Suggesting Trump Will Seek a Third Term is Stupidity

I swear, sometimes the left can be so stupid. Yes, I said it. even though it does break my rules just a little bit. I try very hard to avoid name calling since I usually believe it kills the argument. But sometimes the left just does things, or especially says things, that are just stupid, and you can't do anything else but call it out for what it is. 

This is particularly true when it comes to things Trump says that the left just hangs on and spins this way, that way, and the other.

Do they really believe what they say Trump is saying half the time is true? It seems they do. Or they are trying very hard to convince people that Trump is saying things he's actually not saying at all. 

When he said, "I will be a dictator on day one," it spun their heads around and the next thing you know it was all the left could talk about. For them it was confirmation.

"He's Hitler! Here's the proof!"

The thing is, we all know what he said. We all know what he meant. And we all know the context of what he said. He was not saying he wanted to be dictator at all. It was tongue and cheek. It was not meant to be a proclamation. And it wasn't one.

So, what's the latest? The 3-term president comment. I don't even think the left is really paying attention. He said, "I might even be considered a three-term president." He did not say he was intending on changing the rules even though he did reference Franklin Delanor Roosevelt who died in office during his fourth term before changes were made limiting presidents to two terms.

Granted, and I have said this many times, sometimes Trump does say things that can be easily misinterpreted or read wrong. But at the same time, one simply has to understand Trump and how he talks to get through to what he is actually saying.

He believes he won the election in 2020. Whether or not you believe that doesn't matter. But he believes it. And he knows that many Americans, especially many of his supporters, also happen to believe it. 

During the entire time he has been out of office he has done presidential things. He's met with world leaders. He's headed his party. He's endorsed candidates and campaigned for them. He's kept talking to the American people. He's gone to places where disasters have occurred affecting Americans.

In the eyes of some he's the legitimate president. Some people across the oceans believe it too. And that's the context one need to add to what he said about the three terms.

If Trump was president in 2016, and he was the acting president in 2020, and then is reelected in 2024, that would be his presumed third term holding office. Again, perhaps his wording makes it difficult to grasp that. But that's essentially what he is referring to.

"I might be considered a three-term president."

In other words, historians one day might make the assertion that even if the published result was that Biden won the 2020 election, in the eyes of many Americans, Trump never really left office. He just governed from somewhere other than the White House. If he wins in 2024, it's sort of a confirmation that Americans were really on his side all along even if the face at the podium bearing the Presidential Seal belonged to Joe Biden.

It is patently stupid to suggest that Trump is saying he will seek a third term in 2028. For one thing, Trump has always been a champion of the Constitution, and constantly talks about the government as The People's Government. He never says, when referring to the White House as his house, but rather our house.

He's not a dictator. He has no interest in the power. He simply wants to do what's right for the American people and continue the work he started in 2016 that went on pause in 2020.

Granted, it may just be another tactic rather than stupidity. But it sure should make anyone being sold this line feel like at least their own intelligence is being challenged. The left has no record. I've said that a million times. They know it. So, all they can do lacking a record is try to scare the American people into voting against Trump.

If they can paint him as an evil man wanting to be a ruler as opposed to being a president, they will pull out all the stops to do it. In the meantime, it gets really frustrating even though I happen to think that most Americans aren't dumb enough to fall for any of it—and their displaying of their stupidity on the left actually helps Donald Trump.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also check out my YouTube channel, The Springboard.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Did HubPages Shadow Ban Me?

Is it about quality, or is it something else? As you are probably aware, I also write for HubPages, which is a community of several sister sites including HubPages itself. And just like here, a lot of the content I write is regarding conservative politics. 

Something that is not necessarily discouraged over there, by the way. I think that's important to point out. I don't want to be unfair to HubPages at all. Several of my conservative posts are what they call, "featured." In other words, a featured post is one that HubPages has determined meets certain quality standards such as good, solid content that is a certain length, that is generally well put together and worthy of being "listed" on their main page, or becomes published on one of their sister sites.

Unfeatured posts are almost invisible. 

I say almost because of course, over the years I have a bit of a "built-in" audience. So, it's not like no one will see a post that is not featured. And even though I have my profile settings set to only show featured articles, I can still physically include an unfeatured article in the highlights, and I did that.

When I look over the article in question, "We Must Put Our Country Before Party," there is nothing about it that seems to obviously separate it from anything else I may have written on the site that has been featured before it.

Although in it, I mention (or question) the mental capacity of President Joe Biden. Could that have something to do with it? Is it an article lacking quality? Or is it one they simply don't like what it implies? I don't even do it in a particularly mean way. In fact, it was not accusatory in so much as it was simply suggestive.

The question for me is, am I being shadow banned simply because the editorial team dislikes the context of my content rather than it being an issue of "quality," as was suggested in the form letter that is often provided when an article on HubPages is not featured.

In the letter it says, "It's possible that your article is not featured because it contains spammy elements." The post promotes nothing at all and in fact, contains no links at all. Neither does it make any reference to other articles on their site or elsewhere.

They go on to say, "If you don't see any spammy elements in your article, then it was likely defeatured for failing to meet HubPages' general quality standards." That is a fairly generic statement, especially considering I have been writing for HubPages for 15+ years and am quite aware of their quality standards and how to write and structure an article that meets them.

Over 50 of my articles are featured, and of the ones that aren't, they were featured at one time. The reason they are not now is due to their age and their current relevance, since many of my articles are not evergreen, and became unfeatured over time simply due to a lack of traffic to them.

How many people today are reading about the presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?

Other suggestions regarding quality they suggest is that the article may have been too short or underdeveloped. It far surpassed the 700 minimum word count, and it was not laid out any different than previous similar content. "It may have had formatting issues, broken or unrelated links, and/or significant grammatical errors."

None of those are at issue. Granted, that's based on my own personal assessment. But again, the article follows the same general manner in which I write all of my pieces, regardless of where I happen to write them.

The point of my discontent here is not that my article was not featured. I have been writing long enough to know that not everything is the highest quality, and even I can admit when I may not have put my all into something. 

It happens. I get it. It doesn't bother me. 

What does bother me is that if it appears to be the case that a form of censorship, outright or simply making something hidden, is what's happening—that's where I take issue. I write opinion. Sometimes it's not a popular one. But it doesn't mean it doesn't belong somewhere.

And that's not to discount the fact that I actually appreciate the high standards by which HubPages determines its content. It makes the site better. It drives more traffic to the site because even though it is a mostly self-publishing platform, there are still eyeballs making decisions in back rooms to determine what they show to readers to find.

Like I said, I have a built-in audience. But that organic traffic which can help to build and grow that audience comes from articles that are featured. So, what happens to an unfeatured article and why does it matter? Why could it be considered a form of shadow banning? 

