Wednesday, December 7, 2016

The Silliness of Not Talking to Taiwan

Recently, President-elect, Donald Trump, took a phone call from the President of Taiwan, and the Democrats and liberal media (and China) went berserk over it.  Even going so far as to call Trump stupid for violating a long held official non-diplomatic status.  A status which is, in itself, a charade; we know it, and so does China, which claims that Taiwan is their property and subject to their government's regulation.  However, in 1979, the then-President Jimmy Carter signed the Taiwan Relations Act into law, in order to establish an unofficial diplomatic status with them and conduct relations through a "front" organization called the American Institute of Taiwan; located in Washington, D.C.

Therefore, we do not have an official relation with Taiwan, but we sure seem to do a lot of business with that country.  "Officially", Taiwan is our 9th largest trading partner.  We sell them about $26 billion in goods, and,they, in turn, send us about $41 billion in Taiwan-made products.  Additionally, many of our major multinational companies have operations there.  Companies such as IBM, 3M, and Microsoft.  On top of everything else, the United States has sold Taiwan billions of dollars worth of military equipment under every President since 1979, in order to help them defend themselves against China.  You don't think that hasn't pissed China off more than a few minutes of conversation between Donald Trump and Taiwan's President?

So, just maybe, Donald Trump will finally expose the folly of not dealing with Taiwan directly.  I hope so, because this nonsense of not talking to them is really, really silly.  By the way.  I wish the Washington Post would take a single stand on this (note the references below).  Even going so far as to say it was "brilliant"!  Wow! That's saying a lot from a noted liberal media outlet.


Washington Post: Trump speaks with Taiwanese president, a major break with decades of U.S. policy on China:

Washington Post: Why people are making such a big deal about the Trump-Taiwan call:

Washington Post: Trump's Taiwan call wasn't a blunder. It was brilliant

Washington Post: Trump’s Taiwan phone call was long planned, say people who were involved

Taiwan–United States relations:

U.S. Trade with Taiwan:

U.S. Companies in Taiwan:

List of US arms sales to Taiwan - Wikipedia:

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Criticizing the Carrier Deal, Shows Why Democrats Lost

One thousand jobs saved by a man who has yet to take the oath of office has Democrats reeling in agony. Most notably, Larry Summers, predicted "Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism".  This former Clinton appointee and Obama economics advisor, also just following Trump's win, warned that a "badly designed" infrastructure plan "will only hurt the working class".  So, there you have it, Trump's focus on jobs is bad for capitalism and bad for America's working class.

And, it doesn't stop there. Dozens of left-leaning media types are pumping out negative commentaries as noted by these samplings of headlines that appeared in one "positive" from Investor's Business Daily (IBD):

"Trump's Carrier Victory Is the Economy's Loss"
"Trump's Carrier deal is right out of Putin's playbook"
"Is Trump's Deal With Carrier A Form Of Crony Capitalism?"
"Trump Cheered for Carrier Deal Even as Other Jobs Are Trimmed"
"Bernie Sanders: Donald Trump 'Has Endangered' U.S. Jobs With Carrier Deal"
Even the White House chimed in by claiming that this is just a fraction of the manufacturing jobs created by Obama, which, by the way, is a complete lie, since under Obama, more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs just went poof!  And, in the latest employment report, another 4,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. How does that square with Trump saving 1000 Carrier jobs? Or, the promise by Obama that he would create 1 million manufacturing jobs in his second term. 

My take on all the criticism of Trump and the Carrier Deal by Democrats is somewhat different.   I think that all the negative commentary only shows that Democrats really don't care about the American worker.  Instead it's all about sparring over politics.  Trump won on a pro-worker agenda and the Carrier deal was just a part of it.  This is why Trump won so many blue collar votes. The Democrats just don't get that.


Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism:

A badly designed US stimulus will only hurt the working class:

No, Obama, you presided over a loss of manufacturing jobs, and failed to deliver on exports:

Manufacturing Sector Loses 4,000 Jobs in November - CNS News: 

Here's Why Trump's Carrier Deal Is So Important:

Donald Trump’s support from blue-collar Colorado voters led to upset in a Democratic stronghold:


Monday, December 5, 2016

Obama Calls for the Control of the Internet and Communications

During a recent press conference with Angela Merkel, President Obama blamed the rise of Trump on the Internet and "communications" (Newspapers? Radio? TV?); claiming that these technologies need to be controlled because they are "disruptive".  Disruptive to who?  Him?  The Democrats?  Or, to those that call themselves globalists, who believe in open borders; a unified world government; and a single global currency?

The fact is, that Obama, once again, wants to control conservative talk.

Of course, he is talking about Fox News. In 2010, he said they had a "destructive" viewpoint.  In May of 2015, at a conference at Georgetown University, when talking about the fact that the media must be controlled, he said this: "I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad..."  Just recently, he went after them again when he claimed that Hillary Clinton's loss was due to the fact that Fox News is in "every bar and restaurant".  Really?.  Most bars I've gone to have sports on, and most restaurants play music, not Fox News.  He really needs to get out more often and see what the real world is like!

