Skip to content

TGIF- December 27, 2019

Law or tyranny?

We understand why the President has commanded that anyone under 21 be prohibited from buying tobacco products. We also understand why no 20 year old Marine in Kandahar is going to pay a damn bit of attention to him.

The problems with illicit THC vaping products are real and dangerous, even though the problems are being caused by the users themselves, and not the products, at least not as they were originally manufactured. If these users want to use pot, then move to a state where it is legal.

This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. OK, you don’t think anyone should smoke.  That’s your right, but it is equally the right of those who choose to, to do so. Many don’t think anyone should drink either, but that too is an individual choice.

We personally don’t happen to think anyone should own reptiles as pets, since they are often not cared for properly (and they really aren’t very cuddly and we’ve never heard one purr), but that doesn’t give us the right to tell you whether you should own a boa constrictor or to take yours away from you. .

As someone once said, everything in moderation, and that goes for laws too.

Did Mayor Pete just make a Clinton-sized gaffe?

We hear that Iowa is a pretty conservative state, which makes us wonder just how popular Mayor Pete’s “all drug possession should be decriminalized” stance will go over there.

Actually, as is often the case, there’s a bit more to his statement than that, as the hyperlinked article explains, but you know that those six words will be all anyone sees.

Can you say “deplorables?”

Democrats good at pedal target practice.

On top of Mayor Pete’s possible faux pas, we now have Lizzie’s own relatives showing displeasure with her description of her father as a janitor, (they prefer “maintenance man”)

What is it with Ms. Warren? She seems to have a rare talent for making her family over in whatever way she thinks will make her look better to voters.

Sorry, old girl. Even you can’t do the impossible.

 

Back to business.

We hope all of you had a lovely Christmas. There should be at least one day a year that’s politics-free.

Still, life goes on, which leaves us noting that Plastique Pelosi is still diddling around with Impeachment.

As in, “hey that was so much fun, we should do it again.”

That seems to be the idea behind wanting Don McGahn and his cohorts to testify.  Madame Pelosi seems to have missed the part where they may have to appear, but they don’t have to cough up any classified or executive information.

She also seems be confused as to whether she is Speaker of the House, or Speaker of the Senate. Or maybe, she’s just confused.

OK, enough with the snark, even if it is great fun.

On a serious note, Pelosi is still not giving a target date to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Whether that’s because she wants to amend them, or she just wants to be contrarian is hard to tell.

Depending on which “expert” you ask, that either means there are no articles of impeachment, or that the Senate is hamstrung in any efforts to dismiss them.

Whichever way it is, the general consensus “out there” is that she may well have overreached in impeaching the President just for being a big meanie to her and her accomplices.

If she has done nothing else, she seems to have convinced Trump’s supporters that she finds them despicable, to which most would say “right back at ya.”

That’s a bad way to convince voters to stay at home next November, particularly in view of the competition Democrats are offering as alternatives.

Try as we might, we can’t find anyone in the current group of Democrat contenders that presents a viable alternative to President Trump that would appeal to the so-called independent  voters.

For instance, one Dem “frontrunner”  candidate is OK with ending 100,000 jobs…while Trump has created over 5 million, according to FactCheck.org.

Yep, that’s the way to win an election.

TGIF- December 20, 2019

President Pelosi?

According to an article published in BizPacReview, Adam Schiff is now attempting to get rid of Vice President Pence via impeachment. That would leave Nancy Pelosi next in line for the presidency.

Well, that’s one way for Democrats to take over power. Why bother with elections?

Of course it always pays not to jump to conclusions too fast, but if the article is factual, then the country has a lot more at stake when the House voted for impeachment than just a spat with Donald Trump.

Can you spell C-O-U-P?

Musings has maintained all along that this was about a lot more than just dissatisfaction with a caustic-tongued New York political outsider.

It is too bad we don’t have an honest national police force.  Someone should definitely be getting under the hood of this political takeover attempt.

Dems don’t get it.

Apparently there was a Democrat debate on Thursday.  We aren’t even going to pretend we watched any of it.

However, excerpts have appeared on various channels and unfortunately, we have seen them.

Which leads us to wonder why anyone would vote for any of these weirdos.

You’ve got Tom Steyer, who wants to put 100s of thousands of people out of work to stop manmade  “climate change.”

