No, Trump Does Not Fear Sanders

I have heard a lot of people and seen many articles or videos claiming that Trump fears Sanders more than other Democratic candidates.

If this were true, Trump has a strange way of showing it. On 2/18/2020, Trump tweeted the following, “ The Crooked DNC is working overtime to take the Democrat Nomination away from Bernie, AGAIN! Watch what happens to the Super Delegates in Round Two. A Rigged Convention!”

This is interesting because Trump also mentioned in 2016 how the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders. The only other candidate running that has mentioned this has been Gabbard.

Sanders is still silent about DNC election fraud in 2016, still blaming Russia.

Politically, if you fear your opponent, you don’t tend to basically support their position. Nor do you point out how the opposing party is placing that opponent at a disadvantage. You would do this even less when that is the view of many of that candidate’s supporters. What Trump did with this was the equivalent of elevating support for Sanders while drawing attention to the dishonesty of the DNC in one shot. Kind of ironic that Hillary and the media talked about Trump so much in 2016, long before he got the GOP nomination, which directly elevated Trump. Since then, we learned how intentional that was.

What you should find interesting is that I have not heard or seen Trump tweet or say anything about Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard happens to be the only candidate running who has met with him personally since he was elected. She is also the only candidate who has not made disparaging remarks about Trump’s supporters. If he has mentioned Tulsi and I missed it, post a quote or link in the comments below.

This seems more like fear of Gabbard to me. If you fear an opponent, the best thing you can do is try and make them invisible. You simply don’t mention them at all.

Of course, he has plenty of assistance in that effort. Corporate neoliberal media barely mentions Gabbard or only mentions her negatively. The same is true with the DNC elite. She has been left out of town halls, debates and even polls too many times to count. This is true even as she gets coverage by Fox News and is gaining ever-increasing backing by Libertarian leaders like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Plus she has considerable support by Green Party and Independent voters.

I have been pointing out for some time now that Gabbard would fare far better in debate with trump than Sanders would. I even wrote an article of that title back in early December 2019. That article is here:

Nothing has changed since that writing except for it to become even more true. Now it appears that even Trump realizes it.

There is no certain way of knowing how much of this is theater, how much is manipulation. One thing is certain. If I were Trump, I would reverse the tactics used on me in 2016. I would do all I could to split the Democratic Party, portray them as dishonest and unreliable. I would also do anything I could to elevate the opponent I felt most confident I could win against. I would ignore the opponent I knew was an actual threat. One thing Trump does understand is that people are sheep. They will look at what you tell them to look at. This is exactly what he is doing and it’s working.

Something Happening In China

Little introductory note. I actually began this post on Monday, 2/17/2020 but didn’t have time to finish it. Today the DOW went down by -166 pts and Apple announced a lower earnings projection due to decreased production and sales related to these conditions. So what I cover below is already proving out to be true. However it has only just begun.

In the last few weeks, China’s GDP has dropped precipitously. While the Corona Virus is clearly responsible for a portion of this, I am not convinced that this is the full explanation. Yet even if I am incorrect and this is solely due to the Corona Virus, the economic implications remain the same.

Coal consumption has dropped significantly during this time, as has oil usage and freight shipping. All combined indicates a serious decline in manufacturing and goods transportation.

Several banks in China seem close to collapse. However, those are primarily non-state banks.

China’s Finance Minister said they will not introduce an economic stimulus. They will reduce taxes and fees on small businesses and individuals but will not be taking the approach of The US Federal Reserve, which includes creating new currency out of thin air to bail out banks and large companies.

Basically, this means they will focus on their economy from the bottom up, which is a long term view to help their people, rather than the elite at the top of the chain.

This has other implications which western media is not going to focus on readily until they are forced to do so. These circumstances will absolutely cause inflation inside China. Though with the structure of their government and economy, they could impose price limits on critical goods and/or subsidize those goods for the benefit of the people. In short, China will focus first and foremost on internal economic well-being and the welfare of their citizens before even thinking about external considerations.

