http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

No, I did not record President Trump’s State of the National speech tonight . . . I watched it live. 

Surprise, surprise! I loved it!

The litany of the economic gains under his administration was a great lead off, and his strong message continued throughout.

What I thought was the most impressive to me was the behavior of the “white dresses,” i.e., the liberal women in the House. Keep in mind that only a month or so prior, the House Democrats, with a minimum number of exceptions, voted to impeach the President . . . also recall that all of the “white dresses” were anti-Trump on this issue. I understand them not standing or even applauding President Trump’s accomplishments, but they were OTL when it came to applauding the U.S. Despite your hate for the President, and no matter your political affiliation, some things should be applauded by everybody. Shame on the “white dresses!” Once or twice Nancy Pelosi gave these “white dresses” the stare-down, meaning “please don’t embarrass us even more than you already are.”

Who is watching the State of the Union? and Why is this important?

Republicans are watching. Democrats, not so much. Independents . . . I sure hope so! Towards the end of his speech the President laid out some of the striking differences in position on certain things such as late-term abortion, free of government health care for illegals, and sanctuary cities and states, protecting criminals. Certainly some Independents will be for some of these Democrat positions, and some will be against them – “you can’t please all of the Independents all of the time.” Hopefully a lot of Independents will be swayed by the President’s speech tonight, but more do I hope that a lot of Independents will be disgusted by the unpatriotic behavior of the “white dresses!” And to top it off, the pinnacle of uncouth behavior was Nancy Pelosi ripping up her copy of the President’s speech shortly after he had finished with the cameras still focused on her.

Thank you, “white dresses,” thank you Speaker Pelosi!

 

“Yes, Sir! Yes, Sir! Why of course, Sir. You are right, Sir.”

Is this sycophant really just saying, “You know that I will never disagree with you. I am your man, and you can be sure that I will always side with you.”

To me a person who attracts and covets fawners like this is basically unsure of himself, and thus needs this type of constant reassurance. Is this the type of leader that we want making tough decisions? To that question, I say not only “No,” but “Hell no!”

Although I have no inside information, it seemed to me that President Obama was unsure of his ability to make tough decisions. Through his eight years in office I cannot recall hearing about any controversies in his administration. Was this because he had surrounded himself with “yes” men and women? It appeared that very occasionally he did act on his own, like for example, when he drew his infamous red line. As everyone is aware, his subsequent backing off (some may refer to this in a non-P.C. way as his “chickening out.”) will haunt him forever. Again is this the type of leader that we want making tough decisions?

Does our present Commander-in-Chief surround himself with servile flatters? It certainly does not appear that this is the case. He seems to surround himself for the most part with people that have strong personalities, and thus can have differing opinions. If two strong willed personalities have differing opinions and engage each other on a certain topic, only one of the two will come out on top. I would also assume that both would win out, but the President would win out more often, and that’s the way that it should be. The President was elected by the American people, and John Bolton was appointed to his position by President Trump! 

John Bolton’s conversations with the President should be protected by executive privilege, for at least as long as the President is in office. I say this for at least two reasons:

First, Every president needs a well-informed confidant that he can bounce ideas off of, and President Trump is no different. A free exchange of ideas is essential to good decision making, and this is one reason that John Bolton was hired in the first place. Whether Mr. Bolton was fired or quit is of no real consequence, as it is a reasonable bet that they had disagreed more than just one single isolated time. Certainly, if John Bolton quit, his feelings must have been hurt, and perhaps they were hurt even more so, if he was fired. Like a jilted lover, this can only lead to a “he said, she said” situation. If John Bolton wishes to write a book entailing his interactions with President Trump, so be it, but not until the President is no longer in office.

Second: If a president, any president, is going to suffer, because he sought counsel from someone with a strong personality, someone who is willing to disagree and argue with him, then what will inevitably happen  is  . . . “Yes, Sir! Yes, Sir! Why of course, Sir. You are right, Sir,” and our country will suffer as a consequence.

Now don’t get me wrong, I do not think that Donald Trump is the easiest person to get along with. He does not appear to be the type of person that is going to take sh*t from anyone. This, in fact, is part of his appeal and his unique . . . (I almost hate to use this word) . . . his unique “charm!”

The title of this piece is hijacked from a song by the so-called “Godfathers of Punk Rock” and I thought the lyrics were appropriate when thinking about the November, 2020 election. But first the background:

A poll from the New York Times shows Bernie Sanders with a seven point lead in Iowa. Sanders is at 25%. Currently, the RealClearPolitics (RCP) poll of polls in Iowa shows that Bernie is less than a point away from first place Joe Biden, 20 points to 19.3 points.

