Sleepless in Midland

Schiff Chia Head -- an appropriate memento of Trump's impeachment victory

Nancy Pelosi made a celebratory moment of the impeachment articles signing with her commemorative pens. But in spite of the hortatory zeal of the House Managers, it appears unlikely that the Senate will go along with impeachment.

The Obama Chia Head was pulled from the market before it got launched. After all, in an era in which a rodeo clown with an Obama mask could get fired, who in the MSM could tolerate such a thing?

That era has passed, and President Trump needs a cheap memento for the upcoming impeachment victory. And here's a free idea: A Schiff Chia Head. Yeah!

------

Star gazing celebrity worshipers: ‘American Hero’: Hollywood Sold On ‘Rockstar’ Schiff’s Impeachment Screenplay

------
2:23 PM 1/24/2020

We all know why Trump didn't reveal more secrets about the Soleimani hit

Nick Arama tells us what we already knew. In short, there was too much of a possibility that the Democrat representatives would leak it to the media who would in turn expose it to our enemies. There was too much at stake to reveal security secrets. Mo Brooks Identifies Reason He Thinks Officials Had to Hold Back During Congressional Briefing, It’s Not Good.

Quoting another article, Arama says this:

“[It’s] also consistent with that concern is what you just got done seeing with Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee during the impeachment proceedings wherein that information that was collected in a SCIF was invariably leaked to the news media,” Brooks continued. “So if you just had that experience where members of Congress are quite clearly leaking information that was collected in a SCIF environment, how can you trust them not to leak classified information regarding Iran that could lead to the deaths of our intelligence sources, or empower terrorist organizations to avoid American retribution for the killing that they have done?”

It's very easy to suspect that some, although not all, Democrats are so dedicated to defeating Trump that they would tolerate putting American lives at risk to accomplish that goal.

------
2:18 PM 1/11/2020

Attorney General William Barr: the constitution called for a strong president.

In Mr. Barr's recent speech he provided an originalist description of the separation of powers along with the history that led to that particular design in our Constitution.

The British monarch was once the supreme ruler of Britain, but over the centuries the power of the monarch was eroded to the point were Parliament became the ruling entity.

The founding fathers of the U.S. saw that and made something of a compromise -- there would be three co-equal branches. While many of us thought the legislature had relinquished much of its power to the executive in the previous administration. The legislature came roaring back in the Trump administration as they tried to thwart every one of Trump's initiatives, tried to block all of Trump's appointments, and are now trying to boot him out of the office.

Here's a snippet from the speech:

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.  This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day.  It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic. 

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion.  Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection.  Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end.  They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications.  They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Mr. Barr's speech is a good one and can be heard at this C-Span link or read at this justice.gov link

------
3:55 PM 11/18/2019

Quote of the week -- Lance Morrow on Presidential contest between Bloomberg and Trump -- choice between nanny and juvenile delinquent

This comes from an op-ed by Lance Morrow titled Three Tales of a City: Bloomberg, de Blasio and Trump:

Can Mr. Bloomberg get the Democratic nomination? We’ll see. It is surpassingly weird that the American voter might be offered a choice between two septuagenarian billionaire New Yorkers—one a nanny and the other a juvenile delinquent.

Quite a nice analogy.

------
1:51 PM 11/15/2019

Rising star Beto flamed out -- it's almost enough to make a Texan feel sorry for him

Way back in the heyday of Beto's run for Ted Cruz's Senate seat a woman very devoted to Beto went door to door in my neighborhood stumping for Beto. I looked at the brochure she presented, and he appeared pretty far to the left especially with such vague statements as "healthcare is a right." Anyway, he lost the election but gave it a good shot.

But he must not be far enough left for today's Democrat. They dumped him like a bowl of cold porridge. But as I've noted elsewhere in this blog, Democrats can do a fouette so fast it would make a ballerina's head spin. And while I don't mourn Beto's fate, it's almost enough to make a conservative feel sorry for him. Poor Beto.

But here's something interesting. The left leaning Texas Tribune took a poll and wrote about it in Democrats don’t have a candidate who would beat Trump in Texas today, poll finds. And here's the interesting part: In their one-on-one matchup against Trump, at 41% Beto did better in Texas than any of the other Democrat contenders. (See chart on right.)

