The Trump Impeachment Rebuttal: Less is More

The Democrats have bored America with endless arguments that I am sure they do not even believe themselves. They are not attempting to convince the Senate. They are trying to convince the American people that President Trump is evil and therefore, should not be reelected. They know President Trump will not be convicted, so what else could their motivation be? The problem is nobody is watching. The ratings were dismal on Wednesday and then dropped from dismal to abysmal on Thursday.

My advice to the president’s defense team: announce today that your opening remarks will take two hours or less. Include a statement that the Democrats case is so weak that no more time is needed. That once the American people hear the truth, they will be disgusted with the do-nothing Democrats. This television "teaser"  will spike the ratings for the Trump defense team. 

Then just focus on the obvious facts that disprove the House's case. There is no such thing as obstruction of congress when the President follows the constitutional process of appealing to the courts. This matter should take five minutes. As for the abuse of power accusation, maybe an hour will be required, but no more. The transcripts were released which proved there was no verbal offer of a quid-pro-quo, the President of Ukraine did not know anything about the arms shipments being withheld and never felt pressure. Furthermore, the weapons were delivered in the timeline prescribed by Congress. There is corruption in Ukraine and the president was protecting our tax money. Five minutes could be used to humorously mention that the Democrats are reaching back to the Mueller probe of Russian collusion because they know they have no case on the two articles of impeachment they put forth. But, there is no need to contest any Muller or Russia points raised, they are not included in the articles of impeachment the Senate will rule on. Finally, play the video of Joe Biden bragging about how he bribed the Ukrainians to fire a government official and the video of Hunter Biden's 20/20 interview.

If the Democrats wanted to convince the American people, they should have laid out a compelling case in a concise manner. One pound of understandable facts contains much more persuasion than ten-thousand pounds of horse manure. I only hope the defense team does not take the bait to argue every unsubstantiated accusation made by the Democrats. If that is the case, the American people will not know what to believe.

One more suggestion. Be serious but also lighthearted (a balancing act for sure, but necessary, err to the side of seriousness). For a few moments, act as though this is nothing more than a crazy political stunt because the Democrats have no other way to beat President Trump. A mention that the Democrats have already announced plans to keep impeaching until the cows come home will bolster this point and could be a preemptive strike against the next round of impeachment. But do it in a friendly, likable manner. The House Managers did not score any points for likability and likability counts. Remember, you (the defense team) are talking to the American people as well as the Senate.

Less is more. Case closed.

Democrats Are Addicted to Trump

During the last presidential election campaign, Donald J. Trump received more media attention than all of his competitors combined. Even Hilary Clinton remarked that she could not turn on her TV at 3 in the morning without seeing Donald Trump. The overwhelming majority of all the free media coverage was negative. However, the old adage must be true: ALL publicity is good publicity. Donald J. Trump became President Trump as a result of all the free publicity - on a shoe-string budget of a campaign. Even Mike Bloomberg has enough money to compete with the coverage that President Trump will continue to receive.

The Democrats cannot see that they are continuing down the same rabbit hole. A hole that President Trump has led them to for the past three years.

The Democrats crave the take-down of President Trump as a drug-addict craves his next hit. They cannot help themselves. The only difference between the Democrats and a drug-addict is that there is help available to drug-addicts.

This my dear reader, is the genius of Donald J. Trump.

Democrats Just Don't Get It

Watching the Democrat Presidential debate last night, I was awe struck by the number of times that President Trump was mentioned. It is clear that the Democrat's platform is that "we are not Donald Trump." It was also dumbfounded by the lack of awareness and lack of common sense displayed.

All the Democrats attest to the harm the trade tariffs are doing to the little people. According to the candidates, the tariffs are increasing the corporate GDP but hurting the little guy. The tariffs are causing real harm to everyday Americans. Do the Democrats ever support labor unions when they strike? Do strikes not hurt the little guy in the short term but benefit them tremendously in the longer run? Shortsightedness is shared by all the Democrat candidates and the little guy knows it.

Besides the lack of awareness of negotiating tactics, hasn't anyone told the the Democrats that unemployment is at a 50-year low? That real wages are rising, that more blacks, Hispanics and women have jobs than ever before? Does anyone think a Democrat can win because the economy is horrible for the little guy?

The Democrats have accused President Trump of being in bed with Russia and Putin ever since he was elected (before he was sworn into office). They even tried to impeach him on "collusion." Now, President Trump is the bogey man because he is standing up to Iran. They all claim he is bringing us to the brink of war and will undoubtedly push us over the brink. And, according to the candidates, all the war-mongering is for the President's own personal, political gain. Wait a minute, isn't Iran and Syria in the Russian camp. Could President Trump be standing up to another Russian proxy? The Democrats do not see this, but the little guy in the street does.

Maybe the Democrats can see the irony in President Trump standing up to a Russian proxy but are just wishing that the little guy will not.

Speaking of standing up to Iran, successful parents teach their children to stand up for themselves. To not cower to the bully in the schoolyard. The parent knows that the child may get beat up once, but by fighting back, they will most likely not get pushed around and be afraid to go to school everyday. The little guy gets this. They realize that there are potential perils in the President's Iran stance. But, they also realize that peace through strength works. Rather a small skirmish than an emboldened Iran with a nuclear arsenal. An Iran aligned with Russia and Putin. And, the little guy knows that any skirmish with Iran will not become WW-III.

Bottom line of the debate, the Democrats have nothing new to offer, they plan to run on "Trump is the bogey man" and the little guy sees this. Those who enjoy the entertainment value of the Democrats' debates enjoy it because they see the folly and see President Trump's reelection.

If I were a Democratic candidate, here is what my platform would be: President Trump has done an amazing job of strengthening our economy and in forcing our enemies to respect the United States again. I will continue pursuing better trade deals, continue tariffs if needed to obtain better deals, I will continue to rebuild our military and continue deregulating our businesses as long as we can do so without harming our environment. I will work with governors to push the criminal justice reforms that President Trump pushed through at the federal level down to state and local levels. I will be as forceful with world leaders as President Trump has been with regard to NATO funding, trade relations, and economic cooperation. However, my forcefulness will be more discrete. More public hand-shacking and more private hand-wringing. More personal phone calls to world leaders and less tweets. My platform is that I will be President Trump with less crudeness. I will be Donald Trump with a statesman-like quality.

Then again people are starting to embrace the President's crudeness as well as his policies. I know I often get a chuckle with some of his tweets and remarks. Poor Democrats have no chance.

Dem-Dumb and Dem-Dumber

     What has cast the Democrats as dumb? Let us examine a few facts. The Democrats are promising open borders with welfare, free healthcare, free pre-K, and free college for all that cross our borders. At one debate, every Democrat candidate rose their hand to the question: “Who would decriminalize an illegal crossing of our border?” They have put forth twenty-plus candidates that do not resonate with the American public. The continue to drag our country into witch-hunt after witch-hunt. They now want to overthrow the people’s vote by impeaching the President on frivolous charges. They are so disorganized that Michael Bloomberg has decided that he needs to jump into the race to bail them out. And, even Hilary Clinton is telling the public that she is being pressured to join the race.

     Could they possibly get dumber? How about holding public impeachment hearings and making Representative Adam Schiff the face of the Democratic party? Representative Pelosi ceded to the radicals of her party for fear of losing her speakership. Now the next election will have the people remove her speakership. Dumb and Dumber applies to all Democrats pushing for the impeachment. But, to put faces to the Dumb and Dumber, think of Representatives Pelosi and Schiff.

Special Counselor Mueller Just Drove the Nails into the Impeachment Coffin

Robert Mueller is still testifying to the Congressional Judicial Committee. Representative Nadler started out well by getting Mr. Mueller to state that he did not (as President Trump has stated) exonerate the President.

It went down hill from there. Mr. Mueller looks like a deer in headlights. Imagine the impeachment proceedings with Mr. Mueller as the lead witness.

Mr. Mueller performance leads one to believe that he does not know the basic facts of the investigation that he led. He appears very incompetent. Who was in charge of the investigation?

Mr. Mueller established bounds on what he would testify to and when convenient, he violated the bounds and, also when convenient, invoked the bounds. He made statements contrary to his written report and when alerted to such contradictions, simply stated that the report is correct.

Today's testimony will finally put the Russian-Collusion-Delusion and the obstruction of justice matter to bed. (BTW, I used "matter" on advise from a former AG.) There is no there there and there is no prosecutor riding in on a white horse to save the Democrats. And, ironically, that will be good for the Democrats. Mr. Mueller's performance will save the Democrats from themselves by putting an end to an impeachment.

I apologize to Mr. Mueller for this harsh reporting. He is a great American that has served his country with distinction. We should all thank him for his service. His problem with this situation is that his skills are no longer what they once were. Mr. Mueller should be forgiven for this current wrongdoing and remembered for his previous, great service.

Why the Census Citizenship Question Matters

The question is at the core of America’s political divide.

San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia and hundreds more cities have adopted sanctuary policies that have attracted masses of illegal immigrants to their localities. Now it is census time in America and President Trump wants to include a citizenship question on the census. Of course, the sanctuary cities (and Democrats in general) oppose the question.

Without the question, illegal immigrants are more likely to complete and return their census forms. If citizenry identification is not required, all will be assumed to be citizens. Without the question, illegal immigrants will be less likely to complete the census form. And, those that do (honestly) will not cause Congressional representation to be redistributed.

Not including the citizenship question, results in an advantage to those supporting sanctuary policies in violation of federal law. Not only will voting power in Congress be tilted toward sanctuary policies via increased representation of sanctuary areas, but local governments that support sanctuary policies will obtain additional funding (at a cost to law abiding, non-sanctuary cities).

If local, elected officials want to establish costly sanctuary policies, then the local governments should pay for the policies with increased taxation of their local citizen-taxpayers. Americans in a red state like Alabamans should not pay for the sanctuary policies of San Francisco. If sanctuary-citizen-residents had to foot the bill for their sanctuary policies (without federal funding), it is likely that they would not continue their support at the levels they do with Uncle Sam's funding. We should give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is. The citizenry question should be on the census form.

Many illegal immigrants claim to be fleeing the lawlessness of their home countries. Why should we allow the lawlessness of sanctuary cities be rewarded with more political power and federal funds to further promote lawlessness?

Debatable Debate Observations

If the Democrats have no better ideas than presented tonight, they have no hope. Which is a good thing.

When the question includes the phrase that 60% of democrats believe that the economy is doing well, is it appropriate to respond that the economy is only working for the rich? Maybe 60% of democrats are the rich. How do you win when running against 60% of your own party? This pretty much sums up the democrats’ chances.

Tulsi Gabbard had the best moment when she told Representative Ryan that “being engaged” is an unacceptable answer to the parents of dead soldiers.

NBC was picking winners by whom they allowed to butt in, whom that did not and by who they called on most frequently. They mostly allotted time according to each candidate’s polling position. However, Mayor DeBlasio was allowed to butt in when the other lesser candidates were not.

NBC’s favorites: Castro, Booker, Warren, O’Rourke, Klobuchar and maybe DeBlasio.

Warren had a nice closing statement, but she was a wallflower through most of the event.

Fluency in Spanish is now required to be a witness to the entire political discussion.

It should not be a crime for a foreigner to enter our country without a visa. Every migrant here, coming here or thinking about coming here should be welcomed with government programs to help them get and stay here.

NBC did a horrible job of running the debate. Technical sound problems interrupted the debate, the moderators did not drill down for details and Lester Holt had to tell Chuck Todd where he was. As a 

result, the candidates were allowed to make feel good promises without having to explain how they could deliver. But when you allow ten candidates on the stage, it’s difficult to drill down.

Every democrat is for abortion at the sole discretion of the involved woman and the government should pay for whatever the woman demands.

The Democrats would all cave to Iran and re-sign the Obama deal. It’s too scary now. We should give the Iranian’s what they want.

Individuals should be taxed up to 70% and businesses 28%.

Biggest winner, Gabbard for her zing of Ryan. Biggest loser, Ryan.

Second place: Castro. He was given a lot of time and he made the most of it. Second biggest loser: Klobuchar. She was higher in the polls so got more questions. She didn’t falter but didn’t shine. She had more to lose than most and she lost it.

Luckiest candidate: Warren. None of the candidates went after the front leader of tonight’s pack.

Most courageous candidate: tie between DeBlasio and Castro. DeBlasio had the presence to start talking at the end of another candidate’s answer and Castro called O’Rourke on the specifics of his immigration plan. Castro was making the point about repealing the law that makes it illegal for migrants to cross the border.

DeBlasio also had the courage to state what Democrats should be for: 70% taxes, free college, free pre-school, public healthcare, abortions at will, and a Marshall Plan for the Latin America countries where our immigrants are coming from. (I believe that the Marshall Plan was to rebuild physical infrastructure for countries that already had strong social infrastructures and institutions. What good would physical infrastructure do without social infrastructural?)

My personal ranking of the performances (not on policy positions but on wooing the audience, I must admit, I don’t agree with any of their positions): Gabbard, Castro, Booker, DeBlasio, O’Rourke, Warren, Klobuchar, Delaney, Ryan, Inslee.

Overall impression, tired policy ideas (not to mention outside of working class values), no signs of leadership, and boring personas. I think it was DeBlasio that stated that the democrats had to be the party of the working cleass again. If so, they should do some polling of their policies with the working class. But that wouldn't work with the coastal elites that run their party.

Donald Trump can sleep well tonight.