Category: Brian C. Joondeph

209209.png

J'accuse as the New Legal Standard


Two and a half centuries of legal precedent in the United States is based on the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty.”  The law provides for due process, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, trial by a jury of one’s peers, and other measures preventing conviction based solely on an accusation.

“J’accuse” was the title of an editorial published in France in 1898 exposing a military cover-up of a French army captain falsely accused of espionage, later exonerated, but with the army suppressing the new evidence, concealing the army’s erroneous conviction.  Eerie parallels can be drawn from this story to current events involving President Trump and the Deep State.

J’accuse, meaning “I accuse,” has become the new legal standard in America, at least for Supreme Court nominees.  Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is in jeopardy based on the accusation of one woman, claiming sexual misconduct over thirty years ago when both were in high school.

She doesn’t remember when the alleged assault occurred, or where it took place, who else was present, or any other information that would support her accusation.  She doesn’t want to publicly state her case to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the nation.  Instead, she hides behind her desire for privacy and anonymity, despite this entire stunt being planned, including the accuser hiring an attorney and taking a polygraph test at least a month before she “reluctantly” went public with her accusations.

In other words, Kavanaugh is guilty simply because Christine Blasey Ford cries, “J’accuse,” then runs and hides behind the skirts of her attorney and her #MeToo compatriots.  There is only that one word serving as judge, jury, and executioner, throwing due process out the window.

One hundred women know Judge Kavanaugh and stand behind his honor, decency, and integrity.  There is no pattern of boorish behavior, as is typically seen with sexual predators – Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Keith Ellison, to name just a few examples.  There may, however, be a pattern to Dr. Ford’s accusations, as there are rumors of a similar letter she wrote regarding Neil Gorsuch ahead of his confirmation.

Who needs evidence or proof of allegations when the accusation alone is enough?  That’s the opinion of Ford’s attorney, Democrat activist Debra Katz, who said “it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.”  Who needs evidence or corroboration?  J’accuse is enough.

Even Senator Dianne Feinstein acknowledges, “I can’t say everything is truthful.”  Well, isn’t that grand?  The grand inquisitor can’t even confirm that her grand inquisition has merit.

Hillary Clinton weighed in as well, saying, “Christine Blasey Ford deserves the benefit of the doubt in her accusation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, sexually assaulted her when the two were teenagers.”  J’accuse is adequate, in other words.

What about the benefit of the doubt for Judge Kavanaugh?  Despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence being on his side, it’s suddenly his responsibility to prove his innocence, to disprove what a single Democrat activist claims in her j’accuse letter to Senator Feinstein.

Mrs. Clinton forgets that her husband had a string of accusers, not just a single one, meaning a pattern of behavior.  Did those women receive the benefit of the doubt?  Hardly.  Mrs. Clinton and her “bimbo eruption team” viciously attacked the accusers and investigators, demeaning and physically threatening them.

Not only did they not have their own j’accuse moments, but they also did not even have due process.  Mrs. Clinton must have a short memory.

My local newspaper, the liberal Denver Post, also stands by j’accuse legal doctrine, saying: “Kavanaugh must now clear his name if he is to be confirmed.”  By the paper’s standards, he is guilty until he proves himself innocent – quite the opposite of the standards of American jurisprudence.

Let’s play this out in a few different ways and see what the responses might be.

J’accuse Barack Obama of being a Muslim born in Kenya, not a natural-born citizen, ineligible to be president.

J’accuse the government of orchestrating 9/11, deliberately setting explosives in the towers, including Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.

J’accuse the government of orchestrating the Sandy Hook school shooting in order to advance its gun control agenda.

J’accuse the Clintons and their hired muscle of murdering dozens of people who were either in their way or threatening to expose Clinton crimes.

These are all considered conspiracy theories.  Promoting them will get you banned from social media platforms, ostracized, and called names like “birther” or “truther,” despite there being enough evidence out there to at least give one pause before declaring them total nonsense.  Just ask Alex Jones.

Why can’t j’accuse apply to accusations problematic for or damaging to the left rather than only to nominees to the Supreme Court from Republican presidents?  Clarence Thomas a generation ago went through the same thing Brett Kavanaugh is going through now: an unsubstantiated accusation without corroborating evidence, in sync with Democrat senators and the entire media, designed to subvert judicial precedent and the constitutional prerogative of the president to make nominations to the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh has had half a dozen FBI background checks and sits on the second highest court in the land, with nary a peep about him being a closet rapist until days before his confirmation vote.  Why now?

Today we have two legal doctrines.  Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.  Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist and predator based on a single flimsy accusation, and the burden is on him to prove a negative.

Democrats, on the other hand, are innocent even when proven guilty.  James Comey detailed how Hillary Clinton mishandled secure emails and classified information, charges that normally lead to a long prison term, and concluded his findings by declaring her innocent.

J’accuse is a true witch hunt.  Remember the presumed witches of Salem, who were put to death over a simple accusation.  Or the millions of Soviets and East Germans finding themselves in a gulag or a grave over the accusations from a neighbor.

Adding insult to injury is the response of Republicans.  Few are coming to Kavanaugh’s defense; instead, they are wringing their hands, talking about fairness, acting like cowards in the face of hypocrisy and injustice.  These same Republicans are a single j’accuse away from having their careers and families ruined over the standard of justice they acquiesce to.

GOP senators are being played as patsies.  Democrats change the rules and goalposts every hour regarding who will testify and when and under what circumstances.  They will stall and try to run out the clock until they can invoke the Biden rule, pushing off any Supreme Court nomination as long as possible, hoping for an intervening miracle like the Democrats winning the Senate in November.

Or they will stall until a few other scorned women can be paid or convinced to fabricate memories of Brett Kavanaugh’s wild and crazy high school antics – with the media cheerleading each new revelation until a few squishy senators abandon honor and principle, throwing the judge overboard.

Appeasement of the j’accuse movement will only feed the beast, encouraging further such behavior.  Republicans are too cowardly or clueless to recognize this.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Two and a half centuries of legal precedent in the United States is based on the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty.”  The law provides for due process, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, trial by a jury of one’s peers, and other measures preventing conviction based solely on an accusation.

“J’accuse” was the title of an editorial published in France in 1898 exposing a military cover-up of a French army captain falsely accused of espionage, later exonerated, but with the army suppressing the new evidence, concealing the army’s erroneous conviction.  Eerie parallels can be drawn from this story to current events involving President Trump and the Deep State.

J’accuse, meaning “I accuse,” has become the new legal standard in America, at least for Supreme Court nominees.  Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is in jeopardy based on the accusation of one woman, claiming sexual misconduct over thirty years ago when both were in high school.

She doesn’t remember when the alleged assault occurred, or where it took place, who else was present, or any other information that would support her accusation.  She doesn’t want to publicly state her case to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the nation.  Instead, she hides behind her desire for privacy and anonymity, despite this entire stunt being planned, including the accuser hiring an attorney and taking a polygraph test at least a month before she “reluctantly” went public with her accusations.

In other words, Kavanaugh is guilty simply because Christine Blasey Ford cries, “J’accuse,” then runs and hides behind the skirts of her attorney and her #MeToo compatriots.  There is only that one word serving as judge, jury, and executioner, throwing due process out the window.

One hundred women know Judge Kavanaugh and stand behind his honor, decency, and integrity.  There is no pattern of boorish behavior, as is typically seen with sexual predators – Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Keith Ellison, to name just a few examples.  There may, however, be a pattern to Dr. Ford’s accusations, as there are rumors of a similar letter she wrote regarding Neil Gorsuch ahead of his confirmation.

Who needs evidence or proof of allegations when the accusation alone is enough?  That’s the opinion of Ford’s attorney, Democrat activist Debra Katz, who said “it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.”  Who needs evidence or corroboration?  J’accuse is enough.

Even Senator Dianne Feinstein acknowledges, “I can’t say everything is truthful.”  Well, isn’t that grand?  The grand inquisitor can’t even confirm that her grand inquisition has merit.

Hillary Clinton weighed in as well, saying, “Christine Blasey Ford deserves the benefit of the doubt in her accusation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, sexually assaulted her when the two were teenagers.”  J’accuse is adequate, in other words.

What about the benefit of the doubt for Judge Kavanaugh?  Despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence being on his side, it’s suddenly his responsibility to prove his innocence, to disprove what a single Democrat activist claims in her j’accuse letter to Senator Feinstein.

Mrs. Clinton forgets that her husband had a string of accusers, not just a single one, meaning a pattern of behavior.  Did those women receive the benefit of the doubt?  Hardly.  Mrs. Clinton and her “bimbo eruption team” viciously attacked the accusers and investigators, demeaning and physically threatening them.

Not only did they not have their own j’accuse moments, but they also did not even have due process.  Mrs. Clinton must have a short memory.

My local newspaper, the liberal Denver Post, also stands by j’accuse legal doctrine, saying: “Kavanaugh must now clear his name if he is to be confirmed.”  By the paper’s standards, he is guilty until he proves himself innocent – quite the opposite of the standards of American jurisprudence.

Let’s play this out in a few different ways and see what the responses might be.

J’accuse Barack Obama of being a Muslim born in Kenya, not a natural-born citizen, ineligible to be president.

J’accuse the government of orchestrating 9/11, deliberately setting explosives in the towers, including Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.

J’accuse the government of orchestrating the Sandy Hook school shooting in order to advance its gun control agenda.

J’accuse the Clintons and their hired muscle of murdering dozens of people who were either in their way or threatening to expose Clinton crimes.

These are all considered conspiracy theories.  Promoting them will get you banned from social media platforms, ostracized, and called names like “birther” or “truther,” despite there being enough evidence out there to at least give one pause before declaring them total nonsense.  Just ask Alex Jones.

Why can’t j’accuse apply to accusations problematic for or damaging to the left rather than only to nominees to the Supreme Court from Republican presidents?  Clarence Thomas a generation ago went through the same thing Brett Kavanaugh is going through now: an unsubstantiated accusation without corroborating evidence, in sync with Democrat senators and the entire media, designed to subvert judicial precedent and the constitutional prerogative of the president to make nominations to the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh has had half a dozen FBI background checks and sits on the second highest court in the land, with nary a peep about him being a closet rapist until days before his confirmation vote.  Why now?

Today we have two legal doctrines.  Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.  Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist and predator based on a single flimsy accusation, and the burden is on him to prove a negative.

Democrats, on the other hand, are innocent even when proven guilty.  James Comey detailed how Hillary Clinton mishandled secure emails and classified information, charges that normally lead to a long prison term, and concluded his findings by declaring her innocent.

J’accuse is a true witch hunt.  Remember the presumed witches of Salem, who were put to death over a simple accusation.  Or the millions of Soviets and East Germans finding themselves in a gulag or a grave over the accusations from a neighbor.

Adding insult to injury is the response of Republicans.  Few are coming to Kavanaugh’s defense; instead, they are wringing their hands, talking about fairness, acting like cowards in the face of hypocrisy and injustice.  These same Republicans are a single j’accuse away from having their careers and families ruined over the standard of justice they acquiesce to.

GOP senators are being played as patsies.  Democrats change the rules and goalposts every hour regarding who will testify and when and under what circumstances.  They will stall and try to run out the clock until they can invoke the Biden rule, pushing off any Supreme Court nomination as long as possible, hoping for an intervening miracle like the Democrats winning the Senate in November.

Or they will stall until a few other scorned women can be paid or convinced to fabricate memories of Brett Kavanaugh’s wild and crazy high school antics – with the media cheerleading each new revelation until a few squishy senators abandon honor and principle, throwing the judge overboard.

Appeasement of the j’accuse movement will only feed the beast, encouraging further such behavior.  Republicans are too cowardly or clueless to recognize this.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

209133.png

Let’s Blame Every Death on President Trump


Fake News is a term popularized by President Donald Trump to characterize the mainstream media. Not all journalists, as the President notes, but the major American media outlets such as CNN, NBC, and the New York Times.

While the media objects to such a characterization, they do little to dispel the their new found reputation. Only last week, the New York Times reinforced their fake news label with the story of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley supposedly ordering expensive curtains for her official residence when in reality the curtains were ordered by the Obama administration. The fact that it took two years for curtains to be installed after being ordered is an interesting sidelight of government inefficiency.

A small amount of research and fact checking would have kept the egg off the NY Times’ faces for publishing a bogus story. Was this deliberate or incompetence or both? It makes little difference and the fake news reputation of the NY Times has been reinforced.

This story broke during the time of Hurricane Florence, at one point predicted to be a category 4 or 5 superstorm, but in reality only a category 1 storm when making landfall, a reminder of the unpredictability of hurricanes in both course and strength.

The fake stream media took advantage of the hurricane to push their Trump hatred narrative, this time with the supposed death toll in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria last year. As Hurricane Florence was gaining strength in the Atlantic, the media could not resist the opportunity to trash the President. The Washington Post editorial board declared Trump “complicit” in the hurricane, as if he created and steered it.

I’m sure if Hillary Clinton were president now there would not have been any hurricanes over the past two years. At least that’s the implication.

Conveniently a story was released claiming 3000 deaths in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria, timed perfectly with the Washington Post editorial and Hurricane Florence. The President, in his fashion, punched back over the whopper of a story tying these supposed Puerto Rico deaths to him and his administration’s hurricane response.

The media ran with this story in unison, eclipsing even Nikki Haley’s curtains and Paul Manafort’s deal with Special Counsel Mueller.

The problem is, “The island government raised the official death toll to 2,975 on Tuesday after maintaining for months that 64 people had died as a result of the storm.” Why the sudden change, from 64 to nearly 3000, a 50-fold increase? Other than an opportunity to stick it to President Trump.

This death toll number resulted from a request by the Puerto Rico Governor:

“In order to accurately estimate the excess number of deaths due to Hurricane María, the Governor of Puerto Rico sought an independent assessment of mortality and commissioned The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health to complete the assessment.”

In response, the Milken Institute:

“…developed a series of generalized linear models…to project forward mortality that would have been expected if the hurricane had not occurred.”

In other words, this was a computer model, much like those predicting the strength and track of hurricanes, resulting in the “spaghetti line” plots of all of the potential tracks of an early hurricane. The same models predicted a category 4 storm when it was actually category 1 at landfall.

To calculate the number of deaths, the study “Used records for all deaths occurring from September 2017-February 2018.” Meaning someone with a bad heart or cancer, finally succumbing to their illness months after the hurricane, or a drug overdose or car accident, are all included in that number of deaths dubiously attributed to the hurricane.

Cause of death is based on the death certificate, filled out by a physician. The study found:

“Physician lack of awareness of appropriate death certification practices after a natural disaster…limited the count of deaths that were reported as related to Hurricane María.”

In other words, there is little correlation between the hurricane and cause of death.

How could there be. People die for myriad reasons. The stress of a hurricane may play a role but science is not capable of running two simultaneous scenarios – one with a hurricane and one without one – then comparing the two outcomes.

Imagine if we could do that. What would four years of President Trump look like after the fact compared with four years of President Clinton? Unfortunately that is only the realm of movies and novels, not real life.

This led researchers to take a different approach, to “conclude that excess mortality is a good indicator for impact monitoring during and in the aftermath of a disaster.” Is that valid? Maybe or maybe not.

Perhaps more instructive would be data on the actual death rate in Puerto Rico over the past two decades. The CIA factbook provides such data presented here.

The graph demonstrates that the death rate in Puerto Rico has been rising for most of the past decade, beginning in 2010. What if I suggested this rise in deaths was related to President Obama assuming office in 2009? Or Obamacare signed into law in 2010? Will any US university undertake such a study and conclude that the “excess deaths” from 2010 to 2016 are due to Obama and his policies? Don’t hold your breath.

From the plot one can see that the death rate in Puerto Rico peaked in 2016, then dropped in 2017. What happened in 2016? Could we make the argument that President Trump’s election is responsible for the reduction in deaths from 2016 to 2017? Why not?

More likely, the slowly rising death rate over the past decade is due to other causes, from accidents to lifestyle-related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Is the drop from 2016 to 2017 the beginning of a downward trend, or just a blip in an otherwise rising death rate? Time will tell.

The President is not disputing the 3000 deaths number, only the causation. CNN tries to paint Trump as a denier, “Trump falsely claims nearly 3,000 Americans in Puerto Rico did not die.” It’s not that they didn’t die, but instead the reason why they died.

As the President noted, it was a blatant political stunt, to blame the administration’s hurricane response as the cause of these deaths, furthering the left’s talking points that Trump doesn’t care, he hates people of color, he’s incompetent, and so on. As expected, he responded.

The Hurricane Florence death toll, at the time of this writing, is seven. Details are needed to determine association versus causation. As the flooding continues, the death toll will likely rise. Will it suddenly spike from a few dozen to several thousand a year from now, in time for a new hurricane season and another bite of the Trump derangement syndrome apple? Almost certainly.

When the left and the media tries to politicize everything, from weather to gender to sports, they should expect push back. Not from spineless Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan, who readily agreed with the media narrative, saying he has “no reason to dispute those numbers.”

Instead such pushback is from the only Republican who actually stands up to the media, punching back against fake news. What a refreshing change. And one of the major reasons we have a president named Trump, not Rubio, Kasich, or Jeb!

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

Fake News is a term popularized by President Donald Trump to characterize the mainstream media. Not all journalists, as the President notes, but the major American media outlets such as CNN, NBC, and the New York Times.

While the media objects to such a characterization, they do little to dispel the their new found reputation. Only last week, the New York Times reinforced their fake news label with the story of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley supposedly ordering expensive curtains for her official residence when in reality the curtains were ordered by the Obama administration. The fact that it took two years for curtains to be installed after being ordered is an interesting sidelight of government inefficiency.

A small amount of research and fact checking would have kept the egg off the NY Times’ faces for publishing a bogus story. Was this deliberate or incompetence or both? It makes little difference and the fake news reputation of the NY Times has been reinforced.

This story broke during the time of Hurricane Florence, at one point predicted to be a category 4 or 5 superstorm, but in reality only a category 1 storm when making landfall, a reminder of the unpredictability of hurricanes in both course and strength.

The fake stream media took advantage of the hurricane to push their Trump hatred narrative, this time with the supposed death toll in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria last year. As Hurricane Florence was gaining strength in the Atlantic, the media could not resist the opportunity to trash the President. The Washington Post editorial board declared Trump “complicit” in the hurricane, as if he created and steered it.

I’m sure if Hillary Clinton were president now there would not have been any hurricanes over the past two years. At least that’s the implication.

Conveniently a story was released claiming 3000 deaths in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria, timed perfectly with the Washington Post editorial and Hurricane Florence. The President, in his fashion, punched back over the whopper of a story tying these supposed Puerto Rico deaths to him and his administration’s hurricane response.

The media ran with this story in unison, eclipsing even Nikki Haley’s curtains and Paul Manafort’s deal with Special Counsel Mueller.

The problem is, “The island government raised the official death toll to 2,975 on Tuesday after maintaining for months that 64 people had died as a result of the storm.” Why the sudden change, from 64 to nearly 3000, a 50-fold increase? Other than an opportunity to stick it to President Trump.

This death toll number resulted from a request by the Puerto Rico Governor:

“In order to accurately estimate the excess number of deaths due to Hurricane María, the Governor of Puerto Rico sought an independent assessment of mortality and commissioned The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health to complete the assessment.”

In response, the Milken Institute:

“…developed a series of generalized linear models…to project forward mortality that would have been expected if the hurricane had not occurred.”

In other words, this was a computer model, much like those predicting the strength and track of hurricanes, resulting in the “spaghetti line” plots of all of the potential tracks of an early hurricane. The same models predicted a category 4 storm when it was actually category 1 at landfall.

To calculate the number of deaths, the study “Used records for all deaths occurring from September 2017-February 2018.” Meaning someone with a bad heart or cancer, finally succumbing to their illness months after the hurricane, or a drug overdose or car accident, are all included in that number of deaths dubiously attributed to the hurricane.

Cause of death is based on the death certificate, filled out by a physician. The study found:

“Physician lack of awareness of appropriate death certification practices after a natural disaster…limited the count of deaths that were reported as related to Hurricane María.”

In other words, there is little correlation between the hurricane and cause of death.

How could there be. People die for myriad reasons. The stress of a hurricane may play a role but science is not capable of running two simultaneous scenarios – one with a hurricane and one without one – then comparing the two outcomes.

Imagine if we could do that. What would four years of President Trump look like after the fact compared with four years of President Clinton? Unfortunately that is only the realm of movies and novels, not real life.

This led researchers to take a different approach, to “conclude that excess mortality is a good indicator for impact monitoring during and in the aftermath of a disaster.” Is that valid? Maybe or maybe not.

Perhaps more instructive would be data on the actual death rate in Puerto Rico over the past two decades. The CIA factbook provides such data presented here.

The graph demonstrates that the death rate in Puerto Rico has been rising for most of the past decade, beginning in 2010. What if I suggested this rise in deaths was related to President Obama assuming office in 2009? Or Obamacare signed into law in 2010? Will any US university undertake such a study and conclude that the “excess deaths” from 2010 to 2016 are due to Obama and his policies? Don’t hold your breath.

From the plot one can see that the death rate in Puerto Rico peaked in 2016, then dropped in 2017. What happened in 2016? Could we make the argument that President Trump’s election is responsible for the reduction in deaths from 2016 to 2017? Why not?

More likely, the slowly rising death rate over the past decade is due to other causes, from accidents to lifestyle-related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Is the drop from 2016 to 2017 the beginning of a downward trend, or just a blip in an otherwise rising death rate? Time will tell.

The President is not disputing the 3000 deaths number, only the causation. CNN tries to paint Trump as a denier, “Trump falsely claims nearly 3,000 Americans in Puerto Rico did not die.” It’s not that they didn’t die, but instead the reason why they died.

As the President noted, it was a blatant political stunt, to blame the administration’s hurricane response as the cause of these deaths, furthering the left’s talking points that Trump doesn’t care, he hates people of color, he’s incompetent, and so on. As expected, he responded.

The Hurricane Florence death toll, at the time of this writing, is seven. Details are needed to determine association versus causation. As the flooding continues, the death toll will likely rise. Will it suddenly spike from a few dozen to several thousand a year from now, in time for a new hurricane season and another bite of the Trump derangement syndrome apple? Almost certainly.

When the left and the media tries to politicize everything, from weather to gender to sports, they should expect push back. Not from spineless Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan, who readily agreed with the media narrative, saying he has “no reason to dispute those numbers.”

Instead such pushback is from the only Republican who actually stands up to the media, punching back against fake news. What a refreshing change. And one of the major reasons we have a president named Trump, not Rubio, Kasich, or Jeb!

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.



Source link

209050.jpg

The Media's Latest Poll Dance


With the midterms less than two months away and the economy firing on all cylinders, the Democrats, and their handlers, also known as the American media, are entering the panic zone.  The midterms are the last chance for the left to stop the Trump train.

Robert Mueller’s investigation is shooting blanks.  Mueller’s Deep State cronies in the FBI and DOJ may be facing legal troubles of their own.  Trump’s popularity remains solid despite Hurricane Florence-strength media attacks against him each and every day.

CNN and MSNBC are currently at Category 4 hurricane strength against President Trump.  Expect to see this ratchet up to Category 5 in the upcoming weeks before the midterms.  Ninety percent of Trump’s media coverage is negative.  This will increase to approach 100 percent if Mueller can’t find or fabricate the smoking gun that will send The Donald slinking back to Trump Tower.

Since Stormy Daniels’s pole dances haven’t damaged President Trump, big media are using their own “poll dance,” specifically opinion polls, to create the narrative that no one likes the president.  They hope to dispirit Trump voters, damping the enthusiasm of November 2016, to pick off enough House seats to shift House control to Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

At the least, these polls can further the media fable that everyone is embarrassed by Trump and won’t support him, causing some of his supporters to abandon the president so their friends and families stop calling them racist, sexist Nazis.

The latest poll is a Quinnipiac University poll.  CNN’s Brian Stelter wasted no time in gleefully tweeting out the results.

In choreographed synchrony, worthy of Olympic synchronized swimming, MSNBC, dance partner of CNN, had its own tweet.

That’s it, then.  As prosecutor, judge, and jury, big media proclaimed Trump’s presidency over.  In other words, America is ready to Dump Trump.

Is that wishful thinking from the likes of Stelter and Scarborough?  What if we look at the actual Quinnipiac poll that has them so excited?

One of the results is this: “American voters disapprove 54 – 38 percent of the job President Trump is doing.”  Doom and gloom for Team Trump.

They do acknowledge that “Trump’s base remains loyal.”  But they can’t help themselves taking a stereotypical and bigoted view of his supporters.  “The only listed groups approving of the president are Republicans, 84 – 7 percent and white voters with no college degree, 51 – 40 percent.”

Of course, Trump-supporters are dumb whites, rednecks with only two teeth playing a banjo on a porch swing in rural Georgia.  Not the latte-drinking liberal elites in Manhattan or the cosmopolitan conservatives sipping chardonnay in Georgetown.

Their kicker question was, “Do you think Donald Trump is fit to serve as president, or not?”  On Sept. 10, 2018, Quinnipiac found its answer – 41 percent yes, 55 percent no.  That’s it, then.  Hillary should move into the White House next week, and Trump should be sent to the insane asylum.

One question they asked, which won’t receive much attention for fear of upsetting many of the CNN and MSNBC news panelists, is this: “Do you think that President Trump is mentally stable, or not?”  Lo and behold, even in this biased survey, 48 percent answered yes, he is mentally stable, 42 percent no.  Obviously, they didn’t conduct this poll in Hollywood where almost everyone believes that Trump is insane.

Several layers beyond the tweets and headlines are the guts of the poll, the sample and methodology.  Here they are.

This survey oversampled Democrats by 9 points.  And how many of those 33 percent independents are truly independent?  The average Trump-supporter who gets a telephone call survey will either hang up or else give the pollster the answer he is looking for rather than be castigated as a Trump voter.