Featured articles enjoy increased visibility is one reason. For example, an unfeatured article lives on HubPages. But it's not on their "Discover" page, which is the main page everyone sees when they go to the site who do not have an account. If something is not featured, only your existing audience will ever see it.

Featured articles are showcased on topic pages and appear as "Related Articles" on other similar featured posts. They are also made available to search engines. In other words, if your article is not featured, it lives on the site, but it is kept from searches. It is internal to HubPages, but is deeply buried and much harder for anyone to find.

As I said before. It is almost invisible.

Just like any media is going to be, there are many within their office walls who tend to be liberals and of course, carry on with a very liberal agenda. Conservative speech is not banned on the site. Not hardly. But it's also not the first time very specific speech has been shadow banned by the site.

To me it is a matter of that slippery slope. Free speech is free speech, and all opinions, even if we strongly disagree with them, deserve to be heard. If you're not careful, eventually only certain selected speech is ever allowed.

I don't think that my comments in the article in question were harsh or mean. I also do not think they were unfair or didn't at least provide some context and explanation behind why I made them. I think they just made an editorial decision to keep the opinion as quiet as possible.

I did send a response asking if they could provide a more detailed explanation. But often times those go unanswered. 

The important thing for me is that all voices be heard and that even if the content does not agree with the opinions of the editorial staff, articles should not be hidden from view based only on that alone. At the same time it is their site and I respect what they do, and what their site allows me to do. I will respect their decision regardless. 

But of course, I will also publicly share my opinion on what I think about it.

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

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Social Security and the Global Cash Shuffle

by Leonard Knath, staff writer

I am starting to wonder about the money. You know, the money we supposedly don't have to shore up Social Security that the Democrats keep throwing out there? "It will be insolvent by (insert date here)." It's something we've heard for decades, and the prediction seems sort of akin to the one about the end of the world disaster claims the left likes to make all the time.

You know, those lefties. They sure do like to predict disasters, don't they? It's almost like a favorite pastime of theirs.

The end of the world is coming folks. Hold onto your britches, grab your ankles and stock up on your kale and kombucha.

Oh yeah. And don't forget to send us some more money to make sure we can take care of these most important issues facing all of humanity. Yeah, yeah. More taxes. Lefties like those too. Only, so long as it comes from someone else's wallet—let's go bilk the rich!

How long has Social Security been going insolvent for now? It's not gone yet. It's just sort of chugging along like a rusty tricycle. But it's coming. That front wheel is going to come off any time. It's just a matter of time, folks.

Are we to believe them? 

There are billions of dollars of cash going over to Ukraine. Israel gets a billion-dollar arms coupon. Didn't we drop pallets of green on Iran not that long ago? There's a lot of money, it would seem, for everyone else. But Grandma's clutching onto her Social Security check like it's the last Twinkie before the apocalypse.

Priorities, right?

Not that I have anything against Israel. It's a real and frightening reality show over there. It's Survivor: The Middle East Edition. Only you don't get voted off. You die. The same goes for Ukraine. It's a tragedy. I feel for them too.

But what about Grandma? She just wants a modest check to keep her bingo nights alive. And she paid her dues to get it.

How does it look to her when she sees the government seems to have pockets deeper than the Mariana Trench but when it comes to finding money to shore up Social Security, the government turns their empty pockets inside out?

Stealth bombers? Sure, let's put in a few orders. What's a trillion bucks? Chump change, really. Money to go around to secure the rest of the world? Sure, fire up the presses. We've got work to do, folks. Who cares if we don't really have the money? 

What we have to do is cut through the bullshit. Americans have paid their dues. The government has made promises it ought to be able to keep. Americans work hard, grinding the 9 to 5 hamster wheels dodging office politics and burnt coffee.

All the while Grandma's been sending money her entire life to the very people now telling her they can't afford to give anything back. She may have some cataracts, but she's not blind. She sees all the money going to everyone else. Not only did she pay into Social Security. She paid into all the other stuff too that the government wants to spend money on.

The time is now to ask our government, where's our slice of the pie? When do Americans matter more than the rest of the world? Why do we keep sending the government money only to be told they don't have any for us while shelling out untold trillions to anyone but Americans?

It's a lie. It has to be. Either way, whether or not the money actually exists isn't even the point. If the government can find the money to support everyone else, I think they can surely find the money to help Grandma.

Leonard Knath, pronounced like math, is a seeker of truth and an adamant denier of the status quo. He makes his home in Stratford, New Jersey in Camden County where he lives with his wife Dee and their two cats, Lawson and Saul.

For more great content from The Springboard, follow us on Facebook to keep up with the latest posts.

© 2024 Leonard Knath 

Democrats Don't Have to Own the Consequences of $20 Minimum Wage

Even though the reality is that it's mostly the Democrats who hold most of the wealth, they are always trying to paint themselves as "for the working class." When it comes to the $20 an hour wage hike in California for fast food workers with some exceptions, of course all of the things we said would happen are happening.

Layoffs, reduced hours, and price increases.

There's a reality in all of this, as there always is, that you simply can't get blood out of a stone, the money is not there that everyone believes is, and you can't just make up a number and say, "Everyone can afford to pay that."

It's just not how it works in the real world. In order to determine an appropriate wage, you must first evaluate the books to see if you can afford it.

Most of the time when it comes to the majority of things Democrats do, I tend to believe they simply want what they want, and they don't think things through. They never consider the consequences of what they do or evaluate the impact. In this case, I am inclined to wonder, "Are they doing this quite on purpose. Is it part of a larger picture strategy?"

The Democrats want you to hate the rich. They want you to think that these companies and business owners only care about their bottom lines and themselves and couldn't care less about their workers on the front lines.

As people are laid off, hours are cut and prices rise, the Democrats can go before the American people and proclaim, "We've got your back, and look at what they do in response? They don't care about you." In other words, even though to any thinking person the blame lands squarely on the Democrats who raised the wage to cause the problems, they can pretend it's all the mean, greedy corporation's fault.

The Democrats can simply wave their magic wand and whatever happens, they don't have to own it. Just like they mostly did with regard to inflation. "It's not our fault. These businesses are simply gouging you, and that's why prices are higher."

It's those evil rich that are at it again, taking your money and exploiting their workers for their own gain.

It's patently untrue. We, on the conservative side, know it. But there are a good many people who will fall for the narrative and completely believe it and that is what the Democrats are banking on. When someone gets laid off or has their hours cut due to the $20 an hour wage hike, who will they blame? Gavin Newsom? Or the business owner?

Most likely they are going to blame the business owner. The Democrats get to look like they are doing all the right things and when things don't happen as expected, they can blame someone else for what happens.

Everyone wants people to make more money and have more opportunities. The difference lies in how we accomplish that best. Because the commonsense thing is that in order for people to really realize these opportunities, it has to be a win, win situation. If the businesses are the source of the opportunity, and they are, then their health and well-being is just as important as the health and well-being of the workers. 

