DANGEROUS DISTRUST OF ELECTORAL PROCESS

Yes, I did call for President Trump to resign two weeks ago. However, it may surprise readers to know that if I could go back to 2016, I would vote for him again; 2020 too. Despite his behavior since losing reelection, I see his presidency as a net positive. Impeaching him now is farcical given that he’s leaving office anyway but the Dems want to prevent him from ever running again because they’re afraid of him.

Biden brags about getting Ukraine prosecutor fired

This latest impeachment for inciting violence may have grounds, unlike the 2020 effort which charged Trump with asking Ukrainians to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling. Pelosi ignored then-vice-president Biden on videotape threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to stop a Ukrainian investigation into Hunter Biden. Mainstream media allies cooperated on both fronts.

Ever since Trump got the Republican nomination in the summer of 2016, mainstream media has amplified every Democrat effort to impugn him. First they magnified the Clinton campaign’s fabricated Steele Dossier and dubious Trump/Russian collusion story. They ignored Obama’s use of intelligence agencies to spy on Trump’s campaign before the 2016 election and then afterward on his transition team. They cheerleaded the dubious Mueller Investigations into General Flynn and President Trump, neither of which found anything to prosecute and only succeeded in bankrupting Flynn, destroying his reputation, and crippling Trump’s presidency.

Conservatives did a slow burn watching all this and 90% negative media coverage of Trump’s presidency despite its long string of successes: Trump isolated Iran and its terrorism. He killed Iran General Soleimani, ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and al-Qaeda leader Qasim al-Rimi, among others. He forged the Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab leaders. He spurred economic growth that Obama claimed would be impossible. He reduced illegal immigration and built over 400 miles of new border wall. He hammered out favorable trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, the EU, and China. He appointed hundreds of pro-life judges and three originalist Supreme Court justices.

He eliminated the Obamacare individual mandate, reformed the VA, withdrew from the Paris Accord and the Iran nuclear agreement, got NATO Countries to pay their fair share, cut restrictions on oil drilling and coal exports, fast-tracked and funded a COVID vaccine, brought unemployment to record lows, raised median household income to record level, brought home troops from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, reformed the criminal justice system, and created the Space Force. Trump may be the most controversial president ever, but he’s also one of the most accomplished, especially considering he did all that in four years.

After losing on November 3rd, however, Trump claimed election fraud. Mainstream media said there was no evidence. Millions of Trump voters however, watched as Trump was winning that evening when swing states abruptly stopped counting votes, sent observers home, and resumed counting. By morning they were reporting that Trump was losing. Pennsylvania extended its deadline for counting votes without constitutional authority, after which the votes swung to Biden.

Is that evidence of election fraud or coincidence? Millions of Trump voters believe it was cheating. Mainstream media denied it all and called the election for Trump. Hundreds of observers made sworn depositions of voter fraud. That is evidence. Only two eyewitnesses, for example, are needed for a murder conviction and sometimes only one, but mainstream media continued claiming there was no evidence. There’s also video of ballot stuffing in Georgia. Law suits alleging fraud were dismissed on procedural grounds like lack of standing. There is plenty of evidence for election fraud largely perpetrated by Democrats, though probably not enough to overturn the result.

Our Founders gave us freedom of speech for many reasons, but one was for irate citizens to blow off steam by expressing their anger verbally and in writing. Here in 2021, people don’t use 18th century broadsheets; they use Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

Those outlets are owned and run by leftists who have been censoring news and posts with which they disagree, especially about election fraud. Because they’re private companies, they probably aren’t violating the 1st Amendment, but they’ve assumed enormous political power and they’re using it against conservatives, so far under the legal protection of Section 230.

We now have a huge percentage of our electorate that no longer trusts the electoral process. One could debate whether that mistrust is justified or not, but there’s little dispute that it exists. That is a huge threat to our republic that should give all of us the shivers.

Trump has been accused of narcissism even by supporters. What they at first saw as a character flaw was turning into an unraveling after his election loss, and it accelerated week-to-week. By January 6th it had completely blinded him to the political reality that Biden’s election would not be overturned. His unwillingness to accept that is embarrassing for all who voted for him. I will not vote for him in any 2024 primary and I hope he doesn't get the Republican nomination again. Right now I'm looking at Nikki Haley.