The most recent poll out of New Hampshire has Sanders up a whopping 12 points — 29 percent to second-place Buttigieg’s 17 points. In the RCP poll of national polls, Biden is in first place with 29 percent support. Bernie is in second with 23 percent. Warren is in third place but still far behind, with just 15 percent support.

Now while Sanders is ahead in some places and Biden is ahead in others, at this point this has seemingly turned into a two-horse race. The Sanders horse seems to have the momentum, despite the fact that he is now trapped in the Senate’s Impeachment trial, along with the Klobuchar, and Warren fillies.

If I was a fan of conspiracy theories I would surmise that because it is to Biden’s advantage to keep the Senate trial going for as lone as possible, “the Dems in the know” are secretly not only rooting for but also surreptitiously encouraging a longer trial . . . as long as Joe doesn’t get called as a witness, and he won’t! Keeping the Klobuchar filly, the Warren filly, and the Sanders stallion, or more likely the Sanders gelding, in the Senate stable can only be good for Old Joe. From my perspective, the only thing that this drawn-out skullduggery of this trial can do is to increase the “rah-rah-sis-boom-bah” enthusiasm of the Sanders backers.

I can hear the mumbling that these conspiracy theories are almost always nonsensical. However consider the following:

First from Breitbart: “There is talk now that the Democrat establishment is so freaked about the possibility of Bernie winning the primary, former President Barack Obama is thinking of coming out and publicly opposing Sanders.

In addition according to Charles Gasparino, Fox Business News:

“SCOOP: Dem Party sources who have spoken w @BarackObama say former prez is growing increasingly anxious about @BernieSanders rise in the national polls & where the avowed socialist would take the country; he is considering a public statement addressing it more now @FoxBusiness.“

At this point, I am hoping that all of this conjecture is true, and I’m wishin’ and a-hopin’ that the “Dems in the know” somehow go after Sanders and subsequently derail his nomination. With Biden becoming the nominee, I’m wishin’ and a-hopin’ that the Sanders backers will be so p.o.’ed that they will not show up to vote. 

Make no mistake, I think that Trump will defeat Biden, Warren, or any other late-entry, practically lame horse that the Dems decide to run. However, if the Sanders backers stay home in November, 2020, the subsequent lowered Democrat turnout will be a huge help for the Republicans running for either the House or the Senate.

Like the Standells sang in their 1966 hit, “Dirty Water,” . . . “I’m wishin’ and a-hopin’!”

Before I get serious, I want to quell a rumor that is being spread among liberals: “No, the corona-virus has nothing to do with the Mexican beer!”

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) just had a long article on the coronaviruses (HCoVs), and much of what follows is from that review article:

“HCoVs have long been considered inconsequential pathogens, causing little more than the common cold. However, in the 21st century, 2 highly pathogenic HCoVs—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—emerged from animal reservoirs to cause global epidemics with alarming morbidity and mortality. In December 2019, yet another pathogenic HCoV, 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), was recognized in Wuhan, China. On December 31, 2019, Chinese authorities reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, most of which included patients who reported exposure to a large seafood market selling many species of live animals.

The situation with 2019-nCoV is evolving rapidly, with the case count currently growing into the thousands. Human-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV occurs, is evidenced by the infection of 15 health care practitioners in a Wuhan hospital.” Most recently in Chicago the coronavirus was spread to a spouse living in the same household as a known case. The extent, if any, to which such transmission might lead to a sustained epidemic remains an open and critical question. 

Without question this strain of coronavirus has caused serious illnesses  and deaths. Again from JAMA: “While the trajectory of this outbreak is impossible to predict, effective response requires prompt action from the standpoint of classic public health strategies to the timely development and implementation of effective countermeasures.”

As would be expected, President Trump is concerned about this ongoing and  changing situation, and has been being briefed daily. Earlier in the week, Trump tweeted photos of a briefing session where he received updates on the coronavirus situation. “We will continue to monitor the ongoing developments,” the President said in his post. “We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!”

This, of course, is exactly what I would expect from a concerned national leader . . . and predictably CNN responded to the photos in its expected way!  One of the anti-Trump clowns from CNN . . . (sorry I did not mean to offend any real clowns) . . . as I was saying, a clown from CNN immediately compared Trump’s briefing photos to some photos from an Obama meeting during the Ebola situation many years ago. The comment from CNN basically chastised President Trump because his briefing was inadequate on their diversity scale. In other words the photo did not show their expected quorum of blacks and women. President Trump emphasized that he was consulting with experts from across the U.S., while in the Obama photo Susan Rice was positioned near the head of the table. Yes, the same Susan Rice, who went on multiple TV programs telling an outright lie, attempting to cover up the Obama administration’s incompetence during the Benghazi episode. Yes, the same Susan Rice, who was advertised to be a Foreign Policy expert, and who served as Obama’s National Security Advisor from 2013-2017, but, who as best as I can tell, has zero expertise in medicine, much less in infectious diseases! Yes, she is black, and she is a female, which is thus apparently sufficient to satisfy CNN’s diversity quotient. However, did she know anything about Ebola, other than what she had read in Newsweek?

