Friday Funny

Number 64 of a series

Let me know if you find this funny. I know I did, and so did a bunch of others. This was last September on Outnumbered, which comes on Fox at noon. Eric Trump, son of the current president, was on, and he was explaining his father’s rise to greatness despite coming from a childhood of disadvantage. From the video on YouTube:

He’s built an amazing company. He’s become the epitome of the American dream. He’s gone from just about nothing to…

And that’s where I, and most others, stopped listening.

People, how come nobody allowed me to come from just about nothing? Oh, the curse of an opulent upbringing.

And that is funny.

Yes, we have no covfefe.

There is an old song, and I made some changes to the lyrics:

“Yes, we have no covfefe
We have-a no covfefe today.
We’ve string beans, and onions
Cabbageses, and scallions,
And all sorts of fruit and say
We have an old fashioned to-mah-to
A Long Island po-tah-to
But yes, we have no covfefe.
We have no covfefe today.”

You need to know that came immediately to mind on hearing this announcement:

(CNN) — President Donald Trump did not record his conversations with fired FBI Director James Comey, he tweeted on Thursday, ending weeks of speculation kick-started by the President himself.

“With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings,” Trump tweeted.

Now we can get back to things of more interest to voters. Such as who had the largest inauguration crowd.

Minor Absurdity

The cartoon is by one of my favorites. Scott Adams has been poking fun, through Dilbert, at American business and society on a grand scale since 1995, drawing from his experience working in business and project development. He has other interests, besides:

Russia Hacked our Election! (So what?)

I see a consensus forming that Russia attempted to influence our election with fake news and other social media shenanigans.

But why?

It’s an entry in Scott Adams’ Blog, and it’s worth some diagnosis. Here are a few snippets along with my comments:

If you start with the assumption that Russia is an enemy of the United States, you probably assume they do bad things to us simply to weaken our power and effectiveness. For example, this article hypothesizes that Russia’s intention was to breed distrust between whoever became president and our intelligence services. I guess that hypothesis sort-of-almost makes sense. But I wouldn’t say it passes my personal sniff test.

What is absurd in a minor way is his use of the term “assumption.” Take that away and also substitute “Vladimir Putin” for “Russia,” and you get a picture that has considerable credence. Former KGB foreign intelligence officer in the and current president, seemingly for life, of the Russian state gives all the appearances of being a very bad character. Any difference between Vladimir Putin and a heavy-handed dictator is difficult to discern. Not to sound conspiratorial, but people who oppose Putin tend to die a lot, in the most prejudicial ways. No examples given. None need be.

That Putin, through Russia, is opposed to this country and to much of Western political influence is manifest in his actions in  Georgia and Ukraine. Adams might want to have his sniffer tested.

Then there’s the more popular theory that the Russians were colluding with the Trump campaign because Putin thought he could somehow control President Trump via blackmail, or business ties, or something else we’re imagining. I guess that could be true. Sort of. But that doesn’t pass my sniff test either.

Again, Scott, get thee to a clinic to have thy sniffer tested. If Putin is not exercising blackmail over the President of the United States, it would only be because he has no need to. The accommodation given to the Russian dictatorship by Donald Trump is without parallel in history.

President Donald Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, second left, at the White House on May 10, 2017. Fourth from right is Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak. Russian Foreign Ministry Photo / AP

Photo attribution is given to the Associated Press, but I have it on good evidence that I need not worry about stepping on their copyright, because the ultimate source is an agency of the Russian government. The President of the United States invited the Russian press but excluded any member of the American press. This came the day after President Trump fired the director of the FBI, apparently because Director James Comey would not lay off investigating Trump’s dealings with the Russians. And finally, if the Russians want to come at me for copyright infringement, then let them have at it.

Then there’s the hypothesis that Russia was messing with our democratic system to weaken the country by sowing distrust about the election process, or possibly by electing a president they believed would be less effective. But I have a hard time believing the Russians thought Trump would be ineffective. Maybe they just thought he would be divisive, and perhaps they thought that’s good for Russia in some way.