WILL IT HAPPEN AGAIN?

Regular readers of this column know where I’ll be putting my X on November 3rd. Four years ago, however, I was wasn’t thrilled about voting for Donald Trump. His personality was repulsive. His gratuitous insults were off-putting. It didn’t bother me, however, that he called his final opponent “Crooked Hillary,” because she was crooked. During one of their debates, Hillary said it was a good thing we didn’t have Donald Trump in charge of the law in our country.

“Because you’d be in jail,” said Trump. His timing was exquisite and I was thinking, “Who is this guy?” I could have kissed him.

It bothered me, however, that he had badly trashed his fellow Republican candidates in the primaries. Most of them were decent people and didn’t deserve it. During the ensuing campaign against Crooked Hillary, I agreed with nearly everything Trump said he would do, but doubted he would follow through. Politicians all make promises… you know the rest. Meanwhile, the Democrat media — and that’s just about all of it — gave him enormous attention. Trump charged up their viewership because no one who talked like he did had ever become the nominee of a major political party.

If mainstream media knew then how much they were helping his election chances with the exposure they gave him, they never would have done it. Against all odds, he won, making fools of media pundits. Hillary lost and “charitable” contributions to the Clinton Foundation dried up immediately. Liberals were in shock. They cried openly. Me? I found myself cheering, and that surprised me. I had to sit down and think about why I was so happy. Part of it was the shock on the faces of smug mainstream media pundits. They didn’t know what to say. They never saw it coming. Neither did I actually, but I liked it.

The day after Trump won, Democrats and their media allies began plotting to reverse the election and overthrow Trump, by hook or by crook and mostly the latter. Obama was still in office, so he and his lackeys in the intelligence agencies continued what Crooked Hillary was doing — working with Russians to smear Trump. They used the Steele Dossier which was bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign and the Democrat National Committee and tried to convince us all that Trump was a Russian asset.

Trouble is, they had no evidence. Nothing in the Steele Dossier was true, but that didn’t stop them. Trump haters in the deep state conspired to appoint a special prosecutor to dig up evidence.  There was none to dig up, but it took Robert Meuller and his huge staff two years and over $30 million before he was forced to admit it. They lied; they spied, and Trump was still standing. After Democrats won control of the House in 2018, they impeached him for a phone call he made to Ukraine about Biden family shenanigans, but he was found not guilty in the Senate.

Then, ironically, Hunter Biden left a laptop with a computer repairman in Delaware and forgot to pick it up. On it are emails indicating that both Hunter Biden and his father, Joe, were indeed involved in shenanigans with Ukraine — and elsewhere. Also on it are videos allegedly showing Hunter Biden having sex with minors. A further irony is that, four years ago, Anthony Weiner’s laptop fell into the hands of the NYPD pursuant to their investigation into Weiner exposing himself to underage girls online. Also on it were over 30,000 of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump remains in need of a personality transplant — but he has followed through on his campaign promises. I don’t have to like him, but I am going to vote for him without misgivings. Why? I’ll quote a nameless young lady whose video explaining that in less than a minute was posted on Gateway Pundit here. A partial transcript follows:

Here she is

“If you are liberal and can’t stand Trump and can’t possibly fathom why anyone would vote for him, let me fill you in.  We can’t stand you.  You’ve done everything in your power by trying to destroy this country by tearing down our police, our borders, our history, systematically destroying our schools and brainwashing our kids into thinking socialism is the answer to everything. Demonizing religion and faith and glorifying abortion, violence and thug culture.  And calling us racists… We are voting for Trump because of you!”

Maybe it sums up why you too vote for Donald Trump. If he’s reelected, I’ll enjoy watching mainstream media pundits go nuts again, but I’m afraid of what their followers will do in the streets. Meanwhile, those pundits are trying to blame Russia for the Hunter Biden laptop scandal they're trying desperately to contain. Will it work?

LEFT & RIGHT SHOW WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2020

David Jones, history teacher at Fryeburg Academy and instructor at Granite State College, sits in the left chair this week. I invited him on the show after he wrote a letter to the editor criticizing one of my columns. His letter is one of our topics.

