I can’t say that Marc Thiessen is President Trump’s most diehard supporter. What I’ve known for quite awhile, though, is that he’s a fair-minded man who’s written some good stuff that supports President Trump. For instance, this article is outstanding.

Thiessen opens the article by saying “With three polls showing her in the lead, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., may soon eclipse former Vice President Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. That’s great news for Republicans, because Warren has a problem: The central message of her campaign is that the economy is working for the very wealthy but it is not working for ordinary Americans. Unfortunately for her, ordinary Americans disagree.

Next, Thiessen empties both barrels of the heaviest artillery:

A Marist poll asked voters whether “the economy is working well for you personally.” Nearly two-thirds of Americans said yes. This includes large majorities in almost every demographic group. Sixty-seven percent of college graduates and 64 percent of those without a college education say the economy is working for them. So do 68 percent of whites and 61 percent of nonwhite people.

So do Americans of every generation: 63 percent of Generation Z and millennials; 69 percent of Generation X; 63 percent of baby boomers; and 69 percent of Greatest Generation and Silent Generation voters. So do supermajorities in every region in the country: 60 percent in the West, 65 percent in the Northeast, 67 percent in the Midwest, and 68 percent in the South. So do most voters in every type of American community: 63 percent of both big and small city voters; 64 percent of small-town voters; 66 percent of rural voters and 72 percent of suburban voters.

Call me crazy but that sounds like an economy that’s working for tons of people. That doesn’t sound like an economy that’s just benefiting millionaires and billionaires. That sounds like an economy that’s benefiting pretty much everybody in pretty much every geographic part of the US. Then there’s this:

The only groups who disagree, Marist found, are progressives (59 percent), Democratic women (55 percent) and those who are liberal or very liberal (55 percent.

That figures. Those groups are filled with sourpusses.

There is a good reason for that. Unemployment is near a record low, and the United States has about 1.6 million more job openings than unemployed people to fill them. Not only are jobs plentiful, but wages are rising. And The New York Times reported in May that “over the past year, low-wage workers have experienced the fastest pay increases.”

It isn’t surprising that Democrats opened their debate talking impeachment:

Old-fashioned Democrats had an economic agenda that appealed to people from time-to-time. Today’s Democrats aren’t persuasive because their ideas sound like they’re from outer space. They couldn’t sell ice-cold Gatorade in a desert if their lives depended on it. Bernie Sanders brags that he’ll raise everyone’s taxes. Elizabeth Warren’s evasive replies prove that she’d raise taxes, too, though not as much as Bernie. Think of Elizabeth Warren as ‘Bernie Lite.’

The other way to think of Crazy Bernie and Pocahontas is to think of them as destructive to this fantastic economy. Their policies wouldn’t make life better for families. Their policies are just plain stupid.

In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton insisted that there was a “vast right wing conspiracy” dedicated to taking down her husband. Twenty years later, Hillary is still pushing conspiracy theories:

Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection. The former secretary of state pushed the theory on Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008.

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states. “They are also going to do third party again,” Clinton, 71, said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

“She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset. “They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it’s going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

Wow! This comes from a woman who was just a few votes away from being president. That’s frightening.

Then, too, it isn’t that surprising. Democrats see ghosts wherever they look so seeing this ghost isn’t that unusual by Democrats’ standards. Seeing this ghost by normal people’s standard would be weird. Remember that HRC didn’t just accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset. HRC also accused Jill Stein of being a Russian asset.

If HRC got into the race and won the nomination, she’d get drilled. It’s being charitable to say that she’s exhibited erratic behavior. She’s made unsubstantiated accusations. The economy is fantastic. Trying to prove otherwise is challenging at minimum. HRC must know that her time has passed.

The voters that are coming of age only think of HRC as a Swamp relic from a bygone generation. They don’t remember her as former First Lady. They likely don’t remember that much about HRC as Obama’s Secretary of State. Remember that was 12 years ago.

This is a great example of Hillary’s paranoia. It’s proof that a little HRC paranoia goes a long way.

