Trump's Tweets Versus Dems Incendiary Rhetoric

Every tweet dashed off by President Trump jangles the psyche of Democrats.  Tweets are so unpresidential they scoff.  His cryptic dispatches are hurtful, mean-spirited. Trump's messages create confusion, contradicting staff.  The uproar over 280 characters has never been so self-righteous.

On the subject of presidential docurm,  Mr. Obama was hailed by the media when he became the first president to open a Twitter account.  He posted more than 15,000 tweets to fawning praise.  It was Mr. Obama, not Mr. Trump, who first broke with tradition to use social media as a political pulpit.

Democrats and Never-Trumpers demand Republicans renounce the president's tweets.  They are appalled by his tone. For the record, I too wince at some tweets.  However, like any president, Mr. Trump has the right to communicate in his unique style.  No one is forced to read the tweets. 

All this indignant outrage might be taken seriously if it wasn't so hypocritical.  Democrats are seldom if ever called upon by the media to defend their colleagues often palatable Trump-loathing screeds or the incendiary,  repulsive, vitriolic speech, including vile anti-Semitic rants.

The media stokes the tweet outrage by dissecting each one as if it were an atom then searches for those who are offended.  They are rankled by the audacity of the president to announce news on Twitter rather than pandering to their interests, wounding their journalistic and personal ego.

It may explain why the media either ignores or glosses over scandalous language by Democrats.  Before passing judgment on trifling social media missives, perhaps those who hold Mr. Trump in contempt should read the vicious tirades of Democrats reaching a wider media audience than tweets.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) has called on her supporters and all Democrats to "harass" Trump cabinet members.  Her words have incited repugnant confrontations in restaurants aimed at former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and most recently Eric Trump.

No Democrat has dared condemn Waters for shouting to crowds "tell them (Cabinet members) they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."  Can you just imagine the puffed up fury if a Republican lawmaker would have urged people to do the same to Obama cabinet members?

Then you have precocious Democrat Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez comparing migrant detention centers to "concentration camps."  Even giving her the benefit of her youthful 29-years, no educated person with an iota of historical knowledge would make such an outlandish, untruthful statement.

A member of Poland's Parliament invited the New Yorker to fly to his country to "study concentration camps."  He admonished her because the comparison "cheapens the history" of Nazi camps for the purpose of "political point scoring."  Democrats tip-toed around her comment to avoid confrontation.

In her latest dishonest broadside, Ms Ocasio-Cortez characterized the conditions at an El Paso County immigration detention center she visited as deplorable and complained about babies in dirty diapers and women drinking out of toilets.  Her explosive invective garnered worldwide headlines.

However, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, toured the same facility later and reported his group of pastors "found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities." His rebuke was buried by the media.

Then you have Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) insulting Jews and all Americans by admitting she gets a "calming feeling" when "I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust."  Her words should have led to her censure by Congress.  A few heads shook but nothing more.

She also once screeched to impeach "the motherf----r" Mr. Trump.  Take a moment and think what would have been the reaction if a Republican had used those exact words about former President Clinton.  The offender would have been stampeded out of Washington by the media and colleagues.

Ms. Tlaib's fellow Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) has waded in deep into the murky waters of anti-Semitism.  She claimed that Israel's allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle.  Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reluctantly forced to call her out.

Not satisfied with one anti-Jewish slur, Rep. Omar charged Israel with "hypnotizing the world to carry out evil."  She also trivialized the attacks of 9/11 by remarking that "some people did something (on 9/11) and that all of us (Muslims) were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

Instead of a Democrat groundswell to reign in this rhetorical swill, Florida Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson has done the opposite.  She warned that those "making fun of a member of Congress" should be "prosecuted," adding the authorities need to "shut them down."

Apparently in her view, freedom of speech does not include mocking members of Congress, even if the person is an eight-year old child actor. Ava Martinez, who parodies AOC on social media, has received death threats and harassment, forcing her mother to end the skits for the child's safety.

Rep. Wilson is not alone in her campaign to bully Democrat opposition. Today there are many in Congress who want freedom FROM speech they consider insensitive. They are determined to persecute, defame and imprison if necessary anyone who dares to exercise their right to free speech.