Go figure.

------
1:37 PM 11/4/2019

Darkness at Noon -- Stalin's show trials similar to Schiff's impeachment thingee

I just finished reading the novel "Darkness At Noon" written by Arthur Koestler and published in 1941 (translated by Daphne Hardy). The period described in the novel, although not identified as such in the novel, was during Stalin's rule over Russia, and particularly the period of the purging of the old guard.

The main character, Nicolas Salmanovitch Rubashov, had been a hero in the revolution and eventually became a party big wig. But the dictator, called "No. 1" in the novel, implemented the liquidation of all those old guys. And Rubashov ended up being charged with thought crimes, speech crimes, and conspiracy to assassinate No. 1.

After his arrest, he was subjected to "hearings" which were one-on-one examinations conducted by an aggressive and experienced interrogator. Although there was no physical torture, sleep deprivation was sufficient to ultimately get a signed confession -- Rubashov having resigned himself to the same fate as his old friends from the early days. We learn of the resulting trial through an ancillary character reading about it in the newspaper, and the actual trial had all the earmarks of a show trial in which the verdict had already been decided.

Fast forward to the present, and Donald Trump is on trial in a secret chamber which is off limits to the plebeians. Only the insiders know what is going on there. And presumably Trump is being accused of all sorts of things for which the evidence is very slim but with enough exaggeration and no rebuttal could be stretched into something serious. But the outcome has already been decided by the inquisitors. They will only need to move the goal posts just enough to fit the facts.

Most of us believe by now that the intent of the Trump inquiry really isn't to impeach the president but to increase the likelihood that he won't be reelected.

Nonetheless, the similarity between the Stalin show trials and the impeachment inquiry is striking.

------
3:32 PM 10/19/2019

High Minded Mitt lashes out at Trump

What should we make of Mitt Romney's diatribe in WaPo against Donald Trump?

He attacks Trump in Mitt Romney: The president shapes the public character of the nation. Trump’s character falls short. The attacks are directed at things such as the departure of cabinet members he liked and Trump's drop in European popularity polls. But he begrudgingly agrees that many of the things Trump has done are good for the country.

Romney believes that a president should be an example for the rest of us. To wit:

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

That's a high minded goal, and maybe someday a president can accomplish that. But it will be hard to find a candidate who posses those qualities and could get elected president. Romney, who is more critical of Trump than he ever was of Barack Obama, certainly couldn't.

Sometimes it takes someone with a strong General George S. Patton type personality but who is not particularly likable to get things done. Someone like Donald Trump.

------

2:06 PM 1/2/2019

Even Politico seems to think the Rosenstein story was a trap to snare Trump

This is from the 9/22/2018 Politico Playbook:

NOW FOR ROSENSTEIN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein survived the night after the New York Times’ Adam Goldman and Mike Schmidt reported that he said he was thinking about taping PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP to prove he was not fit to be president. He denied it vociferously. The NYT story

-- READ THE TEA LEAVES, and you get the sense that Trump will not fire Rosenstein. Last night, SEAN HANNITY said this: “I have a message for the president tonight. Under zero circumstances should the president fire anybody.” Hannity said it was a set up.

-- ANNIE KARNI (@anniekarni): “[email protected] deleted her tweet that said ‘Rod Rosenstein must be fired today.’”

-- TRUMP’S ALLIES IN CONGRESS were telling us last night that this is a distraction. They want Rosenstein to fork over ANDY MCCABE’S documents so people can judge whether the FBI and DOJ are on the level or not.

Politico lays this out attributing it all to someone else. So if it's wrong, they may not be blamed. But It's also relayed with enough credulity to make it believable.

Trump got suckered into the Obama birth certificate trap, and he may be more skittish now.

------

12:55 PM 9/23/2018

Meat surplus reported -- So why aren't the store prices coming down?

News reports tell us this: Federal Data: US Stockpiling 2.5 Billion Pounds of Meat:

A record amount of beef, pork, poultry, and turkey - 2.5 billion pounds - is being stockpiled in U.S. facilities, federal data is expected to show, The Wall Street Journal reported.

While U.S. consumers have a growing appetite for meat, that appetite is not increasing fast enough to match the production of hogs and chickens in the U.S. meat industry, so the industry is depending more on exports, the report said.

