National Democrats Spent Millions and Can’t Win a Single Contested Election in the Trump Era: Rank & File Dems Shouldn’t Donate Money to Their Party Under These Circumstances

Democrats should be asking themselves what they’re getting for their money.   They just lost a special Georgia election that they were counting on to win, and had invested heavily in the campaign.

That makes the DNC victory count 0-5.  Zero wins in the Trump era…they’re definitely doing something wrong.   The excuses for the Democratic loss are pouring in, as one liberal outlet after another reluctantly reported that Republican Karen Handel had won the race.

The Dems just aren’t connecting, and the f-bomb campaign tactic doesn’t work for them either.  And the Republicans need to use caution with their language too. 

Just because it worked for one candidate (Trump), it doesn’t mean that it’ll work for everybody. Dropping f-bombs is simply red meat, and only appeals to the candidate’s base…sometimes.  At least some of the time, it turns voters off.

In any case, Democratic rank & file members should question whether they like the national party dumping their money into campaigns that they have a slim chance of winning. 

The Dems outspent Trump by nearly a 2-1 margin during last year’s Presidential campaign and still lost.  They did the same thing in Georgia and lost there too.  They haven’t learned the lesson that’s being taught about spending in districts that they have less than a 50% chance of winning, but it’s very likely that they’re learning it this morning.

Does Russia Really Think We Can’t Target Their Aircraft as Easily As They Can Target Ours? That Door Swings Both Ways!

Russia has threatened to target coalition aircraft if they interfere with Syrian and Russian bombing operations in areas where U.S. forces and allies are actively fighting ISIS.

So what?  We can target their aircraft just as easily, and shoot theirs down twice as fast.  The U.S. Air Force has more recent sustained combat experience with proven equipment. 

Putin needs to pull back or his air force will find itself in a war that it can’t win.   He’s going to have to accept that U.S. forces are on the ground, and that the U.S. Air Force will defend our personnel and interests in Syria.

A Russian-American air war over Syria benefits no one except ISIS.  

I should point out that United States armed forces are definitely fighting ISIS; Russia isn’t, hasn’t and won’t as they’re too busy defending Assad, who will bring them nothing but trouble.  

This is Russian bluster, nothing more.

Trump Shouldn’t Testify Under Oath: This Would Weaken His Presidency Even More As He Doesn’t Know When to Pipe Down and Listen

President Trump should not testify before Congress because he doesn’t know when to pipe down, and doesn’t care to either.

I’m sorry to say that about him, but he’s even more of a loose cannon than I had predicted he would be during the election.   I remain unconvinced that he’s temperamentally suited to be President.

I am convinced, however, that if Trump were to go before Congress and testify, that neither the Dems nor Reps would confine themselves to asking only about former FBI Director Comey’s testimony.  Trump has a lot of controversies going on, and the temptation to go after Trump’s wall, his travel ban, Michael Flynn, the entire Russia affair, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and all the other yaadaa yaadaa swirling around the President would be too tempting to ignore.

I would like to note that there is precedence for sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents to go before Congress to testify.  Some examples:

President Washington testified before the entire Senate on the various Indian treaties of the time.

President Lincoln (1862) went to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about a leak in the White House.  President Lincoln helped to free a New York Herald reporter who had refused to name his source that had given him an advanced copy of Lincoln’s State of the Union speech.  Congress was convinced that Mary Lincoln was the source, but President Lincoln assured them that no member of his family was involved.

Vice President Colfax (1873) went before the House Select Committee to answer charges that he was involved in the Credit Mobiler scandal.  Colfax had denied owning stock in the company, but got caught in a lie.  He did not run for office again.

President Wilson (1919) went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to extoll the benefits of joining the new League of Nations following World War I.  The Senate rejected the treaty twice and the U.S. never joined the League.

President Ford (1974) went before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice & the House Judiciary Committee on why he gave former President Nixon a full presidential pardon. 

Former Presidents have also testified before Congress, including Theodore Roosevelt (twice), Harry S. Truman, and Gerald R. Ford after his term of office (on the bicentennial of the Constitution).

Because of Trump’s repeated changing of his stories, he’d be put into a real negative light, much more so than he is right now.

I think he should tell Congress “no” to testifying.  He has nothing to gain, except petty revenge against Comey, and much more to lose.

