Politics

Ridiculous

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

Yesterday in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment on the six page letter sent to her by the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump.

“No comment,” she said while walking hurriedly to her next meeting.  “It’s ridiculous,” she continued.  Trump’s letter was a head strong opinion of all that he felt is wrong with the Impeachment process. “I haven’t read it, ” she continued, “we’ve been very busy today.”

We wonder.  She said that she had no comment.  But, she did call it ridiculous.  That sounds like a comment.   She said that she hadn’t read it.  But, she did call it ridiculous.  How would she know that it was if she hadn’t read it?  Ridiculous, that is.

Last night the House Rules Committee was working well into the evening(earning the people’s business) to determine the exact proceedings for today’s full House hearing prior to two separate votes.  At 10PM or so EST they decided that there would be six hours of hearings on the most important vote any of them will make in their lifetimes.  Six hours for 435 representatives equates to 50 seconds per member.  It sounds like many, many will only actually have time to say “yea” or “nay.”

A few years and biscuits ago.

At least they concluded their meeting with finality in their decisions.  Late last week Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, decided to suspend that committee’s meeting as the evening had grown too late.  It was nearly the same 10PM.  He reconvened in the AM for the world to see the adoption of the two Articles of Impeachment.  Grandstanding.  Or, perhaps Jerry needed a late night snack.  Ridiculous.

Meanwhile, yesterday the FISA Court in a rare public expression, came out in a strongly worded opinion against the FBI’s now exposed abuse and likely criminal behavior in obtaining warrants to surveil the Trump Campaign to begin with.   Ridiculous.

The Johnny on the Spot FBI wanted everyone to know that they were going to quickly make changes.   “As [FBI Director Christopher Wray] has stated, the inspector general’s report describes conduct by certain FBI employees that is unacceptable and unrepresentative of the FBI as an institution,” the bureau responded in a statement Tuesday night. “The director has ordered more than 40 corrective steps to address the report’s recommendations, including some improvements beyond those recommended by the IG.”

A quick THREE years later it’s time to change.  And, more than 40 corrective steps were ordered!  So, illegally obtained warrants designed to surveil for possible illegal activity provided all the cover needed to continue the FBI’s illegal surveillance.  Got it.  Ridiculous.

Wall St seems totally unfazed.  Since the Impeachment Inquiry was formalized just seven weeks ago in the House the Dow is up 6%, the S&P 8%, and the NASDAQ 10%.  They know that this is going absolutely nowhere.  Perhaps we should impeach more Presidents.

All of which brings us to today.  The full House will convene, and after six hours of burning the retreads off of tires that long ago should have been retired, they will vote almost 100% down party lines.  The Democrats will say “yea” more times than the Republicans can say “nay.”  Then the “yea’s” will have it, and presto, Trump will be impeached.   Is it even possible for two power hungry sides to see things, or at least pretend to see things, so clearly differently?  Ridiculous.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is preparing for the possibility of a January month long Senate Impeachment Trial(circus).  Though just yesterday he hinted at an immediate dismissal vote after the Impeachment Articles are formally entered onto the Senate floor.

Hopefully he won’t be too busy to read the articles while walking in front of all of his staff members down the hallowed halls like the Madame Speaker was yesterday.  If so, he’ll likely have “no comment,” just like Pelosi did, or did not.   Ridiculous.

Keep hope alive!

 

 

 

It’s a Marathon, or Two.

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

Have you ever run a marathon?  It’s quite a feat to cross off of your bucket list we assume.  Accomplished runners will tell you that the only thing worse than the physical grind is the mental grind.  Surely you’ve heard of hitting the wall around mile 20 or so and having to really dig deep to will yourself to the finish line.

Did you feel like the impeachment marathon had at least reached the proverbial wall earlier this week when Nancy Pelosi (CA) stepped up to the podium to provide the encouragement needed for Adam Schiff (CA) and Jerry Nadler (NY) to get the articles drafted?  It worked.  Amazingly, just a day or so later, flanked by more two more New Yorkers and two more Californians, Schiff and Nadler announced that President Donald J. Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors would be headed to a congressional vote.

If the Democratic Party controlled House vote has a majority in the “yea” column, the marathon concludes in the Senate in a full trial.  It seems like it’s taken forever to run this race.  It’s started on The Hill and has slowly wound it’s way to just six point two miles now from the very bottom.  The race is unique as each mile either shares a name with another or has a unique one all to itself.

Let’s refresh your three year, first 20 mile by mile memory.  1.  Tax returns.  2. The Steele Dossier.  3.  Session’s Recusal.  4.  Russian Collusion,  5.  Putin’s Turn,  6.  Obstruction (the toughest mile).  7.  More Russian Collusion.  8.  Obstruction of Justice.  9.   Schiff’s Got Proof.  10.  Comey, My Comey.  11.  Peter Strzok.  12.  Lisa(Lover’s Lane) Page.  13.  The Mueller Report (the slowest mile).  14.  The Whistleblower(you can not see the fans cheering you on, but you can hear them).  15. Ukraine.  16.  Quid Pro Quo.  17.  Bribery.  18.  Solemn and Prayerful (candles line each side of the road).  19. Abuse of Presidential Power.  And, whew, 20.  Obstruction of Congress.

With just six point two miles left the Senate joins the race.  Has America hit it’s own wall yet?

But just yesterday we learned that we might need to start training for yet a second marathon.  A second one wasn’t anywhere on the bucket list.

Rep Karen Bass (CA) said if Trump is reelected in 2020 there might be a second impeachment.  Here’s what she said.  “Because even though we’re impeaching him now, there’s still a number of court cases, there’s a ton of information that can come forward. For example, we can get his bank records and find out he’s owned 100 percent by the Russians.  The only thing I’d say slightly different is that it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we’ll have a ton more information.”

Californians and New Yorkers want to do away with Donald Trump and the Electoral College.  The middle of America wants to reelect Donald Trump and do away with Californians and New Yorkers.

At least all fifty states don’t want another impeachment marathon, do they?  It’s crossed off of their bucket list, isn’t it?

 

Another Different Disappointment From Coast to Coast.

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

On January 19 of this year Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California joined the 2020 presidential contest with her goal to win the Democratic Party nomination.

“The future of our country depends on you and millions of others lifting our voices to fight for our American values,” she said in the video. “That’s why I’m running for president of the United States.”

She announced on 1/19 as it was also the day our nation honored the late Dr. Martin Luther King, a timing that she said was “very important” to her.  Amid that context, however, Harris played down the role of race.  “When people wake up in the middle of the night, whether it be a mom in Compton or a mom in Kentucky, she’s waking up having the same concerns,” Harris said.

So with that Harris set up shop on the corner of First and Main St.  She brought her chair, table, and game to attract Americans far and wide and hold their interest.  A high single digit percentage stopped by as she broke out the shells and arranged them just so.

Debate one in June almost came and went quietly until Harris pounced on a “sleepy” Joe Biden late in the evening.   Harris, a black former prosecutor, leaped into the cross-talk with a request to speak “on the issue of race.” She then trained her attention on Mr. Biden, and after making clear that she did not believe he was a racist, proceeded to sharply criticize him for having made “very hurtful” comments about having worked with two segregationist senators.  Harris then also recalled Mr. Biden’s opposition to school busing in the 1970’s and opened up about her own history. “There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”  Her desire to downplay the role of race pivoted.

And after that more folks, reaching into the mid teens percentage wise, showed up as she moved the shells randomly to stump the crowd and stump on the campaign trail.  Attention heightened.

Debate two brought Tulsi Gabbard’s attack of Harris’ record as DA of California. Gabbard singled out Harris’ stance on the death penalty, accusing her of keeping “innocent people” on death row and saying she “blocked evidence” that could have helped them. The tense exchange illuminated a complicated piece of Harris’s record as a prosecutor that has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle, with some targeting her refusal to seek the death penalty in the killing of a police officer, and others attacking her decision to defend California’s death penalty from a statewide legal challenge.

And after that less folks, now slumping back into the mid single digits, showed up as she begged folks to keep their eye on the most important shell-the only one with anything hidden underneath.

In an effort to remain viable in the race Harris pivoted again.   She re re reformed her Medicare for all stance a third time.  She promised teacher pay raises.  She promised a middle class tax cut.  She even offered to kiss all of the babies, that’s assuming they made it through the “women’s wellness” needs.  And, she put all of this under one shell, or so she said.

But, her presence sunk further.  Fewer and fewer were interested in the shell game.  Her poll numbers sunk to less than 3% of likely Democratic voters.  So, Harris spoke to what she viewed as her main electability problem last week.

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris described electability as the “elephant in the room” of her campaign and wondered aloud whether America is ready for a woman of color to be commander in chief.  “Essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?” Harris said in an interview with Axios on HBO. “There is a lack of ability or a difficulty in imagining that someone whom we have never seen can do a job that has been done 45 times by someone who is not that person.”

So, Harris perhaps forgot about one Barrack Obama.  She accused her own party of racism.  That’s what “lack of ability or a difficulty in imagining” means.  This is the same party that successfully saw Barrack Obama ascend from virtually nowhere to serve two terms as President #44.  This is the same party that saw approximately 94% of all African Americans vote for Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. This is the same party that shows Joe Biden polling far, far better with African Americans in absolute numbers and percentages than Harris or Cory Booker in 2019.  Was this party not racist when Harris was polling into the mid teens and running third or fourth, but is now?

Hmm.  Her January downplay of race as relevant in this nomination process now seems so long ago and so hollow.

So, yesterday Kamala Harris did the wise thing.  She announced that her run for 2020 was over.

She folded her chair, folded her table, and packed away her shells.  It turns out that once America focused on that elusive, ever moving, one shell of three, all that was under it was a card.  A race card.  She played it.  Then she folded.

 

 

A Different Disappointment From Coast to Coast

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

Yesterday we began our NCAA football series examining disappointments from coast to coast.  Overnight our Washington Bureau won over our editor.  Because of that, today we put our series on hold to bring you a different disappointment from coast to coast.  It’s time to check in on the US House Intelligence (misnomer) Committee Impeachment Inquiry hearings that’s put our nation on hold.

We know.  We know.  It’s hard to digest.  That’s why we’ll feed our observations to you in our Ten Piece Nuggets format.  It’s easier to swallow this way.

  1. If you haven’t watched any or much of this charade, good for you.  In a word it’s been incredibly “boring.”
  2. How boring is it?  We are glad you asked.  It’s so boring that CBS yesterday made the programming decision to cut from the live broadcast of witness testimony to bring you their regularly scheduled soap opera programming.  It’s all about ratings in TV land you know.  CBS must have figured that you have had enough of the soap opera on Capital Hill.
  3. CBS might also have been short staffed to execute the programming any way.  When last we checked in on the network they were doing a fast and furious job of finding the “no Epstein video leaker” and firing her even though she wasn’t the most wanted “no Epstein video leaker.”  They fired the wrong person as you likely heard.
  4. Probably approaching 50% of America despises Chairman Adam Schiff.  The Republicans are doing their own fast and furious search for the Washington whistle blower. But, we give Schiff a lot of credit.  Staring in his own soap called #SchiffShow, ole Adam has stared straight into the cameras and proclaimed that he has no idea who that person is.  Funny thing is yesterday when Devin Nunez, playing bad cop, wandered into questioning that got a little to close to one particular Intelligence Department ole Adam stopped the questioning for fear of the whistle blower’s identity being revealed.
  5. The witness before the committee at that moment was one Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who played, at least in his mind, a key role in all matters Ukrainian.  Vindman quickly corrected Nunez when addressed as Mr. Vindman.  When asked later why the sensitivity to wanting to be addressed as Lt. Colonel not Mr. Vindman stated that while dressed in a freshly pressed, full military uniform that it was proper.  Vindman said he didn’t know who the whistle blower was either.  However, he essentially took the fifth around this line of questioning. Therefore, this linked Vindman as the source to the whistle blowers second hand reproted concerns.  The casting department was concerned with this sensitivity on stage, but wardrobe was “oh so proud.”
  6. Does every single congressman or congresswoman have to thank every single government worker for their service every single time they begin their five minutes of time allotted to them?  Of course they do, it’s a show you know.  And this show yesterday stretched all of the way into east coast prime time.  Get ready for more as seven witnesses have come before the committee and there are expected to be seven to ten more before the final curtain is closed.  Thank you for your service.
  7. The pursuit of Donald J. Trump began with Russian collusion three years ago.  Until this week it centered on quid pro quo in his dealings with Ukraine and specifically in the now infamous “perfect phone call” and transcripts of the same.  But the Democrats stopped with the “quid pro quo” and renamed the episode “bribery” just this week.  It’s smart on their part as the word bribery is more easily understood by the masses that watch too many soaps to begin with.  The thinking goes like this “Russian Collusion” sounds like “abortion,” while “quid pro quo” sounds like “a woman’s right to choose” while “bribery” sounds like “woman’s wellness.”  Feel better?  Maybe not, but it’s something that focus groups said is an easier sell.
  8.  So did Trump cross the line on the line when he asked for a corrupt company and one of it’s board members (some dude named Hunter Biden) to be investigated by the new regime in Ukraine?  Add to that the withholding of foreign aid, though no one has testified that the two were “give to get,” at least not yet.  Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, might do just that this AM.  Will anyone be watching?  America has to go to work this morning.  Congress should take note.
  9. We ask again, will anyone be watching?  And if they do, will anyone watching not have already made up their mind on whether they think Trump is guilty?  Or, asked differently, will anyone who is watching hasn’t made up their minds on his fate?  Will any member of the House vote differently for or against impeachment than when they voted for or against initiating the impeachment inquiry?  Maybe a few of the Democrats who won a seat in congress from a Trump carried district will.  It’s cover for the next time they run.  Otherwise, it’s a rerun shown from a slightly different camera angle.  Isn’t it?
  10.  It’s hard for America to find a new star when all they see are reruns.  America elected the star of the hit show “The Apprentice” to be it’s President three years ago.  At the end of each show, the now President fired someone.  The House would like the Senate to fire the now President. They want a new star for the 2020 season. The plot is easy to follow.  It’s just the acting that is so bad.

But on with the show we must go.  And, tomorrow on with the NCAA football disappointments we go.  We must have picked the University of Washington for a reason.  Because from Washington the state to Washington the District of Columbia this has been a disappointment from coast to coast.

We the People

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

The original, unedited, wonderfully written Constitution begins  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Now, nearly 250 years in, it has stood the test of time.  It’s what the nation’s forefathers hoped it would do.

It’s strongest part might be it’s first three words, “We the People.”  It’s very beginning suggests that a group met and collectively decided on a course.  That course took a brand new nation, now independent, from it’s birth to opportunities, freedom, safety, wealth, and health the likes of which have never been seen before on this earth.

Today, “We the People” are a very divided group.  Are we the most divided in our nation’s history?  Probably not.  And, despite the histrionics advanced, it’s probably not even close.  “We the People” were more divided before, during, and after the 1861-1865 Civil War.  And, the civil rights movement of the 1960’s was worse to significantly much worse than today.

Today’s “we” are three “we’s” and counting.  We love the disruption that Trump has brought to the status quo in Washington and when, where, and how the U.S. acts on the world stage.  Or, we are disrupters known as “never Trumpers” and we hate (yes hate) Trump.  A third, but growing we, embraces socialism, or even communism. Talk about disruption personified.

Don’t believe the socialism or communism part?  A published poll last evening on one of the major networks showed 27% of American millennials favored communism over capitalism.  These kids borrowed for college.  They owe a lot of money.  They believe that an entry level job isn’t a just reward for doing so.  They want a refund.  And they want it now.  The 1% crowd might be their ATM so they think.

We cannot even rejoice in the elimination of the top leader of ISIS, Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Minutes went by and either the Democrats were offended for not being told prior, or Trump was acting like a bully about it on the bully pulpit, or the Washington Post was eulogizing the savage who ordered the killing of thousands as a austere religious scholar.

The never Trumpers, regardless of party affiliation, have embarked on a three year old campaign to unseat the man who ran the most unconventional campaign the country has ever seen to win the highest seat in all of the land.  That campaign won’t stop all the while Trump’s campaign for reelection is full steam ahead.   Hide in a basement, interview a self created whistleblower, scream “quid quo pro” enough times, and eventually impeach.  That’ll get some of the “We the People” on your team.

Meanwhile, surely it’s time to gas up Air Force One and rile up the base in a red state near you soon.  Stand in line, wear a red MAGA hat, and yell at the other side for 90 minutes.  That’ll make you feel better.  And, that’ll get some of the “We the People” on your team.

Meanwhile, Bernie and Elizabeth are promising those millennials the farm.  The farm might not have much left if Trump doesn’t solve the China trade wars, but we digress.  The farm might not have much left if Trump doesn’t fix that ole existential crisis of climate change, but we further digress.  The farm includes free healthcare, free tuition, tuition debt forgiveness, free flow of immigration, free healthcare for immigrants legal or otherwise.  Free, free, free.  That’ll get some of the “We the People” on your team.

The only problem is that makes for three teams.  It takes four teams for a good playoff.  How about Team Biden?  He’s the head coach of what’s left of the old Democratic Party.  He’s the head coach of what’s now right of the new Democratic Party.  He’s promising to, well, we’re not sure.  Ah yes, he’s promising to beat Trump, platform TBD.  Surely that’ll get some of the “We the People” on your team.

“In order to form a more perfect union” follows right after “We the People” in the Constitutions’ first sentence.  The problem is we don’t know who to follow right now in order to form a more perfect union.

Oh, and one more thing.  Nothing is free, not even freedom.  Nothing.

 

 

 

 

The Nationals Won. The Senators Lost.

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

If you didn’t get a chance to tune into the Democratic Presidential Debate broadcasted live last evening, worry not.   It’s roughly only the fourth of 12 scheduled debates.  You can catch the next one or the next one.   Maybe the same tired answers to the same tired questions will grab your interest then.  We doubt very seriously that last night’s did.  And, worry not because we have the winners and losers all sorted out for you below.  Schmeer the bagel while we schmeer the debate.

Winner — Elizabeth Warren.  She spoke for a total of 23 minutes which was a strong 7 minutes longer than the presumptive, but maybe no longer, favorite Joe Biden.

Loser —  Everyone.  Everyone who listened to Elizabeth Warren for 23 minutes must feel like they need to go to their happy place this morning.  There is no way that every second of every minute of 23 spoken can be so terribly important about things that are so terribly bad that she must use the octave of shrill that she incessantly does.  Take a breath every now and then.

Winner —  Joe Biden.  Biden spoke for 16 minutes and didn’t really have a memorable “gaffe.”  He said “expidentially” instead of “exponentially.”  He mistook Iraq for Afghanistan.  But, that’s a good night for him these days.   Win one for the old gaffer is still in play, barely.

Loser  —  Joe Biden.  If Uncle Joe thinks that his topline response to his son’s foreign dealings is the end of it he’s sadly mistaken. “My son’s statement speaks for itself.”  “My son made a judgment. I’m proud of the judgment he made.” His party will take Trump to the mat from now till 2020 for his foreign affairs and Trump will tweet about Papa Joe and Son Hunter along the way as necessary.

WInner — Tulsi Gabbard.  Every time Gabbard speaks she sounds well thought out and mostly logical.  It’s a breath of fresh air on a very stale stage.  She isn’t afraid to call out her party or the other one when she feels the need, but does so in a respectful manner.

Loser — Tulsi Gabbard.  Gabbard was afforded only eight minutes of oxygen to breathe new life in the old party.  She lashed out at CNN last evening after the debate for the lack of time.  This may be a reach, but if Trump reached out to her after her campaign gets snuffed out by the DNC, he could make major hay if she accepted a role in his administration.  She seems like the type that if she felt like she could make a difference regardless of their differences she would give it her all.

Winner —  Bernie Sanders.  Two weeks after having what is now being called a heart attack, Bernie was back on the attack.  With his hair out of place, his hands and arms flailing about, and with his far, far left ideas being bombastically presented, all seemed well again.

Loser — Bernie Sanders.  His campaign is boxed in.  His radical left perch has many birds of the same feather.  They all look stuck together.   His stint as the left ideas leader was further slowed by the need for a stent in the arteries.

Winner — Kamala Harris.  Harris used a good bit of her 12 minutes telling America, once gain, that she was plenty experienced as the AG for the State of California.  She reminded us that aside from the US Department of Justice, that department is the second largest in the US.  She also told us, once again, that she went to more funerals of slain innocent children and gunned down cops than she wanted to tell us about.   It was a great refresher course on who she is we guess.

Loser — Kamala Harris.  Harris used a good bit of her 12 minutes telling America, once gain, that she was plenty experienced as the AG for the State of California.  She reminded us that aside from the US Department of Justice, that department is the second largest in the US.  She also told us, once again, that she went to more funerals of slain innocent children and gunned down cops than she wanted to tell us about.  It was a great refresher course on who she is we guess.  Or, it wasn’t.

Winner — Tom Steyer. The retired billionaire who bought his way onto the debate stage had the bright lights shining on him for a full seven minutes.  It must have felt like he was running out of a tunnel onto a playing field for the first time with his favorite JV team.  Cost per minute was rather steep, however.

Loser — Tom Steyer.  Now the retired billionaire can go back to sending money to the candidates he stood next to.

Winner — The Washington Nationals.  The Nationals probably gained TV eyeballs by the minute as America switched the debate off, and their sweep in the NLCS of the St. Louis Cardinals on.

Winner — The Washington Nationals.   Once upon a time there was a team in Washington.  Their nickname was the Senators.  They moved to Texas in 1971 and became the Rangers.  When the DC area regained a team (the Montreal Expos) in the 2005 season they didn’t rename them the Senators.  After last night’s debate snoozer, who can blame them?

Winner — Donald J. Trump.  Regardless of your party affiliation, hopes, and dreams, you had to be disappointed in the debate.  It was a rerun of a rerun and it lacked any suspense, drama, plot twists, or excitement.

Winner — Adam Schiff.  If you are the DNC your best hope for now of beating Trump is impeaching Trump.

 

Quiet On The Set!

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 through May 1693. More than 200 people were accused.  Nineteen were found guilty and executed by hanging.   The episode is one of Colonial America’s most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a cautionary tale about the dangers of false accusations and lapses in due process.

My how we have progressed in the 326 years since 1693.  Or not.

Yesterday House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced after a meeting with Democratic House leaders that the House would begin an impeachment inquiry into the allegations that President Trump attempted to influence the 2020 presidential race by asking Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky to look into possible wrong doings by Joe Biden’s son Hunter in his business dealings with the country.

Last night it was reported that the whistleblower to the Intelligence Inspector General hadn’t actually heard the conversation, but was told of it.  But, surely where there is smoke there is fire.  The whistleblower retained an attorney who previously worked for Chuck Schuemer and none other than Hillary Clinton.  But, we digress.

Today the White House will release the complete unredacted transcripts of the call.  But, why wait for that?  Get the pitchforks out of the shed yesterday.

Remember, Joe Biden is on tape bragging about how he influenced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was looking into his son’s LLC’s Ukraine dealings.   This blatantly obvious transgression, much bigger than your average daily gaffe, makes us wonder.

Could two wrongs make a right for the far left?  Let’s play “what if.”  What if there is enough undertone to the tone of Trump’s call to give the mob more impetus to carry on the inquiry?  Or, what if there is not? Here is what happens regardless.

  1.  Congressional Democrats up for reelection in 2020 can either vote to impeach (if it even comes to that) if it helps them gain reelection, or vote against if it will not.   Remember, all politics inevitably are local.  Thirty-one Democrats are running in districts that Trump carried by 10 points or more in 2016.
  2.  At a minimum this continues the “we must oust the corrupt Trump” war that the House has run with for three years now.  We are just guessing, but this inquiry might just last up until, say, roughly the first week of November of 2020.  Fire up the lanterns and the base.
  3.  What if Biden gets tangled up in this mess?  Shouldn’t he have to release his meeting notes and phone calls to Ukraine when he was VP?  As stated above, he’s openly told assembled crowds that he has done exactly what Trump is now accused of.
  4.  If so, doesn’t this further weaken an already weakened Biden campaign?
  5.  If so, doesn’t this turn a crack into a wide open door for a Warren, or Sanders, or Harris, etc. to walk through for the nomination?
  6.  There aren’t enough House votes to impeach.  Even if there was, there certainly aren’t enough Senate votes to convict the President.
  7.  If so, then when it’s all said and done what’s the end game?  The answer of course is “politics.”  And political gain leads to power.  And power leads to control.

The trials of 1692-3 were started after people had been accused of the witchcraft, primarily by teenage girls such as Elizabeth Hubbard, 17, as well as some who were even younger.   Many books, documentaries, movies, and TV shows have examined the Salem trials.

One day many books, documentaries, movies, and TV shows will examine this accusation of wrongdoing as well.  President Trump was once a reality TV star prior to his current gig.  The casting director should choose Trump to play the role of Trump.  And, he or she should choose Alexandria Octavio Cortez to play the role of the very imaginative teenage girl.  And, it now seems certain that, reluctantly, Nancy Pelosi will direct the expose.

Lights, camera, action!

 

 

Rub the Lamp

Posted on by thependulumswings staff
Canadian leader Justin Trudeau’s campaign for national elections was hit Wednesday by the publication of a photo showing him in “brownface” makeup at a costume party in 2001.

We have questions.  One, was Aladdin a racist movie?  Two, when then teacher Justin Trudeau dressed as an Aladdin character in 2001 for the annual school dinner that was themed “Arabian Nights” was he furthering sterotypes and committing a racist act?  Was Trudeau’s apology for doing so, politics aside, really necessary?  When he dressed that night, and likely many others at the British Columbia school party did similarly, did he or others think what they were doing was wrong?  If he did, should he have apologized any time in the last 18 years?  If he should have apologized, why didn’t he?

We have answers.  No.  No.  No.  No.  Yes.   And, hmm, good question.

Aladdin debuted in 1992 produced by Walt Disney.  It was remade in 2019 and grossed one billion dollars worldwide.  Will Smith was the lead in the 2019 remake.  It seems like Walt Disney, a ton of movie goers, and Will Smith seem to think it wasn’t racist.

The dressed for the party Trudeau in 2001 was doing nothing different than the movie writers, producers, casting, cast, directors, and producers did in 1992.  Did he give getting “brownfaced” a second thought then?  It’s highly unlikely, and it was highly unnecessary as well that he do so.  Intent matters.

Trudeau, who launched his reelection campaign a week ago, said he should have known better.  “I’m pissed off at myself, I’m disappointed in myself,” Trudeau told reporters traveling with him on his campaign plane.  Perhaps he could get a make believe role in the next remake.  He is “sooooo” redfaced about being caught redhanded being brownfaced. This sounds “sooooo” 2019 politically correct that we wish we could rub a genie’s lamp and make it all stop.

We wonder how long he has been beating himself up for this heinous act.  Our guess is that the faux self flogging only began right after Time magazine posted the photo, which it says was published in the yearbook from the West Point Grey Academy where Trudeau worked as a teacher before entering politics. The photo depicts Trudeau wearing a turban and robe, with dark makeup on his hands, face and neck.

Trudeau has been admired by liberals around the world for his progressive policies.  Canada has accepted more refugees than the United States in the last three years.  His Liberal Party government has also strongly advocated free trade.  He faces a very stiff challenge from Conservative leader Andrew Scheer.  But, being politically correct knows no political boundaries.

One of the three wishes Aladdin had for the Genie was to get out of the “cave of wonders.”  We don’t live in a cave.  Therefore, we don’t wonder why he apologized after the photo surfaced and not before.

Bad acting comes and goes.  But, we hope that the curtain never falls on authenticity.  Somebody rub the lamp and wish it all away.

Know When to Say “Uncle.”

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

Budweiser, in a responsible drinking campaign several years back, coined the phrase “know when to say when.”   Remember growing up when you were involved in a little physical tussle, skirmish, wrestling match, etc. and one side had enough they would say “uncle.”  Why would they say “uncle?”  It seems that while “crying uncle” is today regarded as an Americanism, its origins go all the way back to the Roman Empire. Roman children, when beset by a bully, would be forced to say “Patrue, mi Patruissimo,” or “Uncle, my best Uncle,” in order to surrender and be freed.

So, when should Uncle Joe Biden’s team say “uncle?”  Preposterous you say?  We actually think that Joe Biden means well.  We think that he thinks that he can continue to do something, or has done something in his 32 years in public office to make a positive difference.  But.

Wasn’t it just three years ago that very suddenly people named Bush and Clinton looked old and sounded so “yesterday?”  What does that make Biden look like and sound like today?

Ronald Reagan’s detractors pointed out repeatedly when he had a “senior moment” or three that he might no longer be fit to hold the highest office in the land in his second term.  Reagan exited the oval office for good after term two at the tender age of 77.  Biden would already be 77 if he won when sworn into the office.

Don’t you wonder why he passed on the chance to run one final time after he served eight straight years as VP under Obama?  Would the timing ever be better?  Did he think it was Hillary’s turn?  Please.  Who thinks like that when they need to have the drive, bravado, tenacity, and “can do” attitude to handle the insane pressure of the top job? When has that stopped someone who wanted something?  Or, was he just plain tired?

