Friday, June 30, 2017

Democrat's Media Pooch Circling His Own Poop? Why I Post These Memos!

The Democrat Pooch keeps circling and smelling his own poop. 
 This from a friend and fellow memo reader regarding the attacks on Trump  from the slime at MSNBC: "I agree, the part about the Facelift was uncalled for, I didn't have a problem with the rest of it, these
two, especially Scarbourgh, who plays the 'Conservative" on the show have been unrelenting in their attacks on Trump, calling him a 'thug' a 'psycho' and saying he needs to be 'lobotomized.'

When Senator Kristen Gillibrand of New York can give a speech and say "if the Republicans and Trump can't help the people, they can go fuck themselves -- she said it twice; you know that political discourse has reached a new low -- and she deliberately said it in front of a young crowd because her "handlers" told her it would help her relate to young people!   Says something about how we raise and teach our kids. 

But  get used to it, Trump has a couple hundred thousand tweeter followers and unlike past presidents he doesn't have to be a  " hostage" of the MSM.   95% of his tweets relate to his policies and programs  and successes, like the travel ban ruling and Sanctuary cities,  and Kate's law -- which the MSM ignore.
I do wish he would "dial it back" on the tone of the personal attacks, but when  you realize he is the most personally attacked President  since   Lincoln -- who didn't have tweeter - you can see his problem. R-----"

Podesta and his Russian connection.(See 1 below.)


When it comes to Trump, the real collusion seems to be on the part of feckless Republican's 
unwillingness to defend their president against scurrilous attacks and fake news reports. (See
1a and 1b below.)
My ultimate purpose in writing these memo missives is not to convince the reader I am right but to get readers to ponder whether their own views are defensible.

Yes, there are times when I am hard nosed and convinced I am right, ,ie. capitalism is preferable to socialism.

I am not a party person just a conservative and therefore, I find myself aligned with Republican principles but most Republican Politicians have lost their way and are not very principled.  They simply want to get re-elected. They are not likely to fight very hard if doing so would threaten their re-election.

I also am firm in my conviction that Americans gave abdicated their chance to continue being a great nation around the time of The Viet Nam War and the disastrous '60's. The problems that plague us today have been  building since Wison but Viet Nam was the clincher. The wounds of that period spawned a widened division, a wound which has never healed and was re-opened by Obama.

We remain a great nation when compared to the other pygmies in Europe, renegades in Asia, The Undemocratic Middle East and  radical Islamic tribal factions and then there is Africa. I fear our slope is downward.

I am perfectly willing to be challenged and I take to heart the positive, cheery prattle of Warren Buffet but have yet to be convinced that my pessimism is unfounded.

The basis of my concern remains how we have shredded public education, elected a judiciary that has contempt for our constitution and elected politicians who believe in free lunches lacking any nutrition.We have embraced a paternalistic government that has made us dependent and have destroyed the family unit in the process.

I take no comfort is being pessimistic but I see no reason to disregard the signs of dry rot either.

To offset the heaviness I throw in some cartoons from time o time.

As always I welcome comments.
Have a meaningful and great 4th!

Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta on alleged Kremlin-backed investment: It’s not true

During an interview with the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman, pushed back on claims that his investment in a small energy company, Joule Energy, was backed by the Russian government. 

Podesta sparked a heated debate with Bartiromo after she stated that he was “given 75,000 shares in a Russian company.”
Podesta had a different take. “I did not have any stock in any Russian company so go back and get your facts straight Maria,” he said.
Bartiromo pressed Podesta. “That’s not true John, we know that you own 5,000 shares, you were on the board of [Joule]."
“I didn’t have any shares in any Russian company," Podesta said. "I was on the board of an American company that did business here and only here. The Russian company had a small investment in that company,” Podesta replied.
The back-and-forth continued, with Bartiromo asserting that "it’s been widely reported that that company has been backed by the Kremlin and they gave you 75,000 shares that you had to disclose when you went into the Obama Administration."
Podesta insisted the reporting was wrong.
“Maria you can keep leveling this charge. It is not true. They didn’t give me anything," he said. "They had a small investment in a company I was on the board of. It was a clean energy company that was trying to deal with the issue of trying to produce energy liquid fuel from a biotechnology process. It was based in Boston and the Russian company had a very small investment in it.” Podesta suggested that Bartiromo may have been looking at information from InfoWars.
“No I’m not. This is Politico… The New York Times… The Wall Street Journal—that’s what I’m looking at John,” Bartiromo replied, turning the focus to Podesta's meeting with the Senate House Intelligence panel probing Russia’s interference with the 2016 election.
Suggesting that Democrats have much deeper ties to Russia than Republicans, Podesta responded by saying he was surprised she wasn’t more ”concerned” about Vladimir Putin interfering in the U.S. election.