As usual, we open with a question from the producer concerning recent arrests by federal officers protecting federal property in Portland, Oregon. It asks whether we agree that federal officials should be there to quell protests, and questions their tactics, allegedly including arrests without informing those arrests of the charges against them.

I’m against quelling protests, but believe strongly that resulting riots, arson, and looting must be quelled. Local, Democrat mayors and governors are sanctioning these crimes and that’s dangerous. If, as claimed, people are arrested and held without being informed of the charges, it’s a violation of their due process rights. Federal officials are constitutionally allowed to protect federal property no matter where it is.

David believes Trump might be playing to his base in this election year by deploying federal officials to confront rioters. It remains to be seen if that is politically efficacious for him. Citing effectiveness of the sixties civil rights protests in swaying public opinion, he suggests today’s swing voters are with Black Lives Matter protestors. 

From there we opine about President Trump and his policies, with me supporting the latter and David supporting neither.

At the end of the show we address David’s letter about my column’s claims that college professors are overwhelming leftist. I cite various sources including a wide-ranging statistical study indicating that the Democrat to Republican ratio of college professors and their political contributions in an election year is as high as 95:1.

David counters that the National Association of Scholars who did the study favors traditional study of western civilization. He asserts the more important question would be: does that bias manifest in biased teaching?

I cite the books used most in our prestigious graduate schools of education (like Columbia) as being overwhelmingly leftist. The best-selling book of them all is by Bill Ayers, an unapologetic, radical revolutionary who is proud of bombing banks and military installations during the sixties and seventies. He teaches teachers at the University of Illinois Chicago and he advocates “teaching for social responsibility” which he believes means turning out little revolutionaries across the country in our public schools.

David suggests that part of academic inquiry is reading those books that are on the fringe. He takes issue with the terms “anarchist” and “radical Marxist” and says there are no working definitions for them.

I say a Marxist is an anti-capitalist at least before we run out of time.

Left & Right Thursday, June 4, 2020

We start with a question from the producer: "Do you agree with the generals that moving the protesters [from Lafayette Park] was a violation of their constitutional rights? Mark said he would be.motivated to demonstrate against that action if he lived in Washington, DC. I don't agree with Mattis and other generals that deploying the military to suppress violence would be a violation of the Constitution as the generals state. I don't think it's necessary to do so yet, but we're' getting close. We discuss my column for the week which denies that "systemic racism" exists. I define racism, which is a belief that race is inherently superior or inferior to another. Mark would expand that to various manifestations of what I would call discrimination. He cited discomfort whites might experience encountering a group of blacks given the high crime rates among young black men. I don't see that as racism by a white person against blacks. I see it as logical caution given known crime statistics. We go into several other topics like Twitter and the First Amendment. Mark says social media uses "platforms" and is not subject to the same regulations as newspapers and TV stations.

Left & Right February 26, 2020

Jim Wilfong again sits in the left chair. 

The producer asks if we believe our government is doing enough to combat Russian influence in our elections. I question that there even is disproportionate Russian influence in our elections. Jim assumes they are interfering but so are other countries. He’s worried that now Russians can hack our elections electronically and use social media to influence voters — things they didn’t have in Cold War days.

I ask why do we have to know the results of elections right away? Why can’t we wait until the next day when all the paper ballots are counted? Jim blames the 24-hour news cycle.

Jim brings up Jefferson wanting mandatory public education so citizens could learn civics and make intelligent decisions at the polls. I suggest that education has to teach facts, but also the ability to distinguish fact from opinion, feelings from thoughts — critical thinking. Jim says students need to learn how to gather facts, interpret them, and make decisions.

We discuss government bailouts of private businesses large and small and both of us are against them. Companies should sink or swim based on their decisions and performance. Bankruptcy can be a good thing because more efficient companies will take over. Jim brings up other companies in the supply chain for a big company like GM which was bailed out by government. From there we do to corona virus disruptions in China affecting the US economy which was then just beginning.

Jim related an interesting experience from 20n years ago in Brasilia — a city in the Amazon region — where he ran across eleven American CDC personnel permanently stationed there to monitor viruses and bacteria.

I raise the American tradition of innovative thinking from the bottom up. Ordinary people come up with ideas, convince others to help, and make them happen. This is rather unique to the US as not many other countries encourage this. Jim agrees.

The producer asked why the Russians would want a Bernie Sanders victory. Jim suggests maybe they think Sanders is a weaker candidate who would lose to Trump who they really want to win.

I read a quote from Bernie when he was mayor of Burlington and advocated government takeover of banks, factories, utilities, oil companies, etc. So, Bernie thought like a communist then. What does he mean now when he says he’s a Democratic Socialist?

We discuss what powers different levels of our government may use to control the corona virus as it spreads. Where do civil liberties come in? What does our Constitution allow? We discuss how the virus spread might play out politically. Trump looks like a shoe-in now, but will things change before November?

We discuss our medical issues we both are dealing with recently and the politics of health insurance.

Left & Right -- Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Mark Guerringue sits in the left chair. Our producer's first question asks about AG Barr’s recommendation of a reduced sentence for Roger Stone. Do we think Barr did it at the behest of President Trump?

I say Barr is sharp enough to know the former Mueller prosecutors who recommended the high sentence were out to get Donald Trump and his associates and doubt any collusion between the Barr and the president.

Mark thinks I’m “defending another criminal” and Stone gets what he deserves. He claims I believe in the Deep State which he says doesn’t exist except as “another conspiracy from the right.” He cites a retired FBI agent he spoke with who claims Trump was demoralizing to the FBI by his constant attacks.

I cite another retired FBI agent with whom I’ve spoken who has almost the same background as Mark’s guy but who has the opposite opinion and sees the Deep State for what it is.

Mark asks could Bernie, as an outsider, win the presidency the way Trump the outsider did four years ago? I don’t think he can because he isn’t flexible. His support is based on his unchanging nature, that even people who think him too radical-left trust him because he’s always been that way. Mark’s paper, the Conway Daily Sun, endorsed Bernie.

Mark believes that many of the Bernie supporters out there would vote for Trump if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination because they’re both outsiders. Mark says he voted for Amy Klobuchar in NH primary but wrote the editorial endorsing Bernie because “the job of the paper is to come up with the best candidate for the Democratic Party,” and does the same for the Republican Party.

Mark thinks Bernie will likely lose to Trump, but maybe not. If he gets elected he’ll push Medicare for all, but won’t get it. He’ll just tweak Obamacare. I read a quote from Pete Buttigieg two years ago endorsing Medicare for all, but he’s changed his mind since.

I raise Trump’s new Middle East Peace Plan in which Palestine gets the West Bank in exchange for acknowledging Israel’s right to exist — the old Oslo Plan essentially — but the Palestinians have only four years to accept it. If they don’t, the United States would support Isreal annexing the West Bank. What’s new now is that Saudi Arabia and Egypt won’t object to the plan. It’s a game-changer.

Mark asks what Trump could do to lose support from Republicans. I say he could stop appointing conservative judges and that would do it. Mark says the economy is doing well, and if that changes it could affect the November election, but incumbents usually win anyway.

I bring up the UK out of the EU and mistakenly say “Trump endorsed Jeremy Corbyn.” I meant Bernie endorsed him and I compare Boris Johnson to Trump. I see Brexit as a move toward decentralization of government similar to what conservatives want in the United States. Mark sees the EU as politically stabilizing for a Europe which erupted in wars large and small every generation. 

We take the second question from the producer: “How will Mitt Romney’s vote to convict affect his political career?”  Mark says he’ll make history as the only senator the same party as an impeached president to vote guilty but it won’t hurt his career. I say Romney comes across as a wimp and he’s been that way on the national stage. It’s why he lost to Obama. He lacks spine.

Mark says Iowa and NH should continue as first-in-the-nation caucus and primary because they’re demographically representative of the USA as a whole. I suspect the major parties will likely move away from those states.