I suppose that this blog as well, needs to be controlled.  And, what about talk radio? Also I'm certain that he thinks Brietbart, Mediaite, and a whole host of other conservative websites must be sternly dealt with. In fact, any form of communications that doesn't show Barack Obama in a "good light" should be eradicated; or at least converted to a liberal format.  Since he has been in office, he has used his appointees on the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission to shut down conservative speech of any kind.

But now he's even gotten Facebook and Google involved in limiting free speech.  Both run by Obama and Democratic supporters, they are now in the process of cleansing the internet of supposed false/fake news. The question here is, who elected them the arbitrators of what constitutes fake news.  And, where is the line drawn between opinion pieces and so-called fake news.  Facebook and Google never had a problem allowing searches and stories when Harry Reid falsely claimed that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years; for which Politifact give dirty Harry a full "pants on fire" rating.

But the media is full of false stories.  Do a Google search on NBC and you will find dozens of occurrences by that supposedly major new agency (and Obama Supporter) selectively editing stories to favor a "Democratic" viewpoint. Then, we have the darling of the liberal left, Katie Couric, who selectively edited a documentary on gun control in order to make gun ownership advocates look like uninformed idiots.

The bottom line is that Obama doesn't really want to control the internet and communications on a fair basis.  He only wants to control those aspects that he doesn't like.  Of course, forget about that little thing called the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech.  Even if it is false.  Look at how many incorrect statements our politicians make.  For example, Obama's "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Finally, the rise of Donald Trump could best be explained as the country's rejection of excessive "political correctness" which is constantly encouraged by Democrats and by Barack Obama himself.  The President still can't say the words "Islamic Terrorists".   No major media outlet has even reported on Obama calling for the "control" of the Internet and Communications.  That is a type of abuse, in itself?


President Obama Blames the Internet for the Rise of Trump – Technology Needs “More Control”:

Obama call to change ‘how the media reports’ raises concerns:

Obama Says Fox News Promotes ‘Destructive’ Viewpoint:

Obama Slams Fox News for Being On In 'Every Bar and Restaurant,' Blames Network for Hillary's Defeat:

FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage:

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs:

Articles: Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio:

FCC Commissioner Warns of Federal Regulation of Online Speech:

Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites:

Harry Reid says anonymous source told him Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years:

Katie Couric Regrets "Misleading" Editing on Gun Doc:

Google Search: nbc selective editing:


Friday, December 2, 2016

Elizabeth Warren is Delusional

If you listen to this speech on the Senate floor by Elizabeth Warren (the first few minutes of the following video), you would think the Democrats are somehow in the majority:

Warren seems unable to come to grips with the fact that most of the country does not support her or her party.  She seems to think that the fact Hillary Clinton has a 2 million popular vote lead, is somehow, proof that she is in the majority.  However, if you separate out the 2.8 million lead that she  has in California, Trump would win the popular vote.  Trump won the popular vote in three-fifths of the states. California does not represent the nation as a whole.  In the last 8 years, the Democratic party has suffered massive losses both in Washington and across the country (as noted in my two referenced blog entries below).

Elizabeth Warren has proven why America is tired of the Democrat's bulls**t; constantly certain that  they know what is best for the country.


Not able to comprehend that the old guard of the Democratic party has put it in the worst shape in 80 years, the House Democrats have, once again, elected Nancy Pelosi as their Minority Leader:

I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly...What gives me fleeting hope is the knowledge that millions of Americans — a majority even — feel as I do:

Facts Matter: Four Responses to 'Hillary Won the Popular Vote'

Thursday, December 1, 2016

.Pelosi the Minority Leader, Again?

Not able to comprehend that the old guard of the Democratic party has put it in the worst shape in 80 years, the House Democrats have, once again, elected Nancy Pelosi as their Minority Leader.  Or, to use a sports analogy, they rehired a coach with a zero win record for the last eight years.

It wasn't only Washington that experienced the Republican tsunami over the last eight years, it was a sweeping rejection of the Democratic Party across the entire nation.  Twenty-nine percent of the Democrats in the House of Representatives come from just two states: California and New York.  Add Massachusetts and they are up to 34%; and two-thirds of the Dems in the House come from just 13 states that line our two coasts as noted by the blue states on the following map:

All the white states represent the farmers, blue collar, and manufacturing workers that the Democrats claim they support.  Yet, those people in the so-called fly-over states understand that the Democratic party has forgotten them. That is why the Democrats have literally seen the majority they had in the state legislatures flip since Obama took office and while Pelosi was in charge of the House Democrats:

The simple fact is that the policies of the Democrats of taxing and regulation aren't putting food on people's tables or making "their" lives better.  Former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, said it best: "All politics is local".  You just can't legislate to satisfy the liberal base in New York and California while ignoring the heartland, where life is much different, and expect to continue to win.  But, the reelection of Pelosi -- a California Democrat -- simply sends the message that the Democrats will continue with more of the same.  To -- I am sure -- the glee of the Republican Party.