The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro summed up CNN’s outrageous position when he asked, “So just to get this straight, CNN is objecting to a task force designed to stop an epidemic by focusing on…ethnic diversity?” 

( Perhaps Mr. Shapiro is being too harsh on CNN, as he is assuming that CNN is a competent news agency to start with. “Your expectations for CNN are way too high, Mr. Shapiro.”)

“A campaign commercial that writes itself,” tweeted Nate Madden, a congressional correspondent for Blaze Media. 

Another tweet: “The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents. If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened.”

These comments are echoing many similar comments and tweets in response to a segment on “CNN Tonight with Don Lemon” on 1/25/20. (Just to be clear, I do not watch CNN. I suppose that my cable service does provide access to it, but for some reason . . . nada on my TV. As an aside, CNN used to always be on the T.V in the Men’s locker room at my gym. Recently, that TV channel has been permanently switched to the Weather Channel . . . perhaps the gym personnel got tired of cleaning the floor in this locker room?!)

This CNN segment is drawing heavy criticism after guests Wajahat Ali and Rick Wilson spent some time mocking President Trump and his supporters as Americans who can’t read, write, or read a map.

From Townhall:

Wilson began the parade of insults when he said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find a Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and an actual crane. He knows this is an administration defined by the ignorance of the world. That’s part of him playing to their base.” (Emphasis, mine!) 

Wilson then used a southern accent to state: “Donald Trump’s a smart one and y’all elitists are dumb.” Host Don Lemon burst into laughter as Wilson mocked the voters.

“You elitists with your geography, maps, spelling,” Ali joined in. “Yeah, your reading. Your geography. Knowing other countries. Sipping your latte.”

Is this another “basket of deplorables” moment? Is this Hillary revisited?

As about 50% of the country were Trump supporters in election of 2016, how does it make sense to go out of the way to insult those who did not vote for Mr. Trump in 2016, and are now on the fence for 2020?

How does it make sense to mock and make fun of Middle America where some of the critical toss-up states are located? Granted, probably not much of Middle America is watching CNN on a Saturday night, but with You-tube this segment will be available to everybody.

Thank you, Don Lemon. Thank you Wajahat Ali and Rick Wilson . . . whoever they are!

Radio talk show host, Dennis Prager, has said innumerable times, that, on just about every issue, he always prefers clarity. I do not think that things could have been made more clear on the subject of abortion after this weekend. 

Whereas on 1/24/20, President Trump not only attended the March for Life rally in Washington D.C., but he became the first sitting president to address this annual rally. I listened to his entire speech at this huge gathering of pro-life supporters, and I would estimate that in addition, millions watched his speech on You-tube. He is against abortion at all stages of pregnancy. 

The following is from his speech:

“We’re here for a very simple reason, to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential. … All of us here today understand that eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God. Together, we must protect, cherish and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life.”

On the subject of abortion, he was crystal clear.

On the other hand, listen and watch Pete Buttigieg attempt to answer a question from a pro-life Democrat at a town-hall in Des Moines, Iowa. The questioner, Kristen Day, pointed out that there are about 21 million pro-life Democrats, and she was hoping that Mayor Pete would say that there is room for both pro-life and pro-abortion views in the Democratic Party. However he wouldn’t budge on the question concerning the pro-abortion language in the Democrat’s platform. On this subject, he was crystal clear!

So it appears that there is little room for confusion on this subject:

If you are pro-abortion, vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, as basically all of the viable candidates’s views on this subject are essentially the same.

If you are pro-life, follow your moral conscience, and vote for President Trump. Hopefully a good number of the aforementioned 21 million pro-life Democrats will either stay home and not vote, or will vote for the pro-life candidate, Donald Trump.

News flash! A source of mine just tweeted me about an impeachment scoop that he has:

“Overheard convo between two Democratic Senators who only watch MSNBC . . . ‘This stuff is surreal! I have heard all of this nonsense before. I thought it was all about something that actually happened. Half the stuff Schiff is saying isn’t true; we’re up sh*t’s creek. Hope the White House hasn’t got any more evidence.'”