Is this the America we want? If Democrats have the right to smear and deliberately sow discord, then surely the President of the United States should not be silenced for his choice of words on Twitter.  Or do Democrats prefer a double standard?  Their actions indicate they do.

Mueller: No Collusion. No Obstruction. No End.

After issuing 2,800 subpoenas, executing 500 search warrants and interviewing 500 witnesses  Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller finally pulled the plug on his global investigation into allegations the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in the 2016 election.

Mueller submitted his 300-page-plus report to end 22 months of an exhaustive probe conducted by 19 hand-picked attorneys assisted by 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, professional staff and even foreign governments.  The cost to taxpayers: about $35 million.

After nearly two years of unsubstantiated media speculation, Mueller dealt a crushing blow to Trump-haters by admitting there is no evidence of collusion.  The media bawled in protest.  They had published unverified accounts suggesting Mueller was going shatter the Trump presidency.

In his report, Mueller tossed a liferaft to the media and Democrats declaring his probe "did not exonerate President Trump nor conclude" he obstructed justice.  Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz called the wording a "cop out" and scolded Mueller for the obfuscation.

While the Mueller report did not charge Mr. Trump with a crime, it's verdict provides an indictment of the nation's media which lied to the public.  That is what happens when the media is invested in destroying a president rather than fulfilling its obligation for fairness and unvarnished truth.

Take a stroll down Media Memory Lane with some choice salacious charges from alleged journalists.

A New Yorker Magazine article reported Mr. Trump had been a Russian asset since 1987. A Washington Post columnist wrote "there is copious evidence" of collusion. New York Times' venerable columnist Paul Krugman opined "there is really no question of Trump/Putin collusion."

If you are expecting mea culpas from a discredited press, you are one of the few who cling to the notion the media is unbiased and ethical.  It cannot be refuted that many in the media deliberately fabricated "anonymous" sources to convict Mr. Trump in advance of the Mueller document.

Even with its reputation in tatters, the media linked hands with Democrats in calling for public release of the report, which has been granted.  The conspirators still believe there is some kernel of treason buried in a footnote that escaped Attorney General Anthony Barr's terse summary.

Meanwhile, the real story behind the report has been stashed in a skeleton closet in Washington.  Now it is abundantly clear this investigation hinged on a single 35-page document produced by a former English spook on the payroll of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton.

Apologists claim this dossier was opposition research.  That may be true but it was peddled to the media and leaked without any caveats about its authenticity or lack of proof for the incriminating assertions.   To this day, there is not one scintilla of evidence to support the insinuations.

Christopher Steele, an ex-employee of the British intelligence agency MI6, wrote the infamous, unsubstantiated dossier that was used by the FBI, the Justice Department and their collaborators to justify a probe of a sitting president who vanquished their presumptive winner. 

Having read the Steele dossier, it is unfathomable that intelligent people would take at face value the claims without verifiable proof.  Steele's document is the stuff of fiction, claiming Mr. Trump's "perverted sexual acts" in Moscow were secretly filmed by the Russians to be used to blackmail him.

Steele wrote that top Russian intelligence officers directed by President Putin had compromised Mr. Trump and had virtually owned him for "five years."  The former spy peppered his report with unsourced accusations supposedly given to him by a "confidential/sensitive source." Baloney.

Based on Steele's thin report, the media, Democrats and Obama officials seized the contents without independent verification and weaponized it in a coup attempt to negate the 2016 presidential election. Without the muckraking Steele document, there would have been no basis for a special prosecutor.

The unscrupulous Steele invention was the cornerstone of the FBI investigation, directed by James Comey, to dupe a secret court into ordering federal wiretapping to spy on Trump associates.  To this day, even the vaunted FBI cannot corroborate a single allegation in the Steele fabrication.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has vowed to get answers on the origins of the Steele file.  The man behind the portfolio on Mr. Trump needs to be investigated by the Department of Justice and hauled before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Someone must be held accountable for this charade.

But don't expect the rancor over Russian collusion to end.  Desperate people will latch on to counterfeit propositions and bogus claims to continue to justify their conspiracy theory.  Mueller has spoken.  Time to accept the facts and cease impeachment fantasies.

Midterm Elections: The Important Numbers

In the rush to analyze the midterm elections, most media and political pundits have stuck to a partisan script.  They have zeroed in on party control of Congress, the Trump factor and the impact on the 2020 presidential election.  Their interpretations missed some eyeopening numbers.

Voter turnout was the biggest surprise of this midterm.  Despite declining voter turnout in previous midterms, there was a sharp reversal of form.  According to the U.S. Election Project, an estimated 113 million voters cast ballots, making it the first midterm to exceed 100 million votes.

If those projections are verified, it means nearly 48 percent of eligible voters exercised their right in these midterms.  In the most recent midterm in 2014, the turnout was a paltry 36.4 percent.  The last time voter turnout reached 49 percent was in the 1966 midterm elections, more than 50 years ago.

Political forecasters were stunned by the size of the early balloting results in many states.

For instance, by November 1 the number of Texans who cast an early ballot had exceeded the state's entire turnout for the 2014 midterm.  Another 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, recorded higher early voter turnout than the entire total for the last midterm.

In previous years, early voting had no influence on total turnout. This midterm was clearly an exception to that rule.  One difference from previous midterms is that more than 3.3 million voters aged 18 to 29 voted via early ballot, a whopping 188 percent increase from 2014.

However, seniors were the largest demographic to vote early.  By some estimates, seniors aged 65 and up comprised more than half of those who cast ballots before November 6.  Voting early is a trend that is likely to mushroom as people decide to skip the dreaded lines on election day. 

Turnout for this midterm hopefully signals a renewed desire for people to become engaged in democracy. America, forget the political parties, wins when people vote.  America needs citizen participation for democracy to succeed as the founding fathers intended.  

More women were elected to Congress and state legislatures than ever before.  There were 3,379 females running in midterm races nationwide, according to a report from Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics.  That represents a 25 percent increase from the last midterm.

As a result of these midterms, more women will serve in Congress than at any point in our nation's history.  There will be at least 118 females in the House and Senate.  The total includes 31 first-time House members, seven more than the previous high established in 1992.

The majority of the women in the House are aligned with the Democratic Party--84 of the 96 females that will represent state districts.  And 30 of the 31 female newcomers in the House are Democrats.  But the first Korean-American ever elected to Congress is a Republican from California.

The House and Senate will be the most diverse in history.  That bodes well for a country that embraces diversity.  These midterms ushered in a new era for women in politics. And it portends a day when a woman soon will occupy the White House.

The 2018 midterms were the most expensive in history.  The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that the two political parties raised a record-breaking $5.2 billion.  That smashed the previous mark of $3.7 billion in fundraising in the 2014 midterms.

Democrats benefited from the numbers of retiring Republicans.  The media tried to pin the blame on President Trump for Democrats flipping the House.  However, Republicans had the largest number of congressional retirements since the Brookings Institute began tracking the statistic 88 years ago.

There was an exodus of 39 before the midterms.  Most of them were House members.  Many, but certainly not all, represented suburban districts where the demographics have changed in favor of traditional Democratic voters.  GOP newcomers faced steep odds to hold these districts.

Incumbency is a sizable advantage in any election.  As a result, Republicans lost 31 seats in the midterms against well funded Democrats.  Historically, the party of the sitting president loses the House and Senate in midterms, however, the GOP survived a catastrophic defeat.

In 1994, President Clinton lost 54 House seats in the first midterm after his election.  President Obama suffered an even worst fate as his party surrendered 63 seats in 2010.  Measured against those midterms, Mr. Trump's party fared better than previous first-term presidents.

Although Democrats will control the House and Republicans will be the majority in the Senate, there are 14 Congressional races that remain unsettled a week after the polls closed.  This may be the most contests hanging in the balance in election history.

As of this writing, Democrats will have a 227 to 198 majority.  There are still 11 House races that are awaiting final tabulation of votes.  Despite all the advances in technology, counting votes remains a labor intensive process that often leaves neither political party satisfied.  This must be addressed.

In the Senate, there are three races undecided, all likely headed for recounts.  For now the Republicans hold a 51-46 majority.  The Democrats had more seats to defend in battleground states that President Trump carried in 2016, giving the GOP the upper hand.

By now your head is spinning with numbers, so here is an antidote for data overdose.  In Nevada, a dead man won a seat in the state assembly.  Republican Dennis Hof, owner of a brothel, passed away a month before the midterms.  Officials ruled it was too late to scratch his name.  It didn't matter.

Voters overwhelming elected Hof.  Apparently, having a pulse is not a requirement for election to the state assembly in Nevada.   Truly a sad state of affairs.  But nothing should surprise anyone after the tumultuous midterm elections of 2018. 

Sizing Up the Midterm Election

Leading up to the November midterm election, the most hackneyed headline is: "Democrat Voter Enthusiasm Surging." Virtually every mainstream media propaganda machine has churned out stories predicting a Blue Wave sweeping Democrats into power.  Forecasters are ignoring the past.

In the last midterm election in 2014, the country recorded the lowest voter turnout in history.  Even by midterm standards, turnout was a clunker.  An anemic 36.4 percent of eligible voters bothered to go to the polls.  That was five percent less than 2012, another disappointing year for turnout.

Going back to 1916, midterm voter turnout has been significantly less than presidential election years. Since 1970, midterm election turnout has been sinking.  In every single one of those years, both political parties claimed voter enthusiasm was soaring off the charts.  Reality always bites.

Midterms since 1970 have generated turnout in the 40-percent range.  By comparison, presidential election years historically attract higher turnouts, mostly in the 60-percent range. The highest voter turnout in the midterms in recent history was the 1962 election with 47.7 percent.

The 2014 midterm is a likely predictor for the upcoming election.  That year was the most expensive midterm in United States history with an estimated $3.7 billion lavished on election campaigns.  Even gobs of cash failed to nudge the enthusiasm needle.  Turnout was the worst in 72 years.

Experts have analyzed midterm elections and written weighty tomes about why voters stay home. Voters lack interest.  Midterms don't have the sizzle of a presidential campaign.  There are fewer candidates on the ballot.  There are more excuses than votes cast.  (That's hyperbole by the way.)

So why will this midterm be different?  Because the media tells us so?  New polling data indicates that despite all the  media hype, this midterm may see an uptick in turnout, but mostly in Blue states. The rest of the country may follow the midterm norm. Expect frosty voter interest.

Already the two parties are hyperventilating about the long lines of early voters foreshadowing a record turnout.  However, analytics have shown there is no correlation.  In fact, a Pew Research analysis of past elections concluded that heavy early voting indicates a reduction in total turnout.

Early voting is billowing because growing numbers of people prefer to skip the long lines on election day. In the 1996 election, Pew found an estimated 10.5% of voters cast early ballots.  By the 2012 election, the number had zoomed to 36.6%.  In some states, more than 50% of people vote early.

There is no scientific evidence that early voting signals an inflated turnout, regardless of media claims to the contrary.  None.  Nada.  Perhaps this election will prove to be an outlier.  But claims that swollen early ballots is a precursor to heavy turnout should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Millennials may be a better barometer of turnout.  A poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic found that only 28 percent of young people aged 18-29 say they will "certainly vote."  That compares with 74 percent of seniors.  Midterms are a snooze for Millennials.

Latinos, another reliable Democrat voting bloc, normally sit out the midterms. A Pew Research analysis found a record 29 million Latinos are eligible to vote this year.  However, Latino turnout in the midterms has declined every year since 2006, tumbling to a historic low 27 percent in 2014.

Despite all the hubbub over the influence of the Latino vote, no one mentions that 71 percent of Hispanics who are eligible to vote live in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona and Illinois.  At least three of those states are traditionally Blue Dog Democrat strongholds.

In recent elections, the media point to the power of suburban professional women voters. Democrats traditionally do well with this group.  But even with this geographic solidly in the Blue corner, Democrats have to energize young and Latino voters to gain a clear advantage.

History may turn out to be the Democrats' best friend.  The president's party has lost seats in Congress in 40 of the 43 midterm elections held in the United States.  It's almost impossible to buck the trend.  The exceptions to the rule occurred in 1934, 1998 and 2002. Will 2018 follow the script?

