Right at the start I wasn’t too sure of Trump. I wanted Marco Rubio. But I got Trump and I tried to hang in there.
First it was the tweets. Who uses Twitter to communicate, anyway? I decided that he used Twitter because he wasn’t able to get his message out any other way. When I looked at the newspapers it seemed so. I counted them. Same on Yahoo. Same on the evening news. Conservatives seldom get fair news reports; the journalism schools seem to generate a bunch of fanatic socialists, and why wouldn’t they; most are doomed to low paying jobs. But the lopsidedness in the reports on Trump has been frenetic and fanatic, mind boggling. An estimate of 20:1 against Trump would be overly generous toward fairness on the part of the mainstream media.They never give Trump a good report, which makes them propagandists, not journalists.
So, of course, he uses Twitter.
And I gave him the benefit of the doubt until the presidential inquisition trials. Right off the bat, no one seemed to understand them, or care, so Nanzi Pelosi wobbled onto the stage like a mannequin whose strings were being worked by a drunk, and gurgled something like, “President Trump’s quid pro quo in the Ukraine is an impeachable crime.”
I was red with embarrassment, until I realized that all our dealings with foreign governments are basically quid pro quo, and presidents have always been the key administrator of those arrangements. Everyone else must have come to the same conclusion, or else didn’t know or care what quid pro quo was, so:
A few days later, Nanzi Pelosi stumbled onto the stage again. This time the man behind the curtain had her eyes flipping right and left, her jaw agitating, and her arms bobbling. “President Trump has committed the impeachable crime of bribery in the Ukraine in violation of the constitution.”
Wow, am I an idiot for supporting Trump, or what? I mean despite the fact that he has gotten more Americans of all groups proudly working, and business rushing back to the states, and ISIS damned near dead, and the military stronger, and Europeans taking some of the burden of NATO off our backs, and, and well you might see why I had begun to like him. Now I was being told that he is a traitor of the worst kind because he bribed the Ukraine.
Well this didn’t last very long, because common Americans view our entire foreign aid program as one big bribe to make other nations more friendly toward us. Those of us who know anything, know that the constitution speaks of the president being bribed by a foreign entity to do something harmful to the US. It does not speak to the president bribing, which is not bribery unless what is asked is illegal.
So the next trick was, by golly, the president might have lied about saying something about Wikileaks to Roger Stone.
My embarrassment is wearing thin. I breathe a sigh of relief. If President Trump ever does anything slightly wrong, the progressive Democrats will be on it like fat on bacon. The corollary to that is that if they had found anything with the slightest bit of legitimacy, we would have already heard about it, because ever since Trump has been elected they have been spending 100% of their time trying to get him dis-elected. True to form, Nanzi wobbled onto the stage to let us know that congress had a constitutional duty to monitor the executive branch.
Maybe, I thought. I’m sure it’s in there, but I don’t think that the constitution says that the House of Representatives are supposed to run roughshod over the executive branch, nor do I think the Founding Fathers intended that all 2o0 some members of the opposition party, spend ALL of their time throwing monkey wrenches into the workings of the executive branch. I believe they have a bunch of other things they are supposed to be doing, this investigating the executive branch being a minor duty, and ONLY if they have identified a crime. That is, they should not be investigating, hoping that they can find a crime-which is what they are doing.
And Adam Schiff should not be lying that he has proof of a crime when he doesn’t. But if there is one thing consistent about Schiff, it is he ability to exaggerate.
Friday in the middle of the presidential inquisitions, Adam Schiff announced to EX-Ambassador Yovanovitch that “there are some of us that take witness intimidation seriously.” It seemed as if a major event, like a terrorist attack had just happened.
“Was the ambassador intimidated,” she was asked.
“No,” she squeaked mouse-like, and she is petite woman with a soft spoken voice. She is someone who seems very intelligent, but introverted, quiet, and reclusive, and would make a wonderful professor of Slavic Studies of some kind.
Oops, he’s done it, I thought. I thought for sure Trump had sent this poor sensitive woman a THREAT.
I checked articles on line: Threatening, Threat, Witness intimidation, on and on. If I were inclined to believe what the fascist journalists, students of Goebbels, write and say, then I would be convinced that Trump had actually threatened her- but I insisted on finding a transcript of the tweet.
After checking through about 12 articles that accused him of all that threat stuff, but never producing the actual tweet, and you know tweets are short. It would not take much space to quote the actual tweet and let the people decide if it entailed a threat, but Adam Schiff said, clearly as soon as the tweet was announced into his ear piece and before he actually knew the content, or possibly before his tiny mind could digest it,that it was witness intimidation.
I finally found the actual tweet, and it was not to Ambassador Yovanovitch as the compliant press, Schiff and Pelosi seemed to make it out to be, but rather a general public announcement. And it is clear that at the time Adam, dumbass, Schiff was pompously declaring himself to be Ex-Ambassador Yovanovitch’s paternal godfather, neither he nor she, both being engaged in the questioning process when the tweet went out, knew the content of the tweet. They both did not know what they were talking about. And clearly the progressive propagandists think you don’t know, and they don’t wish to edify you either.
It’s just too bad there aren’t a few journalists, who are intelligent, who are tired of being told what to write. Well actually it’s more like they are told to simply paste the same story into their news article, since there is such little variance between them. But we need just a few who are fed up with it, and who will jump off the cattle car, and become stars and tell the truth.
Well then we need to be careful; there’s that Adam Schiff godfather aspect.
The tweet? Oh, it went like this: “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”
Trump was saying why he fired her, something that happened many months ago. Yes, and ambassadorships always have been awarded to the political supporters by the winning candidate.
And you wonder why? Why are they so afraid of Trump? Is it that the chief in Washington is so rich that he is unbribible, for the first time since this government cartel came to power? And that has many running scared on both sides of the aisle. I’m not a conspiracy type, but I’m getting real suspicious.
So now their latest spin is to say: Why did Trump fire all of these wonderful foreign service people who were implementing the wonderful policies of Nanzi Pelosi in trying to rid the Ukraine of corruption? Thew same policies that enabled Hunter Biden to get a vice president job from a Ukrainian energy company? Wonderful job fighting corruption or not, Joe Citizen is still interested in the Hunter Biden thing.
As we said before, the new president always makes changes of diplomatic personnel. And if he finds that the holdovers which he has kept are spying on him, then he is going to fire them. You can’t have it both ways: Be a dedicated foreign service officer implementing the new controlling party’s foreign policies and also be a spy trying to undermine them for the opposition party.