When I spoke privately with my source, he told me about an additional confidential conversation between two Democratic Senators. He swore me to secrecy, so let’s just refer to them as Senator A and Senator B. Their exchange apparently went something like this:

Senator A: “This is crazy. We have to spend all day and half the night here . . . for what? Schiff, or as he wants to be called “Mister Impeachment Manager, Sir,” likes to hear himself talk. He spoke for almost three hours in his opening statement! Between you and I, his voice is one mere baby step above fingernails on a chalk board. I don’t know which is worse, Schiff’s voice or Jerry Nadler’s voice. When Jerry talks, he tends to drone on and on and on, and when he expounds, I tend to fall asleep. In fact I have programmed my phone to vibrate every five minutes, while Jerry is talking. After all, I don’t want the T.V. cameras to catch me sleeping. I should be out on the campaign trail. I should be in Iowa or New Hampshire today, tomorrow, and yesterday! Biden is out there campaigning while I am trapped here. Even I can’t figure out whether or not Nancy wants him to be called as a witness or not. Certainly both “Mister Impeachment Manager, Sir” and Jerry are taking their marching orders from Nancy. For sure, I know that Jerry is not smart enough to actually devise, much less carry out any plan. If there is a hell, it could well be something similar to being forced to sitting through this so-called trial! 

Senator B: “Quit complaining! You do not have to go out on the campaign trail in your state this year, as you are not up for reelection in 2020. I am going to be forced to defend my vote to convict the President Trump of . . . of something! I have actually forgotten exactly what President Trump is presently being charged with, as Nancy and “Mister  Impeachment Manager, Sir” seem to keep moving the target. The voters in my district think that this whole thing is a waste of time, but Nancy insists that we all vote for conviction, or else! At times I think that I am just a sacrificial lamb – my future political career being sacrificed for the good of the team! “Master Impeachment Manager, Sir” just insulted just about every American voter when he declared, ‘The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box. For we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.’ OMG, I am going to have to explain that insane statement to those in my district during my reelection campaign! ‘Cannot be decided at the ballot box,’ WTF!” On the positive side maybe most voters are not aware of this debacle. Most Americans are not watching. The first day had only 9 million viewers, compared to the Mueller report which garnered a then disappointing 13 million viewers, or the 20 million viewers for the Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. With a little luck most of the constituents in my district will be among the disinterested, won’t be watching, and won’t hold it against me.”

A second news flash!

I just got another tweet from my source. Apparently he made up the original “overheard convo!” 

BTW, my secret source is Joe Lockhart, a CNN political commentator!

On Tuesday, 1/21/20, the Impeachment trial began in the U.S. Senate. Who is watching such a circus? On Fox News it was basically on all day. It was on when I went to the gym in the afternoon and it was on well into the night. Actually, I was not really watching this spectacle, but would transiently flip back-and-forth during the commercials on whatever I was actually watching on other channels. Between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 1/21, I was watching a San Diego State Aztec basketball game, and during the breaks in the game, I would flip quickly back to the the fiasco taking place on the Senate floor, which to put it politely, was boring . . . with a capital B! 

Keep in mind that there is a three hour time difference between California and Washington D.C., and so this means that the shenanigans in D.C. were going on well past midnight eastern time. By pure serendipity I happened to catch what was probably the highlight of the that day’s proceedings. I just happened to tune in when one of the President’s lawyers, Pat Cipollone, was starting to speak. He was quite a good speaker, as he accused Jerry Nadler, part of the Democrat House management team, of disrespecting the entire Senate body by accusing it of a coverup. He was quite effective when he said, “the only one who should be embarrassed here, Mr. Nadler, is you!” (Mr. Cipollone was spot on, except that I don’t think that Mr. Nadler can be embarrassed.)
Mr. Cipollone then turned the floor over to Jay Sekulow, another counsel for the President. I have seen and heard Jay Sekulow before, and so at this point, the basketball game would have to carry-on without me. I definitely made the right decision when I opted not to change the channel. Whereas Pat Cipollone was effective, Jay Sekulow was awesome. This member of the President’s legal team make Mr. Nadler look like a partisan stooge by repeating parts of what Nadler had just said, (“executive privilege and other nonsense”) and rhetorically asking whether the same rules had applied when President Obama used executive privilege to protect his Attorney General, Eric Holder, from testifying about “Fast and Furious.” . . . Boom! Moreover he punctuated his short but powerful soliloquy by staring repeatedly at Mr. Nadler . . . BOOM! Fortunately, I did not miss any crucial parts of the basketball game, but even if I did, it would have been worth it.