One unknown factor is  the rising voter approval for President Trump.  In the most recent national poll his approval scaled a peak of 47 percent.  Going into the 2014 midterms, former President Obama's approval stood at 43 percent.  Will that three-point gap made a difference?  No one knows.

Pundits are making predictions based on outdated forecast models.  Put no faith in them because their sophisticated tools have been proven wrong too often. (See 2016 Presidential Election.) Tell me which voters will turnout and I will be able to forecast the winning party with 100 percent accuracy.

Ignore the polling, excessive campaign spending, targeted voter appeals and the media hype and party evangelism. This midterm will hinge on how many people actually go to the polls.  It's that simple. The rest is just mind-numbing political mumbo jumbo.

Why Soros Is Buying District Attorneys

Elections for local district attorneys were once political yawners.  The contests were uninteresting,  void of partisan politics and starved for big money donors.  All that has changed in recent years as billionaire George Soros has emptied his coffers to tip the scales for liberal Democrat candidates.

Beginning in 2014, the hedge fund kingpin has poured tens of millions of dollars into races for county district attorney across the nation.  His goal is to remove pro-law enforcement, anti-illegal immigration and anti-sanctuary city DA incumbents and replace them with handpicked ideologues.

Soros launched his campaign four years ago with a $50 million donation from his Open Society Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  To gain more political leverage, he shoveled millions into political action committees (PAC) targeting law-and-order district attorneys.

Why are county district attorneys so important to Soros?  DA's have wide discretion to decide which crimes to prosecute, what charges to file, who to prosecute and whether to permit plea agreements.  They have the power to accept or reject police evidence in recommendations for prosecution.

With that much authority, district attorneys have the opportunity to reshape the criminal justice system to fit Soros' progressive model. 

The mogul and ally ACLU favor candidates who support open borders, amnesty for illegal immigrants, a moratorium on the death penalty and reduced sentences for so-called low level offenses, such as drug crimes.  However, his candidates rarely mention these issues.

Soros' wealth has found its way into races in Philadelphia, San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando, Houston, several Florida counties, Mississippi and San Antonio.  Political action committees and shadow groups are showered with cash, usually at least $1 million per contest.

Until Soros waded into these arcane races, most voters could not even name their local district attorney.  A contested battle for the position usually attracted little interest and far less than $1 million in donations.  That was before Soros began using his finances and political clout to tilt the equation.

His modus operandi is to employ powerful Washington-based law firm Perkins Cole to establish a PAC with a name that is politically sanitized.  The PACs are branded "Justice and Safety," "California Justice" and "Public Safety."  The names are deliberately obtuse to hide Soros' real agenda.

Soros funding flows through his foundation and some of the 100 organizations with ties to the magnate.  The carpetbagger prefers to remain in the background, the puppet master hidden behind the veiled curtain of secrecy. He never publicly endorses a candidate for district attorney. 

Rather the tycoon orchestrates an infusion of cash for his chosen candidate, swamping war chests raised by opponents.  The money allows the challenger to dominate the air waves with ads smearing the incumbent.  Opponents are caught off guard when they discover Soros is financing the attacks.

Consider what happened to incumbent Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood in his reelection campaign this spring.  Soros blindsided LaHood, investing nearly $1 million in Joe Gonzales to oust the incumbent for the sin of opposing San Antonio's sanctuary city status.  LaHood was trounced.

The campaign playbook calls for recruitment of anti-law enforcement organizations such as Black Lives Matter and pro-immigration groups to join forces with the ACLU in stirring up activists in the community.  The result creates the appearance of large scale opposition to the office holder.

A few incumbents are fed up with Soros' meddling.  In the race for DA in San Diego, the incumbent struck back slamming Soros on the airwaves.  In the ads, a picture of Soros is superimposed over masked, black-clad street demonstrator.  The inference is clear: Soros is a threat to public safety.

Despite the push back, Soros has racked up many successes, toppling incumbent district attorneys around the nation.  His funding is creating a national liberal agenda on criminal justice by buying one county district attorney at a time.  There is only one way to stop Soros.  Voters are the best defense.

Don't ignore your local district attorney race.  Research the positions of the candidates.  Use online sources to find out which PAC's are involved in the race.  Learn if the organizations have links to Soros.  Then decide whether you want an independent DA or one beholden to George Soros.