The downstream effect of dramatically reduced exports from China means that within weeks, store shelves in the US will run dry of some products and we will see rapid inflation as back stores of some items are depleted, especially perishable goods.

Electronics made for US companies in China will become in short supply quickly. It is entirely possible that rare earth mineral shipments will be suspended, which will all but cease even domestic production of many electronics products. This applies to other nations which are supplied by China yet the products sold in the US. Think memory and computer components from Korea and Japan.

As supplies dwindle, this will translate to not only inflation but layoffs in retail and manufacturing. Which means further layoffs in freight, such as trucking and shipping. Then layoffs in courier and mail services.

Steel and building supplies will see a delayed effect but we can expect to see increased prices on those goods this year at some point.

Decreased oil consumption will affect US oil production. Meaning we may see lower gas prices for a short time, until production is reduced. Meaning more layoffs.

As production decreases in China, we may expect to see decreasing stock prices on companies that rely heavily on China for their products. Such as Apple and Walmart. This could be the tipping point which sends the stock market into chaos and decline. Most of that depends on how the Federal Reserve responds. Sooner or later the Fed will no longer be able to compensate for all the private investors fleeing the market.

Some will claim that this is good news for US producers. That will only be true if these circumstances continue for an extended period. If it only lasts for weeks or even months, US manufacturing currently lacks the capacity to compensate for the reduction. Farming will take months to catch up. Some ranching will take months, other ranching will take years to catch up. If US companies invest to increase production and China then regains their capacity within the year, those domestic investments would be wasted and could result in massive losses. Companies would still revert to immediate production as opposed to spending large sums to increase capacity which would then require more highly paid US workers to maintain.

All of this means that any reduction in supply is likely to be for a period long enough to have definite economic impacts in the US.

My sincere suggestion is the prepare yourself now for some shortages in the way of dry foods and canned goods. The last things to see a reduction will be fresh produce and meats. However, those will see inflation as consumers shift their buying habits due to shortages of some items due to shortages.

Slightly ironic when you think about it.

If you rely on electronics and building supplies, stock up on spare parts and supplies now.

We are settling in for a rough ride for at least the next few months. Prepare yourself mentally and any other way you can.

What Really Happened With The Corona Virus In China

The World Health Organization is complimenting China for their massive response to the Corona virus as rate of infection decreases rapidly. So, let’s take a look at the facts involved here and what the implications are.

As of last report, the total of confirmed infected has remained less than 50,000 globally. The total deaths have been under 1000. If you round off the numbers, that is a mortality rate of 0.5%.

Compare that to the flu. In the US alone this season, there have been over 10,000 deaths and 180,000 hospitalized. That is the number hospitalized, not confirmed infections.

Quarantine. Yet China responded quickly and on a huge scale. They built an emergency hospital in 9 days with another opened days later. They implemented a quarantine and mobilized sanitizing equipment across Wuhan, China on a scale not seen in modern times in any country.

The result has been that, while productivity has decreased in China and the country has suffered the highest inflation rate in at least 8 years, the infection rate has declined. Those who have been infected are well or getting there and new cases have been slowed massively. In addition, a vaccine has been already developed and tested, ready for mass production.

What has happened here is that China has illustrated their capabilities to respond to a crisis. They have put FEMA in the US to shame. There was no need for private fundraising drives which are frequently riddled with later accusations of fraud. There was no argument by the Chinese people against providing aid to their fellow citizens.

However, there is more to this. What they illustrated clearly here was their ability to respond quickly and effectively to biological warfare. When you look at the morbidity and mortality rate of the Corona virus, the response was actually quite out of proportion. If the response were truly appropriate, then why has the US not been responding in kind to the far deadlier flu virus? Our public health services don’t even hand out free surgical masks, gloves and antibacterial soap to anyone requesting them.

Was this sending a message? Since China has responded in such a disproportional scale, it indicates knowledge. Obviously there is no way to verify this but an objective observation would tend to indicate that they have intelligence of a possible planned biological attack on their country. By mobilizing such a large scale and rapid response, this was a live drill and may have been a message meant to deter any such attempt. Who was the message intended for? That’s anyone’s guess and I will not venture to offer any assumption here.