I can’t help but think that he’s looking to be kicked out of office so he can resume his business dealings.

“Even North Korea’s Signed the Paris Climate Accords!” North Korea’s Fixing to NUKE Us! What Will That Do to Global Temperatures?

Some idiot came up with a new political slogan against President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the worst global groupthink disaster in history that says “Even North Korea Signed the Paris Climate Accords!”

What a stupid idiotic thing to say.   North Korea’s signature is worth even less than the useless Paris Climate Accord.

Last time I checked, North Korea’s threatening to nuke us.  What would a nuclear attack against the United States and South Korea and the subsequent nuclear destruction of North Korea by the U.S. nuclear counterattack do to global temperatures?

Raise them for a while before nuclear winter set in.

So North Korea signed.  Big whoop!

Any by the way, 195 countries can only drop the expected temperature change by only 0.2 degrees Celsius?   That alone shows how useless the current treaty is.   “Something is better than nothing” groupthink is what got us here and why 195 countries signed it.

Paris Accord is a Joke: It’s a “Feel Good” Treaty with “Set Your Own Goals” and “Make the United States Pay For It” Provisions; The Real Joke Will Come When We Drop Our Emissions Faster Than Most of the Treaty-Bound Nations Who Are Currently Condemning Trump

OK, the whining from the libs and global warming alarmists is too delicious to ignore.   Time for some lunch!

The Paris Accord isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and it’s cost the United States billions to pay for other nations to lower their own emissions while transferring coal burning rights to other nations, and all at the expense of the American worker and economy.

It’s nothing more than a “feel good” treaty with “set your own limits” provisions and has absolutely no enforcement teeth.

Plus it was never submitted to the United States Senate for approval, which made it illegal by the Constitutional measure.  

No international treaty should be the basis for using American courts to force compliance with laws of any kind.  The Constitution of the United States reigns supreme here, and any international treaty that says otherwise is NULL and VOID.

Trump put America first in this case. 

I had earlier suggested remaining in it, but with European nations saying that the treaty cannot and will not be renegotiated changed my mind.  

I wonder how many nations who have signed the Paris Accords would sign a new treaty if it had strict rules, signatories had to pay 1% of their GDP across the board and could be enforced without infringing on the sovereign rights of the nations in question.   Not nearly as many as this weak smorgasbord treaty has.

Businesses want more efficient ways of doing things; so do people.  And if it is cleaner, more efficient, cost effective, and happens to lower CO2 emissions along the way, so much the better. 

The only thing funnier than this treaty will be if an Accord-unbound U.S. beats 95% of the treaty signatories in dropping CO2 emissions in the suggested timeframe.  2015 saw the U.S. lead the world in CO2 cuts at nearly 145 million tons.  This is at odds with the alarmist narrative.

I suggest  that those who are crying over this get over themselves, go buy a pack of LED lights, screw them in, and enjoy their lower electrical bill.  That’s a cheaper feel-good way to contribute to emissions cuts than a feel-good treaty that’s cost us in the neighborhood of $250 billion.

President Should Sidestep the Withdrawal from the Paris Accords Debate and Submit the Treaty to the Senate As Constitutionally-Called For: Congress Needs to Be Forced to Publicly Take a Stand With Their Votes for Approval or Disapproval

President Trump has an easy way to temporarily side-step the entire debate on whether or not to stay in the Paris Accords: submit the treaty to the Senate for approval or disapproval.   Such a far-reaching treaty with foreign governments needs to be put before the Senate for a vote, as called for by the Constitution, and not by presidential fiat (Executive Orders). 

I hope this is what he does.

This president has shown that he’s not afraid to reverse Obama-era Executive Orders, and this would be another way to re-establish the balance of power that the Obama Administration managed to blur beyond recognition..

If the Senate somehow manages to pass this flawed treaty that tells us to do what our businesses sector is already doing more efficiently than many Paris Accord-bound nations have been able to do so far with their treaty-imposed limits, President Trump always has the veto option available down the road. 

U.S. taxpayers should not be footing the bill for other nations to meet their own treaty obligations (referred to in the Accords as “climate finance.”)  

I really hope this is the option that President Trump takes.   Congress needs to go on the record, while at the same time fulfilling their Constitutional duties.