However, Mexico and China, two of the largest foreign customers for U.S. meat, have set tariffs on pork products in response to U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods. U.S. hams, chops, and livers have become more expensive in those markets, which is slowing down sales, said industry officials.

The U.S. Meat Export Federation projected that U.S. beef exports to China could have reached $400 million in four years, Fortune noted.

The growing stockpiles and the trade risk could cause "one of the biggest corrections we’ve seen in the industry in several years," Christine McCracken, protein analyst at agricultural lender Rabobank, told the Journal.

Facilities are being built and expanded to store the meat frozen. (Aside: What percentage of the poultry, pork, and beef in markets is or was frozen? If one assumes those labels that say "never frozen" are the extent of the products that were never frozen, then it must be a pretty high percentage.)

Meanwhile, they are blaming Trump's tariffs for this market condition. Well, I for one am ready to loosen my belt and eat more poultry once the prices go down to reflect the surplus. They haven't yet, but I'm ready to do what I can to make America great again.

------

12:21 PM 7/24/2018

Strzok and friends make it hard to look at that whole FBI thing dispassionately

It's hard to remain objective about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Sometimes I have to step back from the news and question whether I'm merely getting caught up in the lynch mob atmosphere, or whether there really were some serious shenanigans going on with that whole top level FBI tilt in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump.

Peter Struzok and Lisa Page certainly don't help their cause when they play cat and mouse with Congress. For details, see the following:

US Marshals served subpoena on FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Goodlatte says, threatening to hold her in contempt; and
BREAKING: Goodlatte Says FBI's Peter Strzok Will Be Recalled For Contempt

I recall how joyous a Democrat acquaintance was when Scooter Libby was convicted. It's high time some of those nefarious FBI agents received some well deserved justice.

------

3:47 PM 7/12/2018

Howard Kurtz on Republicans who now favor Democrats

Years ago Arianna Huffington famously left Republicans, like her ex-husband, behind. And many of her new fans simply took it as given that it was her smarts and nothing else that led her to switch her support to Democrat candidates.

Maybe that's how certain former conservatives hope they are viewed as they switch their allegiance to Democrats.

Howard Kurtz addresses some of those high-profile former conservatives in Divorcing Trump: Why some conservatives are now pushing Democrats (!):

These people deserve to be taken seriously. But it doesn't invalidate their arguments to say that there are certain rewards in the media culture for conservatives who break with their side. Favorable publicity. MSNBC contracts. New respect from the left for their independence. (Flip the script for a moment and think about how the few Democratic pundits who broke with Barack Obama were denigrated or dismissed.) ...

The problem for those who have [switched allegiance] is that they have spent their careers warning that the Democrats are the party of big government, reckless spending, overregulation, social engineering, identity politics and weak foreign policy. To suddenly root for the Dems means these pundits are effectively embracing that which they have always denounced.

It's an interesting phenomenon, and it's fun to watch. But I'm such a bumpkin that I see it as a personality issue. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. They hate his personality, and maybe they have reason to be spiteful. But it clouds their thinking to the extent that they can't give him credit for the things he actually achieves. He's brash, abusive, and appeals to the unwashed. To them, that overrides any value he could have to the country.

------

1:26 PM 7/7/2018

Jonathan Swan nailed it -- Trump is trying to out crazy Kim Jong Un

Ever so often we touch on this topic at this blog. One of Trump's tactics is to make his opponents believe he is crazier than they are. Jonathan Swan sees it, too, and wrote about it in Trump's plan to out-"crazy" North Korea.

What we're hearing: Trump loves to say that every other U.S. president was predictable. He believes foreign affairs has always been overly scripted and his predecessors were "totally predictable," which let their adversaries run rings around them.

A source who recently spoke to Trump about his upcoming meeting with Kim Jong-un paraphrased the president's private monologue:

"No one knows what I'm going to do. They are over there trying right now to analyze every statement I'm putting out to get a sense of what's going to happen when I walk into the room. But the fact of the matter is nobody knows." 

Trump loves to watch the media try to predict what he's going to do and say about any number of things, including North Korea, and he gleefully tells aides: "They have no idea."