Left & Right October 23, 2019

Newspaper publisher Mark Guerringue again sits in the left chair and we open with a question from the producer about whether President Trump has improperly profited from his business enterprises as president. I cite the now-dropped plan to use Trump's Doral facility for a G-7 meeting, a resort that has been losing money of late. I question whether Trump meant to let it be used free to taxpayers as he said. Mark cites a Washington Post story of 2500 instances where Trump has profited from government using his facilities worldwide, and that his sons are making plans for future resorts in Asia post-presidency. Mark raises a recent statement by former Ambassador William Taylor, who claims in an opening statement before his secret testimony to Adam Schiff's committee that there was a quid pro quo between Trump and the Ukrainian president. Not having read the 15-page Taylor statement, I question him about details. Mark said I" took my eye off the ball" and I asked what ball? I said the ball his eye seems to be on is getting rid of Trump and I see this Taylor statement as another in a series of "We got him now!" efforts to bring Trump down ever since his inauguration. Mark sums that up as old conspiracy theories. I see Trump's experience dealing with corrupt politicians in NYC as good background enabling him to deal with strongmen in the world. Mark suggested that I think "Cozying up to all the dictators in the world is good foreign policy." I respond that any US leader has to deal with scumbags and sometimes "cozy up" to them to get things done. It's the nature of the job. My stated position is that I agree with what Trump is doing domestically and in foreign policy. Compared to what the Democrat candidates want to do, I'm still with Trump in spite of his sometimes obnoxious behavior. I suggest that Mark looks at most recent political events in the context of getting rid of Trump. He says he isn't. He says there are clear reasons to impeach him: non-cooperation with the House impeachment efforts, emoluments, Ukrainian things, etc. Mark said I look at conspiracy theory web sites and get obscure information that supports my political views. I say I look at lots of web sites, including the ones he looks at but he only visits the ones that support his world views and not sites that offer contradictory information. With five minutes left, we take the second question from the producer: "Which candidates gave the strongest and weakest performances in the most recent Democrat debate?" Having only seen parts of it, I suggest that Buttageig gave a strong performance and Biden gave a weak one, that he's never seemed a very bright guy and now seems to be more and more confused about what he's saying, and maybe he's in the early stages of dementia. Mark saw little of it too, but he thinks Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttegeig did well. He doesn't think Biden has dementia. "I think Biden's always been Biden," and he thinks the primary process pushes Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right. I close with the 2200 dead babies found by an abortionist from South Bend clinics that Mayor Pete didn't mention for over a month. That the abortionist was an admirer of Adolph Hitler. Mark hadn't heard about it and I said that was because his web sites avoid those issues. He asked why I think they'd avoid the Nazi angle. I suggested that it was because Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had views on eugenics similar to Hitler's and media would avoid mentioning abortion in that context.

Left & Right September 25, 2019

Mark Guerringue sits in the left chair for this show. We immediately address the producer's first question: "If President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine as a means of pressuring them to dig up dirt on Joe Biden's son, should he be impeached?"

Mark says Trump and Giuliani have already admitted it, that's an impeachable offense, and Pelosi had no choice. (I should mention that the transcript of the call hadn't been released at this point in the show).

We compare Trump's possible impeachment with Clinton's impeachment, the process as it was begun under Nixon, and could have been under Reagan after the Iran-Contra scandal. We agree that's it's both a political process and a legal one, but mostly a political one.

We discuss how the Clinton impeachment backfired on the Republicans and speculated about how it could backfire against Democrats if they should proceed against Trump.

While we're talking, the producer brings us print-outs of the whistleblower's transcript just being released. Mark reads it and there's some damning stuff, but no smoking gun. Then again, it's only a few pages of a larger transcript.

Mark pivots to the Democrat primaries saying Elizabeth Warren is catching fire, while Bernie is sinking. I refer to that morning's proposal of a "wealth registry" by Bernie to one-up Warren's proposed "Wealth Tax" of taking 2% of the total assets of wealthy people annually. Bernie now wants to freeze their assets and take even more.

I bring up a transcript of a staff meeting in the New York Times last month in which its editor acknowledges how his paper geared up to cover the "Russian Collusion" story which went bust and how disappointed NYT readers were that Trump was still standing. Then the editor said he was gearing up to cover Trump and racism until the 2020 election. I said it was an example of the NYT and other leftist mainstream media orchestrating stories and narratives.

Mark said it was all okay and that's the way newspapers should operate. I said, "Okaaaay..."