Scott has a “hard time believing Trump would be ineffective.” Then he must have a hard time believing the Russians are not stupid. That Trump is ineffective is manifest on a broad scale. The president the Russians did not believe would be ineffective is proving to be an embarrassment to his own party. Republicans may swoon at his tweeted goals, but they are confounded by the litany of prevarications and contradictions coming daily. Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star has cataloged 300 (and more?) miscues from Donald Trump since 20 January this year. Considering the term “ineffective” we need only to think “NATO.” NATO, set up by retired General Eisenhower and President Truman after World War Two to oppose Soviet expansion in Europe, is a constant obstruction to Putin’s European ambitions. Our effective president first declared NATO a non-entity, then forswore our obligations under the treaty, then reaffirmed these same obligations. How many different ways are there to spell “ineffective?”

As Putin accurately pointed out in a recent interview, hackers can make their attacks seem to come from other sources, including Russia. I assume there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Trump-supporting Americans with the skills to hack poorly-secured servers. Even if you assume Putin wanted to hack American servers, he would have needed to get in line to do it. Given all the American hackers who opposed Hillary Clinton, there is perhaps a one-in-a-hundred chance Putin’s hackers (if they exist) got to the DNC and Clinton’s servers before the hordes of non-Russian hackers did it. So even if Putin tried, the odds are low that his team got to the good stuff first.

It’s hard to get past “Putin accurately pointed out in a recent interview.” It is heartening to know we can  count on a Russian dictator for sound advice. What I find interesting is that Scott, who formerly worked in the industry, is not current with the technology. He is also not up on the findings of people who do this sort of thing for a living. The people who do this sort of thing for a living, e.g., the CIA, FBI, NSA, have found the attacks came from the Russians, disguised has having come from elsewhere. American  intelligence services also determine the blame ultimately falls at the feet of Vladimir Putin. In response, Scott is going to have to tell us our intelligence agencies are lying to us. But this he has not done. Additionally, Scott’s analysis of cyber attacks is naive at the least. He appears to buy into the Hollywood view of spies breaking encrypted passwords. Unfortunately for him, that is not the way this stuff is usually done. All successful attacks I have seen reported in  the news have been by way of “social engineering” You trick somebody into revealing the password,  or you plant somebody (Edward Snowden) inside to steal the information you want. Scott may want to read up on the history of computer intrusion.

Let’s say Russia did attempt to influence American voters to support Trump. The first question I have to ask is this: Aren’t all the big countries trying to influence elections in all the other countries, all the time? If Russia did try to influence an American election, wouldn’t that be business as usual? Do we imagine the United States is NOT trying to influence foreign elections through our own fake news and social media manipulations? I always assumed we do that sort of thing. I base that assumption on the following observation about human beings:

Is it possible Scott previously denied the Russians did this stuff, and now he is saying so what if they did it? Our intelligence services say that is exactly what the Russians, under the direction of Vladimir Putin, did.

But let’s get back to Russia’s presumed payoff for somehow destabilizing the United States. I think we need to check that assumption because Putin seems like a smart guy. It’s hard for me to believe he thinks he would come out ahead by destabilizing the world’s most important military and economic power. And that is doubly true when you are teaming with that country to fight ISIS, put a cap on North Korea, and keep the economy chugging along. It’s hard for me to imagine a scenario in 2017 in which Russia gains by poking America with a sharp stick. The probable outcome seems more bad than good. Who wants a pissed-off nuclear superpower looking in your direction? It doesn’t pass the sniff test. If Putin were an idiot, I could see him wanting to cause this sort of trouble just because he was dumb.

Scott goes on to say Putin is not dumb.

He finds it difficult to believe Russia (Vladimir Putin) would seek to check us who “are teaming with that country to fight ISIS.” Please replay the most recent state of this teaming to defeat ISIS:

The U.S. downing of a Syrian government jet over the weekend marks an escalation in the long Syrian conflict, although Russia’s bold response Monday to view U.S. aircraft in the region as legitimate “targets” is seen more as “bluster” than anything else.

Yes, the United States and Russia are so hunky-dory on all matters of defense. Yes, Scott, this does pass the smell test.

I’d like to introduce a new hypothesis to explain why Russia might have wanted to influence American elections: They believed a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a disaster to the world, including Russia.

The best observation is that Putin strongly opposed Hillary Clinton and desired strongly that she not become president. Not so much the rest of the world, where Clinton holds great popularity. Trump and Putin not so much.

Did Putin or other Russian nationals try to influence American elections? I assume so. I also assume America has done the same – in terms of influence on their local politics – to Russia, and to every one of our allies.

Finally, Scott Adams turns his argument around. That the Russians were behind the attacks on the 2016 election is something that does not pass his smell test, and finally that—his smell test notwithstanding—it is true. His assumptions aside.

And that is what I call a minor absurdity.

Trump News

More From Trump News

Yes, your memory is correct. I subscribe to a newsletter from Trump News. That’s the name of the sender when their daily report shows up in my inbox. The site is, and the screen shot above is from today’s mailing. Please pardon, but I jacked up the contrast so you can read the caption beneath the photo. The link points to a page that elaborates:

Negative Liberal Media REFUSES To Report What This Republican Patriot Did!

Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers took a moment to support the victims of last week’s shooting at a congressional baseball game practice by donating blood on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

It is no surprise to see the Vice President doing this, as he often examples what Patriotism looks like for the everyday citizen. Also not surprising is the clear lack of media coverage that such service would generally merit. Clearly, the negative liberal media would hate to ever show that any Republican, especially the Vice President, could ever have a caring heart for others.

And that’s the message for today. A deranged gunman, a Bernie Sanders supporter, shot up a baseball  practice session, wounding several, including Congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana District 1. And patriotic Vice President Mike Pence stepped forward to donate blood. And the liberal media (meaning the mainstream news outlets) refused to report it. “REFUSED.”

Refused, that is, except for ABC News:

Mike Pence, other lawmakers donate to Capitol Hill blood bank in honor of Scalise


Vice President Mike Pence was among those on Capitol Hill Tuesday who rolled up their sleeves and donated blood in honor of the victims of last week’s shooting at congressional baseball practice at an Alexandria, Virginia, park.

That was posted today. The blood drive is still ongoing and will continue tomorrow. It will be interesting to see just how many mainstream news sources refuse, absolutely refuse, to cover the story. So far Washington News 8 has covered it, as well as The Hill.

Regarding Trump News, I am dead certain this is not an official Donald Trump outlet. From all appearances it is an independent enterprise established to capitalize on Trump’s notoriety and his fan base. Another thing I am sure of is that Trump supporters read Trump News, and they accept its news as factual. It’s another sign we live in interesting times.

Industrial Strength Irony

Number 3 In A Series

Irony is a remarkable substance. Always a source of wonder. You may know the garden variety, but for those who really appreciate it there is the industrial strength. Nobody supplies that brand more reliably than the Donald Trump family:

Ivanka Trump surprised by ‘viciousness,’ ‘ferocity’ of father’s critics

By Cody Derespina Published June 12, 2017 Fox News

Ivanka Trump, in an interview Monday with “Fox & Friends,” said she has been surprised by the “viciousness” and “ferocity” that greeted her father’s presidency — but also said President Trump felt “very vindicated” by former FBI Director James Comey’s recent Senate testimony.

Ivanka, a political novice like her dad who has been thrust into the Washington spotlight as a senior adviser to the president, nevertheless glided past the more controversial interview topics like a seasoned vet Monday. But she did provide a glimpse into the first family’s daily battle with detractors.

Yes, that is shocking. Truly shocking. Not only shocking, but also dripping with industrial strength irony. Holy pudding-fest, Miss Sweet Cheeks, where have you been vacationing? They have a Trump golf resort on Mars already? Let me bring you down to Earth:

To put this into perspective, Melania Trump is telling Anderson Cooper (from a CNN clip) about the audio recording 11 years ago that features Billy Bush (NBC) and Donald Trump discussing the rewards of fame and success. Trump is exceptionally graphic and forthcoming in his description. He tells Bush that being rich and famous allows him to grab interesting women by the pussy and get away with it. Melania dismisses this as just “boy talk.” She alludes (outright asserts?) that Bush egged Trump on, coaxing him to say these things. This flying in the face of what is obvious. Donald Trump volunteered his experiences without any egging from Bush.

Oh, the humanity, the viciousness:

Self-obsessed billionaire Donald Trump earlier snatched the campaign torch from the Republican Party by scooping up conservative America’s low-hanging fruit. Full disclosure: it’s something I proclaimed over a year ago could not be done. I was wrong! How wrong? Very wrong. Donald Trump is the one candidate who displays an astonishing degree of class:

In the article, I wrote that Trump could not be reached for comment, but a spokesman said the man’s comments were “categorically untrue.”

The story ran below the fold in the business news section with the headline: How a Curious Visitor Beat Trump at the Casino Game.

And now I was holding for Mr. Trump.

There was no hello. But there was yelling, lots of yelling.

The word “shit” was used repeatedly as a noun and adjective.

I had shit for brains.

I worked for a shitty newspaper.

What sort of shit did I write.

Before I could reply, he hung up.

Then he called my editor in Philadelphia, Craig Stock. Now it was Craig’s turn to “Hold for Mr. Trump.”

Craig was treated to the same Trumpian wordplay, but got an added treat. Trump referred to me as “that cunt.”

Craig, a calm Iowan, asked Trump what was wrong with the story. He explained that The Inquirer would run a correction if the paper had made an error.

Trump snapped that he didn’t read the story.

“No one reads the story,” the 41-year-old blustered. “I read the headline and I didn’t like it.”

Craig suggested that he read the story, then call him back if there were any problems.

He did not hear back from Trump.

See what I mean? Sterling character such as this is wasted on the presidency. Donald Trump needs to run for Pope.

But… But that was before The Donald entered into politics, where such conduct would be viewed as unseemly.

Bear with me, my heart is in the comfort zone there with sweet Ivanka, and I must pause till it come back to me.

It’s back. With industrial strength irony.

Industrial Strength Irony

Number 2 In A Series

When the commercial grade will not do the job, there is always industrial strength irony. Thanks much, little Trump:

Trump’s son: The media is very cruel


Eric Trump said Friday that it hurts him watching the media’s treatment of his father on the 2016 campaign trail.

“The media is very cruel,” Eric Trump, 31, told host Elizabeth Hasselbeck on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.” “The political process is incredibly cruel.”

That was two years ago, before things began to get serious. How has it been going since? Apparently not much better:

Eric Trump says Donald Trump’s haters are “not even people”

WEDNESDAY, JUN 7, 2017 07:57 AM CDT

Eric Trump, President Donald Trump’s third child, is a bit upset at his father’s political opponents. Tired of people who are being mean by not allowing Trump to do whatever he wants, he won’t even think of them as humans anymore.

“I’ve never seen hatred like this,” Eric Trump told Sean Hannity Tuesday. “To me they’re not even people. It’s so so sad.”

Sad? You say, sad? I say Industrial Strength Irony.

Eric. Eric! You need to come to grips with the fact that your father is a groper of women, an insulter-in-chief, and a liar of the first order. The best thing that can be said about your father is that he breathes air, and he takes up space. It sort of goes down hill from there. Allow me to review:

While we’re at it, Eric, who is it that is not human?

New York Attorney General Looking Into Eric Trump Foundation

JUN 9, 2017 @ 01:18 PM

By Dan Alexander and Matt Drange

The office of the New York attorney general, which has been investigating the Donald J. Trump Foundation for months, is now looking into the Eric Trump Foundation, after a report in Forbes exposed practices that seem to violate state laws.

“The attorney general’s office is looking into the issues raised by this report,” said Eric Soufer, the communications director for the New York state attorney general.

The Forbes item details the prosecutor’s concerns. Continuing:

Nonprofit legal experts say there are plenty of things for the attorney general to investigate. For starters, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $100,000 to the Eric Trump Foundation, which in turn paid a Donald-Trump owned property. That payment was made explicitly to offset costs for the fundraiser, according to Ian Gillule, a former employee at Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, New York. Leaders of private foundations, like the Donald J. Trump Foundation, are prohibited from using charity money to benefit their own businesses.

Eric, people can be so mean. And yes, I am having a go at being  ironic.

Industrial Strength Irony

“Irony is a term I tend to overuse. Wikipedia has an entire entry for it, but I have my own take. I often use “irony”when “absurdity” would be more appropriate. Here is an example of industrial grade irony. During Senate hearings yesterday Senator Martin Heinrich of Missouri was questioning former (fired) FBI Director James Comey. And he remarked, “A lot of this comes down to who should we believe. Do you want to say anything as to why we should believe you?”

Oh, my God! A United States senator has asked a former FBI director to explain why we should believe him rather than President Donald Trump. And I have to hand it to James Comey for not blurting out, in response, “You have got to be kidding me!” He could have, and I would have responded with Four Weeks In:

History is waiting. Here is number 80 and the last in the series:

80. Feb. 16, 2017 — White House press conference

The claim: “I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan.”

In fact: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all earned bigger margins in the electoral college than Trump did.

Daniel Dale’s list has since grown. As of 18 April the count was up to 179. How long can our president keep this up? Better yet, how long can I keep this up?

I am sure were I on the dock, as James Comey was yesterday, I would not be able to stop with number 80. Something inside would force me to go on:

Here is number 79:

79. Feb. 16, 2017 — White House press conference

The claim about former campaign manager Paul Manafort: “He said that he has absolutely nothing to do and never has with Russia. He said that very forcefully. I saw his statement. He said it forcefully. Most of the papers do not print it because it’s not good for their stories.”

The 5 other front page stories the Star could run after Trump’s wild presser

In fact: The New York Times story Trump was criticizing included Manafort’s denial, in which he said he never “knowingly” had contact with Russian intelligence officers. Other major outlets that followed up on the story also printed a denial from Manafort.

And more:

Here is number 77:

77. Feb. 16, 2017 — White House press conference

The claim: “Remember, I used to give you a news conference every time I made a speech, which was like every day. OK?”

In fact: This is not even close to true. Trump indeed gave near-daily speeches during the campaign, but he did not do a single news conference over the last three months of the campaign.

And more:

Here is number 74:

74. Feb. 16, 2017 — White House press conference

The claim about labour secretary nominee Alex Acosta: “He’s a member and has been a member of the National Labor Relations Board.”

In fact: Acosta is not currently a member of the board. He served on it from 2002 to 2003.

And more:

Here is number 70:

70. Feb. 16, 2017 — White House press conference

The claim: “And the people mentioned in the story, I notice they were on television today saying they never even spoke to Russia.”

In fact: One of the people mentioned in the New York Times story, Trump associate Roger Stone, went on television to deny having any contact with any Russians. But the other people mentioned in the story did not issue such categorical denials in any medium. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, told the New York Times that he never “knowingly” had contact with Russian intelligence officers, adding that such people do not “wear badges.” Former Trump adviser Carter Page he had only “said hello to a few Russian officials over the course of the last year or so”; he also gave a speech in Moscow.


Here is number 60:

60. Feb. 12, 2017 — Twitter

The claim: “Just leaving Florida. Big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road that the FAKE NEWS media refuses to mention. Very dishonest!”

In fact: There were some supporters along the road, but they were far outnumbered by protesters, according to reporters on scene.


Here is number 50:

50. Feb. 7, 2017 — Meeting with the National Sheriffs’ Association

The claim about the Dakota Access Pipeline: “Years of getting approvals, nobody showed up to fight it, this company spends tremendous — hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars — and then all of a sudden people show up to fight it.”

In fact: While protest against the pipeline greatly intensified in 2016, it is false that “nobody” was fighting it before it was granted approvals. “Bakken pipeline protesters flooded the Iowa Utilities Board headquarters in Des Moines on Thursday morning, delivering 1,000 written grievances about the consequences of building the pipeline in the state,” read a Des Moines Register article in Oct. 2015. Iowa’s WHOTV reported in Nov. 2015 about intense opposition from Iowa farmers.