I often say to beware of someone who offers "help." Because all too often there's an ulterior motive to it, and it's going to come with a catch. While it may all look and sound good on paper, the reality is that it will probably do more harm than good. Especially if it it's coming from a Democrat.

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

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Watch the Democrats Closely on the SAVE Act

It is something that has been talked about ad infinitum for decades. Voter ID. Yet the left, of course, has forever been adamantly opposed to it. They say it is an attempt by Republicans to oppress and disenfranchise certain sectors of society and make it harder for them to vote.

The reality is that voter ID requirements would do neither of those things. In fact, it would ensure the integrity of our elections and protect every single American and ensure all votes in elections are fairly cast.

Our elections in this country are one of the most sacred things we have to maintain our Republic the way that our founding fathers intended. The voice of the People matters in our representative system of government, and it ought to be taken damn seriously.

Recently, U.S. Senators John Kennedy and Mike Lee joined forces, along with other Republican colleagues, to introduce the SAVE Act, or the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which would provide an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act to make it clear that states must require proof of citizenship when they register individuals to vote in federal elections.

The main concern is the massive influx of illegal border crossings that are occurring as a result of the disastrous border policies of the current administration.

While it is already set in law that only citizens can vote in federal elections, how do you safeguard that when you don't know who is casting the vote, or whether they are truly eligible to vote at all? And what is the potential, say, if even just 1% of the illegals who have entered the country do vote somehow? That's potentially hundreds of thousands of votes which can very much impact the results.

The SAVE Act does not require voter ID. It simply requires states to prove votes are cast by confirmed citizens. But it does leave it up to the states to determine how they go about this.

The bill would also require states to clean up their existing voter rolls and remove any current non-citizens from them. It would provide for more accountability, creating higher federal penalties for registering non-citizens to vote, and ensure that "proof of citizenship" is provided by voters in acceptable ways that can be verified.

I think it's a no-brainer law, frankly. It's sad we need it. But we do.

It's a Republican lead bill and what will be interesting to see is how Democrats decide to vote on it. You'd think it would be a slam-dunk bi-partisan bill. But you can almost bet Democrats will oppose it. If and when they do oppose it, I think Americans need to listen very closely to the reasons they provide against it.

The question is, what would be the harm in simply making sure the voters who vote in our federal elections are actually citizens of the United States?

We're not talking about people being oppressed or disenfranchised here. We're simply saying, "Prove you are an American citizen." Because without there being a set law that at least requires citizenship to be verified, the door is wide open for anyone to vote.

Including illegal immigrants.

The bill is up in the air for now. But I think it's one to pay close attention to especially as we draw nearer to the upcoming November presidential election. The border crisis is one created by design by the Democrat party and Biden's border policies. Do we accept that it's simply an action taken in the interest of "inclusion and acceptance of people simply seeking better lives," or if they adamantly oppose the SAVE Act can we safely assume the Democrats are simply trying to source new voters?

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

© 2024 Jim Bauer 

Gunther Eagleman Goes Too Far

As I tend to have to repeat myself about all the time, just because I am a conservative Republican who is voting for Donald J. Trump does not mean I am going to be on our side 100% of the time, nor am I going to share certain views someone else holds just because.

I'm a Republican. I don't need to be a jerk or stoop to the childish antics of the left to be that. I simply hold views that differ from the left. That's it. And they are my views. Even my own views are not going to always align with my side, or theirs with mine.

I'm also not going to simply ever blindly disagree with the left just because it's a view coming from the left.

Look, I think Joe Biden is a failure. His presidency will go down in history as one of the worst presidencies in history. I don't say that as a Republican. I say that as an American engaged in what happens in the country and to the country. It's that simple.

Do I also believe Joe Biden is a scoundrel? Yes. I do as a matter of fact. From the questionable sniffing of women's hair to his odd fondling of children, and to the rather creepy suggestion by his daughter he took showers with her. There are some things I find rather disturbing about the man personally.

I make no concessions on that. Joe Biden is not only a terrible president. He's a creep.

But to suggest, as Gunther Eagleman did in a recent poll on X, that being a Joe Biden voter means the voter is a pedophile is, to put it bluntly, ignorant. And I normally agree with Gunther Eagleman, don't get me wrong here. 

I just don't think it's either an appropriate question or an appropriate suggestion. It serves no purpose. It only serves to further divide sides and close ears and eyes to the facts. Gunther Eagleman has a platform available to him in which he can further the discussion and this is the direction he takes with that?

What is important, in my view, is to be able to have an open dialogue about the policies and issues that concern every American. Republican, Democrat, or independent. And does anyone think an independent is going to view a question like Gunther Eagleman poses as serious, or that it will make anything else he says worth taking seriously?

Besides, it doesn't take a leftie to make a pedophile. Pedophiles come in all shapes and forms, they come from all religions, and they can be conservatives just as easily as they can be liberals. I would venture to guess that there are some Trump voters who are, in fact, pedophiles themselves.

I just think it's wrongheaded and I don't mind saying so. I'd say it's also a copout just like I would accuse the left of if they did something similar. You either have an argument or you have an insult. 

I mean, look at the things the left says about us for Heaven's sake. Things that are vile and horrible. And of course, patently untrue. We certainly don't like it when it is done to us. If Gunther Eagleman's question is an attempt to turn the tables on the left and give them a little of what they dish out, maybe then it makes at least some sense?

Still, to my mind it makes no sense. That's not who we are. We're not voting for Donald Trump or against Joe Biden for any other reason than we feel Donald Trump is better for the country and Joe Biden is not. Why not just leave it at that?

We have the ability to state our case, and there is no need to stoop to the lows of the left. Comments or suggestions like this only serve to invalidate any legitimate argument we have to make.

Like what I have to say or the way I say it? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Don't Roll the Dice on GameStop

With meme stocks like AMC and GameStop back in the headlines, enjoying meteoric gains of 75% yesterday and pushing yet higher today, it can be tempting to jump on the bandwagon and try to make a few quick bucks before the current frenzy dies.

Especially for those who missed the last rallies in 2021.

But if you leave these stocks alone, you're actually the smart one. As Warren Buffet likes to famously say, "Stick to what you know." His stance is always, "I just need to know how a business makes its money. Once I know that, I can understand the business and determine if it is worth owning."

That's really key when understanding why it is so dangerous to play along in something like these meme stocks. They aren't rallying because these are solid companies making massive profits with strong fundamentals to back up their share prices and the current surges. They are rallying because the same man who fueled the last big surge has resurfaced for a second round of squeezing the shorts.

In other words, the rally won't hold and when the smoke clears the same as it did last time, it will be a swift and strong pullback, and the reality is that most people won't get out soon enough before their money is all gone.

It's gambling, pure and simple. Something that is never appropriate to do in the stock market. 

It's that temptation to wonder, "But what if it jumps another 50% today?" That's the same mentality of someone sitting at a slot machine wondering, "What if the very next pull is the one that hits the jackpot?" 