Lastly, he brought up the continuing, extensive coverage of a duck killing by some football players at Kennett High School. I said I was amazed that it got so much attention. "I mean, it's a duck," I said. Mark said it was more the reaction of the community that the coach and other school officials should have handed down worse penalties than a three or four-game suspension. He asked me if I agreed. I said I agreed with the coach.

Left & Right September 11, 2019

Occupying the left chair for this show is my old friend, Jim Wilfong. He's a Democrat former Maine state representative, a selectman in Stow, Maine, a former Small Business Administration official in the Clinton Administration, a former trade advisor for the Bush and Obama Administrations as well as other titles which you can see at the beginning of the show. I hope he'll come back for future shows as well.

The first question from the producer asked if we think it was appropriate for President Trump to have the Taliban on US soil during the week of 9/11. Jim did not and neither did I. From there, we discussed Afghanistan both historically and today. We discussed where each of was on September 11th.

We discussed how some aspects of the long Cold War between the US and Russia continue. Jim claims our #1 export is weaponry, which was surprising to me. We discussed the positive and negative aspects of that.

From there we discussed the Democrat field of candidates for president, and I recalled Jim's early support in the 1980s of Joe Biden. Now he's intrigued by Andrew Yang and Elizabeth Warren. Yang because of his discussion of technology's impact on employment, especially in the future. He likes the way Warren is critical of Wall Street and big business, him being a small business guy.

Jim goes into the feasibility of alternative energy sources in light of the importance of fossil fuels in developing third-world economies.

I call attention to the rise of socialism in the Democrat Party, especially polls showing a majority of young Democrats favoring socialism over capitalism. I cite Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's election and Democrat chairman Tom Perez saying she's the future of the party. I cite her chief of staff's claim that the Green New Deal is primarily a vehicle to take over the US economy, and not a remedy for climate change.

Jim says the future direction of the Democrat Party remains to be seen, that political winds shift quickly. I hope he's right, but I'm not so sure. He's optimistic about young entrepreneurs he's working with and sees them as capitalists with a concern for their community. I take that to mean that believes free enterprise will prevail among the young so long as small business survives as a big part of our overall economy.

We reflected on the benefits of teaching for a long time in the same community. We get to meet with them and hear from them as they become adults and work in the community.

We end with me citing recent New York Times news-shaping strategies as revealed by a transcript surreptitiously recorded and published in Slate Magazine. We speculate about what news outlets come closest the ideal of straight news sans opinion.

Left & Right July 31, 2019

Newspaper publisher Mark Guerringue sits in the left chair for this episode. The producer gives us two questions to start with: Are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren too far left to beat Trump? I answer that if the election were held today, Trump would win, but it's a long way off and anything could happen in the next fifteen months. The Democrat field is so far left that what we used to consider centrist has also shifted considerably to the left to the point where John Delaney is called moderate. Mark believes Delaney, Hickenlooper and Bullock to be moderate because they're capitalist and don't want to give free medical care to undocumented immigrants. Mark also contends that Mitch McConnell is blocking efforts to monitor/regulate social media, thus enabling Russians and others to continue influencing elections. I say all that is overblown and an issue manufactured by Democrats to harass the Trump Administration. Mark asked what I think of Meuller's appearance before Congress. I said Meuller appeared doddering, incompetent, showing signs of dementia. Mark emphasized that Meuller responded "Yes" to a Democrat congressman's question: "Would you have recommended indictment if Trump were not president?" Mark believes there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in spite of the Mueller report claim that there wasn't. I question whether Meuller wrote the report, that he appeared incompetent at the hearing and I believe the entire Russia collusion affair was invented by the Obama Administration intelligence apparatus, the Hillary Campaign, and the DNC, that they all spied on the Trump Campaign, the Trump Transition Team, and the Trump White House. I believe there will be indictments of several people associated with those organizations. A grand jury is right now investigating this under special prosecutor Durham. I contend there is little or no evidence for the ubiquitous charges that Trump is racist. All his "evidence" is circumstantial, that he questioned Obama's birthplace only because Obama was black -- that he criticized the Squad because only because they're brown and black. He [Trump] just is [racist], Mark claims. It's obvious, he says. Not to me it isn't. I claim Trump's criticism of the squad is because of the Squad's views, but the left, including Mark in this case, says it's only because of their skin color. I contend that cities around the country that Democrats have run for sixty years are hell-holes. Mark says they're thriving, that they're centers of entrepreneurship. He discounts that the murders in Chicago and Baltimore have anything to do with Democrat leadership.