“Kim Jong-un’s entire lineage is having people think he might be crazy. Trump’s like: 'You’re crazy? How about this?'” a source said a while back, during the phase of Trump calling Kim "Little Rocket Man" and taunting him by saying he has a bigger nuclear button.

Making ones opponent believe you are crazier than they are is a very useful tactic. And apparently, like an angry outrage, it's not always obvious that it is just another negotiating tactic. But it works for some people. And let's hope it works for Donald Trump on someone other than Democrats.

------

2:13 PM 5/17/2018

Let us hope American's enemies believe Trump's bluster as much as Dems do

Donald Trump is a bombastic blowhard. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention. So when he taunts Little Rocket Man, aka Kim Jong Un, most of us know it's bluster. But Kim seems to take it literally. We should be grateful for that. But do Democrats take it literally, too? It certainly seems so, based on lines such as this one in the WaPo: Senate confirms Mike Pompeo as Trump’s next secretary of state. Note this part:

The Senate confirmed Mike Pompeo as secretary of state Thursday despite lingering objections from Democrats who have questioned his record of hawkish policy positions and past controversial statements about minority groups.

(Bold added.)

Making your enemies think you are crazier than they are is a pretty good defense. Trump has gotten a lot of mileage out of that tactic, and he's found a Secretary of State who might be able to help him pull it off. Hopefully, it will continue to work on America's enemies as well as it works on Democrats.

------

3:54 PM 4/26/2018

Funny that a defense of swearing comes out so soon after Trump's s-hole remark

This is a link I picked up at some linking site. See DAMN RIGHT! Swearing makes you happier, healthier, more intelligent and honest. Short excerpt:

Experts claim using offensive language shows someone has a larger vocabulary and could be linked with a higher IQ.

There are also said to be many health benefits to using a naughty word or two.

It's believed swearing increases circulation and releases endorphins - making you feel happier.

While it also allows you to communicate exactly how you feel about something as you feel more able to be honest.

By swearing, a person can express fury, loathing or pain, without the threat of the argument turning physical.

It was also suggested that those who swore more often were less likely to lie and have higher levels of intergirty [sic].

To be fair, The Sun is probably not intentionally defending Trump. Furthermore, Donald Trump referring to s-hole countries probably may not technically swearing. Nevertheless, it's an interesting juxtaposition.

------

9:38 AM 1/24/2018

Dick Morris' book, Rogue Spooks

The new book out by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Rogue Spooks, provides a pretty good summary of the events that concluded in the CIA and FBI working to hurt the Trump presidency. Anyone who follows the news probably already knew most of it. But the authors connect the dots with theories of how it came to be.

One chapter of interest to me was the one titled, "How the intelligence community went from red to blue." The intro to that chapter follows:

--------

HOW THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WENT FROM RED TO BLUE
The CIA and the FBI have always been bastions of the right. It was the FBI that was filled with anti-communist zealots who hunted down those they considered to be "disloyal." And the CIA patrolled America's borders, intervening to stop any other country from falling under Moscow or Beijing spell.

So they should have been in the cheering section saluting a Trump victory with all they had.

But, instead, they recoiled so violently against Trump that they became the key participants in the virtual coup mounted by the rogue spooks to stop him from governing.

The transformation of the intelligence community from red to blue may stand as one of the most enduring achievements of the Obama presidency-or at least one of the hardest to erase.

When Obama and his Liberal allies saw Trump about to enter the White House, they decided to deploy their weapon of choice against him: leaks from the intelligence community. Having taken care to scrub the intelligence agencies to expunge any taint of conservative thinking, these agencies were perfectly positioned to do Obama's will.

And, in the media, he had a compliant, liberal/radical institution only too happy to print the leaks his people would be handing out.

The intelligence community has long realized that it has two ways to influence public policy in Washington. It can go legitimately up the chain of command to the president, arguing the merits of its case. or it can go outside the process entirely-go rogue-and leak information- or disinformation-to a media wiling and eager to do its bidding.

As the abomination of a Trump presidency neared the oval office, they decided to kill Trump by leaking.

----------

The authors pin the problem on Obama with John Brennan doing the leg work to fill slots with people dedicated to the progressive agenda. Another interesting chapter was the one on Michael Flynn. The deep state spooks found out he lied about some of his contacts, and they played it into an op that brought Flynn fame, shame and trouble with special counsel Robert Mueller.