You’ve got Liz Warren, who is all wound up over “wine caves” and Pete Buttigieg. Like, she never took money from big donors?

And finally, you’ve got Andrew Yang, who is at least aware that no one gives a s—  er, whit about impeaching the President just because the left doesn’t like him.

We don’t know whether the Senate will have a “trial” over impeachment, given that Nancy Pelosi is trying to hold onto the paperwork long enough for the Democrat senators to have an election to decide which one of them will oppose President Trump.

Have we mentioned before that this is a circus, and not a very good one?

 

President Pelosi?

According to an article published in BizPacReview, Adam Schiff is now attempting to get rid of Vice President Pence via impeachment. That would leave Nancy Pelosi next in line for the presidency.

Well, that’s one way for Democrats to take over power. Why bother with elections?

Of course it always pays not to jump to conclusions too fast, but if the article is factual, then the country has a lot more at stake when the House votes for impeachment today than just a spat with Donald Trump.

Can you spell C-O-U-P?

Musings has maintained all along that this was about a lot more than just dissatisfaction with a caustic-tongued New York political outsider.

It is too bad we don’t have an honest national police force.  Someone should definitely be getting under the hood of this political takeover attempt.

Rules? What rules?

In the interest of honesty, we are admitting that we are listening to very little of the rules committee hearings today, mostly because they sound like reruns.

But we did listen as Jamie Raskin, the Nadler replacement, was asked how many times the Dems plan on impeaching President Trump.

Apparently, as often as they feel like doing it.

Many, maybe even most, Americans with any interest in the impeachment of the President have read the transcript of the phone conversations Trump had with the Ukrainian president, Zelensky.

Yet even today, Democrats were maintaining that the transcript is a phony or at least that it is incomplete.

Remember, this transcript was not constructed by the President.  It was compiled by what you could call professional listeners, none of whom have testified that it is erroneous.

Maybe we are missing something, but throughout the document, it appears that President Trump is referring to things said and done during the 2016 campaign.

We agree that Trump should think ahead a bit before he says things.  Even the worst dummkopf should have been able to predict that even mentioning Joe Biden would trigger the Dems.

Still, to listen to today’s arguments, you would think that Trump was asking to have Biden executed by firing squad.

And then there is Chuckie Schumer, asking why the President doesn’t want witnesses to testify.

Uh, that was McConnell, not the President.  Trump has repeatedly said he doesn’t care who or how many “witnesses” are called, so long as Republicans get to call the people they want to question.

It will be interesting to see what “rules” the House committee comes up with. Maybe we are a bit jaundiced, but somehow we doubt they will be fair to all concerned.

A VERY short impeachment comment.

It seems superfluous to comment on the ridiculous impeachment mess, so we haven’t, until now.

Just remember…up to this point, everything the Dems have accused Trump of doing they have done themselves.

Who are Dems really impeaching?

What if it isn’t personal enmity that is driving the Dems toward impeachment?

Is it him, or us?

Many people believe that ANY anti-socialist Republican would be drawing the same kind of attack.

They point to the affinity for big government  that President Obama displayed, as well as what some saw as disdain for the country he was supposed to be representing.

Let us be clear.  President Obama doesn’t seem to fit the Jeremiah Wright or Al Green profile when it comes to racism. In short, he apparently was not bent on racial revenge.  He did however, clearly favor big government solutions to societal problems, as witnessed by Obamacare.

Ever since we have been privy to the emails of some of the FBI and DOJ Never Trumpers, people have been asking why such hysterical hatred towards one man. Surely he couldn’t have personally offended that many people.

Maybe it is not who he is, so much as what he so vocally stands for. i.e. America first, or to put it more politically, nationalism.

Some Dems, even most of them,  seem to be hell bent on making Trump voters and supporters pay for their “misguided” votes in 2016.

It’s hard to believe that even Democrats thought Hillary would be a strong, capable President.  What she had going for her was pliability. There is little doubt that she would have gone along with just about anything that would have put her and kept her in the Oval Office.

There seems to be an element of “we’ll show those rubes” in this impeachment fiasco.

Given that attitude, many people wonder if the President doesn’t deserve a commendation for “obstructing Congress”, rather than condemnation.

By the way, which high crime or misdemeanor statute does that charge fall under?