A very different approach. Capitalist countries basically ignore epidemics and disasters. They even even attempt to profit from those events. Meanwhile, they waste huge sums of money staging relatively small scale mock drills to imagined attacks, disasters and epidemics. China instead used a real outbreak, reacted within days of the first signs, launched a huge response with live participants- citizens, police, medical personnel, civil service workers, construction workers and media. This was done in a calm and effective coordinated manner. No riots, no breakdown of social structure. Yes, some people have likely suffered financially but not beyond recovery in most cases. I expect the Chinese government to offer significant financial support to businesses and individuals hit hard by the quarantine.

While some parts of this can be construed as conspiracy theory, which I do not generally commit to, the fact that they have demonstrated their ability to respond to such an event is definitely sending a message. This less-than-extremely-lethal outbreak served as practice for their populace in ways no other country has demonstrated. It is questionable whether any other country, including the US, would have the ability and social will to act as quickly and decisively with this level of organization. In spite of US media trying to spin stories that China tried to cover this up, they publicly identified and announced the existence of the virus within days and moved instantly, kept the peace along the way and gave little concern to the economic cost while not seeking any form of profit. The same treatment was given to all financial levels with no preference. Something that the US could not even conceive of realistically. None of that is conspiracy theory.

New Hampshire Is Over

The New Hampshire primary is over and Bernie Sanders reportedly won by a slim margin over Buttigieg.

This is good news, indicating that those who oppose the Establishment are taking a greater lead.

Bad news in that both walked away with an equal number of delegates, illustrating how rigged the party system is, which we all know quite well.

I’ll jump straight to Gabbard, who came in at number 7, with 3.2% of the vote. Everyone in between is purely Establishment neoliberal.

Yang dropped out. I am hoping this is good news for Gabbard and most of Yang’s voters will support her going forward. It seems most likely, as there appears to be a similar mindset between the followers of these two candidates.

From this point on, the field will narrow quickly. Most of the remaining candidates have primarily corporate financial backing. Corporations will only financially fund a candidate when they expect to win. When it becomes obvious that candidate will lose, corporate funding dries up quickly. When the money dries up, so does a corporate candidate.

By contrast, Tulsi’s campaign is fully funded by private small dollar donations. Her dedication to her campaign is not driven by money but her ability to continue could be.

As the candidate field narrows, this is where Tulsi has a much greater chance of overtaking the lead. It should be obvious that the supporters of candidates other than Sanders and Buttigieg want someone other than those two to win. I am expecting nearly every other candidate to announce the end of their campaigns within days.

Yes, I realize that I may be overly optimistic but not unrealistically so. The balance of an election can change dramatically very quickly. If nothing else was learned from 2016, that was something we all should recall.

So, I am truly hoping Tulsi will continue her campaign all the way up to the convention. I will continue supporting her every second of the way. Even if she does not win, the point is increasing awareness, getting the message out, making a difference. If nothing else, upsetting the balance to deny Buttigieg of votes.

Most of all, the point is expanding the narrative. I’ll keep saying she is the ONLY antiwar candidate in the race. That remains true. So, even if she does not win, her message will ring loudly in the general, no matter who gets the nomination. The standards of being against warfare and having actual POLICIES which enable ending conflicts will not be requested of other candidates, they will be DEMANDED, as they very much should be. The message of unity across party lines should be heeded because if the Democrats continue dividing the country, they will lose in November.

As the field narrows, the winning candidate will be forced to incorporate the messages of the major candidates who had actual messages or they will fail to retain the support of those voters. Something else that should be recalled from 2016.

Those of us who supported Sanders in the primary and other candidates in the general in 2016 have a full understanding that if 2016 is repeated again, this country will dissolve in ways most people cannot imagine. The DNC will cease to exist, as well it should in current form. This country cannot survive in any capacity with one corporate party LARPing as two parties.