Anyway, the book is an interesting collection of factoids and possible reasons behind the acts. And although Trump opponents might brand them as conspiracy theories, those theories have a ring of truth to them.

Meanwhile, to watch a C-Span video of Morris talking about the book, click here.

------

6:39 AM 11/25/2017

Matt Taibbi -- the msm despise Trump, but dammit, he sure is good for the news business

Matt Taibbi isn't every conservative's cup of tea, but he does make some insightful observations. See, for example, The Media Is the Villain – for Creating a World Dumb Enough for Trump. Excerpt:

For more than two years now, it's been obvious that Donald Trump is a disaster on almost every level except one – he's great for the media business. Most of us who do this work have already gone through the process of working out just how guilty we should or should not feel about this. ...

Trump's monstrousness is ironic, since the image of Trump as the media's very own Frankenstein's monster has been used and re-used in the last years. Many in the business are of the opinion that, having created Trump and let him loose in the village, we in the press now have a responsibility to hunt him down with aggressive investigative reporting, to make the world safe again.

That might indeed be a good idea. But that take also implies that slaying the monster will fix the problem. Are we sure that's true? ...

Taibbi tells us that Trump has been a ratings bonanza for the msm. And they brought that about themselves, as anyone who watches TV news can attest. More from Taibbi:

We spent years selling the lowest common denominator. Now the lowest common denominator is president. How can it be anything but self-deception to pretend this is an innocent coincidence?

So Trump is the "lowest common denominator?" Taibbi appears to be in the camp that thinks Trump supporters' proper place is in that basket of deplorables made famous by Hillary Clinton. Clive Crook may have a better answer in Why People Still Support Trump:

[A] large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.

------

12:46 PM 8/31/2017

Matt Taibbi digs up the skinny on the Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Junior

I'm not a regular reader of Rolling Stone, but one writer whose articles are published there is very much worthy of reading. Matt Taibbi appears from time to time on C-Span selling a book, and that's where he got my attention.

In his latest piece, Russiagate and the Magnitsky Affair, Linked Again, he compiles some background on Natalia Veselnitskaya and what she might have been up to.

I never met Veselnitskaya, but just months ago I did cross paths with one of her colleagues. Like Veselnitskaya, this person had been lobbying on behalf of a Russian-directed company called Prevezon to overturn the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law which sanctions Russia for human rights abuses.

The interview was off the record, so I can't say much about it, except to say that my experience was weirdly similar to the account Trump Jr. offered about his meeting with Veselnitskaya.

I went into the meeting expecting a scoop on another topic, and instead found myself essentially being lobbied about the Magnitsky Act. I came away scratching my head about the Prevezon crew, unsure of whether they represented high-ranking Russian interests, or were instead just a bunch of provincial amateurs trying to get a sanctions regime lifted in order to unfreeze their assets.

The Magnitsky Act, named after Sergei Magnitsky who is alleged to have been beaten to death in a Russian prison following his exposure of fraud committed by Russian officials, put sanctions on certain Russians.  And they've been lobbying aggressively to get it repealed with the help of Veselnitskay, who is a lawyer apparently famous in Russian legal circles. So Trump Jr.'s story that that's what she wanted to talk with him about rings true.

Was anything the Trumps did illegal? If so, a lot of politicians, and not just Trump, et al., should be in trouble. Speaking of which, here's another interesting tidbit from Taibbi that got buried in the anti-Trump mania:

Hillary Clinton herself went so far as to oppose the Magnitsky rule at one point in time. Her opposition, as reported by the Wall Street Journal and others, coincided with a trip to Moscow by Bill Clinton in which he was paid $500,000 to give a speech by Renaissance Capital, a firm that Sergei Magnitsky himself had claimed was part of the tax fraud perpetuated against Browder.

------

11:48 AM 7/15/2017

Have Democrats vindicated Joe McCarthy yet? Just wondering.

Joseph McCarthy was famous in the 1950s for his dogged efforts to ferret out communist collaborators in the U.S. The left vilified him. They even invented a phrase to help demonize him: McCarthyism.

But it turned out that he was more often right than wrong -- there were plenty of Soviet spies amongst us.

