Michelle O’s “Stuck on Stupid” groupie tour

  • La Première Famille

Beyonce and Jay Z in action on a previous tour

We here at V’pac have made it a minor mission to consolidate some of the grand hypocrisy of the left, especially as personified by the Obama’s, those paragons of stellar family values*  who along with their sycophants  condemn anything Trump does or has ever done as racist, sexist and anti-family.  Michelle was  shocked, shocked  shocked at exposes of Trump’s locker-room presumed private conversation while they celebrate celebrate celebrate with their minor daughters and honor the public display of cultural degeneration.

Michelle O ‘s “crashing” of the recent Jay Z and Beyonce Paris concert is another example.

The left media provided constant glowing  human interest reports of course never mentioning anything interesting about the song Michelle was gigging on , busting a groove to, swerving on, ghost riding the whip to, pogoing, skanking about , freaking or crunking harmoniously with. The lyrics to the song that inspired Michelle “when they go low we go high” are mild compared to others in the repertoire of  Jay Z  (and Beyonce) who the Obama’s have found so inspiring for their daughters over the years.

Here are a couple of links to typical stories and then some words and music

Queen Bey’s biggest fan? Excited Michelle Obama lets loose at Beyonce and Jay-Z’s Paris concert with the former First Lady dancing up a storm next to Tina Knowles 

Michelle Obama attended Beyonce and Jay-Z’s concert in Paris on Sunday night
Former First Lady was spotted with her 17-year-old daughter Sasha at the Stade de France before Beyonce and Jay-Z took to the stage

Michelle & Sasha Obama La Première Famille Crash Bey and Jay’s Paris Concert

No sign of Barack or Malia here, but the Obama family was definitely well represented. It’s no surprise they’re there either — Michelle and her 2 daughters did the same back in 2014, when B&J were performing in Chicago.

Seems like they like to catch ’em when they can. Who wouldn’t?

Michelle Obama Dances At Beyonce And Jay-Z Concert In Paris And Fans Couldn’t Love It More

Beyonce and Jay-Z have had fans buzzing over their recent performances with their On The Run II Tour and it seems that former First Lady Michelle Obama is one of the millions who has been loving what they’ve been doing. Jay-Z and Beyonce performed in Paris on Sunday and Obama was there and clearly had a blast.

As USA Today shares, Michelle Obama was at Beyonce and Jay-Z’s Paris concert and she was getting her groove on. The former first lady was wearing a casual look that showed off her toned legs and made it easy for her to shake it as the concert progressed.

So what song inspired Michelle to get out there and crunk to . . . why Jay Z’s “On to the Next One” opener.  (lyric excerpts)

Hov’ on that new shit, niggaz like, “How come?”
Niggas want my old shit, buy my old album
Niggas stuck on stupid, I gotta keep it movin’
Niggas make the same shit, me I make “The Blueprints”

. . .

Used to rock a throwback, ballin’ on the corner
Now I rock a Teller suit, lookin’ like a owner
No I’m not a Jonas Brother, I’m a grown up
No I’m not a virgin, I use my cojones

I move onward, the only direction
Can’t be scared to fail, searchin’ perfection
Gotta keep it fresh, girl, even when we sexin’
But don’t be mad at him when he’s on to the next one

. . .

Fuck a throwback jersey ’cause we on to the next one
And fuck that Auto-Tune ’cause we on
And niggas don’t be mad ’cause it’s all about progression
Loiterers should be arrested

I used to drink Cristal, them fuckers racist
So I switched gold bottles on to that Spade shit
You gonna have another drink or you just gonna babysit?
On to the next one, somebody call the waitress   . . .

Bought the Jeep, tore the motherfuckin’ doors off
Foot out that bitch, ride the shit like a skateboard
Navigation on, tryin’ to find my next thrill
Feelin’ myself, I don’t even need an X pill

*You know – the “pro-family”  abortion at any time for any reason even after birth, he the son of an unwed and pregnant teenage mother those Obamas

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

The exclusive truth about the media

Years ago, if one wanted to know what a President said, there were two choices: Listen live on Radio/TV or read a transcript. Before TiVo, VCRs and cable news, there were no filters. Just the President’s words.

Not today. “The resistance” hates Trump so deeply they can’t bear the sight of him. Holding a grotesque, distorted view of Donald Trump, 99% of Trump haters haven’t watched an entire speech, or viewed the full contents of a Trump rally. No, they watch a partisan CNN host’s fifteen minute recap, coming away satisfied they know the entire content and context of a three-hour event.

Donald Trump and Russia’s President held a joint press conference. Anyone see these Trump quotes?

“From the earliest days of our republic, American leaders have understood that diplomacy and engagement is preferable to conflict and hostility.”

“I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.”

“As president, I will always put what is best for America and what is best for the American people.”

“During today’s meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections.I felt this was a message best delivered in person. We spent a great deal of time talking about it… ”

Were those on the news? No. The media’s focus was whether President Trump’s omission of an apostrophe constituted treason. Media’s selective exclusion of truth constitutes lying. They’re very good at it.

That’s why they’re called “fake news”.

Eugene Mattecheck Jr. Moline

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Happy Days Are Here Again

No wait, that tune is too Better Deal / New Deal really oldster stuff

But I’ll bet she’s got it!