Bernie Won Iowa.. And I Am Happy About That

After several days of deception and withholding results from the Iowa caucus, the results were released, stating Bernie Sanders won the popular vote. However, Pete Buttigieg won the most delegates.

Is this scenario sounding familiar? Didn’t we go through the exact same thing in 2016? Yes, we did. I can tell you that as an absolute, as a person who helped moderate no less than four Progressive forums on social media in 2016.

Obviously I am not happy that Sanders walked away with fewer delegates than Buttigieg. I have explained why the electoral college is important but in primaries, the electoral college has no relevance whatsoever. The fact that Sanders got more votes but fewer delegates is a clear demonstration that the DNC has not changed in the least and will do everything in their power to suppress any candidate that is viewed as remotely Progressive.

Yes, I am happy that Sanders got the greater share of the popular vote. This is an indication that more people have awakened slightly more than they were in 2016. Very slightly.

When it comes down to it, if Sanders gets the nomination, I will most likely cast my vote for him. However, that is ONLY because we need to get Trump out of office. NOT because I think Sanders is the best candidate. I will continue saying that Tulsi Gabbard is a better option by orders of magnitude.

Domestic policy. I have stated on many occasions and demonstrated through many, many articles that I believe that the major portion of Sanders’ domestic policies are ones I agree with. That is, depending on how they are constructed, which is a key point but I prefer taking those one by one. I have also pointed out that the president does not have the power to write domestic policy. Domestic policy is written and controlled by Congress.

Rule by executive order. Yes, the president can introduce domestic policy by executive order. However, those executive orders can be vetoed by the Republican-majority Senate. No, his policies would not fare much better with a neoliberal Democratic majority. Remember that the ACA was passed with a Democrat-majority House and filibuster-proof Senate and did not include a public option, which was the key part of what had been promised. Another issue with this is simple- Do we want the president to rule by executive order? How is this not dictatorial rule?

Foreign policy. The president is primarily responsible for foreign policy, which even Sanders’ supporters realize he is weak on and contradicts himself frequently. At least, those who pay the least bit of attention realize. He claims to support diplomacy, yet calls leaders he does not agree with dictators and tyrants. He claims to be against use of force, yet uses the word “force” in his own foreign policy, supports sanctions and issues mandates to foreign leaders. He claims to be in favor of democracy, while stating it is the role of the US president to rebuild the UN.

Better than Trump. Yes, I support Sanders insomuch as he is better than Trump. Then again, name someone who would be worse. (Besides Hillary. She would be worse, no question.) Sanders would be marginally better than most of the other candidates the DNC is trying to push down our throats. Yet I still question deeply the ability of Sanders to beat Trump in debate in 2020. In 2016, pre-convention, I would have said he would definitely have beat Trump. It is his words and actions since that time which bring this into question. Yes, he would likely do better than the other DNC candidates. Once again, that’s not saying much. The point is that the lines have been drawn and Sanders is unlikely to attract voters across party lines in the general election, including convincing Independent voters. He would repel Libertarian voters.

Weaknesses in debate with Trump. Yes, I believe Sanders would fare better in debate with Trump than Buttigieg, Warren, absolutely better than Biden and on down the neoliberal list of the DNC. None of that means he would beat Trump in debate. He has definite weaknesses which will come up in debate with Trump which are not going to be mentioned at all in DNC debates. Such as his foreign policy. Trump’s foreign policies are dismal failures and he has insulted many leaders. However, he can point to having met with leaders we do not agree with, pushing NATO to spend more on their own defense. Sanders cannot even point to any stated policy which indicates he will meet with adversarial leaders. On Russiagate, outside of the Hillary crowd, absolutely nobody in this country believes in Russiagate, yet Sanders has continued that charade, even stating “Russia” helped his 2016 campaign. Sanders’ rhetoric indicates a leaning toward censorship. Trump has made bombastic and outrageous statements which can be construed as censorship by some but he has taken or endorsed no actions which amount to state-sponsored censorship. Sanders has never called out the fraud by the DNC in 2016 or mentioned the DNC fraud lawsuit, which will definitely come up in debate. The self-imposed label of “Socialist” Sanders has used to portray himself and which still carries negative connotations to capitalists and those of low education status will be raised.