Several weeks ago he reminded us in his service to his country as VP that he had a chance to speak to some of the survivors and families touched by the Parkland School shooting.  The problem, of course, was that he wasn’t in office then.  His team said that he was referring to the Sandy Hook school shooting.  Hmm.

A few weeks later, when America was on it’s heels from the back to back mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Biden spoke to gun control needs again and referenced these shootings in Houston and Michigan.  Well, that’s a wrong city in the right state and the wrong state when attempting to recall a city in another state.  Jeez.

Yesterday, to an assembled crowd, he advanced  the idea of an $8000 child care credit for families and said that it would put 720 million women back to work.  You can see the short clip here.  We aren’t convinced that one begets the other.  Further, when you subtract men and children from the estimated 330 million who call America home, you might get to 80-90 million women in all.

Remember, all of this is happening 14 months out from the general election.  There are 11, yes 11, Democratic Presidential debates scheduled prior to the nomination.  Then, the survivor gets to tangle with the man who loves to get people to say “uncle,” one Donald J. Trump.

Most incumbents, and all front runners, tend to limit their exposure and by definition limit the number and length of the debates.  Donald J. is not a  “most” incumbent.

Current odds on Biden to not be the Democratic nominee is minus $400.  You bet $400 to win $100 if he doesn’t gain the nomination fair and square.  You also win the 100 bucks if Uncle Joe says “uncle.”

“I want to be clear, I’m not going nuts,” Biden said Friday two weeks ago. The former vice president’s clarification came before he mistakenly praised Vermont when asked about his impression of Keene, N.H.   Painful.

Father Time is undefeated.  Uncle Joe might be best served by saying “uncle” before he is defeated.

 

 

 

 

One Love That Is Shared by Two

Posted on by thependulumswings staff

In a interview with the Washington Post earlier this week noted progressive Barbara Streisand described the United States electoral college system as “antiquated” and advocated replacing it with a system that allows the winner of the popular vote to win the election.

She went on to say, “If I could, I would end the antiquated electoral college. Twice in the last 20 years the popular vote winner was denied the presidency. This is an assault on our democratic principles, where the dictum should hold true: one person, one vote.”

And she isn’t the only voice from the left touting a change away from the now 243 year old way of electing presidents.  South Bend, Indiana mayor and announced Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg suggested making the reform as well calling it undemocratic.  Streisand would change it now if she could as she said, while Mayor Pete would do so down the road a bit.

We wonder if of the above is exactly why our founding fathers put the process in place at the outset.   We submit the following counterpoints.
  • That is, they had the foresight to realize that a ground swell could occur.  And when it did a simple popular vote taken on the matter could eliminate the electoral college vote and replace it with, well, a simple popular vote.  Stated differently, over the course of time, this would open up the opportunity to repeatedly manipulate how the president was elected.
  • What Barbara should know, and likely does, is if one person could do anything unilaterally in our union it would not be a democracy.
  • Citing twice in the last 20 years as a reason fails to speak to the fact that a) its happened only five times in 243 years, and b) it happened in a span of 12 years when in 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes won the electoral college and lost the popular vote and again in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison did the same.  The logic sounds much like two bad hurricanes in 20 years proves climate change, so we must change and now.
  • And, we’re supposed to be United States, not necessarily always united people.  States, as an entity all to themselves, have rights in our union and therefore each have two senators with equal say to senators from other states.
  • Buttigieg says that we won’t know in the 2030’s which party would benefit.  One, yes we do Pete.  Two, if we don’t know which would benefit why change from the current, unless you don’t believe in states’ rights.
  • Buttigieg hails from Indiana.   It’s a state that could be the poster child for why the electoral college is in place.  It has a) below average population making the two electoral senate seats important to them, b) is driven by farming creating a need for perspective that is anything but urban (ask them right now if they want a voice in who is the next president considering the effect on the state that tariffs are having).

The 77 year old Oscar winning Streisand might be an expert on “antiquated.”  It looks more and more like her party’s current front runner sure does.   But she is no expert on democratic principles.  She should  know that what she and other left voices are advocating to eliminate this “assault on our democratic principles” is actually an assault on our democratic principles.

Aren’t the real experts our founding fathers?