So it's ironic that Democrats have suddenly became so obsessed with the idea of Russian collusion, especially since Democrats have been doing exactly that for a very long time. It can't really be that Democrats dislike Russia or communism that much. More likely they are using "collusion" in an attempt to disillusion Donald Trump's supporters. Causing unrest and uncertainty in the host country -- hey, isn't that exactly what the Russians have been trying to do for decades?

In any event, Democrats made such a high speed u-turn on Russia that it would make any Formula One driver envious.

------

9:46 AM 7/13/2017

It's not fair to speculate what founding fathers would think about the U.S. today

There was a poll conducted recently -- Fox News Poll: Most don't think Founding Fathers would be proud of nation -- and it seems so presumptuous.

If you were to take someone out of the 18th century and pop them into the 21st century their brains would explode from information overload. With that in mind, people today attributing coherent thoughts into those ancient heads may actually be complimentary.

Nevertheless, here's an excerpt from the above linked article:

How would the Founding Fathers feel? A record 79 percent of voters think if Washington, Jefferson, and the rest were alive today, they wouldn’t be too thrilled. Large majorities across the political spectrum feel that way, including 83 percent of independents, 80 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of Democrats.

Meanwhile, 64 percent of voters are optimistic about the economy right now, while one-third is pessimistic (32 percent). Key Republican constituencies are among those feeling the most positive, as large numbers of  white evangelicals (78 percent), whites without a college degree (71 percent), and men (69 percent) all feel at least somewhat optimistic.

It's hard to square that with this: Bill to create panel that could remove Trump from office quietly picks up Democratic support. Those Republican constituencies voting in the above linked poll who were feeling the most positive will not likely go along with this. And where would you find a president who would sign such a bill knowing full well that it's aimed at him?

Drain the swamp, make American great again, and have a happy Fourth of July!

------

1:31 PM 7/1/2017

Oh, that liberal media -- Harvard report proves it

It has been obvious to almost everyone that the main stream media has a very negative view of Donald Trump. It influences their coverage of him, or they don't seem to care that it's so obvious.

So unless that attitude changes, reports such as this one won't matter to anyone but Trump supporters: News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days. Here's the intro:

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office.

The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).

Findings include:
-President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.
-Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
-European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.
-Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.
-Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.

Take at look at it. The charts are very revealing.

What I find interesting is the high percentage of Republican voices featured in the coverage, and yet it's overwhelmingly negative for Trump. While that's discouraging overall, the bright side has to be that at least Republicans don't march in lock step like the opposition party does.

Via Heatstreet.

P.S. As for the negative coverage, Trump is probably right to say about the New York Times, "They're not our friends. We're never going to win them over ."

------

2:35 PM 5/19/2017

Order appointing Mueller very narrow, unlikely to include Hillary's known misdeeds

Those of us who thought Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel might result in some focus on the Clinton Foundation and any other shenanigans committed by the Clintons in the run-up to or during the 2016 campaign will likely be disappointed. The order creating the special counsel is too narrow. To see it click here.

Here are the guts of it, as follows:

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

"Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Very narrow. Too bad.

It's very unlikely Mueller will step beyond those bounds. It seems as if the Clintons and Obama can get away with anything.

------

1:54 PM 5/18/2017

Let them eat cake while missiles fly -- Trump's art of deterrence

One of the most colorful news item of the past few weeks was Donald Trump gushing over the beautiful chocolate cake he and the Chinese President Xi Jinping ate as missiles struck that base in Syria. It sounded absolutely delicious.

Many now suggest that that and the MOAB attack in Afghanistan were attempts to deter North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Did it work to that effect? We don't know yet, but it was a good effort.

It brings to mind the movie quote from the one and only Dr. Strangelove:

Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack.

Niall Ferguson has a commentary in which he addresses North Korea's military capability. In short, except for the possible nuclear or dirty bomb, it's not that great. See Are we on the brink of a second Korean War?. But there's this astute observation:

Remember: Brinkmanship is only effective if your adversaries believe that you are more prepared to go over the brink than they are. Nor should the domestic political benefits of successful brinkmanship be forgotten.

Commentators say Kim Jong-un is crazy. But they say that about Donald Trump, too. That works for me -- crazy is a pretty good defense. If we can convince Jong-un that we are crazier than he is then it just might produce in his mind sufficient fear for effective deterrence.

-----------

12:31 PM 4/18/2017

gun sales still high in spite of what was previously reported

It wasn't too long ago that the media were reporting that gun sales fell off a cliff as soon as Donald Trump was elected president, i.e., as soon as it appeared that gun grabbing regulations became less likely.

But look at this: NICS Checks in the Trump Era: March 2017 Near Record. Applications to the National Instant Criminal Background  Check System are used as an approximate measure of gun sales during the applicable period. And while the comparison of the March, 2017, numbers with previous March numbers may not mean much, it's interesting that the difference wasn't so great as to justify the panic drop in gun sellers' stock prices.

Sturm, Ruger & Company for example. The stock price bottomed out shortly after the November election but has moved up almost 20% off its low. Maybe that was a dead cat bounce. Or maybe the panic selling was overblown. I certainly don't know.

-

3:38 PM 4/13/2017

Greg Gutfeld explains how to explain Trump

Gutfeld is my favorite comedian. Maybe there are other conservative comedians out there, but he could be the only one in the public eye these days. So his work always gets my attention.

His latest written effort found online is this article: Greg Gutfeld: How to explain Trump to your liberal friends (not that they'll listen). Here are some truncated snippets:

1. The Syrian strike reveals that Trump’s response, even to ghastly attacks, is a firm “just enough.” Take away: I compare it to smacking a dog’s nose with a newspaper, or spanking an unruly child in aisle 3 of Walmart. It’s not an act of war. It’s an act of “Yo, we’re back.”

2. Pragmatism prevails, as was predicted by many who refuse to give in to apocalyptic notions about Trump. Take away: New Yorkers always talk tough, then become “flexible.”

3. Economic nationalism will also show itself out, as global deals and coalitions call for cooperation. Take away: You can’t isolate yourself in a phone booth.

4. Even perceptions of force are enough. Take away: Illegal crossings into our country have dropped dramatically, to a nearly two-decade low.

5. Trump’s white nationalist fanboys are deeply wounded. Take away: White nationalists are essentially the Republican versions of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers — kicked to the curb, where they belong. And their whining is proof that the guy they once liked has no use for them. 

6. Trump made it safer for honest people. Take away: Trump, to his credit, redefined the literality of language and the context of public conversation. ... And comedians should admit this to themselves, or they’re false: Trump helps you.

OK, maybe that wasn't a barrel of laughs. But aphorisms aren't always funny. If you don't agree, you're worse than Hitler.

12:40 PM 4/12/2017

Trump's personality draws a lot of flak but he has the potential to become a great president

Donald Trump wasn't my favorite among the Republican candidates. But he was on Hillary Clinton's short list of preferred opponents, along with Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, so he had that going for him. One has to wonder what kind of dirt her team had on Cruz and Carson. If they run for president again maybe we will find out.

Team Hillary fired their best shot at Trump when the video was released of him talking to a reporter with an open mic about how women respond to powerful men -- you can grab them by the privates. The media were in an uproar, but Trump brushed them off, and it didn't hurt him. It's doubtful Cruz or Carson could do that so successfully. Herman Cain couldn't.

Trump is a bombastic blowhard which is not an especially appealing trait. And that's what triggers so much animosity toward him. Most of his policies contain a lot of common sense. Sure, lefties are going to do everything they can to thwart him. But basically all they have is a common distaste for blowhards. Never-Trumper Johah Goldberg typifies that distaste in The President Is This Presidency’s Worst Enemy.

But here's a least one highly regarded conservative who has come around to appreciate Trump. Dennis Prager has a suggestion: It's Time for Conservatives to Celebrate This President.

The Trump presidency has a lot of potential, and the country could be better as a result. "Just give him a chance" was the refrain we heard over and over when Obama was elected. We gave him a chance. Now let's give Trump a chance.

Make American Great Again!

12:48 PM 4/5/2017

Is Trump a Keynesian?

That's a possible conclusion from a remark he made about priming the pump. Source is Trump Priming.

Conservatives reject Keynesianism outright. But actually the results are mixed. If it's done right, then there can be a return on the investment better than one for one. Most of the time it doesn't work, though. And that's probably because those doling out the money are merely handing out money to cronies. Obama's stimulus package was a good example of that, and it left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths.