I'm a bit of a seasoned guy. I feel like I could smartly navigate the rallies and make some money. But it's just a game I refuse to play—because it doesn't make sense. It defies all of the logic I have learned over the years regarding share prices and why stocks move. Or more importantly, why they should move.

If it doesn't make sense, I'm going to leave it alone. 

Granted, some part of it makes sense. For example, we know that the short positions of GameStop were around 24% of the total of outstanding shares. So basically, buyers of the stock are running up the price through a frenzy of buying essentially forcing the short sellers to have their short positions squeezed and forcing them to sell their shorts to cover their positions.

But again, it's an artificial move. There's nothing to back up the share prices. Therefore, the prices are doomed to fall back sharply. The question is exactly when, and no one, even the most seasoned of investors, can time the markets.

I say hold onto your money and continue putting it into long-term investments that make sense. Like I said, it is tempting. Some may experience a sense of FOMO. But it's a fool's game to be sure. And the old saying that a fool and his money will soon be parted holds very much true in this case.

If one is going make a play, you have to consider it in the same way a responsible gambler would consider it. "This is money I can afford to lose and that I am willing to wager knowing I may walk away empty handed."

And, "I'm okay if I walk away empty handed." Because more people will likely walk away with nothing than will cash in on a big prize.

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

© 2024 Jim Bauer

This blog post is for informational or entertainment purposes only and does not substitute for seeking advice from a licensed professional before making any investment decisions. 

2020 Was All About Covid, Fool

Nearly every time the mail in ballots in the 2020 election are brought up as a matter of suspicion and concern that there may have been some nefarious goings on there, the left jumps up and waves their arms. "Hey! Over here! You do realize there was a pandemic, right?"

Covid. The infamous Covid. It's always there as an argument.

The left tried to make the same argument to explain the Biden rallies which no one attended. "Of course, there was no one there, you fool. No one wanted to die, unlike the idiots on your side."

So, brilliant one as you are, tell me; out of the potentially hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters who attended his rallies are dead and gone now? Not only were they Trump supporters attending rallies during one of the deadliest pandemics of our time, they were probably also unvaccinated and doomed to death from that too.

Of course, some people may have gotten Covid. Maybe even some people died. But if the rallies were the supposed "cause of death," I am sure that would be front page news and every bit of the 24-hour news cycle.

Rachel Maddow would have been tossing up images of lines of coffins heading for their final resting spots screaming, "Count the bodies in the wake of Trump's rallies! The stupidity! The abomination!"

It didn't happen. And furthermore, for all the efforts of the left and the media Covid wasn't even that big a deal. Okay sure. It wasn't good. People did die. I'll never discount that. But when you compare Covid to the Spanish flu, it wasn't even close.

The Spanish flu killed 10% of the entire world population. Covid took only 0.08% of it. How does it even compare?

It doesn't.

So, essentially the mail in ballots were just common sense because no one wanted to get Covid and die. Duh, right? Only it isn't the duh moment the left really wants it to be. By their measure of the threat and danger going to the polls in person might have posed, Trump probably would have lost the 2020 election simply because all of his supporters were dead from attending his rallies.

Only he got 11 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. So, I guess that argument is kind of out, isn't it? Let's say just 10% of the 76 million people that voted for him attended his rallies at some point during the pandemic. That would be potentially 7.6 million people at risk.

The entire world death toll was only 7.046 million out of a world population of nearly 8 billion people.

Regarding Covid as well, the left and the media likes to banter on about how bad Trump bungled it. I mean, we all know now that during the entire time of the pandemic the WHO and the CDC kept changing their minds and got a million and one things wrong about it.

Tell that to a Democrat and they readily say, "It was a new thing. How could they know?" Except, Trump was supposed to have all the answers, right?

And tell me, what did Biden do better? Covid deaths doubled during Biden's watch. How come the left didn't jump on him for doubling the death count? Even when he was mandating the vaccines? That didn't work, by the way.

Oh, I suppose so long as it wasn't Trump making the bad decisions it was okay. God only knows how much worse things might have been if it wasn't Joe Biden screwing it up.

The thing about the 2020 election is that so many things simply didn't add up. Not the vote counts. Not the mail in ballots. Not the fact that the majority of the mail in ballots were votes for Biden. Not that Trump was winning before the mail in ballots were counted. Not that Biden got the most votes ever in the history of American elections.

Nothing to see here, folks, Biden won. Get over it.

And then of course, when you question anything the left likes to point to judges and prosecutors and this guy or that guy who all tell us, "The election was fair. Just deal with it, accept it, and move on." 

As I have said many times before, this is like asking the foxes how the hens are doing. "The hens are fine," say the foxes. There may be nothing left in the coop but feathers and bones, and perhaps a few sly foxes went into the coop and learned how to cluck, but it doesn't mean we can be assured the hens are actually fine if no one bothers to go inside and check.

We have been lied to about Covid. We have been lied to about the election. We have been lied to about the insurrection. And all that's being offered to answer the questions is to go and rely on what the liars tell us?

Who's the fool?

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

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Trump This, Trump That; Biden Just Can't Stop

"Release the murder hornets." Remember when that was a thing? Memes abounded that covid had lost its scariness and so in order to maintain control over the minds of The People, you had to bring something scarier to get it back in control.

Isn't the latest attempt by the Democrats, to say that Trump will refuse to accept the election results in November if he loses, sort of along the same lines?

I swear, it's one thing after another with these guys.

He was a racist. Then he was a homophobe. He was a misogynist. He was an election denier. He was an insurrectionist. He incites violence. He seeks revenge. He wants to be a dictator. He's a criminal. He's a rapist. 

You name it, he's all of these things according to the left.

Does no one notice one glaring thing? The Biden administration and the media aren't talking about what Biden's done to earn reelection. They aren't talking about the real problems everyday Americans are up against and what he will do to resolve them.

It's all about Trump. It's all about the threat Trump poses. It's all about the danger to democracy if Trump is allowed back into the White House. It's all about the end of the country. 

So, what is the threat? Simply that he can win in November and Biden cannot. It's really that simple, folks. People may have short term memories; I will grant you that. But people are living now, this very moment in Biden's America, and it's awakening the reality that things actually were better when Trump was president. And by leaps and bounds.

That can't be hidden. It can only be distracted from. Or at least they can try. And try, they are.

Even stalwart Democrat voices like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart aren't convinced Biden's up to speed enough to be president. And it's not like their comments are an endorsement for Trump. They're just not an endorsement for Biden.

Even Jon Stewart joked recently, "If you're telling us behind the scenes, he's sharp and full of energy and on top of it...you should film that."

As is more often than not, the case, Trump did not actually say he won't accept the results. He simply said he won't accept them unless the election is fair and square. "If everything's honest, I'll gladly accept the results," Trump said.

How is that scary? How is that a threat to democracy? And by the way, does anyone other than me get tired of that word being tossed around? We're not a democracy and never have been. The United States of America is a Republic.

The fact is, Trump is a threat to Biden's reelection. But that's because the American people are smarter than the Biden administration and the news media will ever give them credit for. 

When the entire focus of your campaign is on the "other guy," it just leaves everyone wondering what the hell you really have to offer for anyone to support your campaign. Aren't you supposed to have three years of vast accomplishments you can brag about, and that Americans can believe happened?

When I worked in sales, I didn't sell my product by talking bad about my competitors. I sold mine by talking about why my product was the best choice.

So, "He won't accept the election," is just another straw in their clutches that they hope will turn people over to their side. "Bad, scary Trump is a mean guy," they want to say. They really are clutching at straws. But rest assured, it's not the final one. Because this one won't work any better than any of the other names he has been called, or any of the other accusations they have made.

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

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Unhinged Liberals: It's Because Their Day in the Park Was Denied, That's Why

I don't disagree with liberals because they are liberals. I disagree with liberals because what they say often doesn't make any sense. They simply rarely think things through. They speak off the cuff and from an angry and unhinged perspective.

I made the comparison in a recent political forum I was participating in that liberals are often much like a child who was told they could go to the park only to suddenly be denied their day in the park. To a child, this can't simply be moved on from. It's the worst thing that could possibly happen and without their day in the park, the world is effectively over.

Liberals are largely reactionary personalities. Rather than sit back and consider things thoughtfully and try to find any positives in what they perceive as negatives, they lash out. Their minds are wholly fettered by the infuriation of not getting their way.

And don't you dare disagree with them or try to dissect and disassemble their bumper sticker talking points. They may even seek to literally destroy you.

It sounds like an insult when I say liberals lack common sense. But it's true. You can see this clearly when someone on their side suddenly changes course and begins to think about things in a rational way. Take Bill Maher. A stalwart champion of the left. He's seen now as a bit of a traitor.

"He's lost his mind," some might say on the left. Why? Because he began to see through all of the craziness that has really gone off the deep end on the left, and he has been strongly outspoken about many aspects of the LGBTQ+ movement, particularly on gender identity issues.

What happened to Bill Maher, dare I say it, is that he suddenly was making sense, and this is an absolute no-no when it comes to lefty thinking (if you can call it thinking). You're not supposed to think about anything, or God forbid, consider the consequences of things. You're just supposed to sink both feet firmly in the sand and stay the course no matter what. And sing the praises. And try to force others to see sense out of things that make no sense. And, of course, belittle and undermine anyone who tries to make sense out of senseless things that make no sense.

I even sound like a crazy man trying to make sense of liberal thinking. It's like being forever stuck on a carousel in the park. You're dizzy as hell and some deranged kid won't stop spinning it and the only way off the ride is to let go of the handle and allow yourself to be whizzed through the air and hope wherever you land, you don't land on your head.

Robert DeNiro has of course been making headlines saying absolutely crazy things about Donald Trump. He's all in on the idea of Trump being another Hitler or Mussolini. It's crazy talk. He says Trump is a sick narcissist who has no business anywhere near the White House.

But what makes him think so? What about Trump's four years in office lead him to logically conclude this?

Only that Robert DeNiro is being denied his day in the park. He wants what he wants, and he doesn't care what it means to anyone else if he gets it. It is, for lack of a better word, a tantrum. It's what all liberals are engaged in now. A tantrum.

They aren't thinking about the inflation or what may have caused it. They aren't considering the devastating and disastrous pullout of Afghanistan. They aren't thinking about the consequences of an open border. They aren't concerned about the impact of inflation on poor families. They aren't even remotely interested in knowing what really happened in 2020.

They just want their win. They just want their way. It's all that matters. Any judgement is completely banned from their minds. Any logical thought is barred.

As Bill Maher put it on his change of opinion, he has expressed his opinion didn't change. The opinion of his side changed. It is to suggest that there was a time, and even I would admit this, when the two sides of the aisle were different on a variety of issues, but also the same on many of them. We have always disagreed. But not to the extent that we disagree now.

Dare I say this as well? There was a time when the left actually had more common sense than they do now.

The thing that I don't understand is how we got here? How have we gone this far to the crazy side? Because it happened super-fast. I mean it's been a complete 180 degree turn in hyper-quick fashion. It's to the point where you really have to question, did someone just open all the doors to the asylums and let everyone out?

Even the deep hatred toward Trump that the left feels. Where is it coming from? Why is it so penetrating? Is it that Trump truly poses a grave threat to our Republic? Or is it something else? Something in the water? Was there something in that jab? 

Liberals have always been a little crazy. But never like now. It's never been nearly this crazy that it would make sense to even a liberal that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports, or that we should do away with natural, common sense pronouns to describe genders. Or that we could see a completely and utter failure of a presidency and decide, "I think I will vote for more of that."

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

They're Siphoning Off Your Life's Savings and You Don't Know It

Most people think they are doing the right thing when it comes to their money and their retirement planning. But the reality is that most of the people I talk to tell me they leave their final life's finances up to someone else.

To that I say, what?

If you don't know where your money is, you may as well kiss it goodbye. That sounds harsh. But it's also true. Because if there's one thing anyone wants, it's more money. And who better to take it from but the fools who will easily and willingly part with it.

Yep. That saying is true. A fool and his money will soon be parted.

Don't be the fool. Look, money can be scary and complicated. So can the stock market. But in all honesty, none of it is as hard as you think it is. More importantly it's not as hard as others have made you believe that it is.

Any why do they do it? Why do they make it sound so hard and complicated? If it were easier, who would need a so-called "expert" to guide the way for you? For a fee, of course. Lots and lots of fees. They are literally siphoning off your life's savings and you don't know it.

If you think about it, how many things do you do in your life to make sure things work and last? And what do you do to know it? You research it.

Here's how often you should change your oil in your car. Here's what to do to make sure your lawn mower starts on the first pull in the spring. You research and study what's the appropriate health insurance coverage that suits you. You evaluate your cable services to shop for the best deals and save money. How do I maintain my house and check the roof to make sure the shingles are doing their job? How do I ensure I have the best education to make sure I can make the income I want and need? What's the best college that teaches the courses essential for my career choice? What's best for my diet to remain healthy? What foods should I eat? What foods should I avoid?

We spend countless hours making sure we have what we need that makes our lives better, easier and cheaper.

Yet, when it comes to money, we turn a blind eye. "John's a great financial advisor and I know he has my best financial interests in mind."

Again. What?

Why would you spend all of this time to know things so you can get the most out of everything else but leave your financial health in the hands of someone else? Especially when it comes to your retirement years. A time when you can no longer necessarily earn an income and where everything you ever worked for in your entire life is literally on the line?

Expecting someone else to have your back is a fool's game. It's that simple. Again, harsh. But it's also the truth.

