Header Image (book)


Wednesday, December 12, 2018

A Trump Win?

Transparency! And the Dems abhor transparency — never mind their protests to the contrary (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance):

President Trump: “Most of the Democrats, It’s Hard to Believe, Want Open Borders” (Video)

Democrats Can’t Find $5 Billion for Border Wall But Gifted Iranian Regime with $5.7 Billion and Pallet of Cash

Trump Says Military Will Build Border Wall if Democrats Refuse Funding

And the Dems' after party: Pelosi brings up Trump 'manhood,' says meeting with him was like 'tinkle contest' with skunk.


  1. Replies
    1. It's difficult to make getting crotch punched by Nancy Pelosi a win.

    2. Watching the two sides talk past one another is the new norm. The Dem's are in denial over their own responsibilities for the dysfunctional immigration policies. They refuse to have the necessary "framing discussion". The Democrats are the same irresponsible bomb throwers that they were in '68. They've learned nothing by Republicans giving them their way.

    3. They'll never have the necessary framing discussion otherwise.

    4. The Government may
      Be as great as they say,
      But would it be missed,
      If it ceased to exist?

  2. Rand Paul March 2018

    Page 376 of terrible, rotten, no-good budget busting bill: I found it! I found it! Border security, what President Trump wanted! no . . .wait a minute section says Defense can spend what funds it determines to enhance the border security of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia

  3. I saw the "interview" –– or whatever sound bytes the media permitted us to see rather.

    The most patently false assertion made was when Nanny Pelousy stated, "We came here in good faith."


    I love the way President Trump stands up to these nitwits, and forcefully dimisses their absurd claims.

    He doesn't use terms like "poppycock," "stuff and nonsense," or "treacherous twaddle," –– or any of their more vulgar equivalents ––, but his MEANING is always CLEAR. He doesn't obfuscate, and he doesn't equivocate, bless him.

    Any failure to implement the agenda Mr. Trump outlined during his campaign, and was elected to produce must be laid primarily at the leadershit of the GOP and the RINOSHEEP who follow blindly in their venal, treacherous wake.

    Yes the Defecrats, the Professoriat, and th ENEMEDIA act as a host of enemies encamped against ur president, BUT the REPUBLICANS, themselves, are almost solely to blame for the failures of this administration, because the GOP Establishment is ROTTEN to the CORE, filled with globaists, and has been ever since Ronald Reagan left office.

    The headlines and purported "analysis" from the leftwing urinalists is nothing but fabricated propaganda designed to aid and abet the anti-Trump Agenda.


      [T]he REPUBLICANS, themselves, are almost solely to blame for the failures of the Trump administration, because the GOP Establishment is ROTTEN to the CORE, filled with globalists, and venal wimps. This has been true ever since Ronald Reagan left office, and was ALWAYS a factor.

      Meanwhile, the headlines and purported "analysis" from the leftwing, sensation mongering urinalists is nothing but fabricated propaganda designed to aid and abet their virulent anti-Trump Agenda.

  4. The answer is simple. If these illegals are so wonderful have them stay a few weeks in Nancy's house, and then a few more weeks at Chuck's home. If not, please don't release them where we live. BUILD THAT WALL. Period!

  5. It Was Delightful.

    Schumer to Trump: “Elections have consequences”...just not 2016 POTUS ELECTION, huh, Chuckie?

    Schumer and Pelosi just showed what hypocritical, elitist, double-standard douche-bags Democrats truly are, sat there like two 15 year old crying and complaining cry babies

    Chucky Schumer who sat there in front of the whole world and turned his head away from the President, and looking down at the floor came across as a first class partisan political Jackass when he said that : “Elections have consequences”. Along with the results of the 2016 election, he and Democrats rejected that idea and instead declared '100% Commitment' to “Resisting, Obstructing, and Opposing” EVERYTHING - no matter how good it may be for the country while the President attempted to accomplish what was good for the country.

    Nacny Pelosi while sitting there bobbing her head, repeatedly asked , and almost begged the President to have their discussion AWAY from the cameras and behind closed doors. In other words she and Schumer were saying that they did NOT want to have that discussion in front of the American people is a Huge understatement.

    Nancy Pelosi made it known that she would much rather have a "private" meeting and then maybe go out and spin some crap for the media...

    Pelosi said, “ "This is a most unfortunate thing. We came in here in good faith and we’re entering this kind of discussion in the public view.” So much for Transparency! Was she afraid to be on camera?

    They had a damn good reason for NOT wanting to have a transparent meeting about Illegal Immigration and the wall:

    They came across as pitiful self serving, NOT having any desire to what the majority of Americans want and having no desire to work to secure this country and Protect Americans.They came across as little children, throwing a tantrum, demanding they get their way, and the President being the only adult in the room.