“Actually I am concerned about it John,” Bartiromo said. Everybody knows that Russia’s trying to undermine the U.S.—has been for years. That’s not a new story. The story that the Democrats have been riding and this Trump collusion is simply not true and we have no evidence of it.”
“Well look you’re talking to the wrong guy,” Podesta answered, “you should be talking to his people about whether they colluded.”
1a) A plea for Republican unity
The lead story in the New York Times, June 30, reported that President Trump drew "condemnation from his fellow Republicans" for rebuking Mika Brzezinski for her anti-Trump rants.  
There the the Republicans go again, ready to join the left in denouncing Donald J. Trump for daring to defend himself against attack. Is it any wonder that the country has yet to get legislation on health insurance that does not ravage the middle class -- and health care --  in the U.S.?  The  Republicans who will not defend President Trump against personal, ad hominem attacks, are the same Republicans who cower in the face of leftist demagoguery, generally.   All it takes is a Democrat or two to say Republican action on health insurance will kill people, and Republicans cower and  defer to the de facto Socialists.
Concerning the president, the pattern has long been apparent:  he gets viciously attacked by his enemies;  he exercises what, at the UN, is called "right of reply" and Republicans denounce him -- not the accuser -- to the great joy and amusement of leftists, who are encouraged to believe that they can control government while lacking congressional majorities -- and with a Republican in the White House. How is this possible?  Republicans would rather twitch -- than fight.

Consider:  why is there a special counsel looking at an investigation concerning  "collusion with Russia"? Because Republicans are afraid of their shadow, that's why.  Chuck  -- either Schumer or Todd, same difference -- says "boo" and Republicans cringe and cower -- to the exasperation and consternation and embarrassment of voters who were naive to believe congressional Republicans would join with President Trump in his program to "make America great again."    

If Republicans had any sense that the voters chose them to be the governing party,  Congress, by nhow,  would  1) have repealed ObamaCare, 2) enacted sensible tax reform; 3) put an end to media/intelligence attempts to undermine the Trump presidency, and 4) GOP members of Congress would have rapidly responded  to malicious attacks on President Trump -- obviating any need for him to defend his name and his presidency.
Alas, with congressional Republicans  influenced  by cowardly-lion leaders, anti-Trump hate speech will become the lingua politica, the nation will get a single party -- as well as single-payer -- system, and the cry of liberty will no longer be heard throughout  the land.     
After the terrible shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, Speaker Paul Ryan called for unity. Mr. Speaker, how about some unity encompassing the president, congressional Republicans -- and us deplorables?

1b) GOP Congress Uses Trump Tweets as Excuse for Its Own Ineptitude
He was the best of Trumps. He was the worst of Trumps. He was....

Oh, forget it. The world needs another Dickens pastiche about as much as it needs another discussion of Donald Trump's tweets.

Haven't we known about the president's outré social media habits for the better part of two years now (it seems like a century)? And what have we learned from this?

Well, nothing really. It has been a complete distraction, absolutely useless. Who cares what Donald Trump thinks of Joe Scarborough or the reverse? Or any similar battle — past, present, or future. At one point he was supposed to disdain Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz and now they're all pals. Next week they'll  be sniping again. It goes on.

Trump has his "Twitter eruptions" the way Bill Clinton had his "bimbo eruptions." The media makes a big deal about them for, largely, commercial reasons, and, in Donald's case, because they obviously just can't stand him. They despise Trump far more than Clinton, even though both are, relatively, centrists. Go figure.

One of the more amusing aspects of the media/Democrat avidity to see Trump impeached is that he would be replaced by Mike Pence, a real conservative. That's how much they dislike Trump. They'd probably even want to impeach him if Recep Erdogan were the vice president. (Hey, he'd undoubtedly lift the travel ban, even if he killed a few thousand Kurds into the bargain.)

Nevertheless, the media are the media. In a word — swine. And not really worth discussing anymore.