In the end, Sanders has many weaknesses and vulnerabilities which Tulsi Gabbard would be immune to. Russiagate and Ukrainegate have moved many voters further to the right. Gabbard has the endorsements of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, not for her economic policies but because of her stances on legalizing drugs and ending wars, in addition to reaching across part lines.

Yes, if Sanders gets the nomination I will likely vote for him. Depending largely on what he says going forward. I would pinch my nose and hold my breath while pulling the lever, hoping beyond hope that he assigns someone to handle foreign policy who can do so better than he seems able or willing. Yet the truth is, I don’t expect him or any other “top-level” DNC candidate to win.

I am happy Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa. It means people have awakened marginally since 2016. I still believe in absolute terms Gabbard is the best candidate of all parties for 2020. If she does not win the nomination, I hope Sanders does. If so, the job of actual Progressives will be lighting a fire under his supporters to hold his feet to the fire regarding foreign policy. To not allow him to back down from fights against the DNC neoliberals and warmongers. No matter what, I expect independent media to have no shortage of content to produce over the next 9 years, no matter who wins 2020.

“But They HAD To..!!”

This is one of the most fatiguing things I deal with constantly regarding sociopolitical arguments. Yes, I will label them as arguments, not debates because they are built on supposition and excuse-making, not verifiable facts.

This excuse is used widely, by supporters of one official or candidate after another. Trump supporters do this a lot.

The ones nearly or just as likely to do this are Sander supporters. “But he HAD to..” campaign for Hillary, go on the DNC Unity Tour, remain silent on the DNC fraud lawsuit, sign the DNC Loyalty Pledge, agree to the DNC Unity fundraising video, say he will endorse ANY candidate the DNC runs if he does not get the nomination (something nobody else seems to have had to say), keep pushing Russiagate even in January of this year.. The list goes on endlessly.

Here is the major problem with this excuse- If you use it now, you illustrate the fact that you will continue using it if he were elected. You are not demanding changes to the system. You are surrendering to that system. The fact that you are willing to use it for basically every single perceivable flaw in his behavior, performance or policies says you would have no problem to repeat that excuse for 4 years, 8 years, etc. Why not? Many of you used that excuse with Obama for 8 years and are still doing so today.

Different entities. Under Obama, Democrats claimed he was forced into decisions by the Republican party. With Sanders, people are claiming he is forced into decisions by the Democratic party. Yet the same people who are making these claims hate the Republicans and say “we need unity” IN the Democratic party.

Anti-establishment? There is nothing anti-establishment by adopting and promoting the view that we all must surrender to the two party, corporate-owned, kleptocratic system. How is it fighting that establishment to follow their rules to such an exorbitant degree? People were willing to close their eyes and use this excuse as Obama bombed 7 countries and bailed out Wall Street. This means if Sanders started bombing even more countries, that excuse will continue. Will you do that and still claim to be antiwar?

Or else what? Many people want to use this excuse but they never have any specific threat which is allegedly being used against the candidate. So, let’s say you are correct. They HAVE to.. Or else what? Or else people will die? That’s happening now. It’s been happening for years. Or else the party will sabotage their campaign? That’s happening now and been happening for years. Or else they won’t be allowed to be on special committees? Boo hoo. If elected, they will order those committees. If not elected, how much of a change will occur? Their pay cannot be threatened. Their current elected office position cannot be threatened. What is the threat? Has their family been threatened? The best way to deal with that is to announce it publicly. NONE of these threats have EVER been recorded? AT ALL?

No, they do NOT “have to..” The simple fact of the matter is that no elected official or candidate for office HAS to do what the party orders them to do, short of illegal actions or ethics violations (which many elected officials violate all the time).

Notice that Tulsi Gabbard has not done many of the things that people claim candidates “have to do”. She is openly defiant against those rules. Yes, she has suffered repercussions within the party but she stood her ground. For which she deserves complete respect.