Pelosi holds onto leadership:

Source of First Graphic: Rep. Tim Ryan: Republicans Tying Democrats To Pelosi "Sank Us"; "We Are Not A National Party Right Now"

Source of Second Graphic: Dems hit new low in state legislatures:

Nearly one-third of House Democrats are from California and New York:

Republican Party the Strongest It's Been in 80 Years:


Wednesday, November 30, 2016

The Left is Still in Denial as to Why Hillary Lost

The political left and the left-wing media are still in disbelief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.  But, instead of looking inwards for answers, they continue to float the idea that "conspiracies" were responsible.

Just a few days ago, the New York Magazine reported that a group of  "prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" believed that the loss was a result of hacked voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania -- citing irregularities such as lower vote counts where voting machines were used. Then in that same article, the confidence in their hacking theory is immediately tempered by this statement:
"While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review."
Just last Friday, the Washington Post theorized that in fact a Russian propaganda effort threw the election; along with the hacking of emails from the Clinton camp and the Democratic National Committee.  However, as above, the veracity of that story was also weakened when the following was written:
"There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders."
The only problem with the above "speculation" is that team Clinton members never disavowed any of the hacked emails as not being "real".  All they ever said was that they were being released because Putin wants Trump to be President.  Hillary's campaign chief, John Podesta, even "suggests" that Trump had before-hand knowledge of the email hack and data dump in the last few weeks.  "Suggests" is not a proven fact, but thought the story was fit to print.

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about "fake news". The implication is that somehow, the political right is the primary "faker" of news stories intended to hurt Hillary Clinton.  Well, the above stories are only a few from the mainstream media that are solely based on speculation and not fact, in an effort to undermine President-elect Donald Trump. Maybe the agencies writing these types of stories should think about the fact that a lot of people may only read a paragraph or two of a long story and come to the conclusion the voting machines were hacked; not reading further to understand that this was simply an unproven assumption.  Obviously, "fake news" comes in all flavors.


Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States:

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say:

Clinton Refuses to Disavow Hacked Excerpts From Paid Speeches:

Hillary Clinton Adviser Suggests Donald Trump Campaign Knew About Hacked Emails:

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Could the Recount Have Been Pre-Planned?

While reading a number of articles regarding the recounting of votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, I ran across one that intrigued me the most.  Written by Richard Baehr at the American Thinker, he surmised that the whole purpose of the recount is to run out the clock on determining the final winner in those three states so their electoral votes are dropped from the final count.  Thus, Donald Trump would be deprived of the win because he would not achieve the requisite 270 votes.  As a result, it would be up to the Republican controlled House and Senate to determine the final victory for Trump and Pence.  In doing so, the election results would be delegitimized in the minds of millions of Americans.

That is an interesting viewpoint.  But, when you think about it, the groundwork for the recount -- based on the hacking of the voting apparatus of several states -- was laid weeks before the election.  Back in August, the FBI alerted us that the voting systems in Illinois and Arizona were under assault. Then, on October 1st, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that voting systems in 20 states had been targeted.  Thus, the stage was set for a potential recount.

Its  also interesting that Jill Stein filed for recounts in those three aforementioned states on the basis that she wants to make sure the voting system wasn't hacked.  But, what about the two states -- Illinois and Arizona -- that the FBI already said were under attack.  Instead she went after three states that went to Trump and that, in total, would deny him a win if the manual counting of ballots went beyond the cutoff date for confirming a winner in those states.   I am sure this is the case.  A week ago, we were told that Stein had nearly $5 million in support of a recount in all three states.  Yet, she waited until the very last minute before filling the petition in Wisconsin.  Thus, insuring the least amount of time left to conduct a recount.  As of this writing, she still hasn't filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania; and, I am sure that it is for the same "delay of game" reason.

However, the biggest thing that makes me think that this is both political and pre-planned, is that Jill Stein is driving this.  Even if all 50 states were recounted, she couldn't win.  In my opinion, if Clinton feels cheated of a win, she should be the one driving it.  But, she isn't.  For this reason, I think her dirty fingers are all over this effort. Further, as most strategists have noted, recounts of vote differences of the magnitude in those three states have almost a zero chance of reversing the win.  Because of this, the theory that the intent to delay the results past the drop dead dates for the Electoral College is even more believable.

If in fact, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are dropped from the Electoral College vote count and Trump is denied an outright win by an ongoing recount effort, it will be a travesty created by taking advantage of a weakness in our voting system by someone who had zero chance of winning.


The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts:

FBI alert sparks fears that state voting systems are under digital assault:

DHS Confirms Hackers Targeted Election Systems in 20 States:

The cost of the Jill Stein recount effort keeps going up:

United States presidential election, 2016:,_2016

Recount Unlikely to Change the Outcome: