. After all. Come on. This is Megyn Kelly for God's sake. How the fuck are you going to deal with Putin? Assad? ISIS? Big world issues?

If you cannot deal with Megyn Kelly maybe the naysayers and haters have a point that you may not be as suited to be president as I and others like me would like to believe. Just saying.

Trump's Hidden Agenda Regarding Fox News

Do not underestimate Donald Trump, and I mean this in all seriousness. Do not underestimate Donald Trump. The man has a proven track record of business prowess and business sense. He pays attention, and this is an all important thing to note. What is he trying to accomplish with his presidential run? He wants to win his way to the White House. It is that simple. It is perhaps the last big notch in his belt. And he may just do it. Sure, of course he wants to make America great again. But the real answer here is that while doing so he wants to go out of this world with a bang. Let's face it. Making it to the White House is perhaps the greatest accomplishment any man in the world can do, and if Donald Trump can do it, it seals his legacy forever.

Trump is speaking to the People. Of course he has enemies. He creates many of them of his own making. The Hispanics for example. But his latest stunt is very telling. He has now dissed Fox News. Who hates Fox News more than anyone in the world? The liberals. The democrats. I said in an earlier post that one of the things that fascinates me about Donald Trump is that he can run with a conservative message and as a republican, but yet still be as far removed from the republican party as one can be. He does not cow-toe. He disregards the establishment. He rolls with his own punches and tells it like it is. He makes no apologies for his positions. I think that the way he is conducting his campaign, the word republican may not even really be in the heart of the discussion about him. It's simply Trump. Somehow he is able to simply be one man running for the presidency, and people are paying attention to him rather than his association with the GOP.

It is absolutely brilliant really and I think you have to give him credit for that.

So, is Trump truly outraged by the coverage by Fox News of his campaign? Is he truly disregarding Fox News as a reputable news source? Or is he simply playing to the swath of voters on the other side of the fence who may otherwise not consider voting republican? What he is essentially trying to say in his campaign is that he is not one of them. He's dissed the party. He's dissed the other candidates running against him. He's dissed the leadership in all parts of the government. And now he's dissed what everyone on the left believes is a news organization that acts like an arm of the republican party and conservatives.

One thing about good business, and great businessmen is calculation. None of these men or women in business are necessarily making decisions on the fly. There is a thought process behind every thing that gets decided. The aim is the gain. The profit. And I happen to think this is exactly what Trump has in mind and is doing when it comes to his run for the White House. His decision to distance himself from Fox News is a calculated decision intended to put him further away from his association with the GOP, plant himself more firmly in the eyes of liberals and democrats as a choice, and of course walk away with the keys to People's House.

I am not going to count my chickens before they are hatched and say Trump has won the race. But I am still watching this whole thing go down with great fascination.

Trump for Prez?

Into the republican presidential race enter none other than Donald Trump.

For most of us on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and I would assume many on the other side as well, Donald Trump is a hard guy to envision sitting in the Oval Office of the White House. I'll admit it's a tough sell for me as well. If one word comes to mind right off the tip of the tongue when you think of Donald Trump, it's abrasive.

But there are a couple of other things that I think of when I think of old Mr. Trump, real estate mogul and businessman. For one, if he were to become president, you'd be hard pressed to be guessing where he stands on any given issue. Whether or not you would like or agree with any position he might take, you would know exactly what he thinks. The man has practically made a second living from speaking his mind and cutting right to the chase when he does it. But, at times it can get downright nasty. Whether or not you like Rosie O'Donnell, for example (and I do not), the feud between her and Trump some years back when she was originally on The View fell just short of a boxing match.

You have to admit the exchange did make for good TV.

But he is also a smart guy, and of course he is a businessman. He's also not a politician per se. I say per se because most politicians like to say what they think the American people want to hear. Donald Trump says what he thinks, and he doesn't particularly care what anyone else thinks about that.

I am interested to see how he performs throughout the campaign cycle, and I hope he gets at least enough traction to be able to sit in on the debates. While the last thing we need is one more talking head on the stage taking up valuable time, I do think he could add both comic relief and high value entertainment to the entire debate. And there's one more thing he could add to the debates as well.

He could actually get democrats watching republican debates.

And that could prove valuable since while debates are filtered, mainly by a limit of time, we all know how filtered the mainstream media is, especially when it comes to republicans. So if more democrats are tuned in just to see what antics Donald Trump might deliver, they might just get something out of the debates that they won't get anywhere else.

Do I think that Trump would make for a good president? Like I said, it's a tough sell for me. I like the fact that he is transparent, that he likes small government, that he believes that China is a threat both politically and economically to the future of the United States, and that he really does believe in American exceptionalism and is a proponent of a strong military force. All good things. I also think that, being a businessman and not being a politician, he would be great for improving the economy, and especially slashing the budget and I think could even dramatically reduce the national debt.

Again, good things.

So where do I think he might go wrong? It really does come down to his abrasiveness. One sentence could destroy a relationship with a foreign national, and even send the United States into an all-out war. If Donald Trump were to become president he would need to have a guy in his cabinet to stifle him just a bit. You want people to tell the truth. But just like you don't necessarily want to come right out with it and tell your co-worker she's a whale as she stuffs her fifth donut into her face, you don't want to say exactly what's on your mind about important issues. There needs to be a delicate balance between the truth and how that truth is presented. And Donald Trump would have difficulty with that, and in some instances I think it could cause some Americans, and even some foreign dignitaries to tune out when it comes to what President Trump would want to convey.

If for no other reason one thing that Donald Trump would most definitely accomplish? I think he would make for the most entertaining presidency the country has ever known. And interestingly enough even that could be a plus for the country in an off sort of way.

When politics makes for good TV people will watch, and having more eyes and ears tuned into our government and the most powerful man in the nation cannot be a bad thing.