    They were reduced to using Obamas quotes, exposing their own refusal to accept that elections have “Consequences”.

    Really Chucky! Well then if you love these illegal’s as much as you seem to then why not invite a few of them to stay a few weeks at your home, and then let Nancy entertain them at her house, you know that Big House with the Wall around it!

    But if you won’t, then DON’T send them to my house either!

    At one point the President made the comment about how Pelosi could not fully speak for the House, and Pelosi shot back telling the President not to underestimate her power to speak for Democrats. President Trump played them like a fiddle as only he can. The President kept cutting Pelosi to pieces, and slapping down Chuckie as

    neither one of them could react fast enough to even get a word in. The more Pelosi spoke the stupider she sounded.

    The President was not questioning her power to speak for the DEMOCRATS, who are currently in the minority - he was saying she could not speak for the entire HOUSE because she is not Speaker of the House yet. Pelosi's confusion and inability to grasp what the President is understandable though these days, as she frequently freezes in mid-sentence, starts babbling, and is clearly in the throes of some kinf of mental breakdown / illness.

    President Trump came across as a “champion of the people” ' saying “For the security of this nation, against those who oppose securing our borders and protecting Americans...for THAT reason, for this country and for Americans I am willing to accept the blame for shutting down the government”

  6. Though I have about zero sh*ts to give about this embarrassing political theater, perhaps Trump can drop a name or a quote from an elected Democrat, espousing open borders - I haven’t seen any.

    But I can’t wait for a Democrat POTUS to tell the American people “if we don’t get what we want, I’m going to shut down the government. Can’t imagine that would have passed calmly 2+ years ago.

  7. CI... there may be a couple of Dems who want that, but it is not part of the Dem platform and not, in spite of many ppl saying it is, part of the dogma of the Democratic Party.

    My "Real" counterpart got the quote about right... Trump is willing to shut down the government and will bear the responsibility for doing so. Or at least the GOP will. I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the real world though.

    I think us more liberal folks just want to know why we're willing to shut the government down over funding for a wall that Pres Trump promised us Mexico would pay for.

    Is that an unreasonable question?

    1. He made a promise that he knew he couldn’t keep.....charitably, we call that a....lie.

    2. OH, dear! A president made a promise he couldn't keep? I'd say impeach him yesterday. :-)

    3. Mexico and other foreign entities COULD and WOULD be made to pay for the wall –– a measly TWENTY-FIVE BILLIONS according to original Trump estimate –– IF we stopped allowing THEM to take advantage of US in the many many ways they've been doing for decades.

      SHUTTING OFF the TAPS through which FOREIGN AID FLOWS South of the Border would compensate US hugely, and probably MORE than pay for the wall in the long run.

      ALSO, stemmng the flow of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION of UNEIRABLES from South of the Border –– and anywhere ELSE –––, would greatly reduce costs to the US TAXPAYERS –– many now currently being WASTED on funding New Arrivals whose INTENT is to ADD to OUR BURDENS by taking ADVANTAGE of Current, Incredibly Stupid, Self-Punishing, Self-Defeating Law and Policies.

      Dour LITERALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS of public policy statements by unimagnative individuals blinded by bigotry are often inadequate, because they lack insight, imagination, and basic good will.

  8. Some of us need to check into what gets shut down in a government shut down......and how often it's been done. Even by Democrats, imagine!? :-)

    It's all silly, really....
    I'm not a big Trump fan but the constant forgiveness of anybody like Obama for the Lois Lerner scandal, getting an agent killed by mishandling Fast and Furious, never investigating his sending huge cash in boxes at midnight to Iran, Benghazi......gad, when can I stop?

    The hate is emblematic of the Left....and it appears it's not going away. Pelosi questioned Trump's manhood...I'm thinking it takes some scummy woman to even suggest anything like that.

    1. .....never investigating his sending huge cash in boxes at midnight to Iran...

      What was there to investigate. Did you read the JPCOA where it regarded frozen Iranian assets?

    2. It's pretty clear you are unable to stop. Your hatred for the left is visceral. Ironic, no?

      Someone used Trump's tactics against him, boo freaking hoo.

      As for your list:

      1. The IRS is mandated to investigate claims of tax exemption by so called public service organizations. More conservative orgs were investigated because more are working that particular grift.

      2. Fast and Furious was tragic but not criminal.

      3. The cash BELONGED TO IRAN and the return was part of the de-nuclearization treaty which Iran was observing before tRump pulled out.

      4. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. How often did that crack tough prosecutor Trey Gowdy get his head handed to him and come up with nothing?

      Oh by the way, you're always on about how conservatives value clean water. How do you feel about tRump repealing clean water regulations?

      Oh, open borders? Why were deportations at a high under Obama?

    3. CI... many will never consider that a previous agreement dictated that we return Iranian money to Iranians. Their views seems to be that once we froze those assets, they became US assets, ergo a return of them means the US paid them off.