Who, but the estimable Cheri Bustos could have come up with a winning slogan like this? Does it get any more clever than this: “For The People”?


Report via Townhall, graphics imparted by V’pac.

House Democrats Pivot Away From ‘Better Deal’ Slogan to New ‘For the People’ Slogan
“The new slogan will accompany a focus on three key areas, according to (Rock Island’s own Cheri) Bustos: health care; infrastructure spending; and Republican corruption in Washington.”

House Democrats are now pivoting away from their “Better Deal” slogan, according to Politico. In a private meeting Wednesday, House Democrats announced that they will be employing the new slogan “For the People” in the 2018 midterm elections.

“We have 110 days from right now until Election Day and we will be spending the month of August in our home districts and we wanted to make sure we are singing from the same song sheet on the three top issues,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), co-chair of House Democrats’ messaging arm, told Politico.

The new slogan will accompany a focus on three key areas, according to Bustos: health care; infrastructure spending; and Republican corruption in Washington.

“Those are three promises that this president made to the American people that he has not kept. Sometimes you have to clearly and simply point out how we’re different,” she said. “With discipline and not being distracted by the outrage of the day, that’s how people can start hearing us.”

“I don’t think any of us are claiming this is poetic or this is the end-all-be-all of messaging,” she emphasized. “It’s just a way, in a quick way, to put together the answer to what we stand for.”

The new slogan will reportedly not have the same dramatic rollout that the “Better Deal” slogan did last year, featuring a press conference with Democratic leadership.

Their old slogan was roundly mocked by the media and even some Democratic lawmakers.

Politico notes that “privately Democrats say it’s unlikely either party’s message will sway the outcome of the election.

DLH   (“A Little Tempo Please” Count Basie)

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Two-faced media

TN sends: (and asks)


















Is there a mid-term insurance policy”

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Trump’s Helsinki critics: “My spy agency right or wrong, no matter who they are working for”

  • Seems to be the operating slogan of Trumps critics, left and right
  • The chief analyst of the nation’s intelligence operations is not the CIA chief or any other current administration underling, it is the president of the United States.
  • Some conservative columnists (opportunists) are intent on burnishing their “independence” by over the top psycho babel and irresponsible parroting of anti-Trump media and premature and out of context analysis of their own 
  • Dems are just psycho

Stilton Jarlsberg at Stilton’s Place makes appropriate points in his grand style

Much Ado About Trump Thing

Looking at the most recent news cycle, we feel that our nation has reached a crisis point which requires the services of an exciting new superhero.

When alleged journalists lose their minds about Donald Trump and start screaming and foaming at the mouth, STFUman would suddenly appear with his trusty whiffle bat and thonk, thonk, thonk the hysterical newsperson on the noggin until either sanity or blissful unconsciousness was reached.

He would then dart away in a flash, remove his mask, cover his spandex uniform with street clothes, and slip the whiffle bat into his pant leg to make his escape unnoticed. Except for a really lopsided walk.

If he were available, STFUman would have had his hands full over the last couple of days as everyone on the Left and many on the Right lost their ever-loving minds over President Trump’s press conference remarks following his one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin.

In a nutshell, and we’ve never used that phrase more appropriately, Donald Trump didn’t turn to Putin during the press conference and call him a dirty, lying bastard who overthrew the 2016 Presidential election. Rather, Trump said that our intelligence services (which have been demonstrably dripping with anti-Trump corruption) have claimed there was Russian meddling, while Putin told him behind closed doors that there wasn’t Russian meddling.

Trump then had the apparently treasonous gall to suggest that we try to solve this impasse by looking at actual physical evidence, like the allegedly-hacked DNC computer server which neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency has ever even looked at.

This entirely reasonable suggestion basically opened the gates of fake news hell. Subsequent stories declared Trump to be a traitor and tool of Putin, and his press conference appearance was likened to Kristallnacht, the Cuban Missile Crisis, 9/11, and the attack on Pearl Harbor. One congressman even tweeted that it was time for the US military to step up to the plate, presumably to stage a coups d’etat to preserve democracy. Because nothing says “freedom” to Leftists quite like martial law and government at gunpoint.

Lost in all of this cacophony is any discussion of what Trump might have actually said to Putin behind closed doors before presenting a pleasant face for the press. For all we know, Trump told Putin that he’d rip the weasel-faced dictator’s leg off and beat him senseless with it if there was even suspicion of Russian meddling in the future.

Trump has since offered a predictably confusing “clarification” of his press conference remarks, which strikes us as unnecessary considering that few outlets were reporting on what he actually said versus what they feverishly fantasized.

Frankly, we think this whole media uproar is another exercise in willful lunacy which is far more damaging to our nation than anything Russia could possibly do. We’d say even more, but we’ve got a lot of sit-ups to do if we’re going to fit into that spandex uniform

Previously Jarlsberg had stylistically observed:

Vlad Tidings

The irony here is that those on the Left seemingly had no problem with Saint Soetoro, just prior to his reelection, whispering (so as not to tip off those pesky American voters) that he would be offering Putin much more “flexibility” (about freaking missile deployment, no less) after the election.