Stop defending cowardice and subservience to the existing system. If you really want to change the system, the way to do it is by praising and supporting those who openly defy the system. Not by closing your eyes to the dangers involved and the highly visible evidence that that person is even more of a slave to that system than their words make them appear. If you want peaceful revolution, that means YOU HAVE TO be a revolutionary. That means YOU HAVE TO stand up. That means YOU HAVE TO stop being complacent. That means YOU HAVE TO stop making excuses.

I stand with Tulsi. Because I stand. I do not bow. I do not grovel. I do NOT have to follow crowds.

Independent? Anti-Establishment? How about we make those words start meaning something besides sharing memes and holding signs while opposing those who actually fight the system? Which side are you on? The people or the Establishment? You are making that choice right this minute. You can choose either side but be honest with yourself about the choice you are making.

Iowa Was A Massive Gift To Trump

The DNC blatant rigging of the Iowa caucus was another in a series of massive gifts to Trump in the general election.

The DNC is claiming that the app they used to calculate rankings in the Iowa caucus was due to a flaw in programming. However, that flaw did not appear until 62% of the votes had been counted, showing Sanders in the lead in the popular vote. A flaw in programming? This app should have been less complex than an over the counter pocket calculator! Definitely less complex than a high end scientific calculator, available for less than $100 at Walmart.

This was no mistake, no error in coding. To use a brand new app without extensive testing in advance and no backup system to verify calculations concurrent to the first use is something no technology expert would ever approve. Yet this is what the DNC claims they did.

Blatant caucus rigging. In 2016, Sanders had an advantage in caucus states, where he had much stronger rates of success. It was in primary, especially closed primary states where he magically had lower success rates. Same states that had problems with inadequate ballots available, broken machines, long lines, voter registration changes resulting in large numbers of provisional ballots, most of which were discarded without being counted and purging of voter rolls. As a result, the DNC has been working adamantly for four years on ways to rig caucuses in any way they can.

Sanders’ response. Before he ever released his response, I knew word for word what Sanders’ response was going to be. “I am sadly disappointed.” That’s telling ’em, Bernie! They’re shaking in their boots NOW!!! What would his response have been if this had been the GOP making the same “error”? I suspect he would have much stronger words.

This is far worse than “disappointing”. There is no reason for any reasonable person to believe that this was not fully intentional. It has been widely revealed that the company, Shadow, that developed the app has direct ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC and candidate Pete Buttigieg, who just happened to be leading the delegate count in Iowa, though not the popular vote, led by Sanders.

Latest in a series of DNC machinations. Starting in 2015, the DNC has been demonstrated to have manipulated the 2016 election, with delegates pledging their votes to Clinton before the first debate ever occurred, before the first primary or caucus took place. As a response to the DNC fraud lawsuit, the DNC used the defense in federal court that they were under no obligation to offer a fair primary and could choose the nominee, “In a smoke filled back room” with no public input at all. The DNC use of superdelegates has come under extreme public scrutiny, leading the DNC to alter the rules regarding superdelegates so they cannot vote until the second round of voting in the primary. In other words, if there is a contested convention. Yet they have taken steps to insure the 2020 convention will most likely be contested. Still, it has been revealed that the DNC elite has been discussing changing those rules back and allowing superdelegates to vote in the first round of voting. They also implemented the DNC Loyalty Pledge, which states the DNC chair has the final say on who the nominee is, depending on how loyal the candidate is to the party, regardless of standing in the popular vote.

Russiagate/Ukrainegate. After more than 3 years of Russiagate beginning in mid-2016, Mueller lost in court to the Russian ad agency he himself had indicted. In the same week, immediately before his Congressional testimony, the DNC lost in federal court to Wikileaks. None of this mattered when Schiff presented his opening arguments in the impeachment trial, where Schiff resurrected Russia as a specter, sounding like he was attempting to impeach Putin rather than Trump. The literal fact of the matter is that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with the Ukraine issue. This led the GOP-majority Senate to disallow witnesses in the impeachment process, rather than allow the same false arguments to be continued for months, even years longer. Sanders could have and should have opposed Russiagate, if only after the Mueller report. Instead he helped perpetuate it even 2 weeks ago.

Drama, drama, drama. Yes, we all know Trump is extremely dramatic and childish. However, so is all of the DNC elite. On 2/4/2020, Nancy Pelosi made a dedicated show of tearing up her copy of Trump’s SOTU speech. All of Russiagate and Ukrainegate were nothing but drama. Mueller indicted the Russian ad agency for theater, believing they would have no representation in court to oppose him. Democrats turned their back on him during one SOTU address. Remember that? Is this how we want this country being run? When do we get someone to be the adult in the room?

What does all of this mean? This may help Sanders but only within the devoted Democratic voters in the primary. No matter who wins the DNC nomination, including Sanders, it is likely to cause immense harm. The only hope the Democrats were likely to have this year would have been to draw in new voters or attract voters across party lines. With all of the corruption and falsehood shown by the DNC, bringing in new voters is unlikely at best. Attracting voters across party lines simply will not happen. In fact, it seems most likely Independent voters will vote against the DNC. If that was not true before, this event cinched that deal. Voters who are not “Blue No Matter Who” will not trust the DNC, even if they dislike the GOP. Bernie has not helped by saying he will (AGAIN) endorse whomever gets the DNC nomination if he does not.

Even if we accept this as a mistake, that does not bode well for a party that is expected to be in charge of our national security. In fact it is terrifying when their emails were leaked months after the FBI offered to help secure their servers. Then THAT came after the whole drama of Hillary’s email server, which the Democrats defended ferociously and continue doing so to this day.

What the DNC has shown explicitly is that they are incompetent. Even when they are being dishonest, they are ragingly incompetent in doing so. To defend this is even more incompetent and nothing short of insane.

This was only the first primary of the year. How much worse can they make the remaining 49+?

This Is Why No Witnesses Were Allowed To Testify

For those who have been hoping for the Senate to oust Trump from office, that’s not likely. The Senate Republicans decided to not allow witnesses to testify.

Of course, the “Impeach!” crowd is crying foul. Then again, how many of them have watched even clips of the proceedings, rather than picking and choosing biased reports telling them what to think about the proceedings?

I will admit to have seen only a few clips from the proceedings but that was enough to make me understand why no witnesses would be called. Ulcerative colitis and respect for my own sanity dictated that I could only listen to Adam Schiff for so long. Just as I have never been able to listen to a Trump speech in it’s entirety or listen to Pelosi for over 2 minutes. In each case I can feel my brain cells actively imploding from the sheer vacuum emanating from the black holes which substitute for their intellects.

In his opening statements, Schiff sounded more like he was trying to impeach Vladimir Putin rather than Donald Trump. He completely ignores the fact that we have already suffered through over 3 years of Russiagate, which concluded in absolute discredit for Mueller and should have been complete shame for the Democrats and MSM. Yet here was Schiff stating such things as “Putin wakes up every morning dreaming of ways to destroy our democracy.” This while the DNC is installing methods of rigging the convention after already rigging the primary against Tulsi Gabbard. He compared Russia to a wounded animal.

He has offered such gems as “We need to fight Russia over there (Ukraine) so that we don’t have to fight them over here.” Hmm. I don’t see Russia arming Mexico or placing ABM sites along the Canadian border to the US. I do not see Russia holding massive military exercises right on our doorstep.

Yes, the US is arming Ukraine against Russia. Something happening under Trump which even Obama refused to do because of the risk involved. Never mind the fact that Ukrainian president Zelensky ran on a platform of improving relations with Russia. That’s why the people of Ukraine voted for him. Never mind that if we send weapons to Ukraine, most of those weapons wind up in the hands of right-wing neo-Nazi groups. Schiff thinks if he doesn’t mention any of that, that none of us will know about it. For most Americans, that is true. That would not fit with their 1 dimensional view of the world. “Us good, Russia bad.”

“My own presumptions.” I will hearken back to the testimony of former ambassador Sondland. When asked where he got the idea that any quid pro quo took place between Trump and Zelensky, his reply was, “By my own presumptions.” He was the absolute central source for all the information regarding the Ukraine allegations and all other “witnesses” were downstream from Sondland. There were no other direct witnesses to the events in question, so all other witness testimony relied on his account. The so-called “whistleblower” did not hear anything directly. Their own account states they heard something from someone who heard something from someone who may have heard the conversation between Trump and Zelensky.

No quid pro quo. The accusations involved are that Trump required an agreement from Zelensky that Zelensky would publicly announce that he had ordered the reopening of the corruption case involving the oil company for which Joe Biden’s civilian son worked for. Until that happened, Trump would withhold monetary aid for military purposes from Ukraine. The problem is, the funds were released to Ukraine and Zelensky never made any announcement, nor did he order the reopening of that investigation. The funds were released weeks before the initial charges were filed against Trump.

Without a proven crime, there was no obstruction. The accusations being raised against Trump do not rise to the extent of being called a crime, nor are they impeachable offenses. They would be considered ethics violations which would be best addressed by official Congressional sanction against Trump. Therefore, with no crime committed or even directly accused, there is no legal precedent to claim there was obstruction of justice because justice would only be involved regarding criminal acts. Not ethics violations.

Impeachment definition. Yes, Trump has been impeached. However, impeachment doe not mean removal from office. The official definition of impeachment per Merriam-Webster is: 1- to charge with a crime or misdemeanor. specifically To charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. 2- To cast doubt on. especially to challenge the credibility or validity of. (Such as impeaching the credibility of a court witness.)

This strengthened Trump’s support. As I and many others have warned, the result of this debacle has had the effect of strengthening support for Trump. This is more true when it comes after 3 years of Russiagate, which was a miserable and foreseeable failure. This is even more true when the Democrats openly and blatantly resuscitated Russiagate in the opening arguments for impeachment, which had absolutely nothing to do with Russia. This made it crystal clear that the Democrats are still trying to use Russia to justify Hillary’s loss in 2016 by any means possible, regardless of how immense the risk is.

It would have been better to leave him alone. The literal fact of the matter is that if the Democrats simply left Trump unmolested, his own failures would cause a massive decline in his approval ratings. The more they attack him and the attacks they choose are globally visible failures displaying an obvious witch hunt attitude, the more his approval ratings increase. Not because of actual approval for him but disapproval for the “Resistance”.

Other charges could have worked. If the Dems had used charges of war crimes or human rights abuses, the impeachment would have had far more chance of succeeding. Especially after he ordered the outright assassination of a foreign military leader of a country we are not at war with. This action violating the sovereignty of an “allied” nation, nevertheless one that had ordered our military to leave before that happened. Then including the concurrent assassination of one of Iraq’s own military leaders. However, using such charges would entail the Democrats objecting to what has become standard US policy, which they do not oppose in the least. Trump could order the assassinations of Putin and they would still claim it was Putin’s idea. He could order the murders of Xi, Kim Jong Un, Maduro, Duterte and maybe Merkel and they would not file charges against him for any of it, long as they got to sell more bombs.

This ends the DNC platform. Perpetuating Russiagate and keeping the impeachment going all the way through 2020 was the DNC platform for this election year. They seem to literally have nothing else aside from rigging the primary in favor of Biden or Bloomberg. So this tactic has failed, which was highly predictable. Honestly, I did not expect it to happen this quickly but I am very happy it did. That does not mean it will change anything the Dems do for the rest of the year. I fully expect them to continue having nothing to discuss as a party for all of 2020 except “hate Trump” and “Russia, Russia, Russia”. Doing anything else would mean the DNC as a party would have to move leftward, which they have no intention of doing. For now, they have no more distractions to use for anyone that is conscious. For the far too many that are not conscious, they will go right along with talking about the impeachment for the rest of the year, with neoliberal MSM leading the way.