So now we have to wonder whether Trump can pull it off. Ramesh Ponnuru explains in the above linked article why he probably can't. But Trump can make deals. That's a given. And it's possible he just might be able to do what few have done and actually make Keynesianism work. We'll see.

Aside: Fans of political satire may recall the time when some sneaky individual held a sign at an Obama rally that asked: "Is Obama Keynesian?" Hilarity ensued as Obama fans, insecure about his background, leaped to denounce any suggestion that he was "Kenyan."

FBI says Russian op involved bots spreading news through Twitter and Facebook

This is the sort of thing that is best remedied by exposure, if it's true.

The claim is that bad news about Hillary may have been disseminated to a broader extent by this method than if news customers were totally reliant on the main stream media. See FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at Breitbart, InfoWars news sites:

Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as “bots,” to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said.

The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said.

Couple of observations: Anyone watching the msm blitz downplaying Rep. Devin Nunes' disclosures about surveillance on Trump team members has to wonder why the MSM hasn't tried to pommel trump over this one. Secondly, if the Russian objective was to cast doubt on our political system, the msm probably does more to achieve that particular goal than the Russians could.

1:06 PM 3/24/2017

If only our spies loved our country as much as they hate Trump

Are our nation's spies really conducting an operation on Trump? The theory that our spy agencies are out to get Trump is really disconcerting. To believe it means believing that the agencies hate Trump more than they love the country they are sworn to serve. Very troubling.

The Wall Street Journal has an article titled "Spies Keep Intelligence From Donald Trump on Leak Concerns" (behind paywall) which is addressed by Ed Morrissey with a somewhat different take: Top intel chief: We’re not withholding intel from POTUS.

Apparently, it's standard operating procedure to withhold the really, really secret stuff, like the sources and methods of spying on other governments. That's understandable, especially when there are people looking for any way to make the administration look bad even if it could hurt someone, e.g., Diane Feinstein's outing of the CIA contractor who oversaw enhanced interrogation of terrorists.

But Morissey makes a pertinent observation:

So they’re doing the same thing as in the past, but … they just don’t like this president? Bottom line question: this any different than past presidencies, or is this the same policy being followed for different motives? It looks a lot more like the latter than the former:

The officials emphasized that they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted. Still, the misgivings that have emerged among intelligence officials point to the fissures spreading between the White House and the U.S. spy agencies.

So federal bureaucrats don't like Donald Trump. That's not exactly earth shattering news, but let's all hope they can put that aside and do their jobs without sabotaging Trump and especially without hurting the United States or its friends. If they can't then hopefully the bad apples will get discovered and drained with the swamp.

He made Chuck Schumer cry -- Trump is that mean

That has to be one of the most incongruous images of the day, maybe the year, but the year is still young. Chuck Schumer crying. Now that was a sight to behold. Is there anything Trump can't do?

Meanwhile, with the pundits saying there was a ban on Muslims when the target was prospective terrorists, isn't that a tacit admission that terrorists are predominately Muslim?

Benjamin Ginsberg -- federal bureaucrats think we're all a bunch of idiots

There's an hour long Q and A with Benjamin Ginsberg conducted by Brian Lamb which is available for viewing at this c-span link. In it he discusses the findings of a survey he did involving government employees which is the topic of his book, What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run the Government and Their Misconceptions about the American People.

The take away from the interview is that while federal bureaucrats may be very educated, well paid, and knowledgeable in the subjects required for their jobs, they are woefully ignorant about the people they govern. In the words of Mr. Ginsberg, they think we are all a bunch of idiots. Most of them vote Democrat, too.

And yes, the bureaucrats do govern. He cites an example of an individual doing time in federal prison for whistling at a hump back whale. Seems there's a federal regulation against harassing whales, not a criminal law, a regulation promulgated by NOAA. The individual piloted a whale sighting tour, and when they spotted the whale, he whistled at it. Go straight to jail.

Meanwhile, we have Donald Trump attempting to drain the swamp. Some writers are already issuing warnings, e.g., WARNING: Trump’s EPA Secretary Will Have ‘16,000 Employees Working Against Him’. Good luck, President Trump.