What is worth discussing is just why GOP senators and congressmen feel they have to comment on every Trumpism when, in reality, they don't. Their job is to comment on — and hopefully, enact — Trump's actual proposals or something more or less similar. And Trump makes that fairly easy for them because he gives them a rather wide berth on the specifics. He's far from a dictator, although he is constantly accused of being one. Laudably, he just wants to get things done.

Time For The Vermin To return To Their Respective Sewers. Some Facts That Explain A Lot. Time To Put On The Gloves. Have A Serious 4th of July.

Liberals tend to believe passionately so change in attitude is difficult. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Trump is off base with his Tweets, as I noted previously, but those who attack him are also being vicious, obnoxious and are equally acting in a totally despicable manner.

The call by another Congressional Rep.of color for Trump's resignation is pitiful and a reflection on her own judgement.

It is long past the time for the vermin to return to their respective sewers.

Stop the stupid tweeting and put on the damn gloves instead. (See 2 below.)
Some facts that explain a lot. (See 3 below.)
Have a Great and Serious 4th of July!

Why liberals keep giving radical Islam a pass – and what it will take to change their minds

By Dave Urbanski

Kashmiri demonstrators hold up a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during a demonstration against Israeli military operations in Gaza, in downtown Srinagar on July 18, 2014.
(Image source: Tauseef Mustafa/AFP/Getty Images)
One might conclude that given example after example of radical Islam’s heinous acts around the globe even after 9/11, liberals would cease giving them a pass or the benefit of the doubt.
But even after Fort Hood, Boston, Paris, Garland, Chattanooga, San Bernardino and Orlando — to name a few attacks — some liberals clearly don’t feel that way. Indeed, a new CBS poll indicates that 66 percent of Democrats believe Islam is no different from other religions when it comes to encouraging violence.
People hold candles during a vigil for shooting victims on Thursday, Dec. 3, 2015, at San Manuel Stadium in San Bernardino, Calif. A husband and wife opened fire on a holiday banquet, killing multiple people on Wednesday. Hours later, the couple died in a shootout with police. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
People hold candles during a vigil for shooting victims Dec. 3, 2015, at San Manuel Stadium in
San Bernardino, California. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
Who can forget left-wing actor Ben Affleck’s infamous appearance on “Real Time” when he became incensed at host Bill Maher and atheist icon Sam Harris for daring to say Islam’s general reluctance to call out and combat radical elements is a problem? Affleck referred to that conclusion as “racist” and “gross.”
Maher — a rare liberal who’s outspoken in his criticism of Islam — countered that it’s “the only religion that acts like the mafia; that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, paint the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”
Loud and opinionated comedienne Rosie O’Donnell — who praised Affleck’s words after the “Real Time” dust-up — drew honest-to-goodness applause on “The View” a few years before saying that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.” To her credit, left-wing icon Joy Behar attempted to temper O’Donnell, saying, “Christians are not threatening to kill us.”
And of course, former President Barack Obama refused to place the words “radical” and “Islam” together, which led to many to conclude he was giving special favor to Islam while never hesitating to openly criticize Christianity.
After last June’s terror attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Obama said using the term “radical Islam” won’t change a thing.
“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” Obama asked. “The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”
Republican President Donald Trump disagrees — and made it a point to emphatically call out “radical Islamic terrorism” during his inauguration address last month and promise to end it.
So what will it take to change liberals’ minds on the subject? Another 9/11-scale attack — or worse? And what other factors might be playing a role in the left’s seemingly ingrained desire to not look radical Islam square in the eye and take it on?
Robert Spencer — director of Jihad Watch and a noted authority on the pervasiveness of radical Islam — told TheBlaze he’s seeing the left not only continuing to give Islamic extremism a pass but also noticing liberals beginning to normalize elements of it.
And he needed to point no further than the much-heralded Women’s March, which hit the streets the day after Trump’s inauguration — and featured speaker and march organizer Linda Sarsour, a “Palestinian Muslim American” who’s come under scrutiny for threatening statements she made against Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali several years back.
“Ms. Sarsour is not interested in universal human rights,” Ali told the New York Times, adding, “she’s a defender of Sharia law. There’s no principle that demeans, degrades and dehumanizes women more than the principal of Sharia law.”
Despite this, Spencer said liberals continue their “glamorization and glorification” of Sarsour — as well as their “vilification of anyone who points out her ties to Hamas, vicious hatred of Israel … even in publications such as Elle.”
Other normalization examples include the “the proliferation of World Hijab Day events, which ignore the many women who have been brutalized or even killed for not wearing the hijab, and the spread among Western leftist feminists of the idea that the hijab and Sharia restrictions on women’s rights are a beautiful sign of cultural diversity, to be celebrated rather than condemned.”
Spencer agreed, too, that left-wing bias against Christianity and Judaism finds a kindred spirit with radical Islam, as both share “hatred for Judeo-Christian Western civilization.” Furthermore, radical Islam’s goal of bringing down “the West” taps into a kind of liberal self-loathing that wouldn’t mind seeing America brought low, given it’s viewed by some liberals “the source of all the evil in the world.”
Another tool the left tends to use — and Affleck’s “Real Time” appearance spells it out — is the characterization of Islam criticism as “racism,” despite the fact that Islam isn’t a race.
“Racism is our national trauma,” Spencer added to The Blaze. “The endeavor to portray Muslims as ‘brown’ and foes of jihad terror as disliking them solely for racial reasons is a cynical and dishonest enterprise that has the effect of intimidating people into being afraid to oppose jihad terror. Of course, many leftists are so poorly educated and unable to think critically that they no doubt believe all that.”
So, what — if anything — might possibly turn the tide on the left?
Spencer noted that it very likely would take something at least as terrible as another 9/11-scale attack, as “with with every jihad attack some people wake up.”
But the “leftist intelligentsia knows that,” he said, which poses an issue, since “after every attack, there is a strenuous effort to exonerate Islam from any responsibility for it.”

1a) The Progressive Boomerang
By Victor Davis Hanson

The progressive strategy of investigating President Donald Trump nonstop for Russian collusion or obstruction of justice or witness tampering so far has produced no substantial evidence of wrongdoing.
The alternate strategy of derailing the new administration before it really gets started hasn't succeeded either, despite serial efforts to sue over election results, alter the Electoral College vote, boycott the inauguration, delay the confirmation of appointments, demand recusals, promise Trump's impeachment or removal through the 25th Amendment, and file suit under the Emoluments Clause.

A third strategy of portraying Trump as a veritable monster likewise so far has failed in four special elections for House seats.
Apparently progressives have accepted the idea that Barack Obama's formula of twice winning the Electoral College is not yet transferable to other progressive candidates such as Hillary Clinton. And they probably have concluded that Obama's progressive political agenda proved unpopular with voters by 2010 and had to be implemented by ad hoc executive orders -- presidential prerogatives now utilized by Donald Trump to overturn the ones Obama issued.
A fourth potential pathway to power would be a return to Bill Clinton's pragmatic agendas of the 1990s. But apparently progressives find that centrist remedy worse than the malady of losing elections -- given that during the Obama tenure, more than 1,000 state and local offices were lost to Republicans, in addition to majorities in the House and Senate, and a majority of governorships and legislatures.
What next?
Trump acts as if he is a Nietzschean figure, assuming that anything that does not destroy him only makes him stronger. And now, slowly, his accusers are becoming the accused.
One nagging problem with the progressive case against Trump for purported Russian collusion and obstruction of justice was that members of the Obama administration had more exposure to those allegations than did the political newcomer Trump.
Last year, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that not only did former Attorney General Loretta Lynch improperly meet in secret with Bill Clinton during an investigation of Hillary Clinton, but that Lynch had asked Comey to downplay the investigation into Hillary's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Comey confessed that he had reluctantly agreed to Lynch's request.
Earlier this month, in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey admitted that he asked a friend to leak notes about Comey's earlier conversation with Trump in hopes of forcing the nomination of a special investigator to lead the Russia investigation -- perhaps a successful gambit, given that Comey's friend, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, was soon appointed to that role.
Comey also wrongly dismissed Hillary Clinton's email problems because of a perceived lack of criminal intent -- a supposedly mitigating circumstance that legally should have had no bearing on things.
As far as alleged Russian collusion, there had long been conservative accusations that Bill and Hillary Clinton used Hillary's status as secretary of state to leverage honoraria for Bill and donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for concessions to Russian interests.
Moreover, Russian tampering efforts had been going on for months before the 2016 election, but without any retaliatory measures from the Obama administration, which knew about Russia's meddling.
In an inadvertent hot-mic request in 2012, Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to urge Russian President Vladimir Putin "to give me space" during Obama's re-election campaign, so that after his assumed success, Obama could reciprocate with "more flexibility" on Russian issues. In the present highly charged climate, would that be seen as a form of Russian collusion?
Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee is still investigating whether top Obama administration officials wrongfully used the power of foreign-intelligence collection to conduct surveillance of Americans -- particularly members of the Trump campaign.
The point is not whether the Clintons, James Comey, Barack Obama or members of the Obama administration can be proven to have engaged in illegal or unscrupulous behavior.
Rather, the lesson is that progressives should have offered alternative political visions that might have won back the American people rather than attempting to terminate the Trump presidency on charges to which the progressive side was far more vulnerable.
Now that Trump is emerging from successful House special elections and has fended off six months of media attacks, celebrity invective and progressive efforts to abort his tenure, he seems to be going back on the offensive.
Currently, House and Senate investigations are doing to Democrats what has been done Trump. So far these probes seem to have better chances to prove alleged wrongdoing.
What does all this political back-and-forth mean?
Democrats struck preemptively to take out Trump before he unwound the Obama legacy. That effort has probably been stalled.
The return volley is being launched at a time when an energized Trump is gaining momentum on health care and tax reform, and an improving economy.
In sum, to thwart a new president's policies, it is probably wiser to offer alternative agendas instead of trying to destroy him before he has even entered office.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is The Savior Generals from BloomsburyBooks. You can reach him by e-mailing
2) Time to Fight, Mr. President

Despite registering as a member of the Conservative Party in 1976, I have always had a deep and abiding sympathy for Republicans, who in reality are ersatz conservatives who want to play the game more than they want to stand by their beliefs.

Who can blame them?  Everyone wants to sit at the cool table for lunch.  Yet that seat ain't free.  For many, the price is a moderation of their beliefs.  Hence, they let progressives dictate not only the game, but the rules as well, and then they make Republicans feel that if they don't play, they are not worthy of the game or their seat at the cool table, their invites to all the cool parties, and all that comes with being one of the cool kids.

This is one of the reasons why there often doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Sure, they sound different, but invariably, when in control of the levers of power, they govern in a similar fashion.  Perhaps it can be argued that Republicans move the nation down the progressive rabbit hole at a slower pace, but down that hole we go.

Sure, some will say politics ain't high school, but it is – it truly is.  Everything in life can be reduced to the schoolyard.  If you don't punch the bully in the face that first time, you will have a bully problem.  The greatest continuing success the Democrats have ever had is their unending ability to bully the Republican Party into something more akin to being Democrats. 

Maybe they think to sink to the Democrats' level is beneath them – or maybe they are simply afraid of what the press will say about them if they actually stand up for themselves and fight for what they believe in

When Mitt Romney had Barack Obama on the ropes during the 2012 presidential debates, he didn't go for the kill.  He held back because that's what good Republicans do.  They don't fight; they practice self-restraint.  All this while Dems were calling him the cruelest man who ever lived, who would put blacks "back in chains."
Despite serial eviscerations by the Democratic Party wing that is the media, and Democrats themselves, Republicans do not understand that in limiting the rules of engagement, they have actually constrained their ability to win.  Now, that's fine if perpetually your goal is to be a good loser.  The high road is filled with good losers.
Let's hope it's not too late for Republicans to turn themselves around and fight back against progressives using the same tactics the left uses against them.  Maybe they should take a page from Trump's election playbook.
Victor Davis Hanson said, "The problem with the election of President Donald J. Trump was not just that he presented a roadblock to an ongoing progressive revolution. Instead, unlike recent Republican presidential nominees, he was indifferent to the cultural and political restraints on conservative pushback."  He then added, "Trump brawled in a way McCain or Romney did not. He certainly did not prefer losing nobly to winning ugly."
While that's true, the true problem with Donald Trump and the reason the left pursues him with such ardor is that he is not a Democrat – and to progressives, that is the greatest sin of all.

Now, Donald Trump, who won the presidency by telling people he wouldn't take crap from anyone and would put America and Americans first, has seemingly put a little pause on his game.  Leaks, fake news, recusals, endless hearings, and a special counsel have hindered his ability to get anything done legislatively.  The Republicans in Congress seem entirely unwilling to stand up for their president. 

As soon as Trump was elected, everyone, Republicans as well as Democrats, started telling him he had to play the game – but the heck with their game; he needs to make them play his game.  No matter how much he tries to fit in, he will never be accepted, and he will ever be pursued. 

Fight, damn it – it won you the presidency.  Why stop now?  Don't stop tweeting.  Say what you want to say.  You have excellent instincts, as the latest CNN "fake news" kerfuffle has shown.

Mr. President, you have to understand that the people who are telling you to stop tweeting or are telling you to tweet with no offense are attempting to disarm you of the most effective weapon you have, and that is the "No BS Zone."  Bill O'Reilly had the "No Spin Zone"; you need to own the "No BS Zone."  That is your biggest strength.  You cannot let anyone tell you anything different.  Call a spade a spade.  America craves a president who calls it the way he sees it, without pretense and without political correctness. 

They are coming for Trump.  If he wants to win, he will need to fight, and he will need to fight with what he has.  Sure, he may say some things that are not relevant and perhaps even outright wrong, but as the holder of the Bully Pulpit, he needs to say what he think.  The left won't like it because they are all about silencing the opposition (see college campus dogma today).  Who cares about the ululations of the left?  Trump's tweets are the best way to bypass the media and change the conversation from the one progressives want to have to the one he wants to have.
The worst decision Donald Trump made upon becoming president was not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.  Needless to say, the criminal investigation would have been open and shut, and Ms. "Thing that Won't Go Away" would now be chugging her favorite chardonnay behind the bars of her federal prison cell.
I think the president showed infinitesimally more prosecutorial discretion than any elected Democrat would show any Republican guilty of far less serious infractions.  What did it get him?  Look around at what's going on today.  Trump is the target of a witch-hunt investigation by Special Counsel Mueller.  Mueller has his verdict; now what he needs is a crime.

When the Democrats are in control of the presidency, the left is all about "civility" and "can't we all just get along?"  Yet when they are out of power, it's "Resist" and comedians holding the bloody, severed head of the president.  If anyone had done that with Obama, he would probably still be in federal prison.  I seem to recall a rodeo clown who had the audacity to wear an Obama mask not only being fired, but also suffering through multiple interviews with the Secret Service.

Every day you hear the Trump administration and the Mueller investigation compared to Watergate, the hands-down high point of the Democratic Party.  As far as spying on American citizens for political gain and the weaponization of American institutions such as the IRS to pursue political opponents, it's the Obama administration that most effectively channeled its inner Nixon.

Mr. President, they started this fight.  It's time to take the fight to them.

With that in mind, how about appointing a special counsel for Hillary?

How about appointing a special counsel for Loretta Lynch and her obstruction of the Hillary investigation...oops, matter?

How about appointing a special counsel for Susan Rice and the unmasking of American citizens?
How about appointing a special counsel for Lois Lerner of IRS fame?
How about appointing a special counsel for Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious gun-walking?
Last but not least, how about a special counsel to investigate Barack Obama and the spying on Americans for political purposes?  Wasn't that part of the impeachment charges against Nixon?
The American people voted for Donald Trump because he said he would fight.  It's high time he started


Trump won't accept a “can't do” attitude, or inexperienced, incompetent performance. He will get results, it just might not be smooth or pretty.
Here are some amazing stats: Make sure you read to the bottom.   An eye opener!  (Or should be!)

New Mexico
New York
South Carolina

These 10 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed!

2. Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support.
What's the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day.

To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for 40 hour week, while the average job pays $24.00 an hour.

3. Check the last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is:  A real-life business not a government job.

Here are the percentages:

38%    T. Roosevelt
40%    Taft
52%    Wilson
49%    Harding
48%    Coolidge
42%    Hoover
50%    F. D. Roosevelt
50%    Truman
57%    Eisenhower        
30%    Kennedy        
47%    Johnson
53%    Nixon
42%    Ford
32%    Carter
56%    Reagan       
51%    GH Bush
39%    Clinton         
55%    GW Bush      
  8%    Obama       

This helps explain the bias, if not the incompetence, of the last administration: ONLY 8% of them have ever worked in private business! That's right!  Only eight percent - the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!  And these people tried to tell our corporations how to run their businesses?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?  Or about jobs when he has never really had one?  And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?  They've spent most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers."

Trump has caught hell from both the Main Stream Media and the established Washington elite for choosing people in his administration with business experience rather than people that only know how to spend other people's money