A weatherman can sell you an umbrella for top dollar because he knows exactly when the storm is coming. He will capitalize on your lack of understanding of certain indicators of weather. And it is no different in the financial world.

What you don't know, let me help you to understand. I'll just take 2% and you have to trust me. {wink, wink}

The thing is, there are as many resources as possible that abound about how to save, how to invest, how to plan for retirement, how to manage taxes during retirement, how to navigate Social Security and Medicare and how to budget as there are resources about everything else you want to make sure to get right in life.

Why is the financial stuff, perhaps the most important of them all, at a critical time in life when income is absent, the least important thing to research and know for most people?

I am sorry. But it makes no sense.

You want to feel bad for the people who get to the finish line broke and struggle. But how can you? It was all right there. The information. The signs. The stories told countless times before when Mommy and Daddy and Grandpa struggled through it.

Am I preaching? Yes. Am I scolding? YES!

It's funny to me that people will go through their entire lives saying, "Money isn't everything." Only to get to retirement and realize, it sure and hell means a lot more than they thought it did. But then, it's too late.

The pooch has already been screwed and John who managed your money doesn't give a damn about your struggle because he already took what he wanted from you, who you willingly gave it to with a smile and confidence.

You won't leave your lawn mower to John to make sure it starts in the spring when you need it for the first cut, but you will leave your entire financial future in his hands?

What???

All jokes and scolding and brash and harsh statements aside, the bottom line is that whether you think so or not, your money matters. It should be something important to you to know all you can about just like it's important to know all the other things in life you think are important. 

Someone will always be willing to show you the way for a few bucks of your hard-earned money. Why not cut out the middle man? Not only will you save more money in the long run, you will most likely also amass much more of it. Because when you know what you're doing, and you're paying attention to it, you are much better equipped to make the necessary adjustments and assessments to ensure you get the biggest bang for your buck as you possibly can.

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

Don't Spave Your Way to Save

They are virtually everywhere. Certain incentives and rewards programs that make it seem like they are designed to save you money. But the reality is, it actually causes many consumers to actually spend way more than they otherwise might, thinking there's an underlying benefit to doing so.

I am literally getting paid to spend, thinks certain consumers.

In some ways that's true. I am not one to simply ignore rewards programs, and I actually find them personally valuable. But like all things money related, you have to be responsible about how you use these programs, and you have to think about what the benefits really are. Or aren't.

For example, I use Upside. It's an app that offers cash back rewards on things like gas, groceries, and eating out. And it does pay to use it. In a relatively short period of time, I have been able to accumulate well over $200.

It may seem like small change, but pennies do add up, and with inflation still through the roof, any cost savings is well worth it.

But I don't use the app simply to use the app. In other words, I won't shop at a grocery store offering a reward just because they have an open offer. If there is something I need at that store and the price is right, I'll use the app. 

The same goes for fueling up. I won't get gas at one station that has an offer if I can find gas at another station cheaper.

When it comes to any rewards program, I am also not going to buy things just to stack up my rewards. To me, that's counterproductive. If it is something I would buy anyway, and there happens to be a reward attached to buying it, that's a good deal. But if I am buying something just for the reward, I'm shooting myself in the foot.

This is especially an issue when it comes to credit cards. There are all sorts of rewards offers, and all of them are designed to entice you to spend more money to get more rewards. I use Discover which pays me cash back rewards of 1% to 5%—each quarter there are specific offers that they'll give you 5% back on, such as home improvement stores or gas stations. Each quarter is different.

But in order for the rewards to actually be worth anything, I need to make sure I never carry a balance since any interest I pay will far outweigh any benefits I'd receive back on the reward.

From miles accumulated to get free flights to free cups of coffee or doughnuts at the gas station, or even points towards free groceries at grocery stores, none of these rewards are worth anything if we are spending to save. 

In fact, we're not saving any money at all.

Menards, which is a huge home improvement chain largely in the Midwest, based in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, is one that often offers a rebate program that gives consumers 11% back on their purchases. Since the pandemic, Menards almost always offers the incentive.

But like all the other reward programs, you have to know what your prices are. You don't buy something just because you declare, "Well, I'm getting 11% off." You still have to do your homework, and the deal is only valuable if you use it in a way that actually makes it valuable.

The bottom line is that spending money is never saving money. It is always spending money. Rewards programs can offer you an opportunity to save on things you need anyway and would buy anyway. But it can be a huge trap for consumers who think that these rewards programs offer "secret ways to stash some side cash."

If you are not careful, the real recipient of the "reward" goes to the one who offers it.

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

Beyond Warren Buffet

No one gets to live forever, but sometimes, depending on who you are, there are legacies that are left behind that never die. The legendary investor, perhaps of all time, Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha, will be one of those people.

It's tough to think about. The end of an era of sorts. The loss of certain new wisdoms that could be shared that will be missed in future times different from yesterday.

I can see it now. Something happens in the financial world, and someone will undoubtedly ask, "What would Warren do?" He's 94, and just last year his right-hand man, the also legendary Charlie Munger, died at the age of 99, just 33 days shy of his 100th birthday.

The fracture has begun in the future of Berkshire Hathaway, the company that Buffet and Munger headed for nearly 50 years together. You could see it in the recent May 4th annual shareholder's meeting. It was still a meeting chock full of wit and wisdom Berkshire has become known for. But it was also a rather somber affair with Buffet looking to his left several times throughout it, where his successor Greg Abel now sat in the seat long held by Charlie Munger.

In one poignant moment he even called Greg by Charlie's name turning over a question to him on energy.

The thing is, Warren Buffet, along with Charlie Munger of course, were and are the heart and soul of the company they built together, taking a virtually defunct old textile mill and turning it into a massive conglomerate that owns businesses across several industries.

Many of which are household names, mind you. Businesses such as Fruit of the Loom, Duracell, GEICO, Dairy Queen, BNSF Railway and countless others. Over the years Berkshire Hathaway also became major shareholders in other household names like Coca-Cola, Apple and others.

Abel has been well groomed to take the lead, as Buffet and Munger were always quick to inform shareholders of. They have said many times that the core values and beliefs that drove their decisions for the company will remain long after they are gone.

That may be mostly true. But still, the company after Warren Buffet is gone from this world will still be a different company. It will still bear the name Berkshire Hathaway of course, and perhaps the core values and beliefs will indeed remain. But the heart and soul will be different. And of course, future shareholder meetings will not have nearly the same draw as when Buffet and Munger sat at the table sharing their thoughts and wisdom on the financial world and the state of their business.

If Warren Buffet is not at the table at next year's meeting, will shareholders have the same enthusiasm to attend what has largely become an event unlike any other shareholder meeting ever was before it? Because that was part of the draw too. Not just that Berkshire is and has always been a great company that has handsomely rewarded investors—attending the shareholder's meeting is like going to a carnival chock full of fun things to do as well as being entertaining and full of useful information.