Here is number 40:

40. Feb. 5, 2017Super Bowl interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly

The claim: “California in many ways is out of control, as you know. Obviously the voters agree, otherwise they wouldn’t have voted for me.”

In fact: It is hard to fact-check nonsense, but this is nonsensical. California governance was not one of the subjects debated during the national campaign, and not even pro-Trump pundits argued that his victory was a reaction against California. Further, Trump was trounced in California voting: 62 per cent for Hillary Clinton to his own 32 per cent.


Here is number 30:

30. Feb. 1, 2017 — Black History Month “listening session”

The claim: “I don’t watch CNN.”

In fact: All available evidence suggests that Trump is at least an occasional CNN viewer. Though he has repeatedly claimed since May 2016 that he was boycotting the network, he has frequently commented on its content within a week of doing so — sometimes live, during a show. Eight days after this latest claim to not be watching CNN, he tweeted immediate criticism of an interview by CNN morning host Chris Cuomo.


Here is number 20:

20. Jan. 26, 2017 — Interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity

The claim (on refugees): “We’ve taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn’t vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don’t know anything about them and you have no papers?”

In fact: Refugees to the U.S. are rigorously vetted. The process includes multiple kinds of background and security checks and at least two interviews with U.S. representatives. Regardless of their paperwork situation, and regardless of one’s opinion on how good the vetting is, the U.S. knows far more than “nothing” about the refugees it approves.


Here’s number 10:

10. Jan. 25, 2017 — Interview with ABC’s David Muir

The claim: With regard to his speech to the Central Intelligence Agency earlier in the week: “They showed the people applauding and screaming and they were all CIA. There was — somebody was asking [press secretary] Sean [Spicer] – ‘Well, were they Trump people that were put’ — we don’t have Trump people. They were CIA people.”

In fact: Most of the audience was indeed made up of CIA personnel, but Trump is wrong that there were no “Trump people.” Spicer told the press that “maybe 10” people in attendance were part of Trump’s entourage; CBS News reported that an official familiar with the event said Spicer was inaccurate, as Trump and his allies brought about 40 people.

I have to stop here. And it’s not because I’m running out of material. Daniel Dale, of the Toronto Star, continues to post fallacies perpetrated by President Trump. Dale cataloged 80 in the first four weeks, and his page now lists 212, and that’s just since Trump took office. That means I am leaving out one of my favorites:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Trust Comey? Have to. Nobody else with any credibility, or sense of irony, was in the room.


Number 23 in a series

Our adventures with a schlemiel president continue, much to the delight of many. I being one of the many. So, what’s the latest? ABC World News Tonight with David Muir has the story from Monday:

For the second consecutive day, President Trump assailed London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s response to terror attacks, misinterpreting the mayor’s call for residents to remain calm as police stepped up anti-terror patrols.

Our President dug himself deeper.

Asked to explain, Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders proved less than transparent:

ABC’s Jonathan Karl sparred with Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders during Monday’s White House press briefing over President Donald Trump‘s Twitter posts that targeted the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.

“Why is the President picking a fight with the mayor of London right after his city was hit by a terrorist attack?” Karl wondered.

Sanders replied, “I don’t see that the President is picking a fight with the mayor of London at all. I think, again, the President’s point is something he said…a year and a half ago, when the President talked about how we have to be more committed to national security. One of the reasons we have the travel ban here through that executive order is a focus on national security.”

Karl followed up by directly challenging one of Mr. Trump’s Twitter posts: “But the President was saying — the mayor said there was no reason to be alarmed by the terrorist attack. That is not what the mayor said. The mayor, in fact, said that the threat level remains severe. The chances of another attack are highly likely. He was saying, don’t be alarmed by the armed police presence on the street. And the President directly misrepresented what the mayor of London said.”

And she had a bit more to say that is interesting:

The White House flack shot back, “I don’t think that’s actually true. I think that the media wants to spin it that way.”

Yes, “the media wants to spin it that way.” Call me a hick from the sticks if you want to, but “spin” is usually associated with a degree of misdirection. A rational viewer will come away with no doubt the schlemiel-in-chief took part of what the mayor had to say and formed his own version. Then he employed his own version to spank the mayor. That qualifies as spin.