Free Everything For Everyone

What can 2020 Democrats say to the millions of Americans who have scrimped and sacrificed for a decade or more to pay off student loans? Do Democrat presidential candidates give them any thought at all when proposing to erase a trillion-and-a-half dollars of student debt that others owe? Will there be a reparations program for those who worked like slaves to pay off their loans? Or, must we pay the debts others incurred as well? Where is the justice in that?

My choice of where to attend college was based on what I could afford and Massachusetts state colleges and universities were within my reach. Others at my small, Catholic high school went on to expensive, private colleges because their parents could afford to pay, or because they took out loans. Taxpayers in Massachusetts subsidized the universities from which I graduated and I appreciate that, but I paid taxes too because I’ve worked since I was sixteen, including while I was in high school and college. I worked full-time during two years of undergrad and another two years of grad school.

Working is what I was doing while many of my peers were smoking weed and drinking beer in dorms and frat houses. Never did I take loans or grants from government, and I didn’t ask my parents for money either, knowing I was one of eight children. I paid my own way, but when my wife went back to school later in life she took out some loans because we had four children, some of whom were also going to college. We paid those loans off within a few years and celebrated the last installment.

Not only would some 2020 Democrats forgive student loans, but they’d also make college free as well. Taxpayers would fund students who major in women’s studies, gender studies, and queer studies, and other majors of questionable academic value even though there are few, if any, jobs for which those “studies” prepare them. Democrat candidates are promising all kinds of free stuff — and not just for Americans either. During last Thursday’s televised debate, a moderator asked how many of them supported free healthcare for illegal aliens and every hand went up. Two weeks ago I wrote about hundreds of illegal aliens from Africa who walked across the Rio Grande and instantly became legal by telling border guards they were seeking asylum. From Texas, they were put on buses to Portland, Maine.

The Democrats who have retaken control of Maine government are working hard to renew state welfare subsidies for the City of Portland when that city gives welfare to former illegal aliens — now asylees. California recently authorized free healthcare to illegal aliens. Most of the Democrat presidential candidates promise “Medicare For All” if they’re elected. What they don’t tell us is that hospitals and other health care providers would go out of business if they had to accept only Medicare rates for their services.

When my primary care physician (PCP) was fired from Bridgton Hospital for refusing to take on the huge caseload new management tried to impose on him, I had to search for a new PCP. My wife’s PCP had left Bridgton Hospital earlier and joined Intermed in Portland, but that practice wasn’t taking on any more Medicare patients — which is what I had become when I turned sixty-six. I understood why; they were losing money on Medicare patients. Fortunately for me, however, my wife’s PCP agreed to take me on anyway.

My point here is that private health insurance payments far exceed low Medicare rates, but even with those de facto subsidies, Medicare is still projected to go broke. Still, Democrat presidential candidates are declaring they would abolish private health insurance if elected — which would, of course, hasten Medicare’s bankruptcy. About 150 million Americans pay for private health insurance policies.

Here’s hoping I’m not wrong in my belief that voters in 2020 will realize we cannot afford what Democrats are proposing. Heck, we can’t even afford what we’re doing now with the national debt increasing at almost a trillion dollars a year. In 2019 our $22 trillion debt eclipsed our gross domestic product (GDP) and shows no sign of slowing down. The two biggest drivers of annual budget deficits are Social Security and Medicare and politicians of both stripes lack sufficient courage to tackle those “third-rail” issues.

I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and will likely vote for him again in 2020 if present trends continue. However, he’s not doing much about deficit spending. He has increased economic growth with tax cuts and reduced regulation. Federal revenue is up as a result, but not enough to balance the budget. Unfortunately, the best I can say about Trump and the deficit is that the Democrats are likely to be worse than he has been. 