The only sad part was that Jay Sekulow spoke at 12:10 a.m. eastern time and most of the country missed the highlight of the entire day’s proceedings. I would strongly recommend that each of you find and watch both these speeches as it is extremely unlikely that they will be shown on any of the mainstream media “news” outlets. Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow versus Jerry Nadler was like my #4 ranked Aztecs playing a mediocre high school basketball team.

First of all, one of the definitions of sexism is: “discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex . . . more commonly, this discrimination is directed against women.” However, nowhere can I find that sexism can only be discrimination against women.

On 1/19/20, the  New York Times announced the candidate(s) it was endorsing for president. In an interesting interesting progressive end-run, they endorsed two candidates, both women, Sen. Warren and Sen. Klobuchar. Could it be that the NYT could not afford to take the risk of potentially offending either one of these women by endorsing the other? Even though they are both progressive, their progressiveness is a matter of degree. Warren is far-far left, whereas Klobuchar is much more moderate although left of center. If the NYT was set on endorsing two candidates, why would they not endorse two candidates based on their policies? Why endorse two candidates that are not equal on the leftism scale ? To me this sounds as if they are set on backing a woman, irrespective of the differing policies of Warren and Klobuchar. Objectively this sounds sexist . . . back a woman, and devaluate men, irrespective of policy. The mere fact that they are endorsing two women sounds like they are purposely “poking a stick in Bernie’s eye” in response to his alleged comment on the possibility of a woman being elected. Clearly this NYT’s endorsement of two women was intended to be the coup-de-grâce for Sanders, his death knell, so do speak. 

I do not consider myself a sexist. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I voted for Donald Trump instead, not because he was a male, but because he was the far better candidate. Would I vote for a woman to be POTUS? Yes, in a New York minute! (No pun intended!) Give me a choice between a good female candidate and a mediocre male candidate, and I will go XX every time. For instance, I would have voted for Condoleezza Rice in the past and I would vote for Nikki Haley in the future if she were running for President.

When the NYT says, “May the best woman win,” is this sexist? Is this the 2020 version of being DNC-esque? Is the fix in ?

Does anyone think that it was just coincidence that Elizabeth Warren’s recent accusation surfaced just before the “CNN debate” last week? Supposedly over a year ago Bernie Sanders said something “nasty” about her, and indeed, women in general, with regard to the possibility of defeating Donald Trump in 2020. 

Although not confirmed one could certainly imagine a quid-pro-quo proposition that went something like this: “Ms. Warren, your campaign is in trouble as Bernie is surging ahead with those far left progressives. You need something to draw renewed interest in your campaign. We, at CNN, need something to generate better ratings in this coming CNN sponsored debate. Let’s make a deal. Give us something we can use, and we will make sure that you will look like the good guy with the white hat on the debate stage.”

Not possible, you say! Is there another reasonable explanation for CNN’s obvious blatant favoritism towards Warren during the CNN-debate ? I say the fix is in! 

Consider that this seemingly endless string of Democrat debates has been steadily losing viewership and thus ratings. Most of the country is losing interest in a bunch of hackneyed politicians saying “same-o-same-o.” If one had been listening and watching closely, it wouldn’t have taken a body language expert to pickup on the desperation in the CNN-persona over the last few weeks. To me it seems a bit strange that Sanders’ alleged statement about a woman not being able to beat Donald Trump happened serendipitously to surface just before the CNN-debate. If you believe that . . . I have a bridge that I want to sell you!

Next MSNBC’s Joy Reid had a body language expert on her show. Does anyone think that it was just coincidence that this expert said that, in her opinion, Warren was telling the truth and Sanders was lying during their on stage confrontation at the debate. Next, apparently Joy Reid said scandals hurt more when they seem plausible and complained about Sanders’ “physicality” whenever the senator speaks to women. (I say “apparently” as my T.V. just cannot seem to tune into MSNBC . . . for some reason!) It again sounds to me like the fix is in.

Does the CNN-MSNBC “collusion” with Warren against Bernie Sanders sound familiar? Is this deja-vu? Is Sanders getting shafted again, just like he was shafted in 2016 by the DNC? Is Warren the preordained “favorite daughter,” so to speak, just like Hillary was in 2016? 

Just to be clear, I have no vested interest in Bernie Sanders. However, if I was one of his gung-ho supporters, I would be outraged at what is seemingly happening again in 2020. Are these supporters outraged enough and insulted enough that they are already considering that perhaps Bernie should run as an independent ? After all, he really is not a Democrat, but rather is actually an Independent. Wouldn’t a third candidate make things interesting in November, 2020 ?