      Independent of the facts.

    4. Z... I'm under no illusions that politicians don't lie. None at all. But it does seem, as CI alluded to, that Trump knew he was lying about that from the start, never had a plan or intention to make Mexico pay, and was simply using the issue to demonize Mexico.

    5. .....they became US assets...

      That could have been accomplished, legally....by considering the funds compensation for IRGC enabling of Shi'a militia campaigns against US forces in Iraq.

      But we didn't go down that road. Not under Bush, Obama...or Trump.

    6. Dave & Duck,
      The assets seized from a terrorist state belong to the entity that seized them.

      "To the victor go the spoils" -- and all that.

    7. So AOW... the rule of law internationally means nothing? Is it good policy for the US to advocate a policy that we ourselves would not want to abide by if the shoe is on the other foot?

      That was the issue with the Bush Doctrine of Pre Emptive attacks. We asserted a right that if a country, the US for instance, felt threatened by the actions of another country, we could attack them before we were ever attacked and it would be justified.

      But would we then affirm that a country that felt threatened by the US, say North Korea, also has a right to attack us preemptively?

      Of course not.

      So how is order maintained in the world, absent some agreed to international norms?

    8. The US only accepts what its $700b annual Defense budget can't overcome.

    9. So how is order maintained in the world, absent some agreed to international norms?

      Because like politics, policy is hypocrisy. Fuels the theater though....

    10. AOW is right, everyone who thinks otherwise is acting the part of a Wimpish, adamantly Legalistic Dunderhead.

      When WE are engaged in a WAR, –– whether officially declared or not ––, whatever "belongs" to our sworn enemy DOES, indeed, rightfully belong to US. To think otherwise IS tantamount to TREASON. The absurd notion that WE should be bound by "International Law" to defeat OUR best iiterests is a SICK JOKE.

      The very concpt of International Law presupposes the existence of an International GOVERNMENT which has the power to undercut OUR sovereignty.

      That is no only ABSURD, it's WICKED.

    11. Well Franco... it was the international community that banded together to fight WWII. Was that wicked? It was the international community that brought the Nazis to justice. Was that wicked?

      Sure there are times when the decisions go against the interests of the US, but on balance, we've been well served. Now that the world is more connected, and no way to isolate, we need alliances of like minded friends/interests in the world. But that means we cannot always expect to get the last word.

    12. Such blather about "international community" is hogwash.

      The "International Community" did not defeat Hitler. A few great powers--the US Preeminent among them--with the help of smaller nations did that job.

      Same goes for the Nuremberg Trials and rebuilding Europe.

  9. Open borders may not be officially part of the Democrat platform, but a policy by any other name...

    Let's face it:

    We (voters and politicians) are incapable of a ration debate on any topic, so we third-grade cartoon pie-throwing and blatant pandering instead.

    GOP likes illegal immigration almost as much as Dems do. Proof? Two years holding all the power, and they haven't done a damn thing about it.

    Between legislative inertia, judicial chevron deference to unelected bureaucrats churning out politburo-style diktats, and the federal budget consuming ever-larger percentages of GDP (and borrowed money), we have a shambolic cyclops government on autopilot.

    1. Silver... you're probably correct in that politicians seem incapable of effectively engaging on the issue of immigration.

      Is it possible that the reason is a need to satisfy the binary either/or desires of their constituents?

      For example, if Dems want to follow the law regarding asylum, a law decided on by Congress, signed by a previous President and affirmed by Trump appointed judges, it is interpreted by conservatives as Dems wanting open borders. Just as the Dems see changes to clean water policies as the GOP hating clean water.

      Maybe it is simply the politicians choosing to satisfy the electorate as opposed to legislating good policy and exercising leadership.

    2. Yes, Silver, everything you said is true, and may be summed up in the well-worn adage

      "ACTIONS speak LOUDER than WORDS."


      "By their FRUITS shall ye KNOW them."

    3. Franco: Indeed. Repubelicon fruit is only slightly less rotten that from the DemonCrap Tree.

  10. I'm all for government transparency. Why can't we see the names and addresses of the losers mooching off of welfare programs?

    I bet we could vet out fraud really fast.

  11. TC... that might work as long as we also include those who get government subsidies to prop up money losing farms and people begging for welfare because of the tariffs imposed by the Trump Admin.

    After all... mooching is mooching isn't it?

    1. I don’t trust Dave Miller as far as I can throw him.
      And trust me? I’d love to THROW. Him!

    2. Broaden that assertion to say, "I DON'T TRUST LEFTISTS or ANYTHING they PROPOSE or PROFESS to BELIEVE IN, PERIOD!", and I'll go with you, Super Man, but let's try to avoid making our dislike and disapproaval personal whenever there's a way to avoid it, please.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective