This is your President speaking.

Number 171 in a series

And now a few words from the President of the United States:

The only “Collusion” is that of the Democrats with Russia and many others. Why didn’t the FBI take the Server from the DNC? They still don’t have it. Check out how biased Facebook, Google and Twitter are in favor of the Democrats. That’s the real Collusion!

Back in the real world:

Keep talking, big guy. Your loyal base is hanging onto your every word. They have nothing else.

This is your President speaking.

Number 170 in a series

And now a few words from the President of the United States:

Universities will someday study what highly conflicted (and NOT Senate approved) Bob Mueller and his gang of Democrat thugs have done to destroy people. Why is he protecting Crooked Hillary, Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page & her lover, Peter S, and all of his friends on the other side?

From which logically follows:

And that will just about do with that.

This is your President speaking.

Number 169 in a series

And now a few words from the President of the United States:

The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation and don’t…

….care how many lives the ruin. These are Angry People, including the highly conflicted Bob Mueller, who worked for Obama for 8 years. They won’t even look at all of the bad acts and crimes on the other side. A TOTAL WITCH HUNT LIKE NO OTHER IN AMERICAN HISTORY!

Ruined! Absolutely ruined.

So many lives. I promise, there will be more.

This is your President speaking.

Number 168 in a series

And now a few words from the President of the United States:

The White House is running very smoothly and the results for our Nation are obviously very good. We are the envy of the world. But anytime I even think about making changes, the FAKE NEWS MEDIA goes crazy, always seeking to make us look as bad as possible! Very dishonest!

I mean, if he says it, then it must be true.

By Peter BakerKatie Benner and Michael D. Shear

WASHINGTON — President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday, replacing him with a loyalist who has echoed the president’s complaints about the special counsel investigation into Russia’s election interference and will now take charge of the inquiry.

Mr. Sessions delivered his resignation letter to the White House at the request of the president, who tapped Matthew G. Whitaker, Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff, as acting attorney general, raising questions about the future of the inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Ho-hum. As the world turns…

John Kelly reportedly clashed with Melania Trump, which could spell the end of his time in the White House

And turns…

A fine-tuned machine.

This is your President speaking.

Number 167 in a series

And now a few words from the President of the United States:

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

Keep it up, big guy. We love it when you talk tough.

You just made my day.

Nobel Nobel

How about that Nobel Prize?

Maybe next year:

Trump: ‘Everyone thinks’ I deserve Nobel Peace Prize

President Trump said Thursday that “everyone thinks” he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, after weeks of suggestions from some that he should be honored for his diplomatic efforts on the Korean Peninsula.

“Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it,” Trump said when asked by a reporter in the White House if he thinks he should win the prestigious award.

Ahead of a historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump said he only hopes for the U.S. to broker a deal for the country to denuclearize and desist its missile threats.

For the record, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize merely for getting elected. From all appearances, President Trump is going to have to actually earn it, which circumstances appear to be vanishingly small.

Yes, despite all of President Trump’s grandiose proclamations and high-flying expectations, this master of the deal has been crudely played by a sawed-off DPRK despot. Who would have thought?

Who would have thought? Who would have thought would have been anybody outside the orbit of our varying collection of Trump critters, many of whom consider DJK to be the Second Coming. Facts differ considerably from the president’s gushings. Instead of any prospect for peace from the DPRK, what the president got was con job an experienced diplomat would have expected. And Kim got exactly what he wanted. He got the President of the United States to kiss up and to elevate him to the level of a world player.

Any doubts the President of the United States allowed himself to be played are going to be difficult to wash. Thanks, big guy. We were in need of some additional humiliation on the world stage. We knew we could count on you. What’s next?

People Unclear

This is number 61 of a series

What can I say? More stuff in my in box from a Republican Party functionary:

Can you do this for President Trump?

Trump House Conservatives HQ <info@nrccvictory.com>
To: jf_blanton@yahoo.com
Nov 12 at 5:11 PM

We just entered a new fight.

With Democrats taking over our president’s majority, there are sure to be plenty of sham investigations, attacks against our president, and petty bickering from the radical left.

I am guessing some people didn’t get the memo. You want support from me, you need to quit insulting my intelligence. Yeah, let’s get to the matter of “plenty of sham investigations, attacks against our president, and petty bickering from the radical left.” I can imagine some petty bickering from the radical left, but the part about plenty of sham investigations and attacks against our president leave me breathless. Let’s look at some sham investigations: 

Attacks against our president? Scandalous. We need to put a stop to this. Just as soon as we quit laughing.

 

Yes, we definitely need to defend this president. You go first.

The Loose Cruz

Number 2 of a Series

Wow! It has been three years, almost to the day, since I last addressed the matter of our own Texas Senator Ted Cruz, otherwise known as “Lyin’ Ted.” Full disclosure: that name did not spring from my fevered brain. The sole author was none other than the President of the United States, otherwise known as Donald Trump. So, “Lyin’ Ted,” not my idea. “Loose Cruz.” Mine.

Despite my valiant effort—all right, my lackadaisical effort—Rafael Cruz will continue to be our senator from Texas for another six years. Yippee! But what lies beneath (bad pun)? Let’s look at the stats from last Tuesday.

Ted Cruz 4,244,204 votes (50.9%), Robert O’Rourke 4,024,777 votes (.3%)

Greg Abbott 4,638,582 votes (55.8%), Lupe Valdez 3,528,705 votes (42.5%)

Let’s put this into perspective. Last Tuesday some Texas voters voted the straight party ticket, all votes going to Republicans or all votes going to Democrats. Some crossed over. Some votes for Republicans, some votes for Democrats. What the stats above show is that rust-red Texas voted 4,244,304 for Abbott, but 394,378 of those who voted for Abbott could not stomach voting for Cruz and voted instead for O’Rourke. Je répète, true Republican voters turned thumbs down on Cruz to the tune of 394,378. Flip me over and call me a pancake, but there is something even Texans do not like about Ted Cruz. Do I need to explain?

Let’s consider first that Ted Cruz is a person of his word.

All right, that may be the wrong approach. How about the company he keeps?

Image from Politicususa

Oops!

Allow me to finish this. If you are one of those who voted for Ted Cruz, you may be asking yourself about now, “What did those other 394,378 know that you don’t? Are they some kind of deluded idiots? Or am I?” Think it over.

People Unclear

This is number 60 of a series

This series is dedicated to people out there who, having access to the best information sources in the history of this planet, remain unclear on some critical points. I don’t want to name names… Actually, I will name names. Let’s start with this, which I received from a Republican organization soliciting campaign contributions. Here’s an excerpt:

NRCC HQ <info@nrccvictory.com>
To: jf_blanton@yahoo.com
Nov 8 at 12:11 PM

First: The Democrats claimed Crooked Hillary would win in a landslide — But she lost.

Then: The Democrats said there would be a blue wave — But they merely eked out a win.

Now: We must keep supporting President Trump and Conservatives in Congress.

Pass over the rest. Let’s concentrate on the opening line. “Crooked Hillary?” People, if you want my support you have first to stop insulting my intelligence. Let’s take a look at what we would have gotten with “Crooked Hillary.”

 

Wow! Just wow. It’s a good thing we didn’t elect “Crooked Hillary.”

This is your President speaking.

Number 164 in a series

And now a few words from the President of the United States:

If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!

What can I say but, “Bring it on.”

Quick History Lesson

Number 6 in a series

I opened up this conversation five years ago with an analysis of the following meme.

The intent of the above is to paint the current Democratic Party as the enemy of civil rights and progress. My analysis spelled out that the critical language is not Democratic versus Republican but liberal versus conservative. The original post has been viewed over 58,000 times since 2015, and readers have posted 50 comments, including the one I will analyze here. Yesterday “NTS” submitted the following:

Both of these articles successfully refute the “party switch” myth with many sourced facts to back it up.

https://www.blackandblondemedia.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

https://www.blackandblondemedia.com/2009/01/14/democrat-race-lie/

You need not reach out to “NTS”, because I already have, at the email address he supplied when he posted his comment.

bblogtv.1@gmail.com [174.55.246.100]

Yeah, it’s bogus. It’s what is called in the industry “ring and run.” It’s game played by children. You go up to a house, a place where you don’t know anybody. And you ring the doorbell. Then you run. Then the poor idiot living there comes to the door, and there is nobody there. It is funny. “Ha! Fooled you.” That’s ring and run, and I get a bunch of it. In fact, I get a bunch of it when the person posting the comment is sure what he is posting has no value, and he would not like his name associated with it. Ring and run.

I activated the links NTS provided, and I invite readers to follow the links and to read what NTS considers to be an argument against my contention that liberals support civil rights. Let’s take the first link and view some excerpts. The author of the item is not identified:

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The writer cites sources, which a careful reader will want to follow. He concludes:

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

I stand back for a moment, and I get the impression this is supposed to be an argument that the current Democratic Party is the party of racism, and the Republican Party is the party of civil rights. Absorbing all the verbiage, I turn to reality.

Coming from a Republican President of the United States:

“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”

Republicans may say they do not like racist the element in society, but that element is no friend of the Democrats. Instead:

“Voting for these people [Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz], voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage. I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”

— David Duke, on his radio program, Feb. 25, 2016

That may or may not be an endorsement. However, the moment I convince David Duke to endorse the Democratic Party you will read about it here.

Let’s see how forceful the current (Republican) administration has been in looking out for the rights of the LGBT community:

The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man’s case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Getting past all that, let’s look at some people you will never see cheering at a Democratic Party rally:

 

 

To be sure, there is much more. So, NTS, whatever your real name is, if you want to convince people that the Democratic Party is opposed to civil rights and is the party of racism, then your invitation is open. Bring it on.

People Unclear

This is number 59 of a series

I posted this earlier, and I have received some push back from the person of interest. Follow the link and review my response to Dan. Dan posted a comment:

I think for Truth in Advertising (if that ever existed) you can no longer call yourself a skeptic.

“Donald Trump has, from all appearances, committed numerous major crimes. Obama not so much.” Kind of a weak support of Obama, isn’t it?

But how is that statement, and the ones which followed it, supported by any more than itself and – maybe – the hot air of the pundits from which you heard them?

For example, how could you possibly know Obama’s rate of sexual encounter? And this assumes at least some of Trumps are his deeds, not merely words. His sexual assault accusers all disappeared after the “election.” Same with Kavanaugh’s and Roy Moore’s Do you feel any skepticism about that?

Is Trump a scumbag? Most likely.

Is Obama any better? By his deeds (ordering mass murder under the guise of war, torture, plunder of the economy, plodding toward one-world fascism, pillaging of our rights) I still see no difference.

I responded to Dan’s statement that he did not see a lot of difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump. For your easy reading, here is my list, which I pulled from short memory:

  • Donald Trump has, from all appearances, committed numerous major crimes. Obama not so much.
  • Trump has a distant relationship with the truth. Obama more or less embraces it.
  • Trump thinks there were some very nice people marching and shouting, “Jews will not replace us.” Obama refuses to give those people a pass.
  • Trump met in private in the Oval Office with Russian agents and confided secret information obtained from Israeli intelligence sources. Obama tended to keep sensitive information close to the vest.
  • Trump employed in his campaign and in his personal life a gallery of convicted criminals. Obama has been reluctant to do this.
  • Trump has been married to three different women, each time humping other women while married to the previous or current wife. Obama leads a deadly dull existence by comparison.
  • Trump phoned a newspaper editor and called one of his reporters a cunt. Obama apparently missed any such opportunity.
  • Trump calls a number of countries in the world shit holes. Obama uses more diplomatic language.
  • Trump seems to have had no formal training in constitutional law. Obama obtained a law degree from Harvard, was for a time editor of the Harvard Law Review, and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
  • Trump promised that, if elected, he would work to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Obama failed never even made an attempt.
  • Donald Trump has suggested that Jewish people might be committing anti-Semitic hate crimes to make himself look bad.” Obama took a pass at any opportunity to go down that path.

Allow me to respond to Dan’s points in turn.

First he takes issue with my continued reputation as a skeptic. I think I know where he is going with that, and my response is that I am skeptical about a lot of stuff, but it’s stuff we all should be skeptical about. Hint: the biblical Book of Genesis is not real, it’s a fable. On the other side I do believe the sun will come up in the morning, so I am not skeptical about everything. Hence my certainty concerning my bulleted statements above.

Dan writes:

“Donald Trump has, from all appearances, committed numerous major crimes. Obama not so much.” Kind of a weak support of Obama, isn’t it?

Weak support? From what anybody can tell, President Obama does not need a lot of support. What makes me certain President Obama is free of crime? To that end I have the Republican Party to thank. Had Obama so much as a parking ticket those guys would have been all over it. Absence is proof of absence in this case.

On the flip side Donald Trump, acting in concert with Fred Trump, violated laws by illegally conniving to excuse people of color from some of the company real estate. Further, Donald Trump created and profited from a fake university that bilked students out of thousands of dollars. To settle, Donald Trump (his company) had to pay $25 million in restitution. When Donald Trump’s Atlantic City casino got into financial trouble, an agent of Fred Trump entered the casino and purchased $3.5 million worth of chips and left the premises with the chips and with no intention of using them to gamble. This violation of New Jersey gaming law resulted in the casino (Trump) having to pay $30,000, in effect a fine. If Dan would like me to lay out particulars on the Trump Foundation, then I will be glad to load his in-box.

Dan writes:

But how is that statement, and the ones which followed it, supported by any more than itself and – maybe – the hot air of the pundits from which you heard them?

Dan questions my accusations as though they have no support. What Dan does not question is that my accusations are true. If any of my accusations are false, then Dan needs to tell me so now. If Dan will tell me I am making false accusations, then I will again load up his mailbox. But Dan won’t do that, because he knows the accusations are true.

Dan again:

For example, how could you possibly know Obama’s rate of sexual encounter? And this assumes at least some of Trumps are his deeds, not merely words. His sexual assault accusers all disappeared after the “election.” Same with Kavanaugh’s and Roy Moore’s Do you feel any skepticism about that?

How could I possibly know? The Republican Party again is my witness. If Dan knows about any serious personal indiscretions of President Obama (since the time he smoked joints), then now is the time for him to bring them out. In this case Dan is my witness.

If Dan wants to tell me that Donald Trump did not screw other women while married and pay hush money, then he needs to state that now. Else I will assume he accepts my statements as fact, and we will go forward from there.

Regarding accusations against Judge Moore and (now) Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, I have no solid evidence one way or the other. If Dan wants to dispute the charges against these somewhat disreputable personages, then he needs to say it in words. In passing, Judge Moore’s violations of the law are well-documented. Does Dan want to challenge me on that?

Finally, Dan:

Is Obama any better? By his deeds (ordering mass murder under the guise of war, torture, plunder of the economy, plodding toward one-world fascism, pillaging of our rights) I still see no difference.

No difference? I will concede both presidents have engaged in warfare with the associated consequences. Leaving that behind, “plunder of the economy” and other such, I will ask Dan for some specifics, and then I will respond to those points.

I have mentioned before that there is a national divide—a hard line separates who will tolerate unconscionable actions and who will not, and I welcome the division. People need to decide which side of history they want to come down on. It’s time to choose up sides. Put one foot across the line, and you need to go all the way over.

People Unclear

This is number 58 of a series

Jesus Christ! I have resorted to posting these two a day.

Good morning, people. Today is election day. Today is the day you get to unwind all your misgivings from 8 November 2016. You have had two years to figure things out, and now it is time to put your thoughts into action. That said, there still appear to be many unclear.

The image above is from a speech delivered by the president in Council Bluffs, Iowa, back in October. He is speaking on behalf of Congressman David Young of the Third Congressional District, now running for re-election. He is saying, “A vote for David is a vote for me.” He also reminds his audience that this is a vote for the Trump agenda of the past 21 months. Yes, you vote for David, and you are voting for:

 

I will stop before I wear out your patience, assuming you are still reading. Yes, a vote for David and a vote for any other of these Trump critters is a vote for Trump and a vote for all he stands with. There is a line dividing our nation, and it is a clear line. Today is the day you need decide which side of the line you want to be on. Is there anybody out there who is still unclear?

People Unclear

This is number 57 of a series

I have a variety of Facebook friends of differing world views. Sensitivity to being challenged has driven most of the ultra-religious and the politically conservative away. Thankfully, some remain. They are the true heroes. They are the ones who do not perceive any difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama. They are among those people still unclear. Here is a posting from one:

So… Trump is totally different from Obama? [Emphasis added]

Only to those who don’t realize the hold the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has on >> any << administration.

Here’s one example, a video which directly compares Obama’s “We must attack Syria” speech with Trump’s.

I’m open to your showing me the differences:

https://youtu.be/Ox4vfBH5xpU?t=3879

What I will bear down on are two critical lines—Trump totally different from Obama and showing the differences. Where to begin:

  • Donald Trump has, from all appearances, committed numerous major crimes. Obama not so much.
  • Trump has a distant relationship with the truth. Obama more or less embraces it.
  • Trump thinks there were some very nice people marching and shouting, “Jews will not replace us.” Obama refuses to give those people a pass.
  • Trump met in private in the Oval Office with Russian agents and confided secret information obtained from Israeli intelligence sources. Obama tended to keep sensitive information close to the vest.
  • Trump employed in his campaign and in his personal life a gallery of convicted criminals. Obama has been reluctant to do this.
  • Trump has been married to three different women, each time humping other women while married to the previous or current wife. Obama leads a deadly dull existence by comparison.
  • Trump phoned a newspaper editor and called one of his reporters a cunt. Obama apparently missed any such opportunity.
  • Trump calls a number of countries in the world shit holes. Obama uses more diplomatic language.
  • Trump seems to have had no formal training in constitutional law. Obama obtained a law degree from Harvard, was for a time editor of the Harvard Law Review, and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
  • Trump promised that, if elected, he would work to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Obama failed never even made an attempt.
  • Donald Trump has suggested that Jewish people might be committing anti-Semitic hate crimes to make himself look bad.” Obama took a pass at any opportunity to go down that path.

Hey, Dan, I have half a basket full more of these. Would you like for me to post them?

Wacko Right Wing Religious Fanatics Say The Darndest Things

Number 21 of a continuing series

Yes, readers, wacko right wing religious fanatics really do say the darndest things. Enough time has passed, and I can now return to right wing religious fanatic Rick Wiles. This from Right Wing Watch:

Rick Wiles Warns That if Democrats Gain Power, They Will Slaughter Christians by the Thousands

“This Marxist-communist Antichrist revolution that is in full bloom in the United States of America, this thing is anti-Christian,” Wiles said. “They hate God. These people are against God. These people love to abort babies. They love to promote sexual immorality. Everything that drives them is in opposition to God and his moral laws. That is the centerpiece of their agenda.”

This is your heads up, comrades. He’s on to us. It looks like we are going to have to change our plans. Instead of slaughtering thousands of Christians, I suggest we snuff only a hundred or so. Better yet, let’s forget our snuff plans altogether. Let’s just moon them. I guarantee you, they will never get over it.

BTW, Right Wing Watch is a worthy source, and they are soliciting your monetary support. Since I use a lot of their material to feed this blog, I’m going to make a contribution. You are invited to contribute, as well.

People Unclear

This is number 56 of a series

Can we all hold up for a moment. Apparently there are some who have not gotten the message. Here’s one, and he’s from Fox News.

(CNN) — The Trump administration says a group of migrants now making their way through Mexico is a national security threat, and some conservative commentators claim that they are a threat to Americans’ health. But experts say the people whose health is most at risk are the migrants themselves.

A story in the right-wing magazine The New American this weekend was headlined Will Migrant Caravan Kill Your Child – With Disease? On Monday, “Fox& Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that the refugees pose a threat because they carry “diseases” and shouldn’t be let in.

A commentator on Fox, former immigration agent David Ward, also claimedthat the migrants carry disease “such as smallpox and leprosy and [tuberculosis] that are going to infect our people in the United States.” Later, according to the Daily Beast, Fox’s press office sent out a clip clarifying the issue that mentioned only TB and leprosy and added, “we have no way of independently confirming this.”

There is no doubt, dear readers, that a mass immigration, such as represented by the caravan of trekkers heading toward our souther border, need to be checked for infectious diseases before being admitted into the country. Fox commentator David Ward may, however, have gone overboard by adding small pox to the list. Some analysis is needed.

First, small pox is not likely to be among those coming here. That’s because as of about 1980 the last vestige of the pox virus was eliminated from the environment. Samples exist only in research labs. Notice, Fox later clarified the story, dropping the pox. But not leprosy.

Truth be known, leprosy is a much feared malady, perhaps unreasonably so.

Leprosy is spread between people and possibly from armadillos. This is thought to occur through a cough or contact with fluid from the nose of an infected person. Leprosy occurs more commonly among those living in poverty. Contrary to popular belief, it is not highly contagious.

It may be possible to keep out the people coming from Central America, but the armadillos are going to be a tougher nut to crack. Perhaps the Trump administration, and possibly Fox News, need to switch from demonizing people and to go after the real threat, armadillos.