London’s mayor is a Muslim, which is significant. For the past 1000 years all other London mayors have been either Christian or pretend Christian. Again, a rational viewer will take away that this mayor is calling it what it is and is not having bullshit from an American  president. Mayor Sadiq Khan announced he has more on his plate than dealing with Donald Trump:

… but until now Khan had calmly responded he “has better and more important things to focus on than” to waste his time responding to the president of the united states…

Mayor Khan also suggested Donald Trump’s state visit to  the U.K. be canceled. Good for them, not so good for us.

Et Tu, Rupert?

Is this the unkindest cut of all?

All others had their say. Each, in turn, thrust his blade. “If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.” Now comes one last friend.

Look, in this place ran Cassius’ dagger through:

See what a rent the envious Casca made:

Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabb’d;

And as he pluck’d his cursed steel away,

Mark how the blood of Caesar follow’d it,

As rushing out of doors, to be resolved

If Brutus so unkindly knock’d, or no;

For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar’s angel:

Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him!

This was the most unkindest cut of all;

It is a sad day when Caesar’s most trusted ally steps up and sinks the shaft:

The White House Mess

A shakeup needs to start with some self-reflection at the top.

White House aides are leaking that President Trump is considering a staff shakeup to stop them from leaking, and the casualty on Monday was communications director Mike Dubke. Mr. Trump certainly needs to fix his White House mess, but staff changes won’t matter unless the President accepts that he is the root of the dysfunction.

There was no question about The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times. They were never in his camp. The Dallas Morning News, which could not find a Republican candidate it did not like, signaled early trouble when it endorsed Hillary Clinton  for President. The business-friendly Wall Street Journal would have reliably supported Donald Trump in years gone by, even before it was scooped up into Murdoch’s World.

The honeymoon is well and truly over. Reality has seeped into the highest level of conservative America. Everybody is coming to see what is obvious to most. The American electorate fell for a political hoax of massive scale. It is time to bury Caesar, not praise him.


Number 22 in a series

Big problem here. I’m starting to suffer from Trump fatigue. I’ve been going after newly-elected President Donald Trump on an almost daily basis since August, and it’s getting… well, tiresome. It gives me the sense I’m going after low-hanging fruit, overstating the obvious, beating a dead horse. This covfefe business is a prime example. Some elaboration.

Apparently, about six minutes after midnight Wednesday, a tender-skinned President smarted under the flail of an unkind press. He sensed the need to assert his manhood, and he lashed back, with a great whooshing sound. He abandoned his latest stab at making America great again and went off to better things perhaps. Leaving  that enormous whoosh hanging out there. “Friends” of Trump, this writer included, went wild.

And you know what? We all went overboard. A simple human being (Trump), performing a simple task (President of the United States), took time from his busy schedule to address the masses and to inform them bigly. And he made a simple mistake. His (known to be quite large) fingers fumbled the end of a sentence intended to dress down the out of control media. And nobody felt the need to give him a break, least of all this writer. How callous. How uncaring. How unforgiving. To step over the body of a fallen foe. Just when we all should have been on schedule to cut this man some slack, we twisted the knife. And it is not as though we wasted any opportunity.

  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump clued us in that Mexico was sending drug dealers and rapists?
  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump amazed us with the fact he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters?
  • Where was forgiveness when  Donald Trump informed us, “An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that ‘s birth certificate is a fraud.”
  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump brought us news, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump stood before cheering thousands and shouted, of his political rival, “Lock her up!”
  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump boasted of being able to grope women because he could do it and get away with it?
  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump acknowledged his inauguration crowd was the largest in recent times?
  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump alerted the American public that he would have won the popular vote over Hillary Clinton had not three million people voted illegal?
  • Where was forgiveness when Donald Trump dropped the startling news that President Obama ordered his phones tapped?

Readers, are we ever going to call a halt to this and forgive President Donald Trump of something, no matter how small. I, for one, am prepared to do just that.

When there is no skin left.