When Warren and Charlie would speak, it wasn't just Berkshire Hathaway investors' ears that were perked. The entire financial world intently listened too.

The fracture is that one half of the team is now absent. Greg Abel, while able (pardon the slight pun there), is still not either of the two men who he will ultimately replace. Will he be able to share new ideas and wisdoms in the same way Buffet and Munger could?

I think hardly so.

I am not saying that when Buffet is gone that the company dies along with him. I am simply saying that the heart and soul which made Berkshire Hathaway special in its own unique way does.

Berkshire Hathaway essentially is, for all intents and purposes, extensions of the two brilliant minds who ran it. It wasn't just their company or their business. It was not just a path to untold riches, although they did accomplish that. It was akin to being their child. It was a labor of love that they were deeply connected to, I think in ways that most CEOs could never be except perhaps for founders.

Even founders become disconnected in many ways. Jeff Bezos no longer leads Amazon. Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple. Bill Gates no longer runs Microsoft.

That was never the case, nor was it ever going to be when it came to Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger. But it was also their approach that felt unique. And I hate to be talking in past tense terms since Warren is still here. But again, he's 94 you know. It was their love of the business itself which always took priority over the money.

The purpose was to create value. The product of that just so happened to be money.

You can hardly find anyone who would chide either Buffet or Munger. They weren't ever seen as overly rich or greedy. They were simply two men in business who happened to be very rich. They spoke to not only their shareholders. Their words laid heavily on the regular folks as well. Their words were always inspiring and transcended their riches. And they often spoke for the people.

Warren Buffet's legacy will live on forever. That is undeniable. I hope that this year's meeting was not the final chapter in a very long and fascinating story. But we know the day will come when both chairs are ultimately lacking the brilliance we have all come to associate with Berkshire Hathaway, the company.

And the company will never be the same when that day comes. Nor will the world be, I think.

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

Is It Time to Open the Floodgates?

It is no secret that Trump's indictments and trials are of an entirely unprecedented nature. It's not to say that anyone should be considered above the law in any sense. But at the same time, it is not all that unobvious why now, and why Trump.

I know it sounds conspiratorial and a bit tin-hatty, but is it even just that Trump is winning that's the issue here?

What does Trump know and what does the left have to hide?

The argument the left is hanging on is, "All people should be held accountable." They keep pounding their fists about it. The problem is, how come they don't think that way about everyone except for Trump? Essentially, everyone else gets a pass but Trump has to pay?

Sure, the left likes to say, "But Trump's guilty." But by who's measure? Because they (the left) say so, and we just have to take their word for it?

The thing is, no matter what accusations are thrown at the left, they are quickly dismissed as lies and innuendo. Mere accusations with no basis in fact. But when it comes to Trump it's all true no matter what and grave abuses of the system and powers.

How many years did we have to sit through the Mueller investigation solely based on the premise of what turned out to be a fake dossier that accused Trump of doing what? Stealing an election. Only to have anyone on our side shut down for even suggesting Biden may have stolen his.

Trump told protestors on January 6th to be peaceful, yet he was adamantly accused of inciting an insurrection. Yet, no one batted an eye when Chuck Shumer said there would be hell to pay before someone tried to storm Justice Kavanaugh's home to kill him.

How many times was Bill Clinton accused of rape and sexual assault? Were there cries of accountability then? When Fast and Furious was revealed, that guns were being offered to Mexican drug cartels that caused the death of a border patrol agent, were there cries then?

How about when Obama directed the IRS to "slow down" the process of approving certain tax-exempt status for conservative PACs during an election year. Did that raise any eyebrows? Or when his administration outright lied to the American people about the nature of Benghazi to free the optics during an election? Was that of concern?

Hillary Clinton not only kept an unsecure and frankly illegal server, but she also "wiped" it after it was discovered, and 30,000 emails went missing that we have no idea what they contained other than what she alleged they contained. Nothing to see here?

No one wanted to question what Hunter Biden was doing regarding Burisma in Ukraine or what was suggested might be a connection to then Vice President Biden. And then there's the laptop. There's the "big guy" theory strongly suggesting deep criminal activities conducted in the Biden family. 

Not even a hiccup from the crowd.

There are irregularities in the classified documents cases between Trump and Biden. 

I don't want to see the political landscape to be forever locked in criminal investigations while at the same time asserting that I think no one is or should be above the law in any circumstance. But at the same time, we can't just focus on one man and leave all the others untouched. We can't accept all of the accusations of one man and dismiss any others as silly to suggest.

When the left talks about accountability, what are they really saying? Hold TRUMP accountable. Period. End of story.

That by itself strongly suggests the entirely political nature of this. Because if it was truly about accountability, the courts would be filled with cases against politicians on both sides of the aisle, and the 24-hour news cycle would hardly be able to keep up with all of it.

I am starting to think all bets are off. Let's open the flood gates. Let's put them all up for grabs. Every single one of them. Let's have investigations up the wazoo. You want accountability? Fine. Put your money and your laurels where your mouth is.

Because again, when the only guy I see being held to account happens to be Donald J. Trump and everyone else gets a pass, I have only one thing to say.

You're all full of shit!

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

To the Fed I Say, "Not So Fast"

I am no economist, but I say, "Not so fast," on the idea of the Fed lowering interest rates just yet, even if there are some indications of some minor improvements in both the rate of inflation as well as certain jobs data.

Investors appear hopeful we may see the Fed rate lowered.

While we're closer to the desired 2% inflation rate, we're still much higher than that. Beyond that, what we experienced in this particular inflationary period while interest rates were higher was no real slowdown in consumer spending—something that is aimed for when the Fed raises rates. The idea is, of course, to at least stall the economy.

Part of the reason spending really didn't slow down all that much, I think, was due to a couple of factors, and perhaps a third one.

For one thing, while many jobs were impacted by the pandemic shutdowns, many people—in fact, the majority of workers—remained fully employed and earned paychecks. With less places to spend their earnings, people accumulated money that would have otherwise been spent. That money rested on the sidelines until things finally opened back up.

The second thing was that trillions of dollars were forced into the economy through relief checks to people and businesses. On top of that, unemployment benefits were extended for people impacted by Covid. In other words, while the economy itself had a stall during the pandemic, consumers were still largely cash rich. They were either stockpiling money or they were otherwise shored up by the government.

That left a lot of money on the table to be spent eventually and spend it consumers did when doors were once again open.

The third thing, I think, was a bit of what I am calling a "capitulation," of sorts. During that roughly two-year period it was miserable. No two ways about it. If you were spending, it was only on the essentials. With the lockdowns you couldn't really go anywhere. And even when it came to any shopping you could do there were massive supply chain disruptions which meant shelves were virtually left empty on many of the things we needed and wanted to buy.

Then came massive inflation, and I think people simply said, "Screw it." 

