Archive for the ‘America’s Future’ Category

Is Sean Hannity Next On The Murdoch Brothers’ Hit List?

A New York Times reporter suggested Thursday that conservative TV host Sean Hannity could be the next Fox News host to be pressured to leave the network, after Bill O’Reilly’s stunning departure in the wake of sexual harassment claims.

The Washington Examiner reports,

On MSNBC, Times reporter Jeremy Peters noted a 2010 report about Fox that included a quote that said some within the Murdoch family were unhappy with the way the network was being run. Rupert Murdoch and his two sons are the top executives of the corporation that owns Fox.

“I think you have to look at somebody like Sean Hannity,” Peters said, “and question whether or not his almost propaganda-like attitude and programming every night is going to be acceptable in the minds of the family which is clearly trying to shift the network in another direction.”

Hannity is widely viewed as President Trump’s biggest champion in TV news, and rarely has anything critical to say about the White House. He is also now the longest running host in Fox’s prime-time lineup now that O’Reilly was ousted this week.

Before O’Reilly’s departure, Roger Ailes was forced to leave his perch as Fox’s long-running CEO last summer after several women accused him of sexual harassment.

The fallout and reorganizing of Fox is reportedly being led by Lachlan and James Murdoch, who are said to be attempting a repositioning of the highest-rated cable news channel, well known for its conservative bent.

Fox News Has Decided Bill O’Reilly Has to Go

  The Murdochs have decided Bill O’Reilly’s 21-year run at Fox News will come to an end. According to sources briefed on the discussions, network executives are preparing to announce O’Reilly’s departure before he returns from an Italian vacation on April 24. Now the big questions are how the exit will look and who will replace him.

Wednesday morning, according to sources, executives are holding emergency meetings to discuss how they can sever the relationship with the country’s highest-rated cable-news host without causing collateral damage to the network. The board of Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, is scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the matter.

Sources briefed on the discussions say O’Reilly’s exit negotiations are moving quickly. Right now, a key issue on the table is whether he would be allowed to say good-bye to his audience, perhaps the most loyal in all of cable (O’Reilly’s ratings have ticked up during the sexual-harassment allegations). Fox executives are leaning against allowing him to have a sign-off, sources say. The other main issue on the table is money. O’Reilly recently signed a new multiyear contract worth more than $20 million per year. When Roger Ailes left Fox News last summer, the Murdochs paid out $40 million, the remainder of his contract.

According to sources, Fox News wants the transition to be seamless. Executives are currently debating possible replacement hosts. Names that have been discussed include Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, who would move from his successful 9 p.m. slot and create a need for a new host at that time. One source said Sean Hannity is happy at 10 p.m. and would not want to move. Network executives are hopingto have the new host in place by Monday.

The Murdochs’ decision to dump O’Reilly shocked many Fox News staffers I’ve spoken to in recent days. Late last week, the feeling inside the company was that Rupert Murdoch would prevail over his son James, who lobbied to jettison the embattled host. It’s still unclear exactly how the tide turned. According to one source, Lachlan Murdoch’s wife helped convince her husband that O’Reilly needed to go, which moved Lachlan into James’s corner. The source added that senior executives at other divisions within the Murdoch empire have complained that if O’Reilly’s allegations had happened to anyone else at their companies, that person would be gone already.

Spokespersons for 21st Century Fox and Fox News did not respond to requests for comment, nor did O’Reilly’s agent, Carole Cooper.

New Report Suggests Bill O’Reilly May Not Return To Fox News

Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly announced Tuesday that he was going on vacation. According to a report by New York Magazine, some 21st Century Fox executives don’t want him back.

Four anonymous sources spoke to the magazine and each claimed O’Reilly’s days at Fox are numbered.

While Fox News Co-President Bill Shine has reportedly campaigned to keep O’Reilly, the Murdoch family who runs the network is divided.

“It’s up to the family,” one source told the magazine.

The report says 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch wants O’Reilly gone, but his father Rupert and his older brother Lachlan — the company’s executive co-chairmen — disagree.

A similar dynamic played out last year when news of former Chairman Roger Ailes’ sexual harassment surfaced. Then, just like now, James called for his immediate release while Rupert did what he could to keep Ailes on board.

Lawyers from the firm hired last year to investigate Ailes have been brought back and are conducting a thorough investigation into O’Reilly’s history.

Michael Wolff, writing in the Hollywood Reporter, said the controversy surrounding the future of O’Reilly is indicative of a divide within the Murdoch family for how to run the highly profitable news channel.

“Last July, after Gretchen Carlson sued … 21st Century Fox and Roger Ailes, the then-head of Fox News Channel, for sexual harassment, Rupert Murdoch told his sons, both Ailes enemies, that paying off Carlson without a fight would mean more lawsuits,” Wolff wrote. “Easy-money settlements always bring more claims. James and Lachlan Murdoch, however, were eager to get rid of their nemesis, and the most direct way to do that was to accept Carlson’s claims after a quickie investigation and then use a big payoff — $20 million — to end the dispute and calm the storm.”

Now, in the wake of the April 1 New York Times report detailing how O’Reilly, with the support of 21st Century Fox, paid $13 million over 15 years to five different women who accused him of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior, Wolf says Rupert Murdoch is blaming his sons for opening the door to additional claims.

“It’s a particular sort of irony that Fox, which, to the delight of its audience, built itself on rejecting liberal assumptions, might now be brought down by such a signature liberal assumption: Where there are charges of sexual harassment, there is sexual harassment,” Wolff wrote.

O’Reilly announced Tuesday night that he would be taking a vacation until April 24, saying the time off had been planned since October.

But the announcement also coincides with the decision by 60 companies to pull their advertising spots on The O’Reilly Factor,which has been the most-watched show on cable news for more than a decade.

Total paid advertising time on his program fell from an average of more than 14 minutes per show during March to fewer than five minutes on Friday’s program.

By John F. Di Leo – 

In the first week of April, 2017, a nostalgic nation watched as one of the grand old institutions crumbled into dust: the Senate filibuster was removed from the toolbox for presidential appointments.

Many on both sides of the aisle shed a tear or two as the US Senate lost one of its most famous and romantic tools; until the Democrats overplayed their hand on the Gorsuch nomination, a single Senator could hold up a presidential appointee with a filibuster.  No more.

Before you shed any more tears, though, dear Gentle Reader, please consider who had long been empowered with this tool.  Have you thought about asking whether or not these Senators deserved it in the first place?

I believe that a great deal of our political trouble today is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our government – not just in what the government is for, but in how the Constitution designed it to function … how much thought the Framers put into its careful  design.

They were frustrated by the failures of the Articles of Confederation, and recognized that no mere amendment would do; we needed a new Constitution to obtain public support, and to both set up a national government and simultaneously rein it in, to both provide for the prosperity and security of the American people and to fully protect our liberties.  A difficult task.

Read the notes taken at the convention, by Robert Yates, James Madison and others – or read the fascinating books about it, such as David O Stewart’s “The Summer of 1787” – and consider the contributions of Madison, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Roger Sherman, Rufus King, and in particular, General Washington, whom the delegates’ elected as their presiding officer.

The Founding Fathers – and most specifically the Framers (the men who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787) – understood that a national government is a necessary evil, and wanted that government to be successful, and effective, in its proper functions.

But they also knew that a national government would want to expand… that both elected officials and bureaucratic appointees would try to expand their influence – for good, of course, always for good – and they knew that each such expansion would pose a greater threat to the people’s freedom.

So today, in studying our government and its perks and rules, we need to recognize how the people in the national government were meant to be selected, and recognize that it was a very deliberate selection process.  The Framers didn’t just throw the dice and say “okay, we’ll pick the Senate this way and the House that way.” It was deliberate.

One house of the legislature would be known as the people’s house.  In a nation quite intentionally designed without referenda, this would be the closest thing to “democracy” the new system would allow.  The House of Representatives would be picked directly by the voters, every two years, so there would always be a representation in our nation’s capitol of the public’s most recent will.

By contrast, the executive – the President – would be selected by an “Electoral College” – a group of wise people, perhaps statesmen, perhaps just local worthies, elected by the voters.  Through the Electoral College, the public could appoint thoughtful people who could be trusted to choose well.  Their sole duty would be their vote for President, so they would presumably give it everything they had.  Again, this is close to democracy, but not directly; the public chooses middlemen to gather and deliberate on their behalf.  The Framers were certain that people make more intelligent decisions when deliberating in a group than when simply walking into a voting booth, checking a box, and departing.

Finally, we have the US Senate.  The public would not select them at all.

The way the Framers set up our country, this was up to the states; each state government had two seats to fill in the US Senate, and it was up to them how the state legislatures select them.  Perhaps the governor would submit names for consideration? Perhaps the state house would send several nominations to the state senate for a final run-off? Their choice.

Why?  To empower the state governments … in Washington.

Many of the Framers rightly worried that eliminating the Articles of Confederation would leave the state governments powerless in the new nation’s capital.  Some for noble reasons, others jealous for power, most wanted to ensure that the state governments – not just the people in those states, but their experienced, thoughtful representatives – still had the power to rein in the new national government if it ever went too far.

Most of the Framers therefore knew that the Senate was the most important piece of this process, the lynchpin of the whole deal, specifically because the Senate was chosen by the state governments.

These US Senators would jealously guard the rights of the people and the states, because they would understand, better than anyone else, that any expansion of the national government in Washington would – by definition – be an incursion upon the state authority and individual freedoms that the Senators are there to protect.

The Guard Towers

Please think of the federal government in Washington DC as a prison complex, and of the Constitution as the wall surrounding that prison.  The Constitution has limits – each body can do this, and only this… each body is limited in what it’s allowed to tax, to regulate, to attempt… and anything outside these limits is forbidden to those within the government.  It’s a wall ten or twenty feet high, with barbed wire on top.

All the people inside this prison complex – both the elected officials and the bureaucrats – would naturally want to break through that wall and expand their powers, right? Of course they would.

Every newly created agency, every new law, every new program that the regulators enforce, is going to be an expansion beyond that original wall, enlarging the national government, enlarging the scope of Washington DC.   You can picture sections of wall being opened up, all the time, pushing it out 20 feet to the north, then 50 feet to the southwest, then another 100 feet to the east… as the inmates constantly and naturally try to expand their areas of influence.

And that’s what the Framers were worried about.  They pictured this tiny national capital city, to be designed so cleverly by Pierre Charles L’Enfant a few years later, gradually expanding until it became the massive leviathan that they so terribly feared.  They didn’t want to risk their handiwork enabling the very monster of an encroaching government that they’d just fought a revolution against!

So now we come to the U.S. Senate.

Remember, the voters directly sent Congressmen to the nation’s capital to do stuff for them, or to get stuff for them, stuff that might lead to enlarging the government, breaking through the walls that the Constitution had erected.  Similarly, they sent a President there after a huge national election, hoping that he would do stuff for them, and get stuff for them, as well.  Hopefully – from the perspective of this “small d” democratic population, the House and President will work together to make sure it happens, and the gravy train flows smoothly!

Where do the Senators fit in this picture? They’re the prison guards, sharpshooters in teams of two per state, posted very indirectly by the American people through their state governments, in the guard towers all along the prison wall.   First thirteen, then fifteen, then on and on until we now have fifty such guard towers encircling the nation’s capital.

The job of the U.S. Senate is to constantly be on the lookout for bad appointments to the judiciary, and for bad laws being proposed in the House, and bad new agencies or regulations being proposed by the newspapers or the lobbyists, bad cabinet secretaries being proposed by the President.

The U.S. Senate is there to watch out for anyone or anything that would enlarge the scope of the national government beyond its proper, constitutional scale.

The job of the U.S. Senate is to stand at the ready, with binoculars and night vision goggles, rifles cocked and ready at their sides, and watch for such encroachments… and then to stop them.

The Constitution gave the Senate several tools for this task – the impeachment process, the “advise and consent” process, the legislative process, etc.

The Senate’s job is to identify encroachments, and stop them.

So to return to our prison metaphor, the Senators are the guards, very carefully selected and posted by the 50 states in these guard towers metaphorically surrounding Washington DC.  They were given wonderful tools – the impeachment process, the security of six-year terms, the filibuster, and so many more – to use in the service of this one goal: keeping the leviathan at bay.

Their job was to watch closely, and whenever they see anyone trying to break out of these Constitutional limits and expand the walls – trying to expand the power of the national government – the Senators were supposed to shoot them down.

And it worked pretty darned well, for over 120 years, too.

The Errors of (and leading up to) 1913

Unfortunately, some of the states never fully understood this process – never fully understood how carefully and thoughtfully the Framers had been looking out for their interests.  So by the late 1800s, some of the states had a reputation for chicanery in their selection of Senators, and some others were giving in to the populist effort to let the public have control of this house too… and finally, in 1913, the 17th amendment was passed, mandating direct election of US Senators.

This one colossal error removed the state governments’ one and only institutional check on the federal government, essentially just turning the Senators into stuffier, more powerful, just-as-democratic Congressmen, but with six-year-terms.

In other words, the prison guards now serve the prisoners… unite with the prisoners… join the prisoners at the feast.

They’re on the same side as the people they were supposed to be guarding us from.

Now that it’s all changed, do today’s Senators really still deserve all the perks and tools that the Senators had when they served their state governments in their original cause?

Well, if you ever wondered why the walls have all collapsed and the federal government can now rule the entire country, with nothing holding them back… now you know.

Many accuse the Constitution of failing, because the national government is now enormous, but that’s not fair.  When the Constitution was in place, from 1788 through 1913, it did a pretty good job of keeping the national government small, by using the self-interest of the state governments as a wonderfully, brilliantly effective permanent check on the federal government.

Until 1913, when we ratified the 17th amendment, and the states totally destroyed the country.

The lesson of the day is to never allow the inmates to appoint the guards on the prison walls.

Our current socialist, omnipresent national government isn’t the fault of the Constitution at all, it’s the fault of the conscious destruction of the Constitution’s brilliant plan in 1913.

Copyright 2017 John F. Di Leo

Trey Gowdy shuts down CNN anchor over Trump’s wiretap accusations

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) shut down the suggestion from CBS news anchor John Dickerson that there was anything unsavory about Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Ca.) decision to inform President Trump about evidence he thinks might substantiate the president’s claim of wiretapping.

“I want to start with this question of unmasking that Chairman Nunes brought out,” Dickerson began Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “Has he shown you any of what caused him to suggest that Obama officials are doing surveillance, captured some Trump campaign associates and then unmasked them in the process of investigating?”

“He has not shown it to me, John,” Gowdy answered. “I am vaguely familiar with it, no more, no less familiar with it than Adam Schiff is. I just tell you this. My understanding is Chairman Nunes briefed the commander in chief on matters unrelated to the Russian investigation, so if that is big deal in Washington, then we have sunk to a new low.”

“Well, I guess Congressman Schiff would say but the president is the one that is a part of this investigation being done by the committee, so the chairman shouldn’t be talking to him,” Dickerson offered.
“Well, then, let me repeat what I said,” Gowdy reiterated. “That the chairman of House Intel briefed the commander in chief that has nothing to do with the Russian investigation. So if the commander in chief cannot be briefed by the chairperson of the House Intel Committee on a matter that has nothing to do with the FBI investigation, then I don’t know what they can talk about, John.”

“He is the commander in chief,” Gowdy interjected.

“So if this is an issue outside of the one they are investigating at the moment in the committee and that you are investigating,” Dickerson asked, “should it then be taken out of this investigation? Have a separate investigation on both the issues that Chairman Nunes has discovered this week and then also the one you are quite concerned about, which is the leaks that have been in the paper, some of them potentially illegal. Get that out of this question of Russia to keep things from getting mixed the way they appear to have?”

“Well, they are separate,” Gowdy responded, “and I heard my friend from California mention that independent commission, thank goodness we have one, it is called the FBI. The FBI has counterintelligence jurisdiction and they have criminal jurisdiction, and what we learned on Monday, and it is about the only thing we learned on Monday was that the FBI’s investigating both. They are the world’s premiere law enforcement agency, they are independent, you have women and men at the Department of Justice who have dedicated their careers to the blind pursuit of justice. It doesn’t get any more independent than that. So we have an independent entity investigating counter-intelligence and allegations of potential criminality, let Congress do its job which is provide oversight over the intelligence community.”

“Do you have any sense from the chairman about the schedule of when this new information that we have been talking about here,” Dickerson continued, “this question of unmasking, when you might have enough information to make a judgment about whether this is, in fact, something that was done improperly or whether, as Congressman Schiff said, this is just the normal procedures for going through unmasking?”

“It is just one more reason to bring director [James] Comey and [Admiral Mike] Rogers back on Tuesday,” Gowdy said, “It’s incredibly important. Adam is right, that Adam is right that the incidental collection of U.S. persons happens. What I wish some of my friends over on the other side would be a little more outraged about is the political use of that unmasking. So I understand we collect U.S. citizens but we don’t read about those U.S. citizens on the first page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. That admission to threatening the surveillance programs is also a felony. So I hope that we learn more about that on Tuesday.”

“All of this is important, John,” Gowdy continued. “Every bit of it. Russia is not our friend. They attacked our Democracy. I want to investigate every fact that is related there to, but the felonious dissemination of classified information is the only thing we know for sure is a crime, and it would be nice if we showed the same level of interest in that.”

“Let me ask you, you chaired a committee that got a lot of attention in the papers,” Dickerson asked. “What is your sense of the health of this committee? We have seen dueling press conferences. There has been a lot of accusations and passive aggression here, how healthy is this committee?”

“I think it is fine,” Gowdy answered. “I actually think Chairman Nunes and ranking member Schiff are both good men and I think they get along fine. I think what you learned Monday, because I heard the witnesses almost 100 times, John, say they could not answer the question in that setting and I want you and your viewers to ask themselves, why are we satisfied with every other facet of culture having serious investigations done confidentially, the grand jury, judges meeting with attorneys, police officers interviewing suspects, all of that is done confidentially, and we are more than satisfied with those investigations, and yet when it comes to Congress, we think we ought to have a public hearing. 100 times those two witnesses said they could not answer the question in that setting.”

“Why in the hell would we go back to that setting if the witnesses can’t answer the questions?” Gowdy concluded.

Trump Sets HISTORIC Renegotiation Meeting In Coming Weeks That Will Change America FOREVER

If Mexican officials were hoping that the North American Free Trade Agreement was going to stay intact under the Trump administration, they were sadly mistaken — and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross just put them on notice that their worst nightmare is going to begin in a few weeks.

According to CNBC, Ross announced Friday that he plans to begin the formal process of renegotiating NAFTA “in the next couple of weeks.”

From Conservative Tribune

American law stipulates that the executive branch needs to inform Congress 90 days before it signs any new trade agreement. Ross said that there is no “date certain” to begin the formal process, according to Breitbart.

During a joint news conference with Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, Ross also announced he had been consulting with the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees on negotiations involving the trilateral agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

“The next stage will be hopefully in the next couple of weeks, which will be to issue 90-day letter,” Ross said.

While three nations are involved in NAFTA, Ross said negotiations with Mexico and Canada could happen separately as “two parallel bilaterals.”

Renegotiating NAFTA had been one of President Donald Trump’s major promises during his campaign, and Ross seemed to indicate that he was going to reshape the agreement based on current economic realities.

Trump had already signed, in the same executive order in which he announced America’s intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an order declaring his intent to renegotiate NAFTA, according to CNBC.

Rebuilding the U.S. economy was a cornerstone of Trump’s campaign, and Ross said, “doesn’t deal with the Mexican economy or the U.S. economy or the Canadian economy in their current form.”

“At a minimum its needs an update. Arguably there were some sections that didn’t work out.”

You can bet this is making Mexico very nervous… and the Trump White House very happy.

Trump’s DOJ sends documents related to Wiretap Claim to House Panel

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent documents to the House Intelligence Committee on Friday in response to a request for evidence backing up President Trump’s claim that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

The committee is currently reviewing the documents, an aide confirmed to The Hill.

The Hill reports,

It’s unclear what’s in the documents, which CNN reported separately had also been delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee, though that report could not be immediately confirmed.

Leaders on the House panel sent a letter to the DOJ last week asking for evidence related to Trump’s claim earlier this month that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower ahead of the presidential election. A spokesman for Obama denied at the time that he or any White House official ordered such surveillance.

On Monday, the DOJ asked for more time to produce the documents, bucking a March 13 deadline set by the committee. Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) indicated that the committee could subpoena the department for the documents if they were not received by Monday, when the panel holds a hearing.

Trump tweeted March 4 accusing Obama of having his “wires tapped” in Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign. He has stood by his claim despite lawmakers in both parties saying as of Thursday that they had not seen evidence to support his allegation.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer has sought to clarify the claim, saying that Trump put the wiretapping accusation “in quotes” and was more broadly referring to surveillance activities by the Obama administration.

But Spicer also said that Trump “stands by” his initial tweets on the subject, and Trump on Friday joked about the wiretapping claim during a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The House Intelligence Committee will hold an open hearing on Russian interference in the election on Monday, where questions about Trump’s claims are sure to be raised. Lawmakers will have the opportunity to press FBI Director James Comey on the issue.

Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a president more than many of you can imagine

by George Roof, Chief Master Sergeant (Retired), USA

Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a president more than many of you can imagine. I enlisted with LBJ and saw just what a Democrat clusterflock was all about. I went to Vietnam and saw how we were constantly and incessantly bombarded with micromanagement from Washington that got thousands of military people killed. I sometimes wonder if I’ll get to heaven, but if I go to hell, I’m sure I’ll still be a few hundred floors above that bastard Robert McNamara , LBJ, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and yes, even the “hero” John McCain.

After Johnson “abdicated” rather than having his ass waxed, I lived through Nixon who was hawkish but allowed the generals (and there WERE a few real generals back then versus now) run the show. He was so out of touch that he never knew North Vietnam was about to surrender when the Paris Accord was presented.

Only God could help us after Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy Peanuts who’d been funded by Saudi money. The military was turned into Section 8, and even the Whitehouse suffered the austerity.

Then the light began to shine and Ronald Reagan swept into the fray. He notly loved the country and the military, they loved him back. Esprit d’corps was off the scale during his presidency. The Liberals were slowly turning into socialists, however, and about this time all the draft dodgers of the 1960’s who’d been given amnesty by Jimmy Peanuts were turning out college graduates with degrees in socialism.

Bush 1 was an enigma from the CIA, and though he never did much either way, he NEVER DID MUCH EITHER WAY.

Welcome to Bill Clinton. Clinton spent most of his two terms wagging the dog and creating the Oral Office, sending a bomber to blow up Quaddafi’s tent and killing a goat or two, while allowing the UN to set up the infamous Black Hawk Down situation. He made history by becoming only the second president to be impeached.

I actually felt sorry for Bush 2. He was doomed to infamy from the start. He thought most of America was still the rah rah patriots of WWII when they were simply socialists waiting to feed him to the sharks.

Then there came the Manchurian Candidate with a faked (OK Democrats, let’s say “of questionable origin” to assuage your PC brains) birth certificate, who’d gotten a free ride through college under a foreign student exemption, and whose college records and complete life history had been sealed. (We know more about Thomas Jefferson’s bastard children than we do about Obama, Michelle, OR their two kids.) >From his inaugural address, he slandered America and within days had begun to encourage dissention of the races as well as slandering police who “acted stupidly.” That was mild to the crap that would come in doubling the national debt from what had been built by ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED, feeding us bullspit about how Muslims built this country, and nationalizing American industries. Fueled by George Soros’ money and using the Air Force fleet as his personal charters, he appointed malcontents and traitors into positions of authority. He trashed the Constitution by installing “czars” (interesting he chose a title like that) to bypass Congressional authority. By that time, Congress was completely corrupt on both sides of the aisle. No one had balls to impeach this charlatan.

Mysteriously, the lone outspoken conservative Supreme Court Justice suddenly dies in his sleep at an Obama pal’s hunting lodge and the Supreme Court is evenly split. Finally, Congress shows some balls and rejects Obama’s nomination. The Libtards aren’t worried because the fix is in. Soros has paid demonstrators to cause turmoil at all the Republican gatherings, Obama concedes that illegal aliens should vote as they won’t be prosecuted, and Soros-manufactured voting machines are caught switching votes in certain precincts. Hillary has cheated her way to the nomination and her lies are completely ignored by the brainwashed minions of sycophants who follow her.

But a shocking thing happened on the way to the forum

Middle America had had enough and although the pollsters and the pipers tried to convince them not even to bother to vote, they were fed up with the denizens of the swamp. It was time. Florida was designated a “swing” state ignoring that all those old retirees living in St. Petersburg, and the fed up Cuban Americans of Miami weren’t interested in their platform. Ohio and Pennsylvania, where coal production was blacklisted and where Obama had ridiculed them for “clinging to their Bibles and their guns,” lay awaiting this supposed “landslide” Hillary vote and creamed it.

The Socialist world of the Democratic Party disintegrated. An American who expressed unbridled love of country and respect for police, firemen, and military steamrolled across the heartland and the liberals realized their scheme was trashed. A CONSTITUTIONALIST would be nominated to the Supreme Court and if the hag who’d claimed to retire if Trump were elected would actually leave, the Supreme Court would have a massive majority of CONSTITUTIONALISTS for the next 40-50 years.