In addition, Quinnipiac surveyed registered, rather than likely, voters.  Likely voters are only a small fraction of registered voters, many of whom won’t turn out to vote, especially in midterm elections.

Between the sample and the weighting, it is no surprise that the poll results tilt heavily in favor of Democrat talking points.

Alternatively, look at Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster for the 2016 presidential election.  In its Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, it surveys likely voters, not simply registered voters.  On Sept. 10, 2018, the same day as the Quinnipiac poll, President Trump was at 48 percent total approval, 51 percent total disapproval, similar to where he has been for most of this year.

What Brian Stelter and Morning Joe won’t tell you is what their idol Barack Obama’s poll numbers were in the same Rasmussen poll at the exact same point in his presidency.  But I will.

On Sept. 10, 2010, “the one we have all been waiting for” was at 42 percent total approval, 56 percent disapproval, 6 points lower than the Neanderthal Trump who Quinnipiac says is unfit to serve as president.

How inconvenient, but also how instructive.  Are these polls designed to reflect popular opinion or shape it?

Do the media want to objectively report President Trump’s popularity?  Or do they have a narrative they wish to promote, using a deliberately flawed poll, sample, and methodology?

That would be like conducting a Trump popularity poll in Ithaca, Berkeley, or Boulder, then attempting to extrapolate the results to the rest of the United States.

Expect to see more of these phony polls leading up to the midterms.  These will be the new tool of a hyper-partisan media, desperate to bring down a president they loathe and right the catastrophic wrong that occurred in November 2016.

Bob Woodward’s book, the New York Times op-ed, Omarosa’s tapes, Stormy’s tales, and hysterical Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are all part of the mix, now joined by propaganda polls.

Treat these polls for what they are – partisan campaign commercials – and don’t despair.  These same pollsters predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide victory in 2016.  But do remember to vote this coming November.  The stakes could not be higher.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

With the midterms less than two months away and the economy firing on all cylinders, the Democrats, and their handlers, also known as the American media, are entering the panic zone.  The midterms are the last chance for the left to stop the Trump train.

Robert Mueller’s investigation is shooting blanks.  Mueller’s Deep State cronies in the FBI and DOJ may be facing legal troubles of their own.  Trump’s popularity remains solid despite Hurricane Florence-strength media attacks against him each and every day.

CNN and MSNBC are currently at Category 4 hurricane strength against President Trump.  Expect to see this ratchet up to Category 5 in the upcoming weeks before the midterms.  Ninety percent of Trump’s media coverage is negative.  This will increase to approach 100 percent if Mueller can’t find or fabricate the smoking gun that will send The Donald slinking back to Trump Tower.

Since Stormy Daniels’s pole dances haven’t damaged President Trump, big media are using their own “poll dance,” specifically opinion polls, to create the narrative that no one likes the president.  They hope to dispirit Trump voters, damping the enthusiasm of November 2016, to pick off enough House seats to shift House control to Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

At the least, these polls can further the media fable that everyone is embarrassed by Trump and won’t support him, causing some of his supporters to abandon the president so their friends and families stop calling them racist, sexist Nazis.

The latest poll is a Quinnipiac University poll.  CNN’s Brian Stelter wasted no time in gleefully tweeting out the results.

In choreographed synchrony, worthy of Olympic synchronized swimming, MSNBC, dance partner of CNN, had its own tweet.

That’s it, then.  As prosecutor, judge, and jury, big media proclaimed Trump’s presidency over.  In other words, America is ready to Dump Trump.

Is that wishful thinking from the likes of Stelter and Scarborough?  What if we look at the actual Quinnipiac poll that has them so excited?

One of the results is this: “American voters disapprove 54 – 38 percent of the job President Trump is doing.”  Doom and gloom for Team Trump.

They do acknowledge that “Trump’s base remains loyal.”  But they can’t help themselves taking a stereotypical and bigoted view of his supporters.  “The only listed groups approving of the president are Republicans, 84 – 7 percent and white voters with no college degree, 51 – 40 percent.”

Of course, Trump-supporters are dumb whites, rednecks with only two teeth playing a banjo on a porch swing in rural Georgia.  Not the latte-drinking liberal elites in Manhattan or the cosmopolitan conservatives sipping chardonnay in Georgetown.

Their kicker question was, “Do you think Donald Trump is fit to serve as president, or not?”  On Sept. 10, 2018, Quinnipiac found its answer – 41 percent yes, 55 percent no.  That’s it, then.  Hillary should move into the White House next week, and Trump should be sent to the insane asylum.

One question they asked, which won’t receive much attention for fear of upsetting many of the CNN and MSNBC news panelists, is this: “Do you think that President Trump is mentally stable, or not?”  Lo and behold, even in this biased survey, 48 percent answered yes, he is mentally stable, 42 percent no.  Obviously, they didn’t conduct this poll in Hollywood where almost everyone believes that Trump is insane.

Several layers beyond the tweets and headlines are the guts of the poll, the sample and methodology.  Here they are.

This survey oversampled Democrats by 9 points.  And how many of those 33 percent independents are truly independent?  The average Trump-supporter who gets a telephone call survey will either hang up or else give the pollster the answer he is looking for rather than be castigated as a Trump voter.

In addition, Quinnipiac surveyed registered, rather than likely, voters.  Likely voters are only a small fraction of registered voters, many of whom won’t turn out to vote, especially in midterm elections.

Between the sample and the weighting, it is no surprise that the poll results tilt heavily in favor of Democrat talking points.

Alternatively, look at Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster for the 2016 presidential election.  In its Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, it surveys likely voters, not simply registered voters.  On Sept. 10, 2018, the same day as the Quinnipiac poll, President Trump was at 48 percent total approval, 51 percent total disapproval, similar to where he has been for most of this year.

What Brian Stelter and Morning Joe won’t tell you is what their idol Barack Obama’s poll numbers were in the same Rasmussen poll at the exact same point in his presidency.  But I will.

On Sept. 10, 2010, “the one we have all been waiting for” was at 42 percent total approval, 56 percent disapproval, 6 points lower than the Neanderthal Trump who Quinnipiac says is unfit to serve as president.

How inconvenient, but also how instructive.  Are these polls designed to reflect popular opinion or shape it?

Do the media want to objectively report President Trump’s popularity?  Or do they have a narrative they wish to promote, using a deliberately flawed poll, sample, and methodology?

That would be like conducting a Trump popularity poll in Ithaca, Berkeley, or Boulder, then attempting to extrapolate the results to the rest of the United States.

Expect to see more of these phony polls leading up to the midterms.  These will be the new tool of a hyper-partisan media, desperate to bring down a president they loathe and right the catastrophic wrong that occurred in November 2016.

Bob Woodward’s book, the New York Times op-ed, Omarosa’s tapes, Stormy’s tales, and hysterical Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are all part of the mix, now joined by propaganda polls.

Treat these polls for what they are – partisan campaign commercials – and don’t despair.  These same pollsters predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide victory in 2016.  But do remember to vote this coming November.  The stakes could not be higher.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

208986.png

Fall Madness – Hurricanes and Global Warming


Fall is officially upon us with the passing of Labor Day. After this seasonal landmark, we are not supposed to wear white. I’m surprised CNN’s Don Lemon hasn’t found something racist in this tradition.

Football season has started, kneeling players and all. It’s been a busy week for the media as we are now less than two months away from the critical Congressional midterm elections. The media is not taking a knee; instead, they are on full offense with the Bob Woodward book and the anonymous NY Times op-ed, both full-fledged assaults on President Trump.

Fall is also hurricane season which means not only football jerseys coming out of the closet, but the hackneyed global warming doomsday predictions. The left-wing media, however, may not give hurricane season its due since there are more important stories to cover, like Colin Kaepernick, the Bret Kavanaugh confirmation circus, and Pocahontas wanting to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump.

Tropical Storm Florence is in the Caribbean and heading toward Florida, with early storms Helene and Isaac hanging out off the coast of Africa, deciding whether to huff and puff, or really blow the house down.

Florence, not yet a hurricane, but expected to become one, looks like it will impact the Carolinas. Or maybe up the US coast. Or possibly Florida. Or maybe harmlessly out to sea. The spaghetti models show all the possibilities. Here are the complied guesses from Weathernerds.

No one really knows. Each spaghetti line is based on a computer model which takes data and makes predictions for the future. Just as climate  models attempt to predict future temperatures, the hurricane models are predicting the week ahead whereas the climate models are looking decades or centuries into the future.

If the models looking only days ahead are so variable, what hope is there for predictions decades into the future? Let’s look at some of those predictions from just 13 years ago.

Noted climate scientist and soothsayer, Al Gore, in 2005 predicted this.

“The science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”

He wasn’t alone. Scientific American asked the question, “Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?” Big media jumped in too with such predictions as, “No End In Sight For Big Hurricanes” and “Katrina Is The Beginning of What May Be A Long Stretch of Wild and Devastating Weather.”

How did these predictions turn out? Presumably they are based on science and computer models, just like the wildly disparate spaghetti line predictions.

To start with, the world has never seen a category 6 storm. The last category 5 storm was Andrew in 1992.

Let’s look at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration compilation of hurricanes going back 150 years. In the decade of the 2000’s, the time of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” and his apocalyptic predictions, 19 hurricanes impacted the continental US. All were category 1 to 3, except for Charley in 2004, which was a category 4 storm.

Four years in that decade brought not a single hurricane hitting the continental US.

To be fair, storm category and subsequent damage do not always correlate. A powerful storm hitting a narrow land area will do less damage than a lower intensity storm impacting a wider and lower lying area with more population. Katrina was a category 3 storm and Sandy only a category 1 storm but both caused tremendous damage and destruction due to where they made landfall.

In the 2010’s decade, we have had 9 hurricanes thus far and three years of no hurricanes. Last year we had two category 4 storms, Harvey and Irma. The remainder of hurricanes in this decade only reached category 1 or 2.

By comparison, in the 1850s, a time before global warming was part of the popular lexicon, there was at least one hurricane each year, 16 in all, including a category 4 storm in 1856.

In the 1880’s, the continental US was hit by 25 hurricanes, one of them a category 4 storm. The 1910’s brought 21 hurricanes, 3 were category 4. In the 1940’s we had 23 hurricanes, with 4 reaching category 4.

Al Gore could have made his prediction anytime during the past 150 years and may have been proven right. Then again, was global warming a problem in 1850? I don’t think so.

If anything, recent decades show a decrease in total number and powerful hurricanes compared to previous decades. This is contrary to the what the computer models predicted and what the media warned about.

Then again the media predicted a Clinton landslide victory in 2016, based on polling and computer models designed to predict a future outcome. As in elections, hurricane predictions have not fared any better.

The media is mobilizing ahead of Florence. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy reminds everyone, “It’s also important to understand that the impacts of hurricanes are very much influenced by global warming.”

The UK Independent calls it a “global cataclysm”. “In a few decades, there will be almost nothing left. Humans and most living species are in a critical situation.”

Rather than applying some scientific common sense, the climate warriors, in an effort to change the weather, something no one knows how to do, created, “A letter signed by 200 people, including some of the world’s most famous actors, artists and scientists.” I presume this includes such luminaries as Cher, Madonna, Matt Damon, and Katy Perry.

This is the perfect solution to controlling the weather, a letter signed by actors and artists who know as much about climate science as I know about the mating habits of hummingbirds.

Another answer is warning labels, “YouTube is now adding fact checks to videos that question climate change.” Sure, just like they add fact checks to the rantings of David Hogg or Elizabeth Warren on YouTube. So much for freedom of thought and speech. YouTube would put a warning label on what I am writing now.

As it is fall and hurricane season, be prepared for an onslaught of news blaming global warming for each hurricane. And by default, blaming President Trump, especially since he pulled the US out of the nonsensical Paris Climate Accords. The media ignores the reality that hurricanes have always been a part of our climate and ecosystem long before Trump and internal combustion engines.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

Fall is officially upon us with the passing of Labor Day. After this seasonal landmark, we are not supposed to wear white. I’m surprised CNN’s Don Lemon hasn’t found something racist in this tradition.

Football season has started, kneeling players and all. It’s been a busy week for the media as we are now less than two months away from the critical Congressional midterm elections. The media is not taking a knee; instead, they are on full offense with the Bob Woodward book and the anonymous NY Times op-ed, both full-fledged assaults on President Trump.

Fall is also hurricane season which means not only football jerseys coming out of the closet, but the hackneyed global warming doomsday predictions. The left-wing media, however, may not give hurricane season its due since there are more important stories to cover, like Colin Kaepernick, the Bret Kavanaugh confirmation circus, and Pocahontas wanting to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump.

Tropical Storm Florence is in the Caribbean and heading toward Florida, with early storms Helene and Isaac hanging out off the coast of Africa, deciding whether to huff and puff, or really blow the house down.

Florence, not yet a hurricane, but expected to become one, looks like it will impact the Carolinas. Or maybe up the US coast. Or possibly Florida. Or maybe harmlessly out to sea. The spaghetti models show all the possibilities. Here are the complied guesses from Weathernerds.

No one really knows. Each spaghetti line is based on a computer model which takes data and makes predictions for the future. Just as climate  models attempt to predict future temperatures, the hurricane models are predicting the week ahead whereas the climate models are looking decades or centuries into the future.

If the models looking only days ahead are so variable, what hope is there for predictions decades into the future? Let’s look at some of those predictions from just 13 years ago.

Noted climate scientist and soothsayer, Al Gore, in 2005 predicted this.

“The science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”

He wasn’t alone. Scientific American asked the question, “Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?” Big media jumped in too with such predictions as, “No End In Sight For Big Hurricanes” and “Katrina Is The Beginning of What May Be A Long Stretch of Wild and Devastating Weather.”

How did these predictions turn out? Presumably they are based on science and computer models, just like the wildly disparate spaghetti line predictions.

To start with, the world has never seen a category 6 storm. The last category 5 storm was Andrew in 1992.

Let’s look at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration compilation of hurricanes going back 150 years. In the decade of the 2000’s, the time of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” and his apocalyptic predictions, 19 hurricanes impacted the continental US. All were category 1 to 3, except for Charley in 2004, which was a category 4 storm.

Four years in that decade brought not a single hurricane hitting the continental US.

To be fair, storm category and subsequent damage do not always correlate. A powerful storm hitting a narrow land area will do less damage than a lower intensity storm impacting a wider and lower lying area with more population. Katrina was a category 3 storm and Sandy only a category 1 storm but both caused tremendous damage and destruction due to where they made landfall.

In the 2010’s decade, we have had 9 hurricanes thus far and three years of no hurricanes. Last year we had two category 4 storms, Harvey and Irma. The remainder of hurricanes in this decade only reached category 1 or 2.

By comparison, in the 1850s, a time before global warming was part of the popular lexicon, there was at least one hurricane each year, 16 in all, including a category 4 storm in 1856.

In the 1880’s, the continental US was hit by 25 hurricanes, one of them a category 4 storm. The 1910’s brought 21 hurricanes, 3 were category 4. In the 1940’s we had 23 hurricanes, with 4 reaching category 4.

Al Gore could have made his prediction anytime during the past 150 years and may have been proven right. Then again, was global warming a problem in 1850? I don’t think so.

If anything, recent decades show a decrease in total number and powerful hurricanes compared to previous decades. This is contrary to the what the computer models predicted and what the media warned about.

Then again the media predicted a Clinton landslide victory in 2016, based on polling and computer models designed to predict a future outcome. As in elections, hurricane predictions have not fared any better.

The media is mobilizing ahead of Florence. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy reminds everyone, “It’s also important to understand that the impacts of hurricanes are very much influenced by global warming.”

The UK Independent calls it a “global cataclysm”. “In a few decades, there will be almost nothing left. Humans and most living species are in a critical situation.”

Rather than applying some scientific common sense, the climate warriors, in an effort to change the weather, something no one knows how to do, created, “A letter signed by 200 people, including some of the world’s most famous actors, artists and scientists.” I presume this includes such luminaries as Cher, Madonna, Matt Damon, and Katy Perry.

This is the perfect solution to controlling the weather, a letter signed by actors and artists who know as much about climate science as I know about the mating habits of hummingbirds.

Another answer is warning labels, “YouTube is now adding fact checks to videos that question climate change.” Sure, just like they add fact checks to the rantings of David Hogg or Elizabeth Warren on YouTube. So much for freedom of thought and speech. YouTube would put a warning label on what I am writing now.

As it is fall and hurricane season, be prepared for an onslaught of news blaming global warming for each hurricane. And by default, blaming President Trump, especially since he pulled the US out of the nonsensical Paris Climate Accords. The media ignores the reality that hurricanes have always been a part of our climate and ecosystem long before Trump and internal combustion engines.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.



Source link

208780.png

Who Really Started the Trump-McCain Feud?


With Senator John McCain’s recent passing, the Trump-McCain feud has heated up.  It’s really a manufactured kerfuffle, as one party is saying little, and the other party has departed from the living, no longer able to participate in the feud, except posthumously via the media.

Leave it to the media to resurrect the controversy between the late senator and the U.S. president as a means of bashing President Trump, whom the media detest.  It is also a distraction from the stock market breaking records left and right, a new and better trade deal with Mexico, a country that the media constantly tell us hates Trump and won’t do business with him, Bruce Ohr’s congressional testimony, and other news the media would prefer to ignore.


Image credit: Donkey Hotey.

Trump has been criticized over the past four days for his response to Senator McCain’s passing.  He wasn’t personal enough, they say, even though the president appropriately tweeted, “My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain.  Our hearts and prayers are with you!”

Then the media fussed and pouted over how long the flag over the White House should be flown at half-mast.  The flag flew that way appropriately after McCain’s death, but the time period wasn’t enough.  CNN probably wants it at half-mast permanently until Trump is out of office, although another six and a half more years at half-mast might be a bit excessive.

The reality is that the flag was handled as it should have been, based on a 1954 proclamation by then President Eisenhower.

As McCain was a U.S. senator, the proclamation instructs that flags be lowered on the day of his death and the day after.  McCain passed away on Saturday, and the White House reportedly raised the flags back right around midnight overnight as Sunday ended, which would be the minimum amount of time as outlined by Eisenhower’s proclamation.

The media think they knows better, as this tweet exemplifies.

Next is the funeral. Trump is being criticized for not attending, despite McCain’s request that he not attend.  Somehow, to MSNBC, honoring the request of the recently departed is crass.  How would they react if Trump showed up anyway, making the funeral about himself, rather than the senator, as Barack Obama might have done?

Resurrected is the feud from a few years ago.  Watch cable news, and the feud is all Trump’s fault.  McCain remains blameless in life and even after death.  Let’s take a look at how the feud started.

Reported in The New Yorker on July 16, 2015, a few days after a Trump campaign rally held in Phoenix, in McCain’s home state, McCain offered his displeasure over the rally.  “It’s very bad,” he said.  Going farther, “[t]his performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain said.  “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

This rally was held on Saturday, July 11, 2015, as reported by Politico.  The dates are important.

Trump-supporters are “crazies,” according to Senator McCain, those people willing to stand in line for hours to see and hear their favored candidate for president.  I wonder if McCain ever had such crowds at his campaign rallies in 2000 or 2008, at least before he brought Sarah Palin onto his ticket.

Insulting Trump-supporters is the same as insulting Trump, at least in Trump’s view.  As he is hardwired to do, when insulted, he hits back.

In Iowa, a week later, on July 18, 2015, Trump was interviewed and delivered his response to McCain’s calling Trump-supporters, and, by default, Trump himself, “crazy.”  Trump said, “He’s not a war hero.  He’s a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”

The feud was off and running, but who started it?  From the dates, McCain drew first blood, and Trump responded as he always does: with a right cross.

Yet to the media, this feud is totally one-sided.  McCain is the innocent party, just minding his own business, when that bully Donald Trump comes up out of nowhere and punches him in the nose.  In reality, it was Trump minding his own business, trying to run a winning campaign, something McCain found challenging, when McCain called him and his supporters “crazy.”

This was much like Hillary Clinton’s descriptor “deplorables” to characterize those who chose the current president over her.

Even Rush Limbaugh, who describes himself as right 99-plus percent of the time, got this wrong.  On his show this week, he remarked about the feud:

We’re all human, right?  Some might disagree with that, but we’re all human, in the general sense.  So you’re Senator McCain and you’re out there minding your own business, you’re in advanced years and all of a sudden this orange headed guy walks down an escalator in New York and runs for president, says what he says, and you’re McCain, and you’ve got this reputation here for probity and seriousness and respect and all that kind of stuff.  And then shortly after the orange headed guy walks down the escalator, somebody asks him about McCain, and the orange headed guy says, “I don’t have any respect for people in the military that get captured. I don’t think they’re heroes,” what do you expect McCain’s reaction to that to be?

Even El Rushbo missed the fact that McCain hit first by calling Trump-supporters “crazies” and that Trump responded in Trumpian fashion with a quick punch.

Let the media huff and puff.  This is their bright, shiny object of the week to chase around the room.  They quickly lost interest in Omarosa, Cohen, and Manafort, all shiny objects for a few days earlier this month within the media echo chamber.  Now it’s McCain as the shiny object, the same guy they called a racist when he ran for president in 2008, now revered as Mother Teresa in death.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the media did an honest assessment of John McCain’s life, his dealings with some bad players in the Middle East, his charitable foundation and its Clinton Foundation-like donors, and his role in the Russian collusion hoax?  Although inconvenient, we might discover the many inconvenient similarities between McCain and the Clintons.

Instead, the media will bray about the half-mast flag and funeral guest list, since their minds run only in a single gear: destroy Trump.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.

With Senator John McCain’s recent passing, the Trump-McCain feud has heated up.  It’s really a manufactured kerfuffle, as one party is saying little, and the other party has departed from the living, no longer able to participate in the feud, except posthumously via the media.

Leave it to the media to resurrect the controversy between the late senator and the U.S. president as a means of bashing President Trump, whom the media detest.  It is also a distraction from the stock market breaking records left and right, a new and better trade deal with Mexico, a country that the media constantly tell us hates Trump and won’t do business with him, Bruce Ohr’s congressional testimony, and other news the media would prefer to ignore.


Image credit: Donkey Hotey.

Trump has been criticized over the past four days for his response to Senator McCain’s passing.  He wasn’t personal enough, they say, even though the president appropriately tweeted, “My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain.  Our hearts and prayers are with you!”

Then the media fussed and pouted over how long the flag over the White House should be flown at half-mast.  The flag flew that way appropriately after McCain’s death, but the time period wasn’t enough.  CNN probably wants it at half-mast permanently until Trump is out of office, although another six and a half more years at half-mast might be a bit excessive.

The reality is that the flag was handled as it should have been, based on a 1954 proclamation by then President Eisenhower.

As McCain was a U.S. senator, the proclamation instructs that flags be lowered on the day of his death and the day after.  McCain passed away on Saturday, and the White House reportedly raised the flags back right around midnight overnight as Sunday ended, which would be the minimum amount of time as outlined by Eisenhower’s proclamation.

The media think they knows better, as this tweet exemplifies.

Next is the funeral. Trump is being criticized for not attending, despite McCain’s request that he not attend.  Somehow, to MSNBC, honoring the request of the recently departed is crass.  How would they react if Trump showed up anyway, making the funeral about himself, rather than the senator, as Barack Obama might have done?

Resurrected is the feud from a few years ago.  Watch cable news, and the feud is all Trump’s fault.  McCain remains blameless in life and even after death.  Let’s take a look at how the feud started.

Reported in The New Yorker on July 16, 2015, a few days after a Trump campaign rally held in Phoenix, in McCain’s home state, McCain offered his displeasure over the rally.  “It’s very bad,” he said.  Going farther, “[t]his performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain said.  “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

This rally was held on Saturday, July 11, 2015, as reported by Politico.  The dates are important.

Trump-supporters are “crazies,” according to Senator McCain, those people willing to stand in line for hours to see and hear their favored candidate for president.  I wonder if McCain ever had such crowds at his campaign rallies in 2000 or 2008, at least before he brought Sarah Palin onto his ticket.

Insulting Trump-supporters is the same as insulting Trump, at least in Trump’s view.  As he is hardwired to do, when insulted, he hits back.

In Iowa, a week later, on July 18, 2015, Trump was interviewed and delivered his response to McCain’s calling Trump-supporters, and, by default, Trump himself, “crazy.”  Trump said, “He’s not a war hero.  He’s a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”

The feud was off and running, but who started it?  From the dates, McCain drew first blood, and Trump responded as he always does: with a right cross.

Yet to the media, this feud is totally one-sided.  McCain is the innocent party, just minding his own business, when that bully Donald Trump comes up out of nowhere and punches him in the nose.  In reality, it was Trump minding his own business, trying to run a winning campaign, something McCain found challenging, when McCain called him and his supporters “crazy.”

This was much like Hillary Clinton’s descriptor “deplorables” to characterize those who chose the current president over her.

Even Rush Limbaugh, who describes himself as right 99-plus percent of the time, got this wrong.  On his show this week, he remarked about the feud:

We’re all human, right?  Some might disagree with that, but we’re all human, in the general sense.  So you’re Senator McCain and you’re out there minding your own business, you’re in advanced years and all of a sudden this orange headed guy walks down an escalator in New York and runs for president, says what he says, and you’re McCain, and you’ve got this reputation here for probity and seriousness and respect and all that kind of stuff.  And then shortly after the orange headed guy walks down the escalator, somebody asks him about McCain, and the orange headed guy says, “I don’t have any respect for people in the military that get captured. I don’t think they’re heroes,” what do you expect McCain’s reaction to that to be?

Even El Rushbo missed the fact that McCain hit first by calling Trump-supporters “crazies” and that Trump responded in Trumpian fashion with a quick punch.

