Nothing treasonous about it

abraham lincoln america architecture art
Photo by Pixabay on

You knew it was coming! Not even an hour after President Trump’s press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, some on the left were already criticizing President Trump for the way he handled the alleged Russian “meddling” investigation.  During the press conference, President Trump stated:

“I hold both countries responsible. I think that the United States has been foolish. I think that we’ve all been foolish. We should have had this dialogue a long time ago, a long time, frankly, before I got to office,” Mr. Trump said during a joint press conference with Putin.

Offered multiple times to denounce Russia’s actions, Mr. Trump instead placed blame on the FBI and said that he had “confidence” in both parties — the intelligence community and Russia.

“All I can do is ask the question – my people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be but I really want to see the server but, I have confidence in both parties,” Mr. Trump said.

He went so far as to say that Putin’s denial of having been involved in the election was “extremely strong and powerful.” Putin instead reiterated past claims that the “Russian state” has never and is not going to ever interfere in U.S. internal affairs, including elections, and offered to allow Special Counsel Robert Mueller an opportunity to request to interrogate and question 12 Russian nationals indicted in his probe on Russian soil.

Shortly after the press conference, former CIA Director John Brennan tweeted the following:

Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

With all due respect to Mr. Brennan, his comments are way off-base.

While President Trump indicated that he trusted both the FBI and President Putin, he had every reason to cast some of the blame on the FBI. After all, isn’t this the same FBI and/or Justice Department that has consistently refused to turn over documents subpoenaed by Congress many months ago? Isn’t this the same FBI and/or Justice Department that refuses to put an end to the Mueller investigation despite the absence of any evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia? Isn’t this the same FBI and/or Justice Department that turned a blind eye when then Attorney General Loretta Lynch inexcusably met with former President Clinton on the tarmac on June 27, 2016 while his wife was the target of an investigation? Finally, isn’t this the same organization that was led by Director James Comey, and who never really investigated the email scandal prior to deciding not to press charges?

This is not an indictment of the good men and women who work for the FBI and/or Justice Department. Many of them are honest, hard-working people. However, these questions raise serious red flags and cast significant doubt about the honesty and integrity of these organizations, how they conduct their investigation(s), and of some of the people “running the show,” such as Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, and Mr. Strzok. Sadly, the lack of transparency and the apparent lack of candor have significantly hurt the image of the FBI and/or Justice Department.

There is nothing treasonous about President Trump’s comments, nor do his comments constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, which is quite loosely defined. Anne Coulter wrote a good article about high crimes and misdemeanors and the case against Bill Clinton, which you can read here.

President Trump was telling the truth. He blamed both countries and had every reason to question the integrity of the FBI and/or Justice Department. He did not deny Russia involvement at any point, yet only reiterated what President Putin told him. That is not treasonous by any means.


Aces galore!

activity athletics balls close up
Photo by Pixabay on

Have you ever watched a tennis match where the server consistently loses the point because the player returning the serve is simply better, smarter, and more talented? After a while, the server gets desperate and begins to throw everything over the net in the hopes that something works.

Welcome to the modern-day Democrat. Like the server, the Democrats have tried to throw everything at President Trump and/or Republicans, hoping that something would stop his/their momentum. Despite their efforts, each attempt has been swatted away and/or returned for an ace.

First, Democrats tried to pin President Trump’s triumphant election victory on alleged Russian collusion, the nature of which they have been unable to prove despite a long and costly investigation by Robert Mueller. To date, the investigation continues, additional money and resources are being wasted, and no evidence of collusion has been found.  As a matter of fact, the investigation reeks of bias given the fact that the FBI agent who originally put the investigation into motion couldn’t stand the president (and wanted him to lose) as disclosed in the IG report.  No collusion has been found to date!

After the tragic events in Parkland, the Democrats then turned their attention to the Second Amendment and politicized this tragedy because Republicans were not necessarily willing to severely limit their right to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment. In response, some Republicans, including Governor Rick Scott, addressed some of their concerns by signing new gun regulations. This was not enough for some Democrats, who called for an all-out ban on semi-automatic weapons (this would cover many handguns, etc. today). Fortunately, the Second Amendment remains strong today. As Democrats saw that this issue was losing steam, they moved on.

Democrats then seized on the North Korea issue. President Trump was scheduled to meet the North Korean dictator in a history-making summit. While this was an incredible accomplishment, some Democrats criticized President Trump for making certain concessions during the negotiations and/or expressed displeasure with the way that the president described the release of several prisoners who were being detained by North Korea. Chuck Schumer stated:

“We can’t be fooled into giving the North Korean regime credit for turning (over) Americans that never should have been detained in the first place,” Schumer said. “It is so troubling to hear President Trump say that Kim Jong-Un treated the Americans excellently.”

Obviously, the summit took place and, while a lot of work remains to be done, the two countries have better diplomatic relations now than they had before President Trump took office. This was yet another democratic misstep.

Democrats then turned to immigration as their next hot-topic issue. They argued that President Trump’s zero tolerance policy tore kids away from their families. Of course, this was the law before President Trump took office, but that was a “technicality” that the left was willing to ignore to score political points. In response, President Trump issued an executive order keeping children and families who entered the country illegally together. Of course, even though this directly addressed their initial complaints, Democrats criticized the executive order because it allowed illegal immigrants to be held “indefinitely.” To their dismay, the Supreme Court also upheld President Trump’s travel ban. Once again, Democrats were on the losing end. They needed something else.

Recently, Justice Kennedy announced that he will be retiring from the Supreme Court. Upon hearing this, Democrats immediately began to attack President Trump’s potential list of nominees before he even narrowed down the list of prospects. For example, Chuck Schumer threatened that no Republican nominee would be confirmed from Trump’s list of twenty-five potential candidates.

Democrats started painting a picture that a Republican leaning Supreme Court would overturn Rose v. Wade, take away a woman’s right to choose, limit the rights of immigrants, etc. President Trump is scheduled to announce his nominee on July 9, 2018. Even though Democrats will likely refuse to confirm a Republican nominee, Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, can always resort to the “nuclear” option if need be (this does not create good precedent, however). Time will tell what happens in this chapter.

Although this piece only covers several issues, many would argue that the set and match ended long ago. Democrats are suffering losses everywhere, including in the courts, within their own party (i.e. Walk Away), and in the important court of public opinion. Americans want results, which the president and Republicans are delivering.  So long as this continues, it should be game, set, and match for the president, Republicans, and their followers.

A challenging speech!

black and gray microphone
Photo by Pixabay on

If you were a seasoned pundit, how would you “explain” and/or “sell” the modern-day Democratic party to a group of prospective and undecided voters? Would your words inspire them to join and support the party or would they have the opposite effect? While most older adults are already aligned with their preferred party, it is the younger generation that is looking for guidance.

This piece is not a rant about how bad Democrats are. As a matter of fact, there are some very smart, non-progressive, “old-school” Democrats who have not abandoned the party’s original methods and goals. These “old school” Democrats are willing to listen and to compromise for the sake of the country. Sadly, they are far and few between.

The old school Democratic policies and ideas were a pretty-easy “sell” to those who aligned with their values. However, the party has morphed into something that most “old school” Democrats wouldn’t recognize.  Frankly, many of them are shocked and embarrassed of what has become of the party. Moreover, support among Millennials has dropped almost nine percentage points since 2016.

Suppose that you, the seasoned pundit, are scheduled to deliver a speech to 100,000 prospective new voters who want to learn more about the modern-day Democratic party and what it stood for. After thinking about what you want to say to these impressionable new voters, you come up with the following:

Good afternoon!

I am pleased to speak with you this afternoon and to provide some information about the modern-day Democratic party based on my years of experience in the political arena. I know that you are all new voters and that you are very excited and proud to exercise this precious right in the upcoming elections.

The Democratic party has undergone many changes in recent years. In the past, the party had strong leadership, a solid base, and a clear message. Many of you are likely too young to remember the Democratic party of old.

I am sure that some of you have watched/listened to one or more of the major news networks, some of which have painted a strong picture of the party, and a negative one of the Republican party and/or President Trump. Unfortunately, the news is not as reliable as it was when I was in your shoes many years ago.

Notwithstanding what you might hear on the news, I do not have such positive news about the status of the party today. Sadly, the party does not have a concrete message, lacks leadership, and suffers from in-fighting among its members. Moreover, some of the recent policies/decisions of/among various Democratic members is especially troubling and/or concerning. Specifically:        

  1. Some in the party encourage/promote confrontation against those who don’t agree with them and/or support the POTUS.
  2. Many in the party disrespect the POTUS and/or the office of the president.
  3. Some in the party refuse to stand for the National Anthem.
  4. Some in the party put the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of legal citizens.
  5. Many in the party support raising/higher taxes.
  6. Some in the party refuse to serve people who support the POTUS (at restaurants, etc.)
  7. Some in the party want to eradicate, or severely limit, the Second Amendment.
  8. Some in the party dislike the POTUS so much that they tried to influence a presidential election.
  9. Some in the party have called to abolish ICE.
  10. Some in the party have voiced support/hopes for a recession.

This list is by no means exhaustive!  It does, however, present a picture of a party in disarray, without a platform, without leadership, and with a deep desire for our president (and therefore, our country) to fail. Even more concerning is the fact that some in the party have formed “splinter groups,” such as “Walk-Away.” I encourage you to read more about this group during your free time.

While I know that this news comes as a shock to some of you, I was asked to provide an honest assessment regarding the status of the Democratic party. Of course, you will all make your own informed decisions, which is the beauty of living in a democracy.

Thank you for your time!      

While this informational pitch is hypothetical and only presents this pundit’s opinion, it appears to represent a growing trend. Democrats are facing an uphill battle with the American public. The items discussed by the “pundit” do not portray the party in a positive light. Republicans should seize on this and use it to continue to educate and to remind young voters (and everyone else) why a Republican-led Congress is best for America.

President Trump’s upcoming Supreme Court nomination could impact his re-election bid


There’s an old saying that there’s always strength in numbers. Mark Shields once said that “the more individuals or organizations that you can rally to your cause, the better.”  President Trump should keep this in mind as he considers who to nominate for the Supreme Court.

Clearly, Republicans are eager for President Trump to nominate a conservative Justice, thereby shifting the balance of power of the Court significantly. While Republicans will likely get their wish, President Trump should seriously consider just how conservative his nominee will be on certain issues.

One of the biggest and most pressing issues facing the potential nominee is her/her view on abortion and the Roe v. Wade decision. For example, Conservatives who are pro-life and who fervently oppose abortion under any circumstances would favor a nominee who would look to overturn Roe v Wade. Conversely, others who are pro-life yet support a woman’s right to choose under limited circumstances, might very well support a Justice who would not look to overturn the Roe decision.

President Trump has an important decision to make. On the one hand, he can appoint a Justice who resonates with the deeply Republican “base” on the issue of abortion. Doing so, however, could hurt his chances for re-election for two reasons. First, he will look like a president who aligns with the far-right, which is not how he presented himself during his first campaign. This could turn some people off, including independents. Second, and more importantly, he will undoubtedly lose the support of many women, including some more moderate Conservatives, which is not something that he can afford to do. According to a recent article in New York magazine:

A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that 67 percent of voters do not want Roe v. Wade overturned. Opposition is overwhelming among Democrats and independents. But, in another sign that the congressional Republicans do not actually represent the consensus views of their constituents, some 43 percent of GOP voters want Roe upheld (the percentage of Republican Congress members who’d be willing to espouse that position in public is in the single digits).

It is one thing to select a Justice with conservative values and another thing to select a Justice whose decisions on certain issues could cost the president many potential votes. While President Trump undoubtedly leans more to the right, he is by no means a staunch Republican. Herein lies the dilemma. Does he try to satisfy a specific sect within the Republican base by nominating a Justice who would abolish Roe, or does he try to appeal to a broader spectrum with a conservative justice who would leave the Roe decision alone?

No matter who the president elects, Democrats will undoubtedly object.  Recently, Chuck Schumer made his position very clear regarding the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy.

Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016: Not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year. … Millions of people are just months away from determining senators who should vote to confirm or reject the President’s nominee. And their voices deserve to be heard.

Obviously, Mr. Schumer and many Democrats want to delay the nomination for as long as possible. Whether or not they are able to stop the confirmation of any potential nominee is yet to be determined. However, given the availability of the so-called “nuclear” option (thanks, Harry Reid!), Democrats could have a tough battle ahead should Republicans (i.e. Mitch McConnell) choose to utilize this method and force this nominee through.

Before doing so, however, President Trump and fellow Republicans should consider how many potential votes this Justice is worth.  When considering independents, undecided voters, and/or women, this number could be quite high come election day. President Trump needs to decide how much he is willing to gamble and whether he can overcome the potential losses should his gamble not work out.


Twitter: @Elad3599


Desperate for attention

Obviously, Michelle Wolf has reached a low point in her life. She is vile, misguided, and simply not funny. Her comments reflect a woman who is desperate for attention, bordering on irrelevance, and lacking any semblance of class! All people should denounce her disgusting and crass comments, which portray a woman who lacks any and all self-respect!


Stuck between a rock and a hard place


Tom Steyer, a left-wing billionaire, recently spent millions of dollars in advertising urging President Trump’s impeachment. According to Steyer, the only way for Democrats to win the 2018 midterm elections is by impeaching President Trump. Mr. Steyer was not alone, as Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called to impeach the president.

First, let’s get the legalities out of the way.  To impeach a president, there must be an impeachable offense.  The Constitution specifies two specific crimes — treason and bribery — that could merit impeachment and removal from office. In addition to that, it mentions a vaguer, broader category of “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

If there is evidence of an impeachable offense, a majority of the House first needs to approve articles of impeachment.  Once this occurs, a trial is held in the Senate and 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict the president to remove him from office.  This is a very difficult standard to meet.  To date, there has been no proof/evidence of an impeachable offense (or any offense) against President Trump.  Therefore, without an impeachable offense, talk of impeachment appears to stem solely from partisan politics.

Taking this a step further, even if the Democrats gain control of the House in November and approve articles of impeachment based on partisan grounds, the likelihood of impeachment and removal is extremely low given the incredibly high 2/3 threshold needed in the Senate.  For this reason, unless one party obtains a supermajority in the House and Senate, the likelihood of impeachment on partisan grounds is extremely remote.

While talk of impeachment has some bark, it has no bite.  Despite this, some Democrats continue to push this narrative. What is confusing, however, is the fact that some Democrats are eager and willing to impeach a sitting president who has not committed any crime yet are unwilling to punish/discipline a member of Congress (Maxine Waters) who called for people to harass the president and/or administration officials.

This is hypocrisy at its very core. On the one hand, Democrats push for impeachment based on the results of a biased and tarnished investigation and with no evidence of any wrongdoing. On the other hand, they are unwilling to push for tough measures when the circumstances and facts scream for such discipline?

Democrats are in between a rock and a hard place. They can either forget about impeachment and admit that President Trump has committed no wrongdoing, or they can push for very strong measures/discipline against Congresswoman Waters. If they admit that President Trump is “guilt free,” they will destroy their entire “Russia collusion” narrative. On the other hand, if they push for strong measures against Congresswoman Waters, some might perceive this as weakness and/or opine that they are supporting/protecting the president.

They do have a third option…to divert and distract. The problem is that they are running out of smokescreens and November is right around the corner.