Now, the same party who’d ridiculed Trump on his comments about the election being rigged, started screaming that the election was rigged. They even advocated having the election repeated. They created mobs that burned and pillaged, stopped traffic, threatened murder, battery and rape of Trump supporters, and became the anarchists that the socialist dream thrives upon. They run like castrated pigs for safe zones and use diaper pins as their national symbol.

This is exactly what happens when political correctness takes over and participation trophies are awarded to everyone. They can’t conceive how disgusting and subservient they have become. Donald Trump may NOT be the best person for the job, but he’s such a welcome respite from the candy-assed whimps who’ve been running the swamp that it’s refreshing to see. At the very least, Donald Trump derailed the Socialist train and bought us precious time. If he only does half of what he’s promised, we’ll still be legions ahead of where Obama has dragged us. Already countries who held us in contempt are lining up to be found in the favor of America.

So for you liberal lurkers and you half-assed fence-sitters, kiss off. You had your big hurrah and now your party is over. For you staunch Republicans in office, don’t gloat so much yourselves. You’ve been put on notice by the American people that we’re fed up with ALL YOU BASTARDS and if you don’t start putting America first, you do so at your own peril. You might want to buy a copy of George McGovern’s autobiography and see how shocking and humbling it can be for a professional politician to have to try to find legitimate work once he falls from grace. This election was pure, unadulterated AMERICAN. Hillary got beaten and AMERICA WON THE ELECTION. You can claim he’s not “your president” all you want, but unless you forfeit your American citizenship, YES HE IS!!!! Go cry a river some place they need water.

Bad News For Trump Hating Liberal ESPN Just Announced

As sports cable network ESPN continues to bleed cash, another round of layoffs is about to hit that will reportedly take out some well-known reporters and on-air faces.

Reports say that ESPN management is being tasked with cutting “tens of millions” of dollars of staff salary from its payroll, meaning that on-air personalities are on the chopping block, according to Sports Illustrated.

From Breitbart

“Today’s fans consume content in many different ways, and we are in a continuous process of adapting to change and improving what we do. Inevitably, that has consequences for how we utilize our talent,” ESPN said in a statement. “We are confident that ESPN will continue to have a roster of talent that is unequaled in sports.”

The network is reportedly set to buyout some contracts, and fire writers and behind the camera staffers. The slashing of staff will likely be completed by June, insiders say.

The news of the massive cuts comes on the heels of reports that ESPN is losing millions per year.

Once a sports powerhouse, ESPN has gone from must-see-TV for millions of sports fans to a financial boondoggle for owner Disney with the network losing up to 10,000 subscribers a day, reports said last month.

“A floundering ESPN, with rising costs and declining viewership, continued to sink Disney’s DIS, +0.24% financial results during its fiscal first quarter,” reported

New Poll SHOCKS “Mainstream” Anti-Trump Media

Fifty-five percent of the public told TIPP that they are “weary from the media’s persistently negative coverage of President Trump,” and 54 percent say the news media “has assumed the role of the opposition party, constantly opposing the president and his policies at every turn,” according to an article in Investors Business Daily, which sponsored the TIPP poll.

The result supports the argument by Steve Bannon, Trump’s strategist, who described the establishment media in January as “the opposition party.”

According to IBD;

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly hold these views (88% say they’re tired of the [media’s] relentless negativity), but the media’s attacks are also turning off independents (55% of whom say they’re weary of the negative coverage) and moderates (54% of whom are weary). Most also believe that the press has assumed the role of the opposition party.

The poll also showed the public backs Trump’s ‘Hire American’ immigration policies;

The poll found that 57% back Trump’s plan to hire 10,000 more immigration agents; 58% support the deportation of illegal immigrations charged with a crime, even if they haven’t been convicted; 53% back Trump’s call to withhold federal aid to “sanctuary cities.”

Amid media hostility, Trump’s Feb. 28 successful speech to the joint session of Congress also boosted his support, according to the poll.

Of the 653 surveyed before the speech, just 39.5% approved of the job he is doing. Of the 256 polled after the speech, his approval rating climbed to 46.1% — a 6.6 point bump. His disapproval numbers went from 54.5% before to 47.5% after.