Smelling Trump Supporters

Each time I enter Walmart in North Conway, New Hampshire I think about the 2016 text from former FBI agent Peter Strzok to his girlfriend, FBI Attorney Lisa Page: “Just went to a southern Virginia Wal-Mart,” Strzok wrote. “I could SMELL the Trump support.” Both were deeply into what now appears to have been a Machiavellian scheme to prevent Donald Trump from winning the 2016 election.

Walmart draws a different demographic than, say, a Sears Store, but it’s still in business while Sears is bankrupt. It sells almost every kind of item and usually at the lowest prices, so it’s no wonder the poor shop there. Often I hear condescending remarks about Walmart shoppers from people who think themselves elite sophisticates, a large percentage of whom I suspect supported Hillary. Where might Peter Strzok have smelled them? Whole Foods? Bloomingdales?

How many Walmart shoppers voted against Hillary after they heard her remarks about Trump’s supporters delivered shortly after the Strzok text above? “To just be grossly generalist, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call ‘the basket of deplorables,’” Hillary Clinton told donors gathered at a Manhattan restaurant in September, 2016. “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.” Many pundits think that remark cost her the election weeks later.

Ken Langone

After shopping at Walmart, I will often go to the nearby Home Depot or Lowe’s for tools and supplies. I think about the shoppers there and wonder about their politics. Mostly they’re tradesmen or do-it-yourselfers looking for the same items I am. They’re purpose-driven, knowing what they need for a particular project. They know how stuff works and know how to fix things when they break down.

Bernie Marcus

In the parking lot are many pickup trucks. I might see a Trump sticker but almost never a Bernie or Hillary sticker. I don’t see very many political stickers because contractors don’t wish to put off clients. Most small businessmen keep their politics private. I suggest Peter Strzok would “smell” more Trump supporters at a Home Depot or Lowe’s than at a Walmart.

Strzok and Page, in concert with many others, did everything they could to prevent Donald Trump from winning. They also worked the Hillary Clinton email investigation that recommended she not be indicted. Then they worked on the “counterintelligence” investigation of Donald Trump that turned into a criminal investigation shortly after his election. Mueller eventually fired them after their caustic, anti-Trump texts went public. According to the Washington Post, some went like this: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok in August 2016. “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Peter Strzok as he testified before Congress

Well, they didn’t stop it, but the two lovers were soon hired by Mueller to work in his dubious Russian collusion investigation, which they probably thought would lead to Trump’s impeachment. It didn’t, but Democrats are still hoping to impeach Trump for “obstructing justice” during the investigation into a “crime” for which it found zero evidence.

Electricians, plumbers, mechanics, and other tradesmen are called in to solve real-world problems. They diagnose, then figure out the easiest ways to make a repair. If they don’t solve problems they don’t stay in business. Neither politicians nor media operate under those constraints, however. Political problems like crime, terrorism, trade deficits, poverty, illegal immigration, deficit spending, unemployment, and so forth are reported by media. Politicians diagnose causes and propose solutions — but are not held accountable when problems persist or even worsen.

They escape accountability either by mouthing platitudes via teleprompter, by redefining the problems, or by proposing increased spending on heretofore unsuccessful remedies. For decades media assisted by glossing over failed solutions. When Donald Trump came down his escalator in June 2015, spoke plainly about what was causing our problems, and, without a teleprompter, explained what he would do about them, politicians and establishment media laughed.

When his poll numbers rose, media said it was a fluke and wouldn’t last. Months later he was brushing aside sixteen Republican opponents and cruising toward the nomination. A complete outsider with neither political nor military experience, he had it sewn up by June 2016 and the only thing standing between him and the presidency was Hillary Clinton — and she was under FBI investigation.

Together with Director Comey, Attorney General Lynch, and others, they successfully broomed the Hillary investigation, but Trump was elected anyway and Mueller found no collusion. Now the tables have turned and the investigators are themselves subjects of at least two investigations, one by another special prosecutor named John Durham appointed by Attorney General Barr.

Millions of ordinary people like the tradesmen I see at Home Depot have been watching this unfold right along. They know Trump’s solutions have been working in spite of vociferous opposition from Strzok and his ilk — whose chickens are now coming home to roost.