People not only wanted to get out when the economy opened back up for business. They needed to. And they were going to spend their money no matter what because they had the money to spend. Thus, through all of this, even while the Fed tried to slow people down, it just wasn't happening, and inflation continued despite the efforts of the Fed.

I do think we are finally seeing at least some indication that higher interest rates are beginning to take effect and help to reverse course. McDonald's and other fast-food chains recently reported a slowdown in sales for the first time in a long time. Consumer spending overall has slowed a bit.

The thing is, why lower rates now when things are just getting started? Let's get much closer to that 2% and then make a decision.

It's sort of the same reasoning that Biden's passage of the American Rescue Plan at a time when things were already opened back up and people began returning to work was simply wrong. It provided for prolonged issues in the supply chain and lead to massive labor shortages, both of which contributed largely to a lot of the inflation we are experiencing now.

It was simply the wrong time to infuse more money into the economy when it really didn't need it.

It's not to say that even if the Fed lowers the rate nominally, say 25 basis points, that consumers will go wild and return to normal spending levels right away. But I think the better idea is to wait until not only we get to the desired 2%, but we stay there for a little while. Then we lower the rates.

Today we will hear comments from New York Fed President John Williams and Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin that should at least provide for a better idea as to what moves the Fed will make in the near term.

I am hoping they indicate that for now we're going to sit tight.

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

The Voters Are Pulling Out Their Wallets for Trump

Anyone can say whatever they want in regard to Trump's campaign, but the reality is that it is in full force and the left is clearly in denial. Probably in panic too, but of course they would never admit it.

And it's not just the polls that show Trump is leading in key swing states and has been for a long time. It's not even the national polls that show Trump is also in the lead. It's not even the large headcount rallies he's been putting on which attract people in the thousands every single time.

It's the money.

And it's not only just the money itself, but it's where it's coming from is what matters more than anything. It's the grass-roots money we often talk about. That is, the money that is coming from the "regular folks." Money coming from actual voters who are energized and ready to go.

More importantly, it's coming from voters ready to fire Joe Biden and reinstall Trump back into the White House this coming November.

In March the Trump campaign raised a little over $65 million, and in April that number was surpassed, with the campaign having raised over $76 million. Not only are his campaign donations picking up steam, but half of the money also raised came from small donors.

The biggest problem the Democrats face, and it is something I think they squarely missed, is that voters are actually paying attention. They are ignoring the media because they know they haven't been given it straight.

They have tried very hard to paint Trump's past four years in office as a disaster, and to make Trump out to be a criminal. But we've lived through Biden's term and the story just isn't aligning with the reality. And no matter how hard the left tries to sell their story as being a better one, it's just not true and voters know it.

Voters are also not buying into the "criminal" narrative. 

As such, regular folks, even at a time when inflation is at decades high levels, when consumer confidence is beginning to show signs of weakening, and when discretionary spending is finally pulling back, are willing to send a few dollars Trump's way to help him on his journey back to Washington D.C.

It's not to say that you can buy a presidency. You can't. You have to earn it. But if the regular folks are sending money, it means they are also sending a strong signal of their support. Because the truth is Trump's presidency is more clearly seen now, and Biden just hasn't gotten the job done.

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

Call Me What You Want, In the End I Am Simply an American

The Democrats have called us every name in the books. Well, they've made a few things up too. Like MAGA extremists. And one recent one they seem to like to lob is to call us faketriots. But we've been called deplorables, racists, Bible thumpers, homophobes, misogynists and bigots.

We've even been called a cult.

The reality is that the only reason they call us these names is because they don't really have any position they can state articulately. Moreover, their side has no real victory to argue against our side's points.

It's simply nothing more than a tactic to try to insult us and shut us down—and stop the conversation, of course. It's what they think is their drop the mic moment. If any commonsense statement is made, you just call them a name, wave your arm and walk away.

If I have said it once I have said it a million times. You can't fill a three hour talk radio show with just talking points, and that's why liberal radio has never worked. Liberal ideology only ever fits on a bumper sticker.

Liberals like to tell you what something should be. They are never able to fully articulate why. Or how we do it. On top of that, they rarely are willing to think about any of the many variables that might be important to consider if we do what they want.

Take the idea of a minimum wage increase. The reality is that both sides want to see people making more money. However, our side thinks that it should be a natural process while the other side thinks it should be a forced process.

The left doesn't consider small businesses who may be severely impacted by higher labor costs, or even whether or not the smaller businesses can even afford it. They don't consider the impact on the costs of things or whether or not it could wash out any pay increases. They don't consider there may be pushes for more automation, or that service may be compromised as businesses are less able to fully staff their operations.

They just tell us, "You don't care about the poor." Drop the mic.

The reason we stand with Trump is quite simply answered. We were better off under Trump than we were under Obama, and we were certainly much better off under Trump than under Biden. 

We want to see law and order. We want secure borders. We want better opportunities for American workers. We want cheaper gas and independence from the oil cartels. We want unity. We want to be proud to be Americans and fly our flags with honor. We want to support our police, military and veterans. We want to be a country free of threats from foreign enemies.

And we want our government to act in our interests. Trump does that. Trump did that. Mean tweets and other antics aside. That I think we can all agree, distracted from what was good. It gave the media too much extra to focus on. But what Trump also gave us is someone who mostly is like us. He doesn't act like nor talk like a politician. He says what's on his mind, good or bad, and one thing I have always said about that is that that's the greatest transparency you could possibly have.

Biden has sat there for three plus years telling us the economy was doing great, that he created all these jobs, that inflation would be transitory, that the border is secure and any number of other outright lies he's told.

You can't tell us things that our eyes can't see and expect us to believe it.

All the name calling aside, what it shows is something else. Desperation. Because again, there is no valid argument. It's all they have to give. They can't tell you why we're supposed to see what they see. That Biden's policies have worked.

We are simply racist if we are against illegal immigration. We're misogynists if we are against abortion. We are homophobes and bigots if we believe there are only two genders. Yet at the same time we are science deniers if we don't believe in man-made climate change. We are bootlickers if we support the police—and racist there too, of course.

What is MAGA really? If that's the group you want to lump us into. What are we?

We are country loving Constitutionalists who want to restore and honor the core foundations of our founding fathers who created this great country. As Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana put it once, we have created such a successful country that everyone wants to come here, and even those who hate it don't want to leave.

At the end of the day, we don't really care what names we're called. It doesn't matter because we know our side is right—at least it is now. There's only one name anyone will be able to call us come the November election.

Winners.

Because no matter how hard the left has tried to break down the resolve of the American people and real patriots, the American people are stronger than those who wish to destroy the nation that's been built, and it's our country, and we want it back.

No matter what you decide to call me, the only name that applies to me is American. I signed up to fight for my country once, and even if I no longer wear the uniform today, I never once gave up my commitment to fight for Her to my dying breath.

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