This op-ed about prescription drug prices was written by Kevin Brady, Virginia Foxx and Greg Walden. The question now is whether Do-Nothing Democrats will join in the effort or whether they’ll do what they usually do, which is resist in the name of Trump.

I’m betting that they’ll express an interest in working together without actually working together. That’s what they did with the Trump-GOP tax cuts. The end result was that no Democrats, either in the House or Senate, voted for the tax cuts. That’s proof that no Democrats were willing to compromise with Republicans to strengthen the US economy.

Right now, President Trump and GOP leaders in the House and Senate are pressuring Ms. Pelosi into putting the USMCA up for a vote. Ms. Pelosi’s statement is that they’re (Democrats) are working their way to yes. Today, they’re saying it’s close. I’m not holding my breath. But I digress. Back to getting something done.

The op-ed tells the story of “Tracy Bush, a 45-year-old mother and an active and accomplished food allergy blogger from Pfafftown, North Carolina.”

The cost of prescription drugs is way too high. Tracy Bush, a 45-year-old mother and an active and accomplished food allergy blogger from Pfafftown, North Carolina, knows this firsthand. Tracy always has two EpiPens on her. Her son, age 17 now, carries another. This practice began when he was diagnosed with serious allergies as a 2-year-old. This is life for Tracy, and for thousands of other parents across America. But when a drug company charges $1,819.08 for three EpiPen two-packs – and the medicine in the device costs only a few dollars – alarm bells go off.

I’d be outraged if that happened to me. Here’s where the problem exists:

Then in 2017, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Reauthorization Act was signed into law leading to the approval of 971 generics, or copies of brand name drug, including the first generic version of the EpiPen. Congress saw a problem, put aside politics, and made progress for families like Tracy Bush.

We started to do that this year, too. Republicans and Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee moved three significant and bipartisan bills to the U.S. House floor in May. The CREATES Act, Pay for Delay, and the BLOCKING Act each removed barriers for generic drugs to get to consumers faster, pushing back on bad behavior from big pharmaceutical companies gaming the system and preventing competition. These policies would help bring down drug prices at the counter, an obvious win for the American people.

That’s where the problem starts:

Enter Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker of the House opted to discard months of bipartisan work to put politics over progress. This Washington Post headline nailed it, “Democrats are putting a political pothole in the way of bipartisan drug pricing bills.” She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, forsaking a bipartisan win on lowering drug prices for the American people.

~~~

Like clockwork, Speaker Pelosi entered the fray with her partisan drug pricing scheme – written behind closed doors. The Speaker’s drug plan attempts to nationalize the prescription drug industry through foreign price controls, retroactive tax penalties, arbitrary inflation caps, and federally mandated “negotiations,” which amount to nothing more than government extortion and price-setting. And as for Medicare Part D modernization? Once Speaker Pelosi’s plan was introduced, bipartisan negotiations ceased, making clear the Democrats’ position is their way or the highway. Bad news for seniors.

This is proof that Democrats weren’t serious about walking and chewing gum at the same time. They just wanted to impeach President Trump. Implementing policies that made their constituents’ lives better just wasn’t that high of a priority for Democrats. This is a fantastic clip on that subject:

Democrats have spent the last 3 years morphing into the ‘Verdict first, investigation later’ political party. Rep. Scott Perry, (R-PA), made the case that Democrats have become that party in this op-ed:

The most solemn duty undertaken by members of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We swear an oath before the beginning of every Congress. My Oath is something I’ve taken seriously throughout a lifetime of public service – from solider, to state representative to congressman. Unfortunately, leftists in Congress are using their sacred oath to the Constitution as justification to flout the primacy of its principles. We see this no more clearly than in the most recent push to impeach the president.

These rushed, faux impeachment proceedings are shrouded in secrecy. No one knows what the rules are, and it gives liberal members, like Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an opportunity to blatantly fabricate facts of convenience and mislead the American people.

That’s Schiff’s M.O. He’s spent the last two years misleading the American people about the contents of the Mueller report. Once hopes fizzled with that (findings: “No collusion, No obstruction”), they’ve rolled out the next phony investigation with yet another forgone conclusion.

Republicans have argued that there wasn’t any obstruction of justice. The legal-dictionary.com explains what it takes to obstruct justice:

To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

I’d think that it’s difficult to prove corrupt intent without a wiretap recording or an email stating that intent. I don’t doubt that Schiff and other Democrats would speculate about that. It’s one thing to speculate. It’s another to prove.

Democrats first talked about impeaching President Trump before he became President Trump. The Constitution says that impeachment involves “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States.” Before he’s inaugurated, Trump didn’t fit the constitutional definition. That’s irrelevant to these hyper-partisan Democrats. They just know that Trump is evil and he must be removed.

With Democrats like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, President Trump has been guilty since before his inauguration. This trio of troublemakers don’t really care about the Constitution. They care about impeaching and removing President Trump. If that requires throwing the Bill of Rights out, then that’s what they’ll do.

I had to do a double-take when I saw the headline that Elijah Cummings had died at a hospice care facility this morning. Cummings was 68. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said “I was shocked and saddened to learn the news this morning of my dear friend’s passing. Elijah Cummings was a man of principle, patriotism, and conviction, whose loss will be deeply felt throughout the State of Maryland and our country.”

President Trump expressed his feelings with this tweet:


Rep. Cummings, RIP.

With her actions, Nancy Pelosi admitted that she’s violated President Trump’s due process rights. While she’s right that there isn’t a checklist to follow for impeachment, she’s stupid if she thinks that there aren’t some constitutional principles that must be adhered to. She’s stupid if she thinks that past impeachment investigations haven’t set a path that subsequent impeachment investigations must meet.

When the House initiated their impeachment investigation of President Nixon, there was a defined set of rules that guaranteed the House’s ability to investigate and President Nixon’s right to cross-examine witnesses. The rules adopted by Peter Rodino’s Judiciary Committee permitted President Nixon’s attorneys the right to subpoena witnesses. When Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee adopted the Rodino-Nixon rules.

This sham investigation doesn’t have a clear set of rules and procedures. It doesn’t have any consistent rules or procedures other than to thwart President Trump’s legal team. That’s a violation of President Trump’s due process rights. Then there’s this:

Executive privilege was one of the protections mentioned by Counsel to the Vice President Matthew Morgan in a Tuesday letter to the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees, who are overseeing the ongoing inquiry. Morgan’s letter claimed that the committees’ request for documents was overbroad because it included some documents that were “clearly not vice-presidential records,” and that the request was not within the realm of “legitimate legislative oversight.”

Morgan continued, saying this:

“Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an ‘impeachment inquiry’ against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process,” Morgan wrote, noting that “House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.”

Ms. Pelosi can’t speak rules into existence. They have to be written, then approved of by a majority of the “Committee of the Whole”. Without that vote, no committee has authorization to start impeachment. As with other points in her career, Ms. Pelosi is acting like the autocrat she’s always wanted to be.

The goal of due process is to guarantee fairness, consistency and predictability. You can’t have due process if there isn’t a process. When this lawsuit gets filed, Pelosi’s Democrats will have problems:

“Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. “Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.”

Doug Collins nails it with this tweet:


Pelosi’s fatal flaw is that she thinks she can run the House like a tyrant. Frequently, she gets away with that. This is a totally different situation. It’s like the difference between a sandlot football game and the Super Bowl. The scrutiny is through the roof and the stakes don’t get higher.

After tonight’s debate, the pundits’ consensus was that, thanks to impeachment, the race would essentially remain a 2-way race between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. After the debate, though, that conventional wisdom appears to have gotten shattered. The oldest candidate in the race suddenly became the most appealing choice to young people:

At least three members of the “Squad” of far-left freshman members of Congress will reportedly endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders for president. Fox News has learned that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., will appear with Sanders on Saturday in Queens, N.Y., at a “Bernie’s Back” rally designed to generate excitement for the senator’s campaign following his recent heart procedure. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., will also endorse the candidate, Fox News confirmed.

In addition, CNN reported that Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., will endorse Sanders as well. It was not immediately clear if Omar and Tlaib will appear at the same Sanders event.

This will be fascinating to watch. First, will this change the trajectory for Elizabeth Warren, who has been climbing since late summer? Next, will this stop Bernie’s recent slide and reposition him firmly amongst the frontrunners? Third, does this essentially end the race for the second-tier candidates?

The endorsements would be a significant blow to the campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who like Sanders has been representing the party’s progressive wing. Word of the endorsements also followed Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in Ohio, where Warren was under attack from multiple candidates after rising in the polls in recent weeks.

This is a potentially big moment from the standpoint of attracting young voters. It also denies Sen. Warren a big victory. Bernie can now point to this as proof that the heart attack didn’t stop him from being a force. How many points this will be worth in the next round of polling is unknowable but there’s little doubt that his post-heart attack slide just stopped.

Whether that’ll catapult him in Iowa or New Hampshire remains to be seen, too. What isn’t disputable is whether Saturday’s official endorsement will breathe new life into Bernie’s campaign. It certainly will.

The other thing that this sets up is a situation that tests whether the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is big enough to defeat the not-quite-as-crazy wing of the Democrat Party.

At 4:00 pm this afternoon, I received an email from the Fischbach for Congress campaign committee. The email’s opening paragraph said “Michelle Fischbach, the former Lt. Governor of Minnesota and candidate for Minnesota’s 7th Congressional District, today reported raising an impressive $100,000 in her first quarterly filing with the Federal Election Commission.”

Then it continued, saying “Fischbach’s federal committee, Fischbach for Congress, will show receipts of over $100,000, with nearly $85,000 cash-on-hand for the filing period ending September 30, 2019. Making the numbers even more impressive is the fact that the committee wasn’t filed with the Federal Election Commission until September 3, 2019, which gave Fischbach only 27 days to fundraise before the quarterly reporting deadline. Minnesotans accounted for 95% of all donations, with almost half coming from residents of western Minnesota’s 7th District, including over 500 donors who gave $200 or less.”

That’s the definition of a strong fundraising first month. What’s most impressive to me is that 95% of her first month’s contributions came from Minnesotans. The next most impressive thing in this report is the amount of small donors. The reason why that’s important is because a high percentage of those contributions are likely voters.

What’s depressing, though not surprising, is the fact that Google is suppressing good news for Republicans. Here’s what I found in searching for articles on Lt. Gov. Fischbach’s fundraising report:

After reading this part of the Fischbach for Congress email, it has to be asked if Collin Peterson will run for re-election:

Fischbach’s strong first quarterly report demonstrates that her campaign is setting the foundation for a robust and aggressive operation and confirms the highly competitive nature of the 7th District race. In fact, immediately after she announced her campaign in September and pointing to her entrance into the race, Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball both moved Minnesota’s 7th District from Leans Democrat to Toss Up.

I can’t imagine Peterson likes the fact that AOC and Ilhan Omar have taken over his party. Still, it’s difficult picturing Peterson giving up without a fight. If he runs, which I think is likely, then I think it’s likely that he’ll lose.

These fundraising numbers, plus the shifting of the race from leans Democrat to straight toss-up, are indicators that this race has shifted. That shift didn’t favor Cranky Collin, either. Finally, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Fischbach’s support came from Minnesota can’t be read as anything except as a positive.

Lebron James is a financially wealthy person. He’s also morally bankrupt. Yesterday, ‘King James’ criticized Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey, saying “Yes, we do have freedom of speech. But at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you’re not thinking about others, when you only think about yourself. So many people could have been harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful what we tweet and what we say and what we do. Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech, it can be a lot of negative that comes with it.”

During last night’s protests in Hong Kong, protesters expressed their disgust with King James. For instance, “James Lo, a web designer who runs a Hong Kong basketball fan page on Facebook,” said that “he’s already received a video from a protester that showed him burning a No. 23 jersey bearing James’ name.”

He expects more, given the backlash from protesters who’ve been regularly hitting the streets of Hong Kong and battling police because of concerns that the international business hub is slowly losing its freedoms, which are unique in China.

“Students, they come out like every weekend. They’ve got tear gassed and then they got gun-shot, like every weekend. Police beating students and then innocent people, like every day. And then he (James) just comes up with something (like) that. We just can’t accept that.”

Lebron James is a portrait in corporate cowardice. It isn’t a surprise that he left Cleveland, his hometown, twice. He doesn’t fit in there. That’s why he’s spent most of his NBA career in Miami and Los Angeles. Check out this interview:

Actually, Daryl Morey got it right with his tweet. James got it terribly wrong with his interview. What a spineless America-hater James is. Whatever he is, Daryl Morey has played the role of American hero in this incident. Whatever his talent is on the court, Lebron James is the opposite of a patriot. In my estimation, Lebron’s a punk.

Finally, the NBA deserves nothing except empty arenas and choruses of boos this entire season. If NBA luminaries like Lebron James, Steve Kerr and Greg Popovich can’t defend the nation that’s made them spectacularly wealthy, then they’re worthless.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that Speaker Pelosi delegated a responsibility to Adam Schiff that will leave him in a difficult position. While Ms. Pelosi puts Schiff ‘in charge’ of the Democrats’ anti-transparent impeachment inquiry, what she’s actually done is dumped all the grief that’s heading his direction into Schiff’s lap. When Ms. Pelosi declared the start of impeachment, she thrust on Schiff the day-to-day details of the impeachment inquiry. Forever the attention-seeker, Schiff gobbled up the attention.

Ms. Pelosi left it up to Schiff how the investigation would be run. Would they hold public hearings? Would President Trump’s attorneys be permitted to cross-examine the Democrats’ witnesses? Would the Democrats allow Republicans to call witnesses? Those are just some of the day-to-day details that Ms. Pelosi dropped into Schiff’s lap. That way, when the shit hits the fan, Pelosi is a mile away while Schiff is holding a ticking time bomb.

This isn’t a matter of if it happens. It’s a matter of when. Anyone that thinks that this isn’t finishing with a lawsuit is kidding themselves. President Trump’s due process rights weren’t merely violated. President Trump’s rights have gotten trampled.

Republicans who haven’t gotten kicked out of the room by Schiff have noted that there aren’t any rules that govern these interviews and depositions. In fact, different rules govern interviews and depositions. Rep. Lee Zeldin notes that minority members of the committee are allowed to talk about the content of witness interviews, albeit in a limited fashion, whereas minority members of the committee aren’t allowed to speak publicly about depositions.

This is the definition of making the rules up as you go along. You can’t have due process where process doesn’t exist. Jim Trusty and Ken Starr explain what’s at stake in this video:

This isn’t complicated. If Adam Schiff wanted to run a fair process, he could. He doesn’t want that. That’s why this process isn’t happening in public. Trusty is right that there isn’t a set procedure codified into the Constitution on conducting impeachment investigations. That doesn’t mean there aren’t safeguards that are built into the process.

Schiff says that he doesn’t want witnesses to fabricate their testimony. What proof does Schiff have that anyone’s done that? Is that proof like the proof he had that was “more than circumstantial” that Schiff didn’t show, that Rep. Zeldin didn’t see and that Robert Mueller didn’t find?

At the end of the day, the American people will reject this process because it’s built upon deception, inconsistencies and the process keeps shifting. That isn’t the definition of fair. Further, Democrats haven’t identified anything approaching treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking a foreign country for help with an investigation into a corrupt US politician isn’t a high crime. It’s common sense.

President Nixon and President Clinton were allowed to defend themselves during the House impeachment investigations. Queen Pelosi ruled by fiat that wasn’t acceptable. Queen Pelosi understood that the case was flimsy. That’s why Queen Pelosi won’t permit a vote of the full House to authorize a legitimate impeachment investigation.