Let the media huff and puff.  This is their bright, shiny object of the week to chase around the room.  They quickly lost interest in Omarosa, Cohen, and Manafort, all shiny objects for a few days earlier this month within the media echo chamber.  Now it’s McCain as the shiny object, the same guy they called a racist when he ran for president in 2008, now revered as Mother Teresa in death.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the media did an honest assessment of John McCain’s life, his dealings with some bad players in the Middle East, his charitable foundation and its Clinton Foundation-like donors, and his role in the Russian collusion hoax?  Although inconvenient, we might discover the many inconvenient similarities between McCain and the Clintons.

Instead, the media will bray about the half-mast flag and funeral guest list, since their minds run only in a single gear: destroy Trump.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

208321.jpg

China and Clinton Emails: Hack or Invitation?


A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C. area hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server, gaining real-time access to her emails during her term as U.S. secretary of state.  The Daily Caller reported this bombshell, corroborated by two sources.

One might quibble about unnamed sources, but this is the new standard in journalism.  CNN, NBC, the N.Y. Times, and the rest of the fakestream media regularly rely on anonymous sources for their anti-Trump stories.

Apparently, the Chinese wrote code that they embedded into Clinton’s home server in her Chappaqua home, which conveniently sent a copy of all of her emails to this Chinese company – and, by default, to the Chinese government.

This is exactly why official government email communications must travel only through secure government servers: to prevent such electronic intrusion.

But the rules don’t apply to the Clintons.  Former FBI director James Comey admitted as much in his famous July 2016 press conference when he explained in detail how Mrs. Clinton negligently and illegally handled national security materials but that she would be given a pass based on her last name and her presidential candidacy.

The other less mentioned reason is that then-president Barack Obama was regularly communicating with Mrs. Clinton via her unsecure server.  How inconvenient if the president was found to be mishandling classified material.

The FBI and DOJ were well aware of the server hack in July 2015 but did nothing about it.  James Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty, was appropriately named.  Unfortunately, his higher loyalty was to Mrs. Clinton, not the USA, the FBI, or the U.S. Constitution.

What if this wasn’t actually a hack?  Instead, what if Mrs. Clinton allowed the Chinese to access her server, knowing full well that she was giving a foreign adversary full access to communications at the highest levels of the U.S. government?

Why would she do that?  Conspiring with a foreign government or serving as an agent of that government is highly illegal.  How ironic if Mrs. Clinton is doing what the Deep State and the media are accusing president Trump of having done.  That’s called projection.

Given the Clintons’ pattern of behavior, one must assume they were being paid for giving the Chinese access.  This is just another form of “pay to play.”  Mrs. Clinton would be paid not directly, but instead through her money laundromat, the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation has ties to the Chinese, as well as many other foreign governments hostile to U.S. interests.  The South China Morning Post reported earlier this year, “The FBI is investigating donations to the Clinton Foundation – but will charges follow?”

Ask Jeff Sessions about the charges.  Money was flowing into the Clinton Foundation from all over the world, disguised, rerouted through a Canadian charity, all to obscure its origins.

Longtime Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe was caught selling influence for Chinese cash.  As the Washington Post reported, “Wang Wenliang, a Chinese billionaire and donor to the Clinton Foundation and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, has been expelled from China’s top legislature after being caught up in a widespread cash-for-votes scheme.”

Sexual abuse scandals seem to follow the Clintons closely.  An ex-Clinton Foundation official was tied to a Chinese kindergarten “bizarre sexual abuse scandal,” as reported last year.

In 2005, the Clinton Foundation brokered pharmaceutical deals for HIV-AIDS drugs with a Chinese pharma group.

I’m sure there are more deals between the Clinton Foundation and the Chinese, but the ones above popped up first on a quick internet search.

Did the Clintons pull this off on their own, or did they have help?  As Congressman Louis Gohmert pointed out, the Intelligence Community inspector general knew about the breach, meaning that the FBI did as well.  But in Comey fashion, the intelligence agencies did nothing about it.

Why did they ignore it?  Because the boss wanted it that way, the big guy in the Oval Office.  He was already aware of the unsecure and illegal server and was using it to communicate with his secretary of state and who knows whom else.  Was President Obama benefiting from this “Chinese Connection”?  And I don’t mean the old Bruce Lee movie.

Providing access to a server or a computer is a much cleaner way to disseminate national security secrets.  No paper trail, and if caught, they can always say they were hacked.  The DOJ can investigate and indict, just as Robert Mueller indicted a bunch of Russian troll farms, but those charges are for show and go absolutely nowhere.

Remember Anthony Weiner’s laptop, the one holding hundreds of thousands of emails, many belonging to Mrs. Clinton or Mrs. Weiner?  The same FBI that chose not to investigate the Chinese access to the Clinton server similarly chose not to investigate the Weiner laptop emails.

How easy would it have been for Hillary or Huma to provide the appropriate login credentials to any foreign agent so that agent could access the email account remotely, browsing through highly classified national security information from the top echelons of the Obama administration?

Who might have had access?  Huma has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood through her parents.  The Clintons have ties to the Chinese going back as far as the Bill Clinton presidency, campaign contributions, Charlie Trie, missile technology, and all sorts of other “pay to play” schemes.

How convenient to blame the server breach on a hack when it may have been intentional.  It’s easy to blame the Chinese, yet the reality is that the Clintons may have left the front door wide open, with a bright welcome mat and a path of Chinese lanterns leading from Beijing to Chappaqua –

all for money, contributions to the Clinton slush fund.  With the Clintons, everything is for sale.  National security, weapons, soldiers, you name it.

What a coincidence that this happened while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and was using her illegal server.

The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

One can only hope that Horowitz or Huber is investigating all of this, rather than the business-as-usual approach of the FBI and DOJ to exonerate the Clintons without even a cursory investigation.  Don’t listen to the media narrative of a hack, as it is likely a convenient deflection from the real story.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C. area hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server, gaining real-time access to her emails during her term as U.S. secretary of state.  The Daily Caller reported this bombshell, corroborated by two sources.

One might quibble about unnamed sources, but this is the new standard in journalism.  CNN, NBC, the N.Y. Times, and the rest of the fakestream media regularly rely on anonymous sources for their anti-Trump stories.

Apparently, the Chinese wrote code that they embedded into Clinton’s home server in her Chappaqua home, which conveniently sent a copy of all of her emails to this Chinese company – and, by default, to the Chinese government.

This is exactly why official government email communications must travel only through secure government servers: to prevent such electronic intrusion.

But the rules don’t apply to the Clintons.  Former FBI director James Comey admitted as much in his famous July 2016 press conference when he explained in detail how Mrs. Clinton negligently and illegally handled national security materials but that she would be given a pass based on her last name and her presidential candidacy.

The other less mentioned reason is that then-president Barack Obama was regularly communicating with Mrs. Clinton via her unsecure server.  How inconvenient if the president was found to be mishandling classified material.

The FBI and DOJ were well aware of the server hack in July 2015 but did nothing about it.  James Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty, was appropriately named.  Unfortunately, his higher loyalty was to Mrs. Clinton, not the USA, the FBI, or the U.S. Constitution.

What if this wasn’t actually a hack?  Instead, what if Mrs. Clinton allowed the Chinese to access her server, knowing full well that she was giving a foreign adversary full access to communications at the highest levels of the U.S. government?

Why would she do that?  Conspiring with a foreign government or serving as an agent of that government is highly illegal.  How ironic if Mrs. Clinton is doing what the Deep State and the media are accusing president Trump of having done.  That’s called projection.

Given the Clintons’ pattern of behavior, one must assume they were being paid for giving the Chinese access.  This is just another form of “pay to play.”  Mrs. Clinton would be paid not directly, but instead through her money laundromat, the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation has ties to the Chinese, as well as many other foreign governments hostile to U.S. interests.  The South China Morning Post reported earlier this year, “The FBI is investigating donations to the Clinton Foundation – but will charges follow?”

Ask Jeff Sessions about the charges.  Money was flowing into the Clinton Foundation from all over the world, disguised, rerouted through a Canadian charity, all to obscure its origins.

Longtime Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe was caught selling influence for Chinese cash.  As the Washington Post reported, “Wang Wenliang, a Chinese billionaire and donor to the Clinton Foundation and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, has been expelled from China’s top legislature after being caught up in a widespread cash-for-votes scheme.”

Sexual abuse scandals seem to follow the Clintons closely.  An ex-Clinton Foundation official was tied to a Chinese kindergarten “bizarre sexual abuse scandal,” as reported last year.

In 2005, the Clinton Foundation brokered pharmaceutical deals for HIV-AIDS drugs with a Chinese pharma group.

I’m sure there are more deals between the Clinton Foundation and the Chinese, but the ones above popped up first on a quick internet search.

Did the Clintons pull this off on their own, or did they have help?  As Congressman Louis Gohmert pointed out, the Intelligence Community inspector general knew about the breach, meaning that the FBI did as well.  But in Comey fashion, the intelligence agencies did nothing about it.

Why did they ignore it?  Because the boss wanted it that way, the big guy in the Oval Office.  He was already aware of the unsecure and illegal server and was using it to communicate with his secretary of state and who knows whom else.  Was President Obama benefiting from this “Chinese Connection”?  And I don’t mean the old Bruce Lee movie.

Providing access to a server or a computer is a much cleaner way to disseminate national security secrets.  No paper trail, and if caught, they can always say they were hacked.  The DOJ can investigate and indict, just as Robert Mueller indicted a bunch of Russian troll farms, but those charges are for show and go absolutely nowhere.

Remember Anthony Weiner’s laptop, the one holding hundreds of thousands of emails, many belonging to Mrs. Clinton or Mrs. Weiner?  The same FBI that chose not to investigate the Chinese access to the Clinton server similarly chose not to investigate the Weiner laptop emails.

How easy would it have been for Hillary or Huma to provide the appropriate login credentials to any foreign agent so that agent could access the email account remotely, browsing through highly classified national security information from the top echelons of the Obama administration?

Who might have had access?  Huma has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood through her parents.  The Clintons have ties to the Chinese going back as far as the Bill Clinton presidency, campaign contributions, Charlie Trie, missile technology, and all sorts of other “pay to play” schemes.

How convenient to blame the server breach on a hack when it may have been intentional.  It’s easy to blame the Chinese, yet the reality is that the Clintons may have left the front door wide open, with a bright welcome mat and a path of Chinese lanterns leading from Beijing to Chappaqua –

all for money, contributions to the Clinton slush fund.  With the Clintons, everything is for sale.  National security, weapons, soldiers, you name it.

What a coincidence that this happened while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and was using her illegal server.

The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

One can only hope that Horowitz or Huber is investigating all of this, rather than the business-as-usual approach of the FBI and DOJ to exonerate the Clintons without even a cursory investigation.  Don’t listen to the media narrative of a hack, as it is likely a convenient deflection from the real story.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

208702.png

Polls Are Just More Media Propaganda


Election season is upon us again, two years after one of the wildest roller-coaster political campaigns in recent memory.  This time, it’s Congress on the ballot, not Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.  Yet President Trump is still on the ballot – his agenda, his policies, his future.

If Democrats win the House, we can expect Trump’s economic plans to be put on hold.  Aside from the unlikely prospect of impeachment, Democrats will use every congressional committee under their control to investigate the president and his administration.  Endless hearings, subpoenas, and media coverage will have the Trump administration spending every waking hour answering to Congress, leaving little time to make America great again.

That’s why this election is so important for the left.  The FBI and DOJ did their best to interfere with the 2016 election and prevent the inevitable outcome.  They then tried – and lied – to drive Trump from office, efforts that continue to this day, through FISA warrants, hiding of documents, and the special counsel investigation.  The last hasn’t given up on the Russian collusion story, going as far to date as interviewing a Manhattan madam as if she were the key to proving that Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin hacked the election.

The media are carrying the narrative on a daily basis for the left.  Endless nonsensical news stories and panel discussions proliferate.  Hyper-partisan political hacks like John Brennan, who, despite losing his security clearance, doesn’t seem to have had his free speech curtailed as claimed, appear regularly on CNN and MSNBC to spout their Trump-hatred.

Then there are the opinion polls, a staple of any election cycle.  Are the polls reflecting public opinion, or are they another tool of the media and their patrons in the Democratic Party to affect the outcome of an election?  Are the media projecting, doing exactly what they accused Russia of doing: meddling in an election?

What does President Trump say?  In a June 25, 2018 rally in South Carolina, between audience cries of “Lock her up” and “CNN sucks,” the president weighed in on the polls.

We’ve never had a time like we’re having.  We’ve never had.  We’ve never had higher polls than we have now.


Even Gallup, Gallup, who treats me horribly, polls are fake news also.  What they do is called suppression.  They put out these horrible polls and then they hope that everyone’s going to say, ‘Hey, look, I like Trump, but he’s got no chance of winning.’  Suppression, it should be illegal actually.  You want to check these pollsters, where they’re coming from, they knew.


We had one with ABC, I think it was ABC Washington Post just before the election, like a week before we’re down 12.  Now, if you’re down 12, OK, if you’re down 12 it’s over if the polls are real.  But I said it can’t be real, we just went to Michigan, we had 30,000 people, we just went to other places.  Excuse me, we went to South Carolina, but I didn’t come here that often, you know why?  Because we were leading by a lot.

Is this simply Trumpian hyperbole?  Or is he spot on with his assessment?  Let’s go back to 2016, when all but one poll predicted a Hillary Clinton victory.  Here is a summary courtesy of Real Clear Politics.

Clearly, the end result was different.  After these polling organizations cleaned off the egg on their faces, they followed the rules of Bureaucracy 101 and convened a panel to figure out where they went wrong.  The Ad Hoc Committee on 2016 Election Polling noted the obvious: that “polls under-estimated support for Trump.”  Reasons included “over-representation of college graduates” and that some Trump-voters didn’t reveal their preference until after the election.

The first factor is poor sampling.  I wrote about this in 2016, describing an ABC News survey proclaiming a 12-point Clinton lead in a survey that oversampled Democrats over Republicans by 12 percentage points, with independents favoring Trump by 2 points, giving him a 2-point edge in the pool, misleading headline aside.

The second factor is poll respondents keeping their preferences quiet.  Perhaps they didn’t want to voice their support of Trump only to be called a Nazi, get thrown out of a restaurant, or get beaten up.

Were these polls designed to accurately reflect election preferences of the voters, or were they designed to feed the narrative that Madam President was a fait accompli?  Proclaiming her a landslide winner was wishful thinking and designed to dispirit Republican voters and suppress turnout.  This was not news, but instead propaganda.

Where do things stand currently?  Rasmussen, one of the most accurate polls in the 2016 election, has Trump’s job approval running in the mid- to high 40s most days in recent months.  He hit 50 percent one day earlier this month.  That’s better than President Obama was doing at the same point in his presidency.  Among Trump’s total approval numbers, he has 34 percent approval among blacks.

Republicans are also more likely to vote party line than Democrats, according to Rasmussen – another factor boding well for the GOP in the midterm elections.

Polls are interesting, but much can change in the next three months before the midterms.  Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen may be problematic for Trump or simply a media distraction.  Expect the media to paint Republican midterm prospects as bleak, hoping to depress GOP voters into a “why bother voting?” mood before Election Day.

Remember that “more than 90 percent of D.C. journalists vote Democratic, with an even higher number giving to Democrats or liberal-leaning political action committees.”  These are the people commissioning the polls and interpreting the results for us.  Take it all with a big grain of salt.

Remember too that even though Donald Trump is not on any ballot this coming November, his agenda is – future judicial appointments, trade deals, tax cuts, curbing illegal immigration, and continuing to drain the corrupt Deep State swamp.  Your vote could make the difference.
Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Election season is upon us again, two years after one of the wildest roller-coaster political campaigns in recent memory.  This time, it’s Congress on the ballot, not Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.  Yet President Trump is still on the ballot – his agenda, his policies, his future.

If Democrats win the House, we can expect Trump’s economic plans to be put on hold.  Aside from the unlikely prospect of impeachment, Democrats will use every congressional committee under their control to investigate the president and his administration.  Endless hearings, subpoenas, and media coverage will have the Trump administration spending every waking hour answering to Congress, leaving little time to make America great again.

That’s why this election is so important for the left.  The FBI and DOJ did their best to interfere with the 2016 election and prevent the inevitable outcome.  They then tried – and lied – to drive Trump from office, efforts that continue to this day, through FISA warrants, hiding of documents, and the special counsel investigation.  The last hasn’t given up on the Russian collusion story, going as far to date as interviewing a Manhattan madam as if she were the key to proving that Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin hacked the election.

The media are carrying the narrative on a daily basis for the left.  Endless nonsensical news stories and panel discussions proliferate.  Hyper-partisan political hacks like John Brennan, who, despite losing his security clearance, doesn’t seem to have had his free speech curtailed as claimed, appear regularly on CNN and MSNBC to spout their Trump-hatred.

Then there are the opinion polls, a staple of any election cycle.  Are the polls reflecting public opinion, or are they another tool of the media and their patrons in the Democratic Party to affect the outcome of an election?  Are the media projecting, doing exactly what they accused Russia of doing: meddling in an election?

What does President Trump say?  In a June 25, 2018 rally in South Carolina, between audience cries of “Lock her up” and “CNN sucks,” the president weighed in on the polls.

We’ve never had a time like we’re having.  We’ve never had.  We’ve never had higher polls than we have now.


Even Gallup, Gallup, who treats me horribly, polls are fake news also.  What they do is called suppression.  They put out these horrible polls and then they hope that everyone’s going to say, ‘Hey, look, I like Trump, but he’s got no chance of winning.’  Suppression, it should be illegal actually.  You want to check these pollsters, where they’re coming from, they knew.


We had one with ABC, I think it was ABC Washington Post just before the election, like a week before we’re down 12.  Now, if you’re down 12, OK, if you’re down 12 it’s over if the polls are real.  But I said it can’t be real, we just went to Michigan, we had 30,000 people, we just went to other places.  Excuse me, we went to South Carolina, but I didn’t come here that often, you know why?  Because we were leading by a lot.

Is this simply Trumpian hyperbole?  Or is he spot on with his assessment?  Let’s go back to 2016, when all but one poll predicted a Hillary Clinton victory.  Here is a summary courtesy of Real Clear Politics.

Clearly, the end result was different.  After these polling organizations cleaned off the egg on their faces, they followed the rules of Bureaucracy 101 and convened a panel to figure out where they went wrong.  The Ad Hoc Committee on 2016 Election Polling noted the obvious: that “polls under-estimated support for Trump.”  Reasons included “over-representation of college graduates” and that some Trump-voters didn’t reveal their preference until after the election.

The first factor is poor sampling.  I wrote about this in 2016, describing an ABC News survey proclaiming a 12-point Clinton lead in a survey that oversampled Democrats over Republicans by 12 percentage points, with independents favoring Trump by 2 points, giving him a 2-point edge in the pool, misleading headline aside.

The second factor is poll respondents keeping their preferences quiet.  Perhaps they didn’t want to voice their support of Trump only to be called a Nazi, get thrown out of a restaurant, or get beaten up.

Were these polls designed to accurately reflect election preferences of the voters, or were they designed to feed the narrative that Madam President was a fait accompli?  Proclaiming her a landslide winner was wishful thinking and designed to dispirit Republican voters and suppress turnout.  This was not news, but instead propaganda.

Where do things stand currently?  Rasmussen, one of the most accurate polls in the 2016 election, has Trump’s job approval running in the mid- to high 40s most days in recent months.  He hit 50 percent one day earlier this month.  That’s better than President Obama was doing at the same point in his presidency.  Among Trump’s total approval numbers, he has 34 percent approval among blacks.

Republicans are also more likely to vote party line than Democrats, according to Rasmussen – another factor boding well for the GOP in the midterm elections.

Polls are interesting, but much can change in the next three months before the midterms.  Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen may be problematic for Trump or simply a media distraction.  Expect the media to paint Republican midterm prospects as bleak, hoping to depress GOP voters into a “why bother voting?” mood before Election Day.

Remember that “more than 90 percent of D.C. journalists vote Democratic, with an even higher number giving to Democrats or liberal-leaning political action committees.”  These are the people commissioning the polls and interpreting the results for us.  Take it all with a big grain of salt.

Remember too that even though Donald Trump is not on any ballot this coming November, his agenda is – future judicial appointments, trade deals, tax cuts, curbing illegal immigration, and continuing to drain the corrupt Deep State swamp.  Your vote could make the difference.
Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

Trump Haters Meet the Sorcerer’s Apprentice


Hollywood’s Walk of Fame started in the late 1950s to honor accomplished members of the entertainment industry.  On average, they add two new stars each month.  As Hollywood is a bastion of political correctness and virtue-signaling, it was inevitable that the city would find itself butting heads with President Trump.

Trump has a star on the Walk of Fame, which has been vandalized several times over the past few weeks.  The West Hollywood city council, rather than banning plastic straws, voted unanimously to remove Trump’s star from the famous walk.

Fortunately, it’s an empty gesture, much like when Boulder, Colorado declared itself a nuclear-free zone – as if, during a real war, China or Russia would take great care to steer nuclear missiles to Denver or Fort Collins rather than to Boulder.

West Hollywood has no jurisdiction over the Walk of Fame, as it has been run by the Chamber of Commerce since 1962, which has been “[r]esisting public pressure to remove stars for disgraced honorees such as Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Kevin Spacey, saying that a star is part of ‘the historic fabric’ of the site.”

It’s nice to see that Hollywood has its priorities in order.  The president, standing up for America, trying to secure its borders and keep America safe, is somehow evil, but the truly evil #MeToo predators continue to be honored by the Hollywood elites.

In response to continued vandalism of Trump’s Walk of Fame star, a funny thing happened.  A few days ago, multiple Trump stars began appearing on the walk, placed on blank squares.  An anonymous street artist and his allies are sending a message to the Hollywood hypocrites: “Rip up the president’s Walk of Fame star or try to have it removed – like you’re the mayor of West Hollywood or something – and 30 more will pop up.”

This reminded me of a time long ago, when Hollywood made good and decent movies, designed to entertain, rather than push some sociopolitical agenda.  Walt Disney was part of this golden age of Hollywood.  One of his early movies was Fantasia, a 1940 film, which set short animated pieces to famous classical music scores.

One of the more famous segments was “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” featuring Mickey Mouse.  Mickey, as the apprentice, is tasked with the chore of fetching buckets of water.  To spare himself the labor, he casts a spell so a broom can fetch the water for him.  Mickey falls asleep while the broom toils away, flooding the sorcerer’s chambers.

Unable to break the spell, Mickey chops the broom into pieces.  But each splinter comes to life as a new broom, fetching more water, worsening the flooding, until the sorcerer returns to break the spell.  You can watch the scene here.

Mickey Mouse’s adventure is playing out with Trump’s Hollywood star.  Trump-haters, using a pickaxe, rather than Mickey’s axe, destroyed Trump’s star, only to have it multiply.  Bigly.

This is a common theme of the Trump presidency.  Attempts to destroy him seem only to leave him stronger.  Beginning before he was even elected, the “Access Hollywood” tape was Trump’s October surprise, sure to derail his campaign.  What happened?  Trump happened, and he was elected.

The Deep State conspired to pave the way for Hillary Clinton by exonerating her of crimes committed and instead indicting Trump for crimes not committed, crippling his presidency with a special counsel investigating everything except what he was charged with investigating, casting doubt over the legitimacy of Trump’s election and presidency.

Despite efforts of the Clinton-Obama Deep State cabal to take an axe to President Trump, all they have done is create greater support for him.  Splinters of Mickey Mouse’s broom are rising up in myriad ways in support of the president.

Black support for President Trump has doubled since last year.  This is a core Democrat constituency, and such an electoral shift spells doom for Democrat electoral prospects.

The left cries “Trump is a racist” non-stop on cable news shows, taking an axe to the Trump broom.  Yet the splinters come to life in the form of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, pop culture icons and Instagram celebrities, joining the Trump train – not to mention Diamond and Silk, Candace Owens, and others.

The ultimate splinters from the axed Fantasia broom are the Q phenomenon.  This is an as of yet unidentified group of presumed military intelligence insiders with White House access.  Some call it a cult, despite the absence of a leader.  Others call it LARPing or basically a joke, yet Q messages display an uncanny knack for predicting future events in a timely and accurate fashion.

Make of it what you want, but Q represents thousands or millions of splinters of Mickey’s axed broom, individuals doing their own research based on “Q drops,” nuggets of open-sourced information that can be investigated, verified, and disseminated.  Most of this is done anonymously, away from prying eyes or interference of the Deep State actors Q is exposing.

Last are the media, with their relentless attacks on President Trump, over 90 percent negative coverage.  They give little, if any, credit for Trump’s accomplishments, especially on the economy and jobs, instead calling him a racist, a traitor, a Russian spy, or just an ignorant rube.

Each swipe of the media axe at the president creates more disdain for and distrust of the media, and more sympathy and support of the president.  Splinters of the chopped broom are the Americans who mock big media at rallies and on social media.

From the Hollywood star to Q to the media, efforts of the left and other assorted Trump-haters simply chop the broom into splinters, creating more support, the opposite of the intended goal.  Mickey Mouse set forces in motion that took on a life of their own, with unintended and unforeseen consequences far beyond his original goal.

Trump-haters are beginning to experience much the same.  Oblivious to what they have set into motion, they will be ill prepared for the consequences.  For the rest of us, pass the popcorn as the show is just beginning.  

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Hollywood’s Walk of Fame started in the late 1950s to honor accomplished members of the entertainment industry.  On average, they add two new stars each month.  As Hollywood is a bastion of political correctness and virtue-signaling, it was inevitable that the city would find itself butting heads with President Trump.

Trump has a star on the Walk of Fame, which has been vandalized several times over the past few weeks.  The West Hollywood city council, rather than banning plastic straws, voted unanimously to remove Trump’s star from the famous walk.

Fortunately, it’s an empty gesture, much like when Boulder, Colorado declared itself a nuclear-free zone – as if, during a real war, China or Russia would take great care to steer nuclear missiles to Denver or Fort Collins rather than to Boulder.

West Hollywood has no jurisdiction over the Walk of Fame, as it has been run by the Chamber of Commerce since 1962, which has been “[r]esisting public pressure to remove stars for disgraced honorees such as Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Kevin Spacey, saying that a star is part of ‘the historic fabric’ of the site.”

It’s nice to see that Hollywood has its priorities in order.  The president, standing up for America, trying to secure its borders and keep America safe, is somehow evil, but the truly evil #MeToo predators continue to be honored by the Hollywood elites.

In response to continued vandalism of Trump’s Walk of Fame star, a funny thing happened.  A few days ago, multiple Trump stars began appearing on the walk, placed on blank squares.  An anonymous street artist and his allies are sending a message to the Hollywood hypocrites: “Rip up the president’s Walk of Fame star or try to have it removed – like you’re the mayor of West Hollywood or something – and 30 more will pop up.”

This reminded me of a time long ago, when Hollywood made good and decent movies, designed to entertain, rather than push some sociopolitical agenda.  Walt Disney was part of this golden age of Hollywood.  One of his early movies was Fantasia, a 1940 film, which set short animated pieces to famous classical music scores.

One of the more famous segments was “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” featuring Mickey Mouse.  Mickey, as the apprentice, is tasked with the chore of fetching buckets of water.  To spare himself the labor, he casts a spell so a broom can fetch the water for him.  Mickey falls asleep while the broom toils away, flooding the sorcerer’s chambers.

Unable to break the spell, Mickey chops the broom into pieces.  But each splinter comes to life as a new broom, fetching more water, worsening the flooding, until the sorcerer returns to break the spell.  You can watch the scene here.

Mickey Mouse’s adventure is playing out with Trump’s Hollywood star.  Trump-haters, using a pickaxe, rather than Mickey’s axe, destroyed Trump’s star, only to have it multiply.  Bigly.

This is a common theme of the Trump presidency.  Attempts to destroy him seem only to leave him stronger.  Beginning before he was even elected, the “Access Hollywood” tape was Trump’s October surprise, sure to derail his campaign.  What happened?  Trump happened, and he was elected.

The Deep State conspired to pave the way for Hillary Clinton by exonerating her of crimes committed and instead indicting Trump for crimes not committed, crippling his presidency with a special counsel investigating everything except what he was charged with investigating, casting doubt over the legitimacy of Trump’s election and presidency.

Despite efforts of the Clinton-Obama Deep State cabal to take an axe to President Trump, all they have done is create greater support for him.  Splinters of Mickey Mouse’s broom are rising up in myriad ways in support of the president.

Black support for President Trump has doubled since last year.  This is a core Democrat constituency, and such an electoral shift spells doom for Democrat electoral prospects.

The left cries “Trump is a racist” non-stop on cable news shows, taking an axe to the Trump broom.  Yet the splinters come to life in the form of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, pop culture icons and Instagram celebrities, joining the Trump train – not to mention Diamond and Silk, Candace Owens, and others.

The ultimate splinters from the axed Fantasia broom are the Q phenomenon.  This is an as of yet unidentified group of presumed military intelligence insiders with White House access.  Some call it a cult, despite the absence of a leader.  Others call it LARPing or basically a joke, yet Q messages display an uncanny knack for predicting future events in a timely and accurate fashion.

Make of it what you want, but Q represents thousands or millions of splinters of Mickey’s axed broom, individuals doing their own research based on “Q drops,” nuggets of open-sourced information that can be investigated, verified, and disseminated.  Most of this is done anonymously, away from prying eyes or interference of the Deep State actors Q is exposing.

Last are the media, with their relentless attacks on President Trump, over 90 percent negative coverage.  They give little, if any, credit for Trump’s accomplishments, especially on the economy and jobs, instead calling him a racist, a traitor, a Russian spy, or just an ignorant rube.

Each swipe of the media axe at the president creates more disdain for and distrust of the media, and more sympathy and support of the president.  Splinters of the chopped broom are the Americans who mock big media at rallies and on social media.

From the Hollywood star to Q to the media, efforts of the left and other assorted Trump-haters simply chop the broom into splinters, creating more support, the opposite of the intended goal.  Mickey Mouse set forces in motion that took on a life of their own, with unintended and unforeseen consequences far beyond his original goal.

Trump-haters are beginning to experience much the same.  Oblivious to what they have set into motion, they will be ill prepared for the consequences.  For the rest of us, pass the popcorn as the show is just beginning.  

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

A Tale of Three Cities


Charles Dickens wrote the classic A Tale of Two Cities a century and a half ago.  It’s a story about two famous cities of the times, Paris and London, around the time of the French Revolution.  These cities were the height of sophistication and enlightenment in the world, long before American cities caught up.

Three American cities did catch up and were at one time shining beacons of American success: San Francisco, Chicago, and Detroit.

San Francisco was the gateway to the Pacific and lands beyond – a beautiful city on hills with the Golden Gate Bridge connecting San Francisco to Marin County, one of the wonders of the modern world.  Chicago was the hub of transportation and commerce, connecting the eastern and western halves of the United States.  Detroit was an industrial behemoth, home of the auto industry and the assembly line, bringing prosperity and convenience to millions.

Songs were written to celebrate these great cities.  Tony Bennett left his heart in San Francisco.  Chicago was Frank Sinatra’s kind of town.  And the Motown music genre began in the Motor City.

As Dickens wrote, “[i]t was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness.”  Perhaps the best of times for these American cities was 50 years ago, when they and their leaders basked in the age of wisdom.  Today, these cities are facing the worst of times, due to their own foolishness.  What happened?

San Francisco is being overrun with the homeless and illegal aliens due to its sanctuary city status and virtue-signaling leadership.  The streets are littered with human feces, hypodermic needles, and syringes, turning the once beautiful “City by the Bay” into a cesspool.  What’s the response of San Francisco leaders?  Banning plastic straws.

Chicago has become more dangerous than many cities in the war-torn Middle East.  This past weekend was another example of the killing fields of Chicago: “[a]t least 72 shot, 13 killed in Chicago over violent summer weekend, police department says.”  What’s the mayor of Chicago doing in response?  Maintaining and bolstering Chicago’s status as a “sanctuary city” and virtue-signaling to fellow progressives, prioritizing illegal aliens over Chicago residents.

Detroit, in 1960, was the richest per capita city in America.  Fifty-some years later, in 2013, Detroit filed for bankruptcy.  Now it’s a squatter’s paradise.  Homes once owned by residents, then lost to foreclosure, are now owned by the Detroit Land Bank Authority.  Today, it’s first come, first served as to who lives in these abandoned homes.  The Detroit Free Press notes “[d]ead bodies, wild dogs, squatters in government-owned Detroit houses.”


Via Wikimedia Commons.

How did these three beautiful and prosperous American cities morph from the best of cities to the worst of cities in only a couple of generations?  Let’s look at who is in charge.

San Francisco has not had a Republican mayor since 1964, the height of Motown music in one of the other cities we are discussing.  For the past fifty-plus years, San Francisco has been led by a procession of Democrats.

Then there are the state and national leaders, from Governor Jerry Brown to Senators Kamala Harris, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein, the last employing a Chinese spy in her office for twenty years while accusing President Trump of colluding with the Russians.  She was doing more for China than for her own city.

As a quick aside, Senator Feinstein responded to this news with the following: “The FBI told me 5 years ago it had concerns that China was seeking to recruit an administrative member of my Calif staff (despite no access to sensitive information).”

Note how the FBI told the senator of its concerns.  The agents did not insert a spy in her office, then obtaining a Title 1 FISA warrant to spy on the senator and her entire staff.  This is how the FBI handled concerns over Russians involved in the Donald Trump campaign.  Agents did not warn Trump over their concerns, as they did for the senator.  Anyone surprised?

Chicago’s last Republican mayor finished his term in 1931, almost a century ago, followed by a string of Democrat mayors up to the present time.  At a national level, Chicago is currently represented by Democrat senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.

Detroit’s last Republican mayor finished his term in 1962, around the time the Supremes were singing “Where Did Our Love Go?”  Now they would be singing, “Where did our city go?”  Since the early 1960s, Detroit has had a succession of Democrat mayors, including Coleman Young and their famous hip-hop mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, now serving a long prison term.  Michigan, similar to Illinois and California, has two Democrat U.S. senators.

Anyone see a common thread here?  Cities run by liberal Democrats, implementing liberal policies, with predictable results.  These are certainly not the only American cities ruined by Democrat governance – there are also Newark; New Orleans; and Washington, D.C. to name a few others.

Then there are entire countries following this pattern.  Venezuela went from the richest economy in South America to financial and social ruin, with starvation and civil unrest – thanks not to the U.S. Democratic Party, but to its international brethren, the socialists.

This is the same political and economic philosophy shared by many American Democrats, including the cheated almost nominee Bernie Sanders and his mini-me, self-proclaimed Democrat socialist and rising star on the left Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She, as another interesting aside, had a bad night in this week’s primary elections, with all of her endorsed candidates losing.

As goes Detroit, Chicago, and San Francisco, so goes the nation under similar leadership and guidance.  You won’t hear this on CNN or MSNBC, as they are busy running interference for leftist politicians and policies.  Yet their organizations would be the first to be nationalized under a socialistic government.  Not that it would make any practical difference, as the media are already a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  The tale of these three cities is an important part of this history.  To ignore it means that many other cities, and the entire nation, could rapidly go from the best of times to the worst of times.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Charles Dickens wrote the classic A Tale of Two Cities a century and a half ago.  It’s a story about two famous cities of the times, Paris and London, around the time of the French Revolution.  These cities were the height of sophistication and enlightenment in the world, long before American cities caught up.

Three American cities did catch up and were at one time shining beacons of American success: San Francisco, Chicago, and Detroit.

San Francisco was the gateway to the Pacific and lands beyond – a beautiful city on hills with the Golden Gate Bridge connecting San Francisco to Marin County, one of the wonders of the modern world.  Chicago was the hub of transportation and commerce, connecting the eastern and western halves of the United States.  Detroit was an industrial behemoth, home of the auto industry and the assembly line, bringing prosperity and convenience to millions.

Songs were written to celebrate these great cities.  Tony Bennett left his heart in San Francisco.  Chicago was Frank Sinatra’s kind of town.  And the Motown music genre began in the Motor City.

As Dickens wrote, “[i]t was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness.”  Perhaps the best of times for these American cities was 50 years ago, when they and their leaders basked in the age of wisdom.  Today, these cities are facing the worst of times, due to their own foolishness.  What happened?

San Francisco is being overrun with the homeless and illegal aliens due to its sanctuary city status and virtue-signaling leadership.  The streets are littered with human feces, hypodermic needles, and syringes, turning the once beautiful “City by the Bay” into a cesspool.  What’s the response of San Francisco leaders?  Banning plastic straws.

Chicago has become more dangerous than many cities in the war-torn Middle East.  This past weekend was another example of the killing fields of Chicago: “[a]t least 72 shot, 13 killed in Chicago over violent summer weekend, police department says.”  What’s the mayor of Chicago doing in response?  Maintaining and bolstering Chicago’s status as a “sanctuary city” and virtue-signaling to fellow progressives, prioritizing illegal aliens over Chicago residents.

Detroit, in 1960, was the richest per capita city in America.  Fifty-some years later, in 2013, Detroit filed for bankruptcy.  Now it’s a squatter’s paradise.  Homes once owned by residents, then lost to foreclosure, are now owned by the Detroit Land Bank Authority.  Today, it’s first come, first served as to who lives in these abandoned homes.  The Detroit Free Press notes “[d]ead bodies, wild dogs, squatters in government-owned Detroit houses.”


Via Wikimedia Commons.

How did these three beautiful and prosperous American cities morph from the best of cities to the worst of cities in only a couple of generations?  Let’s look at who is in charge.

San Francisco has not had a Republican mayor since 1964, the height of Motown music in one of the other cities we are discussing.  For the past fifty-plus years, San Francisco has been led by a procession of Democrats.

Then there are the state and national leaders, from Governor Jerry Brown to Senators Kamala Harris, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein, the last employing a Chinese spy in her office for twenty years while accusing President Trump of colluding with the Russians.  She was doing more for China than for her own city.

As a quick aside, Senator Feinstein responded to this news with the following: “The FBI told me 5 years ago it had concerns that China was seeking to recruit an administrative member of my Calif staff (despite no access to sensitive information).”

Note how the FBI told the senator of its concerns.  The agents did not insert a spy in her office, then obtaining a Title 1 FISA warrant to spy on the senator and her entire staff.  This is how the FBI handled concerns over Russians involved in the Donald Trump campaign.  Agents did not warn Trump over their concerns, as they did for the senator.  Anyone surprised?

Chicago’s last Republican mayor finished his term in 1931, almost a century ago, followed by a string of Democrat mayors up to the present time.  At a national level, Chicago is currently represented by Democrat senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.

Detroit’s last Republican mayor finished his term in 1962, around the time the Supremes were singing “Where Did Our Love Go?”  Now they would be singing, “Where did our city go?”  Since the early 1960s, Detroit has had a succession of Democrat mayors, including Coleman Young and their famous hip-hop mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, now serving a long prison term.  Michigan, similar to Illinois and California, has two Democrat U.S. senators.

Anyone see a common thread here?  Cities run by liberal Democrats, implementing liberal policies, with predictable results.  These are certainly not the only American cities ruined by Democrat governance – there are also Newark; New Orleans; and Washington, D.C. to name a few others.

Then there are entire countries following this pattern.  Venezuela went from the richest economy in South America to financial and social ruin, with starvation and civil unrest – thanks not to the U.S. Democratic Party, but to its international brethren, the socialists.

This is the same political and economic philosophy shared by many American Democrats, including the cheated almost nominee Bernie Sanders and his mini-me, self-proclaimed Democrat socialist and rising star on the left Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She, as another interesting aside, had a bad night in this week’s primary elections, with all of her endorsed candidates losing.

As goes Detroit, Chicago, and San Francisco, so goes the nation under similar leadership and guidance.  You won’t hear this on CNN or MSNBC, as they are busy running interference for leftist politicians and policies.  Yet their organizations would be the first to be nationalized under a socialistic government.  Not that it would make any practical difference, as the media are already a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  The tale of these three cities is an important part of this history.  To ignore it means that many other cities, and the entire nation, could rapidly go from the best of times to the worst of times.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

Shifting Tactics to Take Down Trump


Since election day, when the entire Washington, D.C. establishment was expecting a Hillary Clinton landslide victory, the establishment’s goal has been to get rid of Donald Trump.  It began the day after the election.  Once Mrs. Clinton stopped throwing d breaking things in her hotel room, John Podesta and her team concocted the Russia collusion story to explain her surprising lectoral loss.

The reality is that the Russia-Russia story was already being worked in the FBI and DOJ via investigations and FISA warrants constituting the infamous “insurance policy” in the unlikely event that Trump did win the election – or to ruin him if he lost, sending a message to any future outsider candidate who dares to challenge the Deep State nominees.

Since then, the entire goal of the Deep State has been to somehow get rid of President Trump.  There has been a withering attack on Trump from the media, 24-7, with over 90 percent negative coverage.  No other president, including other Republicans, have had monolithic media opposition day in and day out, including the constant stream of fake news.

The Deep State is working in concert with the media to destroy Trump, as evidenced by the ongoing revelations hopefully fully brought to light with the DOJ-OIG report.  How ironic that Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein wrote a letter to the president recommending that FBI director James Comey be fired.  Then, when Trump followed his recommendation, Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to go after Trump, in part as a reaction to Comey’s termination. How’s that for a Deep State trap?

Now, almost a year into Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation, there is no evidence of collusion or election-hacking.  Despite a team of Democrat attorneys and investigators with an unlimited investigative scope and budget, Mueller has come up empty.  If there were evidence of collusion or election tampering, we would certainly know it by now.

Does anyone believe that if Trump really did collude with Putin to hack the election, Putin wouldn’t use that against Trump?  Instead Trump has imposed sanctions and bombed Russian troops.  And now Trump is on the verge of initiating military action in Syria, against Russian interests.  If Putin had evidence of election collusion, he could end Trump’s presidency immediately by releasing this evidence.  Congress would happily take up impeachment, with alacrity not seen in any of its other legislative efforts.

There is no doubt Congress has the votes for impeachment.  Now the congressmen are only waiting for a proper excuse.  Democrats would vote as a unified block to impeach the president.  Since election day, Maxine Waters has been talking about impeachment every time she gets near a microphone.

NeverTrump Erick Erickson recently reported a conversation with an unnamed GOP Congressman who told him, “Needless to say I think if the president were to fire Robert Mueller at this point the votes are there to impeach him.”  That’s the excuse they are now looking for.  A new tactic.

The collusion story is going nowhere.  Mueller’s petty indictments and plea deals are for process crimes or allegations not involving the president or his election.  Time for a shift in tactics, specifically goading the president to fire Mueller, giving Congress the excuse they are waiting for.

The media this week is talking nonstop – not about Stormy Daniels, like last week, but pondering whether Trump will fire Mueller.  Below is a tweet from MSNBC using a poll to raise the issue.

This is the new tactic, the latest scheme to get rid of President Trump.  Create grounds for impeachment by goading Trump into firing Mueller.

Could the raid on Trump’s attorney’s office be part of the effort?  Crossing a “red line,” way beyond the mandate for the special counsel?

Interestingly, this tactic was attempted, unsuccessfully, last January. The New York Times played a major role, via fake news, publishing a bogus story about Mueller’s office subpoenaing Trump’s bank records from Deutsche Bank, crossing a “red line” in the investigation.  At the time, Trump supposedly almost fired Mueller, but his advisers successfully got him to back down, avoiding the impeachment trap.

Is the Michael Cohen raid the latest attempt to goad Trump into firing someone, whether Mueller, Rosenstein, or Sessions?  Even lefties like Michael Moore have joined the chorus, saying in a tweet, “President Trump! You let Mueller get away with breaking into your lawyer’s office!!  Mueller & Sessions & Rosenstein are laughing at you!”  He went on to taunt, “I can’t believe you’re putting up w/ this!  I thought u were a strong man.  Americans want a strongman in the White House!”

Sure, far left-wingnut  Michael Moore has Donald Trump’s back and his best interests in mind.  Instead, this is part of the new plan, goading the president into doing something that starts the wheels of impeachment.

CNN, always with a front row seat in all of this, headlined, “Donald Trump has never been more likely to fire Robert Mueller than he is right now.”  Based on what?  Is this from their anonymous sources or their wishful thinking?

Impeachment is for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” not necessarily overt criminal acts.  It’s a political, not a legal maneuver, and up to Congress to decide whether their hatred of Donald Trump rises to the level of impeachment.

All they need is the excuse, as the above mentioned congressman said.  “A lot of Republican Congressmen are so frustrated and realizing they may lose their reelection that they are perfectly happy to take out the President with them because they all blame him.”

Where I disagree is whether Republicans are going to lose re-election because of the president or rather because of their total lack of accomplishment and their resistance to the president’s agenda.  Is GOP establishment hatred of Trump so overpowering that they are willing to do anything to damage or remove Trump, including lose the midterm elections?

Republican Congressmen are resigning or not running for reelection, including Speaker Paul Ryan, who just announced that he is calling it quits when his term ends.  The GOP Congress has thrown in with the Deep State and donors over their voters. What better way to get rid of Trump than to flip the House to the Democrats, or make GOP control much slimmer?

After all, the collusion story is coming up empty.  Impeachment is next, but the swamp needs a proper high crime or misdemeanor. Firing Mueller would rise to that level as many members of Congress have said.

Watch the media beat the drums for Trump firing Mueller, the next tactic to dump Trump.  The President, however, is a smart guy and surely knows this.  If he sticks to his agenda and shines the light of day on FBI-DOJ malfeasance, he will ultimately win.  If he succumbs to taunting and temptation, firing anyone investigating him, Congress will pounce, and he will lose.  Time for POTUS to keep a cool and focused head, sticking to the MAGA agenda.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

Since election day, when the entire Washington, D.C. establishment was expecting a Hillary Clinton landslide victory, the establishment’s goal has been to get rid of Donald Trump.  It began the day after the election.  Once Mrs. Clinton stopped throwing d breaking things in her hotel room, John Podesta and her team concocted the Russia collusion story to explain her surprising lectoral loss.

The reality is that the Russia-Russia story was already being worked in the FBI and DOJ via investigations and FISA warrants constituting the infamous “insurance policy” in the unlikely event that Trump did win the election – or to ruin him if he lost, sending a message to any future outsider candidate who dares to challenge the Deep State nominees.

Since then, the entire goal of the Deep State has been to somehow get rid of President Trump.  There has been a withering attack on Trump from the media, 24-7, with over 90 percent negative coverage.  No other president, including other Republicans, have had monolithic media opposition day in and day out, including the constant stream of fake news.

The Deep State is working in concert with the media to destroy Trump, as evidenced by the ongoing revelations hopefully fully brought to light with the DOJ-OIG report.  How ironic that Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein wrote a letter to the president recommending that FBI director James Comey be fired.  Then, when Trump followed his recommendation, Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to go after Trump, in part as a reaction to Comey’s termination. How’s that for a Deep State trap?

Now, almost a year into Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation, there is no evidence of collusion or election-hacking.  Despite a team of Democrat attorneys and investigators with an unlimited investigative scope and budget, Mueller has come up empty.  If there were evidence of collusion or election tampering, we would certainly know it by now.

Does anyone believe that if Trump really did collude with Putin to hack the election, Putin wouldn’t use that against Trump?  Instead Trump has imposed sanctions and bombed Russian troops.  And now Trump is on the verge of initiating military action in Syria, against Russian interests.  If Putin had evidence of election collusion, he could end Trump’s presidency immediately by releasing this evidence.  Congress would happily take up impeachment, with alacrity not seen in any of its other legislative efforts.

There is no doubt Congress has the votes for impeachment.  Now the congressmen are only waiting for a proper excuse.  Democrats would vote as a unified block to impeach the president.  Since election day, Maxine Waters has been talking about impeachment every time she gets near a microphone.

NeverTrump Erick Erickson recently reported a conversation with an unnamed GOP Congressman who told him, “Needless to say I think if the president were to fire Robert Mueller at this point the votes are there to impeach him.”  That’s the excuse they are now looking for.  A new tactic.

The collusion story is going nowhere.  Mueller’s petty indictments and plea deals are for process crimes or allegations not involving the president or his election.  Time for a shift in tactics, specifically goading the president to fire Mueller, giving Congress the excuse they are waiting for.

The media this week is talking nonstop – not about Stormy Daniels, like last week, but pondering whether Trump will fire Mueller.  Below is a tweet from MSNBC using a poll to raise the issue.

This is the new tactic, the latest scheme to get rid of President Trump.  Create grounds for impeachment by goading Trump into firing Mueller.

Could the raid on Trump’s attorney’s office be part of the effort?  Crossing a “red line,” way beyond the mandate for the special counsel?

Interestingly, this tactic was attempted, unsuccessfully, last January. The New York Times played a major role, via fake news, publishing a bogus story about Mueller’s office subpoenaing Trump’s bank records from Deutsche Bank, crossing a “red line” in the investigation.  At the time, Trump supposedly almost fired Mueller, but his advisers successfully got him to back down, avoiding the impeachment trap.

Is the Michael Cohen raid the latest attempt to goad Trump into firing someone, whether Mueller, Rosenstein, or Sessions?  Even lefties like Michael Moore have joined the chorus, saying in a tweet, “President Trump! You let Mueller get away with breaking into your lawyer’s office!!  Mueller & Sessions & Rosenstein are laughing at you!”  He went on to taunt, “I can’t believe you’re putting up w/ this!  I thought u were a strong man.  Americans want a strongman in the White House!”

Sure, far left-wingnut  Michael Moore has Donald Trump’s back and his best interests in mind.  Instead, this is part of the new plan, goading the president into doing something that starts the wheels of impeachment.

CNN, always with a front row seat in all of this, headlined, “Donald Trump has never been more likely to fire Robert Mueller than he is right now.”  Based on what?  Is this from their anonymous sources or their wishful thinking?

Impeachment is for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” not necessarily overt criminal acts.  It’s a political, not a legal maneuver, and up to Congress to decide whether their hatred of Donald Trump rises to the level of impeachment.

All they need is the excuse, as the above mentioned congressman said.  “A lot of Republican Congressmen are so frustrated and realizing they may lose their reelection that they are perfectly happy to take out the President with them because they all blame him.”

Where I disagree is whether Republicans are going to lose re-election because of the president or rather because of their total lack of accomplishment and their resistance to the president’s agenda.  Is GOP establishment hatred of Trump so overpowering that they are willing to do anything to damage or remove Trump, including lose the midterm elections?

Republican Congressmen are resigning or not running for reelection, including Speaker Paul Ryan, who just announced that he is calling it quits when his term ends.  The GOP Congress has thrown in with the Deep State and donors over their voters. What better way to get rid of Trump than to flip the House to the Democrats, or make GOP control much slimmer?

After all, the collusion story is coming up empty.  Impeachment is next, but the swamp needs a proper high crime or misdemeanor. Firing Mueller would rise to that level as many members of Congress have said.

Watch the media beat the drums for Trump firing Mueller, the next tactic to dump Trump.  The President, however, is a smart guy and surely knows this.  If he sticks to his agenda and shines the light of day on FBI-DOJ malfeasance, he will ultimately win.  If he succumbs to taunting and temptation, firing anyone investigating him, Congress will pounce, and he will lose.  Time for POTUS to keep a cool and focused head, sticking to the MAGA agenda.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.



Source link