Wednesday, May 8, 2019

The City of Angels Hosts the World

Folks, don't miss this week's Newsmaker Show.  Me and Brian O'Neil take a trip down memory lane to V-E Day and the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.  In addition, we talk about the unfolding investigation into the Trump-Russia hoax, especially as its relates to the entrapment of George Papadopoulos, the accuracy of polls, who deserves credit for the strong U.S. economy, whether the 2016 election was "stolen," the right (or lack thereof) of former felons to vote, the Nick Sandman lawsuits against the mainstream media, the politics of Trump's tax returns, the prospects for a trade deal/trade war with China, and much more!

While you're at it, see what Mitch McConnell has to say about the Democrats' refusal to acknowledge the end of the Mueller investigation.  They were hoping against hope for high treason, it seems, and they just can't accept that it isn't there.  Sad.  More than sad, however -- unpatriotic, unhinged, and unacceptable!

And don't give up on the House of Representatives just yet.  There's real hope that it could return to the Republican fold in 2020:


  1. Dr. Waddy: Last things first: Since the 2018 election, the Dems have been acting like their ascension to House majority was inevitable, just and but the advance guard of their complete empowerment in a deluge of revulsion toward the "icky" Trump. (Not PRESIDENT Trump, mind you, by their disdainful lights).
    And they've shown it, oh yes, in their frantic and unrestrained assumption of legislative fiat to assert investigative power lacking warrant but meant to fully engage the Chief Executive. Since, in their view, their full electoral confirmation of power at all levels is, because of its undeniable righteousness, assured in 2020, this is but an early manifestation of future certainty.
    Right now, their spokesman is Jerrold Nadler, with his presumptuous and unlawful subpoenas, an almost comically stereotypical"New Yawk know it all" guaranteed to infuriate most voters between Binghamton and Bakersfield.Let him work and let the President do him and his faction deserved discredit.

  2. Quite right, Jack: the Dems are behaving as though their House majority is invulnerable. Who knows -- perhaps they're counting on the courts to redistrict them into a permanent ascendancy... If so, they'll have to contend with a few "Trump judges" along the way. But yes -- let's give them a rude awakening in 2020!

  3. Dr. Waddy: Poor ole feckless Jimmy Carter. The Soviets invade a neighbor in 1979 and he allows as how it has opened his eyes to the threat of communism: THIS ,of all things! So he takes his ball and bat in 1980 and goes home; well!

    No surprise, I think, that an accomplished businessman is better for the economy than a President who believes that capitalism is fundamentally unjust. I was told by a retiree once very high in the Federal gov't that Obama harbors such disdain for the essence of our economy.

    I agree completely; bring on a very heavy hitter whose only charge is to fully prosecute any illegality found in the "collusion" effort. Take note, real America, of New York State's declared determination to take to task any pardoned by the President from conviction in the "collusion" farce.

    What delicious irony there would be in seeing Hillary Clinton thoroughly investigated. What delight she took in even her junior role in the oppression of Richard Nixon.

    So President Trump is held to be irresponsible eh? Fully agree that Hillary's claim of having the election stolen from her, with its assertion that the outcome was illegitimate, is exceedingly reckless. Some people will believe her.

    Felons in NY state can submit an application for relief from disabilities which, I think, restores their right to vote. Presumably a demonstrated positive attitude on the part of the applicant is required. But the friend of the criminal, Cuomo, wants them to retain it even while incarcerated. Naturally, he knows most of them will vote for him and his ilk.

    My amateur understanding of defamation law is that "intent" to injure is a major factor. That the MSM meant to do Mr. Sandman great wrong may well be establishable and if the case reaches Federal appellate level, could provide precedent for common sense limits on MSM unprofessional vindictiveness.

  4. Dr. Waddy: New York government's determination, under its present misleadership, to cause President Trump no end of truck may skirt the limit of the law. I wonder at what point and how, the President might be able to take action to counter this outrage. I'm very much embarrassed to be a citizen of the state which turns such as Cuomo and his presumptuous AG loose on the country. Its bad enough that they dictate to us; would that they were at least contained within the borders of our benighted and oppressed state.

  5. Jack, I have no doubt that Obama looks down his nose at capitalism...even while he cashes the check from his latest speech before rich bankers. Marxism, what has become of you???

    Oh, it seems clear that a HUGE number of Democrats regard the 2016 election as illegitimate. As I've pointed out before, most believe the election was LITERALLY stolen, i.e. with ballot tampering. And, watching CNN or MSNBC every day, who wouldn't believe such a thing plausible?

    Seems to me that asking a felon to apply for the reinstatement of his right to vote is actually setting a pretty low bar. Even ordinary voters have to fill out a form to register, after all...

    Yes, to defame someone you must intend to harm their reputation, and that might be provable in this case. You also have to prove, however, that the guilty party is knowingly disseminating false information, and that is a hard thing to demonstrate. Frankly, I think most lefties took one look at Nick Sandman, and they KNEW he was in the wrong. That makes them bigoted jerks, but not necessarily criminally or civilly liable.

    Good question about what Trump can do to fight back against state AGs' overreach. I assume the federal courts are about the only recourse. Maybe if you could prove that prosecutions were politically motivated -- which a perusal of these people's public or private remarks might indicate -- that would be a crime? Possibly a conspiracy against justice?

  6. Dr. Waddy:I agree with what you said about defamation. It would seem Mr. Sandman's attorneys would have to convince the jury's majority that as major conveyors of information to the public, the defendants chose to convey only information damaging to Mr. Sandman when mitigating facts were known to them. Perhaps if the defendants could establish that they were not in possession of such facts they could nonetheless be found culpable for gross negligence or incompetence, both of which I think are torts.

    This situation with NY state's resistance to Federal authority must be brought to a head by the Feds. They owe it to the many millions of New Yorkers who are appalled by it but lack the power in Cuomo's NY to act. It takes two forms: First, overt statements by Cuomo of intent to resist Federal authority and his actual orders to state law enforcement officers not to cooperate with some Federal agencies. These measures smack of the discredited doctrine of nullification, the assertion of which has prompted threatened or actual forceful response by past Presidents. Cuomo is probably within the law in submitting his lawsuit against ICE but,having thumbed his nose at the Federal executive branch, what promise is there that he would not respond in a similar manner to a Federal Judiciary which excites his frantic self righteousness by ruling against him?

    Second, there is the AG's obviously political decision, openly supported by Cuomo, to use her taxpayer funded investigative powers to engage the President with personal adversity. Again, a multitude of New Yorkers unwillingly dictated to by these presumptuous officials is patently disserved by this action.

    Here is what the Federal AG should do: First closely examine NY's Constitution, that case law which construes it and relevant NY statutes and their consequent constructions, for guidance on the powers, limitations and duties of the NY Executive branch. If violation is perceived, class action opposition on behalf of the citizenry of NY should be enacted. Second: the very real possibility of violation of the Equal Protection rights of the millions of New Yorkers who do not support the Governor and his AG in their politically partisan attack on the President, must be considered and prosecuted, under both criminal and/or civil Federal law, if it is found necessary.

    Finally: President Trump must look to and consider following, the actions President's Eisenhower and Kennedy took against Southern Governors who had pushed their authority too far, including military action. Cuomo is the avatar of those easily overpowered men and his investment by Federal force would be welcomed by much of "his" state.

    Another alternative might be contemplated as Andrew persists in his near traitorous snit: When England's King John tried the Pope's patience beyond endurance with his insistence on monarchical precedence in Church matters, the Pope slapped an interdict on all of England. This was a terrifying sanction in the Middle Ages, denying to all effected the Last Rites. John was beaten by this. Perhaps measures similarly unendurable for our so idealistic Governor might be in order. Maybe: Refusal to remit to NY, some (eg.Cuomo's pets, like abortion or leftist arts funding)or, if that's what it takes, all Federal funding the state might otherwise expect. I would emphasize denying that funding the denial of which would send Andrew and his supporters into paroxyms of politically correct hyperbole.It would serve to remind them that their presently completely disempowered fellow NY citizens who reject Cuomoesque totalitarianism are, nonetheless, yet citizens of a country which embraces them, stands for them, and can muster overwhelming power if necessary.

  7. Dr. Waddy: Other possible measures:Symbolically isolate NY ala S. Africa by putting a federal border round NY and forbidding all but strictly necessary official federal travel into NY: encourage states who sympathize with the disempowered real Americans in NY to express it by ending official state travel to NY; declaring Andrew and his AG persona non grata and promoting the exodi of businesses and individuals from NY. And let all who fear and despise Cuomoesque presumption and his totalitarian vindictiveness for all who oppose him say so! I expect Georgia will be the latest recipient of Andrew's leftist wrath for daring to protect unborn babies contrary to Andrew's express disapproval; since Andrew will undoubtably presume to employ the taxpayer funded resources of his "Empire State" in this crusade, I would suggest tough 'ol Georgia would be justified in returning his onslaught in kind. Wouldn't be the first time they went up against Yankees.

  8. Dr. Waddy: In suggesting forbidding travel into NY I mean only by Federal employees, not private travel (though all travelers would have to pass through the Federal border around Cuomo's principality). Give him a taste of his own medicine; as a conservative New Yorker, I'd be willing to pay the price.

  9. Jack, I agree that the federal government has many arrows in its quiver that it can use against insurrectionary leftists. Thus far it has treated these upstarts with almost unimaginable patience and forbearance. You're right -- federal power can be enforced BY force, but presumably a court order comes in handy in that case. Ultimately it all comes down to what the courts will tolerate, at least until someone is prepared to defy the courts, and I see no one yet brave enough to take that step. One more conservative Supreme Court Justice, and the Cuomos of this world would really be skating on thin ice. Of course, it also helps to have an AG who takes the law seriously. Barr is trending in that direction, but he has a ways to go.

    As for boycotts and ostracism, all that smacks of leftist churlishness to me. I prefer a full-throated defense of the Constitution and the rule of law. I really don't think it would take much. Denying federal funds, in itself, usually cows any local or state authority -- assuming the courts will allow it.

  10. Dr. Waddy: Points well taken. In thinking out loud in suggesting tactics perhaps usable against Cuomoism, I may well have proposed tactics worthy only of leftists. I enjoy the thought of hoisting them on their own petards, since they are so self righteously presumptuous in the unimpeachable justice of their views once declared; nonetheless, it is reasonable to caution against traveling their very low road.

  11. Dr. Waddy: What I find most objectionable about the baldly political attacks Cuomo and his AG direct against the President is that they are done under color of state law; I think this raises significant Constitutional Equal Protection concerns.

  12. I'm not sure about equal protection, unless you mean that Trump himself is being singled out and denied his constitutional rights, but the fact that federal law trumps state law could come in handy... I suspect these state assaults against the President won't get far -- but if I were Trump I wouldn't look forward to leaving office, because then the knives will really come out at the state, and possibly the federal, level. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the lefties.

  13. Dr. Waddy: In having suggested Equal Protection concerns, my reasoning was that we are all bound by law to honor the powers of office holders and our taxes remunerate them. When office holders use their lawfully established powers (and necessarily, taxpayer's money)to execute personally held political animi, they deny to the always significant faction within their governmental entity which disagrees, the equal protections of the laws which establish their office and authority.Its analogous to government bureaucrats presumptuously spending public funding on obscene and blasphemous "art". They use their offices to advocate and advance personally cherished political biases, often ones which cannot be achieved legislatively; that denies those for whom their beliefs are inimical, the Equal Protection of the laws empowering legislatures.

    Donald Trump is a courageous man and I think he knew his election would generate a maelstrom of leftist misuse of the law to savage and disempower him. I'm going to guess that his personal wealth protects him from the financial ruin already visited upon many principals in the left's vicious post 2016 onslaught.

  14. True, Jack. Financial ruin is the least of the Trumps' concerns. Incarceration, however, I'm afraid is very much in play. A leftist judge would mete out a life sentence to any Trump in a heartbeat, I suspect.

    Is it unethical to use one's political office to persecute one's perceived enemies? Certainly. Is it unconstitutional, or is a violation of the equal protection clause in particular? That I couldn't say. That clause is one of the most abused in the Constitution. Liberals have squeezed every drop of socialism and mushy-headed social engineering they can get out of it. Frankly, I'm not convinced it ever had much positive meaning anyway. "Equality" is, in the final analysis, in the eye of the beholder, and it comes in myriad forms, many of them mutually contradictory.

  15. Dr. Waddy: I certainly agree with your conclusion. The unreasonable devotion to ill defined complete "equality"(especially of results) so reflexively, presumptuously and passionately asserted by the so very"righteous" left is of course discredited by the aristocratic history of the left in power (eg Comrade USSR President's 100 cars or Comrade Ortega's multitudinous designer sunglasses,casually bought in capitalistic NYC.)

    The twentieth century experience of "levelling" and forceful efforts to enforce "equality" affirmed both the impossibility and the consequent murderous immorality of such mostly totalitarian onslaughts. They are driven by Marxist British Library Reading Room detachment from the human consequences of their dreams. They manifest unrepentant and sociopathic contempt for proven human nature, the unimaginably negative consequences of which were demonstrated by their fellows in power in the 20th century in myriad extremely unfortunate settings (eg. Cambodia)

    I would trust that a criminal conviction of Donald Trump, post office, would have to navigate myriad legal trials. Even were it to succeed, I would expect to see a decisive force of real America forming an impenetrable barrier around the prison gate!

  16. Jack, I don't even like to think about what a post-Trump America could look like, assuming it meant the reinstallation of a Democrat in the White House. I'd prefer that the Trump dynasty maintained its grip on power indefinitely -- but I'd accept a President Pence as a consolation prize.

    You are so right that the Left's devotion to "equality" is purely illusory. Leftist regimes are anything but egalitarian in practice. What the liberals have always wanted is a monopoly on POWER, which will mean they get to decide on the distribution of status and rewards. The notion that the free market might apportion such goodies better is a non sequitur to them.