That’s the kind of flexibility which is most closely associated with the generous use of KY Jelly, and which was emblematic of Barry’s method of “assuming the position” for every “tough guy” state in the world, be it Russia, Iran, North Korea, or a jihadi califate. Not for nothing was his leadership strategy accurately described as “bleeding from behind.”

You can read a couple of the cluck cluck sister act of Jonah Goldberg and Guy Benson at Townhall today. They seem quite sure they know Trump’s motivations at any given time or utterance . . . that he is predominantly ego driven (as if any writer/ pontificator is immune).

Oh they claim angst and or objectivity. They insist that they praise his policies but somehow the deeper motivations producing those don’t necessitate a complimentary psychoanalysis.  Instead it is as if Trump just stumbles on to them.  They somehow know him by some utterances and foibles but not other utterances and qualities.

Whatever the degree of truth in their actually weak on context character analysis assassination over some display by Trump, praising the inner character of Trump that produced the policies they favor deserves far more relative attention.  In other words if you are going to talk character, then talk character.

Both Goldberg and Benso’s commentaries have similar themes almost that Trump’s ego is his pure character . . . that TRUMP is obsessed with justifying the legitimacy of his presidency. Trump cannot avoid it because the media is obsessed with delegitimizing it and denigrating most of what he does. They are demonic, unrelenting in their obsession but they carry the news. Neither columnist mentioned and by not mentioning it they implied that Trump went out of his way to raise the issues they critique his performance on.

We are told most of the questions at the news conference were about Russian collusion or interference. That does not square with their contention of his obsession. We can agree more reliance on careful definitive cover the bases/ turn the tables answers would serve Trump given every utterance of his is analyzed. But superficial character analysis when policy should be key is just cheap commentary.

We prefer this sort of policy oriented analysis:

Trump’s Remarkable Press Conference

Just Like Obama, Trump’s Russia Policy Speaks Louder Than His Words 

And these take-downs of the sorts of things Trump’s critics are spewing:

6 Stupidest Points In Chris Cillizza’s Outrage Listicle Over The Trump-Putin Press Conference 

Politicized Intelligence

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

We liked Trump’s Helsinki comments as well without the clarification

The full text of Trump’s clarifications to assuage the absolutely ridiculous amount of “we’ve got him now” histrionics from the usual suspects over his failure to accept everything the media wants to believe about “Russian” interference (in their minds,  collusion with Trump) shows that the confidence he has  in our security agencies is now that they are “under new management” (our words). Trump should not have had any confidence in them previous to that.

In their hyperventilating mode the media wants America to believe that Trump’s elocution alongside Putin was really  “treasonous” and that they have exposed him as a puppet of Putin.  Then call me treasonous for continuing to vote no confidence until I see the evidence of our intelligence agencies consistent unbiased assessments even under Trump.   Too many leftovers in that corner of the swamp.

Of course the media refuses to report on the substance of what was achieved in Trump’s trip as regards NATO and that he has stood up to Russia with dramatic in your face hegemony dealing policies on oil and arms that make Russia desire a “rapprochement” they had no need for with Obama as their bitch.

We are steadily loosing confidence in Fox News, TV and especially radio, they are no more than a repeater of what the dominant liberal media says is news, or is a scandal. Links and excerpts of note.

‘Fox & Friends’ Host Implores Trump To Reverse Course After Putin Conference

“From the day you came down the escalator, you shocked the world. From November, when everyone had you losing, you shocked the world. It wasn’t because of Russia, but Russia’s goal was to upend our electoral process,” Kilmeade said. “They hate democracy.”

“I will say this to the president when Newt Gingrich — when General Jack Keane and Matt Schlapp — said the president fell short and made our intelligence apparatus look bad. It’s time to pay attention. It’s easily correctable from the president’s perspective,” Kilmeade said.

“Fox & Friends” host Abby Huntsman, who is also the daughter of the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, also noted to Trump, “You are standing next to Vladimir Putin whose ultimate goal in life is to undermine our democracy. It was that one moment that had you to stand up for your own country — to stand up for your intelligence community.”

The TV hosts’ comments follow Trump’s appearance at a joint press conference with Putin in Helsinki Monday. Trump appeared to give some credence to Putin’s claim that he did not not interference in the 2016 presidential election despite being told the opposite by his intelligence community leaders.

“I have confidence in both parties,” Trump said, adding that he didn’t see any reason why Russia would interference on his behalf.

Kilmeade’s direct appeal to the president follows admonishment by many senior Republican leaders in Congress and presidential surrogates. Trump tweeted after the incident justifying his behavior saying:

As I said today and many times before, “I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past – as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along! #HELSINKI2018

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 16, 2018

Much better from Rand Paul:

Rand Paul Goes After Response To Trump, Putin Meeting, Says It’s ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

“Let me get right to the questioning. Do you believe that President Trump’s meeting with Putin made America safer?” asked CNN host Wolf Blitzer.

“You know, I think engagement with our adversaries, conversation with our adversaries is a good idea. Even in the height of the cold War, maybe at the lowest ebb when we were in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, I think it was a good thing that Kennedy had a direct line to Khrushchev. I think it was a good thing that we continued to have ambassadors to Russia even when we really objected greatly to what was going on, even during Stalin’s regime. So I think that it is a good idea to have engagement,” Paul said.

“And I think that what is lost in this is that I think there’s a bit of Trump derangement syndrome. I think there are people that hate the president so much that this could have easily been President Obama early in the first administration setting the reset button and trying to have better relations with Russia and I think it’s lost on people that they are a nuclear power,” Paul continued.

The Kentucky senator added, “They have influence in Syria. They’re in close proximity to our troops in Syria. They are close to the peninsula of North Korea and may have some influence that could help us there. The other thing that’s lost and people forget this completely, the Russians tried to help us stop the Boston marathon bombing. We actually did help them stop a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg because we were communicating and exchanging information.”

Paul went on to say that “all of those things are good, and because people hate Trump so much, all of that’s being lost.”

Tucker Carlson explains the real election interference —


Fox News television host Tucker Carlson explained that the country that has had the greatest influence on the United States’ elections is actually Mexico for “packing our electorate” on The Five Monday night.

“It’s very hard at least for me, Tucker, to take that media response to this seriously. Since it’s always been at an incredible high pitch,” Greg Gutfeld, one of the show’s hosts said. “I’m wondering if this is because the media is blaming Putin for Hillary’s loss and they are constantly demanding their pound of flesh and nothing will ever be enough.”

“Of course they are trying to interfere in our affairs. They have a long time. Many countries do. Some more successfully than Russia like Mexico, which is routinely interfering in our elections by packing our electorate. I don’t understand why we need to believe that Russia is the primary issue of American political life,” Carlson responded.

Tucker’s message was clear — the United States’ immigration problem has allowed for illegal aliens to have a measurable impact on this country’s elections.

Their discussion was based around the meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that took place earlier on Monday, which led many politicians and media members to express concern for some of Trump’s comments during their press conference. (RELATED: House Democrat Calls For ‘Military Folks’ To Stop Trump)

‘This Is Stupid Stuff’ — Lou Dobbs Owns Trump Critics Of Putin Summit With A Dose Of Common Sense 


Fox Business host Lou Dobbs tore into President Trump’s critics in the wake of intense Democratic and establishment Republican criticism of his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
While Dobbs’ panelists, Ed Rollins and Michael Goodwin, both felt that Trump could have taken a stronger tone toward Putin on the issue of Russian election interference, Dobbs defined Trump’s critics as “morons” who seem to prefer a hot war than diplomacy.

“I think the president handled himself perfectly,” said Dobbs. “What would it have taken to satisfy the morons that you saw on those clips? I mean … And what is his name, Brennan? He’s the biggest joke I have seen. What is he supposed to say?”

Dobbs then contrasted Trump’s views and approach with those who would seemingly prefer war.

“We’re going to settling this now, toe-to-toe with the Russkies, right now here in Helsinki?” asked Dobbs rhetorically. “We’ll see whose ICBM gets to which city the fastest? What are you talking about? This is stupid stuff. This beyond the pale, as far as I’m concerned. He is beginning a relationship with Putin, and if his intelligence community is so smart … where are the servers?”

“I think there’s nothing he could do to satisfy [critics],” Goodwin added. (RELATED: Rand Paul Goes After Response To Trump, Putin Meeting, Says It’s ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’)

Dobbs made the point that other world leaders, including Chinese leader Xi Jinping, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, and even Germany’s Angela Merkel aren’t exactly “good guys,” and yet we engage in diplomacy with them.

“We’ve had a series of presidents who were outright jokes,” said Dobbs. “And I’m talking Clinton. I’m talking Bush, and I’m talking Obama. The fact this country survived those three folks is amazing to me.”

Mooch is a weak-hitter

Mooch to Trump: Time to hit reverse, pal 

Ed Morrissey

Mooch to Trump: Time to hit reverse, pal

When you’ve lost the Mooch … Few would appreciate the contrarian nature of Donald Trump more than Anthony Scaramucci, but even the Mooch has his limits. The man who briefly ran Trump’s White House messaging team says “he has to reverse course immediately … before the concrete starts to set on this thing.” Someone needs to tell Trump the truth about his presser yesterday, he tells CNN’s Alisyn Camerota:

See Also: Too good to check: The great “Mariia Butina in the Oval Office” photo fiasco

Former White House communications director Anthony @Scaramucci says President Trump “has to reverse course immediately” on his comments from yesterday’s press conference with Putin https://t.co/xLX2QNjLIu pic.twitter.com/OVsNzdLsvW

— New Day (@NewDay) July 17, 2018

Scaramucci accurately diagnoses the issue by noting that Trump has “conflated Russian collusion with Russian meddling.” The first didn’t happen, Scaramucci believes, but the second most definitely did — and Putin was behind it. Yesterday wasn’t just a PR failure, it was a strategic mistake that was allowed to happen because Trump got his ego tangled up in the summit:

“If he doesn’t switch course on this, what will happen is he will eventually lose people that want to support him,” Scaramucci says of Trump’s embrace of Putin. “This is a major mistake”      

Our Ed Note answer to Ed and Mooch  —  Largely because people like you keep repeating the anti-Trump spin. WHAT was so bad in context as to what he said —  not all that much

And this also from Fox:

Fox host Trish Regan: The word for that press conference is “unpatriotic”

Fox host Trish Regan: The word for that press conference is “unpatriotic”

“His brain can’t process.” His own team’s best attempt to spin this morning’s disgrace in his favor is that the guy in charge of national security is so pathologically vain that he can’t stand up for his own country lest it reflect even slightly badly on his victory in 2016. Although Tim Miller counters: If that were true, what explains Trump’s weird refusal to criticize Putin on matters unrelated to 2016 as well? His attitude isn’t “Russia is a global menace but Russiagate is a witch hunt.” His attitude is that Putin is a would-be ally whose transgressions, like annexing Crimea, are understandable and in any case no worse than things that America’s done. It’s a truism by now that, virtually alone among public actors here at home and abroad, Putin is immune from being taunted by him. Why?

This is all likely to get worse, not better. Trump doesn’t apologize, even when he’s wrong; his instinct when besieged is to dig in. And he has two of the friendliest possible interviews lined up today, with Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity. Hannity was already in fine form on his radio show this afternoon, blasting Republicans — like his network colleagues Cavuto and Regan, I guess — who dared to criticize His Excellency’s knifing of the DOJ onstage with Putin this morning as “weak,” “pathetic,” “visionless,” “feckless,” and “spineless.” (“Every single person on the list [of people criticizing him] that they’re calling a conservative is not a conservative,” he noted, underlining the reality that unthinking support for Trump is now the touchstone for what remains of “conservatism.”) Trump is highly likely to double/triple down on his Russia apologias in those Fox primetime interviews, not try to undo them. I hope Regan reserved some outrage for tomorrow.

Trump’s Blunder Isn’t the Only Story 

A few bad sound bites allow his opponents to claim he’s in the pocket of Vladimir Putin.

From Dick Belmont writing a comment to a Patriot Post article:  ( why isn’t this sort of rejoinder predominant at Fox et all?

Remember, O told us in Oct. 2016 that there was no way that Russia could interfere in our elections and later told us all that he’d told Putin to knock it off. Does anyone believe Intel led by Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, along with the rest of the FBI shills like Strzok?

Well there was at least one good commenter on Fox


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment



One of the first to get out his assessment of President Trump’s meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the ensuing press conference, Neil did his best MSNBC act.

It has concerned me for some time now how virtually every conservative columnist, talk show host, and political pundit (including Rush) has failed to pick up on Cavuto’s thinly veiled hostility to not only Donald Trump, but conservatives in congress, the media, business, those on his own network, and in general.

The one time self-deprecating, cherubic Cavuto, as long ago as 2010 or thereabouts ventured out of his carefully cultivated cute, chubby, nice guy pose to regularly attack Michele Bachmann on his show. Bachmann’s conservative views on the economy, education, immigration, and any other issue were Neil’s targets of opportunity. And his attacks were often deeply personal and unusually rude for the mild-mannered, ‘fair and balanced’ host.

He has been able to get away with his thinly veiled (I think) anti-Trump, pro-GOP establishment sympathies for quite some time despite his occasional outburst of disdain and his frequent turned down mouth, furrowed brow expression when interviewing a conservative guest, treating them occasionally as a prosecutor toward a ‘hostile witness’.

I think that today, though, good ol’ Neil dropped the guise and seemed to proudly declare his total loathing of President Trump. (I’m sure he did, in part, because of the ‘bi-partisan’ condemnation of Trump’s performance…eg. P. Ryan, The Flake, John McCain, the nasally-challenged Sweet Sue Collins, etc, etc, plus, of course, ALL Democrats. Neil thus felt he was on safe ground in joining with his righteous outrage.)

I say “good, Neil…let folks know who you really are. Maybe you can team up with ‘Shep’ as a FOX “Joe and Mika” answer to “Morning Joe” on MSNBC.

(But, then, that’s just my opinion.)    DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Imagine!!…one country ‘meddling’ in another country’s election

  • We could also talk about Obama’s ‘hot mic’ commitment and plea: “Tell Vlad…”

NBC Panel Rips Trump’s ‘Wrecking Ball Tour,’ Accuses Him of Interfering in the British Election

“Interfering in the British election”! this is a report on an NBC edition, and it would be mainly a waste of time to give much consideration to anything said on that network.
To us, however, it touches on what is so amazing to watch: how some of the most blatant misrepresentations and downright zany distortions can remain so enduring in the media, both the ‘mainstream’ and even legitimate news and opinion outlets. All aimed at discrediting the current president of the united states.

In his column, Mr. Foley does, to his great credit, note one of the most egregiously ignored rebuttals to one of the biggest distortions in current media….how when it serves one purpose, “Russia meddled in America’s 2016 election” (this one is always hauled out to reinforce the discredited notion that trump’s administration ‘colluded’ with Russia to do so).

And then, there’s the media’s most popular silly charge that trump is ‘interfering’ in a British election, intended to serve to illustrate how dastardly trump is on the world stage .
Each of these charges are kept alive as though they are so unprecedented in all of recorded history…imagine!!…one country ‘meddling’ in another country’s election? OMG!!!!
The hypocrisy and silliness of all this ‘swooning’ by supposedly ‘hardened’ reporters who have ‘seen it all’ is exposed by this one recollection from the ‘great moments of the Obama presidency’:

“In 2015, President Obama meddled in the Israeli election by spending $350,000 in an effort to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in that year’s election. The efforts of the Obama Administration and other liberal groups to defeat Netanyahu ultimately failed, Netanyahu won re-election and still serves as Israel’s Prime Minister today. This might not necessarily count as interference..(IT WOULD IF TRUMP HAD DONE IT).. but President Obama urged voters in the United Kingdom to vote “remain” on the “Brexit” referendum, telling them they would move to “the back of the queue” in any trade deal with the United States should they decide to leave the European Union.”

More from Mr. Foley’s column:

During Friday’s edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports, the MSNBC host went after the President for praising Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and suggesting he would make a good Prime Minister. Johnson resigned earlier in the week due to his disapproval of May’s “Brexit” strategy. Johnson, unlike May, vocally supported the June 2016 referendum where voters ultimately chose to leave the European Union. Mitchell asked former US Ambassador Nicholas Burns “when have we last seen an American President interfere in a British election or any overseas election of an ally?”

Burns replied “We have not seen this kind of wrecking ball tour of Europe by any American President in the history of our country, to go after the Germans, to go after the British, to go after NATO and the EU. And now, the White House has a big problem with optics. They’ve had this disputatious tour of Europe, our best allies.”

He proceeded to tie Rod Rosenstein’s press conference on new indictments in the Russia investigation to President Trump’s upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Finland, saying “The President is going to see Putin, if he doesn’t cancel the meeting….this cannot look like an embrace of Putin. It can’t look like two buddies getting together.”

Burns added “The President needs to be tough on this issue of interference, on Crimea, on the nerve agent attack which cost a British woman her life last week. The President indicated at the press conference this morning at Checkers, he’s not prepared to do that. He wants to have a nice meeting with Putin. How can he do that following these indictments?”

Since Burns refused to answer Mitchell’s question about election meddling, here is the correct answer: In 2015, President Obama meddled in the Israeli election by spending $350,000 in an effort to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in that year’s election. The efforts of the Obama Administration and other liberal groups to defeat Netanyahu ultimately failed, Netanyahu won re-election and still serves as Israel’s Prime Minister today. This might not necessarily count as interference but President Obama urged voters in the United Kingdom to vote “remain” on the “Brexit” referendum, telling them they would move to “the back of the queue” in any trade deal with the United States should they decide to leave the European Union.

Mitchell asked former Obama Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller “Does this in any way insulate Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein from the attacks?” The “attacks” Mitchell referred to are the repeated branding of the Russia investigation as a “witch hunt” by the President, his supporters, and his legal team.

Miller responded by saying “The best way to answer those attacks, because Bob Mueller can’t go out and do interviews… is to respond in Court with facts. And today, he put a lot of new facts on the record that show very convincingly this isn’t a witch hunt, this is a serious investigation and it’s producing fruit.” Miller also suggested that the timing of Rosenstein’s press conference just ahead of a planned summit with Putin was no accident: “I have to question whether the timing of this indictment was both a way for the Special Counsel and for Rod Rosenstein to push back against the really inappropriate attacks and also if it was a little bit of a way to force the President’s hand as he goes into this meeting on Monday.”

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Beware of Socialists Bearing Gifts

Leftists condemn Elon Musk for donating to GOP PAC
Rick Moran, American Thinker

– Tesla CEO Elon Musk reportedly donated nearly $40,000 to a Republican political action committee, becoming one of their top 50 donors last quarter, The Hill reported Saturday.
– The Federal Election Commission filingshows Musk donated $38,900 to the Protect the House PAC, a committee dedicated to keeping Republicans in control of Congress, The Hill reported.

Gee. Sounds great, doesn’t it. Elon Musk, a darling of the left, avowed socialist, coming over to ‘our side’.

I don’t think so. We all understand how much the GOP ‘wing’ of the Washington Establishment likes money…and how easily they can be bought.

Open borders? Heck, the Republicans’ official position on that matter (or what voters think it is) is sound, fair immigration policy which protects our borders, promotes a legal immigrant process, and opposes the ‘invasion’ of millions of migrants entering the country illegally and refusing even minor attempts to assimilate and accept the values and institutions on which America was founded and has prospered for going on three centuries.

But, when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with members comprising a major donor pool tells the party establishment to ‘jump on the open orders train’, its only question is “how high?”.

When the Party’s ‘high rollers’ tell the establishment to oppose Trump’s tariff policies, which address the grievous unfairness toward America by our trading partners , and which virtually everyone in Washington has acknowledged has existed for decades, it’s “yessuh, boss!”

“Climate change”, Planned Parenthood, religious freedom…establishment GOP candidates nimbly proclaim their support of the Party’s “official position”, until it’s time to weigh promise and principle against donations from big corporations and billionaire ‘chubby cats’ favoring a self-serving issue. And then, guess which wins.

You ask us, Elon Musk is just buying some votes from people like John McCain, Susan Collins, The Flake, Paul Ryan, et al.

Won’t be surprised to learn Tom Steyer and Mark Zuckerberg aren’t also donating to retain the GOP establishment.        DLH

More from Moran’s column:

According to Salon, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and Houston Texans owner Robert McNair were also donators, bringing the group’s second quarter earnings to more than $8 million.

Musk has donated to many candidates from both parties in the past including Hilary Clinton in both of her presidential campaigns.

“By the way, I am actually a socialist,” he tweeted. “Just not the kind that shifts resources from most productive to least productive, pretending to do good, while actually causing harm. True socialism seeks greatest good for all.”

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Janus decision an inadequately heralded cultural saving grace

  • Those who teach the children rule the world
  • The liberal union/academia/ Democrat party hydra has controlled teaching
  • Derailing their money train helps challenge their hegemony and the resultant cultural decay
  • Decision essentially holds Abood was wrongly decided (after 41 years)
  • Could such a corrective imply abortion regime based on Roe (45 years) is on the chopping block (as opposed to babies)
  • Portends limiting runaway public employee pension debt train (read articles)

The following articles help explain the Janus decision and the potential for its salubrious effects.  The decision and its implications are important to understand. Conservatives have achieved a grand thing.   Bold our emphasis

Supreme Court’s Janus decision could hurt unions’ political might in midterms  (Fox News)

The Supreme Court’s ruling last week that government workers can’t be forced to pay union fees for collective bargaining and other activities may hurt Democrats in the upcoming midterms – although some experts suggest it could have a galvanizing impact for union members to get out and vote.

The 5-4 decision in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees scrapped a 41-year- old decision that had allowed states to require public employees to pay “fair share” fees to unions that represent them.

“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a non-member’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”

How the media got the Janus decision wrong     (Lance Izumi at Washington Times)

In their stories on the Supreme Court’s historic Janus decision striking down compelled fees for non-union public employees to public-sector unions, the liberal media fumbled badly in reporting the basic reasoning behind the ruling.

The case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), involved Mark Janus, a non-union Illinois state employee, who said that the Illinois law that forced him to pay fees to AFSCME to bargain on his behalf violated his First Amendment free-speech rights since the issues negotiated are inherently political and thus force him to subsidize the political activities of a group he doesn’t support.

The key issue, therefore, was not about the union making political contributions to candidates that Janus did not support, but that collective bargaining involves public policies and is therefore unavoidably political.

Thus, forcing Janus to support collective bargaining with mandatory fees to the union violated his First Amendment right against compelled political speech. Yet, the liberal media failed to report this basic reason for Janus‘ lawsuit.

In its story on the decision, Reuters said that the Supreme Court majority had ruled against “so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.” Wrong.

Again, the point of Janus‘ lawsuit was that collective bargaining is inherently political.

The New York Times’ reporting was just as bad.

The Times wrote that the majority’s ruling was “based on the First Amendment, saying that requiring payments to unions that negotiate with the government forces workers to endorse political messages that may be at odds with their beliefs.” The Times clarified what it meant by “political messages” by giving the union position to provide context.

“Unions say that reasoning is flawed,” noted The Times. “Nonmembers are already entitled to refunds of payments spent on political activities, like advertising to support a political candidate.”

Further, wrote The Times, “Collective bargaining is different, the unions say, and workers should not be free to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the costs.”

The Times report never made it clear to its readers that the central issue of the case was Janus‘ argument that union collective bargaining is inherently political and that forcing non-union government employees to subsidize such activities is unconstitutional.

. . .

Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion, cited the court’s previous 2012 decision in Knox v. Service Employees saying that the court had “recognized that a ‘significant infringement on First Amendment rights’ occurs when public employees are required to provide financial support for a union that ‘takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences.’”

Further, speaking to the argument by unions and governments that workers should not reap the supposed benefits of collective bargaining without paying for it, Justice Alito said that reasoning is unconstitutional.

“The First Amendment,” he wrote, “does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party’s speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.”


6 Big Changes Coming To Public Schools And Politics Thanks To The Supreme Court’s Union SmashdownJoy Pullman at The Federalist (excerpts)

Every state is now essentially a right to work state. It’s not an overstatement to say this ruling is a death knell for unions as we know them, and will dramatically change Democratic politics.

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME that people cannot be forced to pay unions they don’t want to join, the country has gone from 28 right-to-work states to 50 right-to-work states overnight. That includes several high-population, heavily Democratic states with strong unions: New York, Illinois, and California.

The vast majority of unionized U.S. employees work in government-dominated industries. So, far from the old image of unions representing the working man who needed extra protections because of dangerous conditions, today unions represent mostly white-collar people, largely an army of clerks necessitated by government programs and regulations.

Essentially, unions have functioned as a government growth loop, spending government employees’ money to grow the number of government employees. Whenever they win, taxpayers necessarily lose, because getting more out of taxpayers is how they maintain power. The Janus ruling will put a hole in the tire of this car speeding the nation towards fiscal doom. Here’s why, plus five other important effects.

1. Democrats Will Lose a Huge Source of Campaign Cash

Unions function as political operations for politicians who expand government’s sources of power and revenue. They essentially turn government into its own lobbying group, a major conflict of interest that also corrupts government into an antagonist with interests separate and opposing those of the American people rather than our duly sworn servant.

About 90 percent of union political contributions fund Democrats,

Unions comprised six of the top ten political spenders from 1989 to 2012. Unions were one out of every five of the top 50 spenders in the 2016 election. The No. 1 national contributors to federal elections from 1989 to 2009 were teachers unions.

Forced dues are the major source of unions’ political war chests. See, unions in non-right-to-work states forced even non-members to subsidize them through something called “agency fees,” which assumes that unions benefit all employees of a unionized workforce, even non-members, by increasing their pay and improving their work conditions. In reality, unions most benefit the workers who are the least productive and even criminal (see “rubber rooms“). Productive employees don’t need a union to protect them — employers want to hire and keep them . . .

2. Schools Can Fire Bad Teachers, Pay Good Teachers More

Two-thirds of public school teachers are unionized. Unions are largely responsible for employment rules that prevent hiring and firing teachers according to merit and a principal’s discretion. Union-demanded teacher employment results in salary schedules that pay people according to credentials and length of tenure in a given school district, not teacher quality.

The results are well-documented: significantly less student learning, especially for the children who need extra help. This reduces kids’ future income and employment prospects. It also especially hurts kids with special needs and math and science education, since the people who are qualified to meet those needs typically have far more lucrative and less bureaucratic career options outside of education, where due to union-demanded salary arrangements schools often cannot offer them competitive compensation.

Thirty-four states require school districts to collectively bargain with teachers, and this ruling doesn’t change that. But, again as we saw in Wisconsin, it does allow teachers to individually choose not to fund unions, which deprives them of the money that cements their power through political activism . . .

3. States Can Better Address Massive Pension Shortfalls

Government employee unions are a major contributor to the tsunami of state and local debt about to engulf the nation, as they are the ones who used their ill-gotten political war chests to demand big benefits for their retirees at the expense of today’s taxpayers. Unfunded government pension liabilities — or the difference between what politicians negotiated with unions and what they’ve saved — now stand nationwide at $19,000 for every single U.S. resident. That’s resident, not taxpayer, so if you have two kids and a wife, that’s $76,000 your family “owes” to people providing no public service now or in the future.

In large part because of unions, California, Illinois, and New York are essentially bankrupt. Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon are also in serious trouble (see below). Their politicians are talking about having the U.S. Congress bail them out. Considering that national debt and unfunded liabilities are the highest in human history, that would be pretty funny if it weren’t so scary. . . .

4. School Districts Will Have a Lot More Freedom

Stanford University political science professor Terry Moe wrote the definitive study of teachers unions’ history and politics, “Special Interest,” in 2011. In it, he argued that union demands are incorporated into almost every important aspect of public schools. Here’s his analysis:

… public education is an arena of special interest power. When public officials make their decisions about the public schools, whether those decisions have to do with funding or personnel rules or new programs or major reforms, we cannot blithely assume that they are doing what is best for children and seeking out the most effective possible solutions. In fact, they are often responding to special interest groups. And the most powerful of these groups, by far, are the teachers unions.

Moe believed that a growing understanding of teachers unions’ self-interest among Democrats plus the power of technology would shift what he considered the dominant force keeping U.S. education from improving in the past 40 years. Instead, it appears the Janus decision will deal the decisive blow.

Gradually eroding the dominant power in education will have many effects, among them giving local school districts far more freedom. It remains to be seen what they will do with it. . . .

5. Teachers Will Be More at the Mercy of Administrators

While I think it is clear on both cultural and fiscal grounds that government employee unions have been a massive net negative for the country, I have also seen unions perform some useful functions. Most of that is in protecting teachers from truly power-abusive administrators. . . . The real reason administrations can be so heavy-handed is that public education is essentially a monopoly. Public schools are guaranteed “customers” for their services. This deprives both families and teachers of individual bargaining power against the school district, because it sharply increases the disadvantages to them of going elsewhere for education. . . .

6. Sets the Stage For a Bureaucracy Showdown

I think the best way to solve teachers resorting to unions to gain bargaining power that the monopoly school system siphons from them is to give every family substantial bargaining power, through school vouchers. That would restore good teachers’ power by forcing school districts to care about student achievement to attract students, rather than relying upon inertia. If school districts care about achievement, they will start to focus on teacher quality real fast, as teacher excellence is the No. 1 driver of student achievement.

Imagine what would happen if every single American parent were free to use the public resources dedicated to their children to buy precisely the kind of education they want.

This would also set teachers free to run their own schools or teach individual classes for an entire potential cottage industry of education consultants, therapists, tutors, and one-room schoolhouses. No longer would they have to go begging to massive, centralized masters for employment, which gives central planners the power to dictate what education must look like and contain. . . .

I have said before that teachers unions are last century’s battle. They may be powerful, but their power is a legacy power. In structure and style, unions are a holdover from the era of big factories, lifetime employment at one employer, mass negotiation, mass products, of the Industrial Age. The Janus decision only reinforces and materializes that opinion. However important it has been, the key struggle of today and the near future is not unionization, it is centralization.

As the main antagonist of freedom in education ebbs more swiftly, what is replacing it? I think the answer is technocracy: The bureaucratic ruling class already corrupting national life. Unions contributed to the administrative class, but they also competed with it for power, in a lesser version of the fascist and socialist jockeying we see in broader politics during collectivist impulses. The only historically possible positive counterweight is self-government, meaning individual liberty. We need our state and national lawmakers to restore that balance of power as soon as possible, or the power vacuum unions leave behind will feed another kind of tyrant.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment