Is Blaska’s head on a stick?

If Jimmy cracked corn why does no one care?


Is this a game changer?

UPDATE 01-27-2020: Trump in August told Bolton that he wanted to continue holding military aid to Ukraine until the country helped with investigations into Democrats — including former Vice President Joe Biden — the New York Times reported Sunday, citing multiple people’s descriptions of an unpublished draft manuscript by Bolton. Bolton’s conservative credentials are impeccable. Calling witnesses in impeachment trial now likely.


Two predictions: 

  1. The U.S. Senate will vote to acquit Donald Trump and
  2. Donald Trump will deliver the State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 4, not Mike Pence. 

Two questions for the peanut gallery 

Multiple answers permitted

Q. What’s the matter with Iowa?

The New York Times/Siena College poll conducted 20-23 January 2020 shows Trump beating all six top Democrat(ic) presidential candidates in Iowa. Over Buttigieg by 1 percentage point, Biden by 2, Klobuchar by 5, Warren by 5, Sanders by 6 and Bloomberg by 8 points. Proving the adage that familiarity — in this case with the Democrats’ brand of socialism, identity politics, and cultural exoticism — breeds contempt. (Note how the Times buries these results at the bottom of the story.) 

A. Nothing is the matter with Iowa.

You can’t lick heads on a stick

Blaska popsickleIn a classic case of confirmation bias, New York Times gossip columnist Maureen Dowd buys into the unsourced CBS News narrative that Republican senators who vote against Trump will find their head skewered on a pike.

We assume and presume (as Gordon Sondland is wont to do) that the pike thing is figurative, not literal. Even so, Ambassador Sondland has yet to be posted to Antarctica. If, for instance, Ted Cruz is cowed it is only because he won re-election by the skin of his teeth two years ago greatly because his President put aside their personal animosity and lent his massive popularity to Cruz’s campaign. 

Which is why we snicker whenever the Left bemoans the power of special interests they loathe, hobgoblins such as the National Rifle Association, forgetting that their 5 million members vote and organize. And that four of every five Americans have a gun in the home, according to Pew Research.

It poured sweet and clear, it was a …

On the impeachment managers’ case, Ms. Dowd reports: 

One Democratic Senate staffer mourned the apathy. “Our phones aren’t ringing. Nobody cares. It’s the saddest thing ever.” At night, tipsy Republican staffers treated Senate office buildings as a pub crawl, roaming the halls with celebratory bottles of wine.

Even educated fleas do it?

Ross Douthat notes that LBJ used the federal government to spy on Barry Goldwater (as Obama, it is becoming apparent, did on Trump). 

As President, James Madison engaged in a dodgy, Trumpian scheme to use State Department money to buy documents purporting to prove his Federalist opponents were conniving with London. The Federalists cried foul but there wasn’t even the beginning of an impeachment proceeding. All Presidents conflate their own political self-interest with the national interest.

Curious in a curious sort of way:

Three of the House impeachment managers voted AGAINST aid to Ukraine: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). Our most valued ally! Defender of America’s national security!

Maureen Dowd gets today’s Bottom Line: “Americans knew they were voting for a thug. They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington and they got one.” Blaska still wishes Trump were more Vito Corleone instead of Sonny. 

What do YOU think?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Is Blaska’s head on a stick?

  1. The Democrats are likely to do everything on your list and more with the exception of “Be polite as tea with the vicar”.

    Trump is really not predictable as to what he will do after this attempted soft coup impeachment fiasco, but I think you can be dead certain that in some way he will communicate to the American people his complete and justifiable utter distrust and contempt of the DC Democrats and vow to fight their irrational attacks for the duration of his term(s) in office. This will be a small segment of his speech, and h is primary focus will be on his vast accomplishments since he’s been in office in-spite the constant barrage of irrational attacks from the political left. I expect him to say “I will continue to fight for the American people no matter what” or something like that multiple times.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Kevin Wymore says:

    If the Ukrainian glove does not fit, you must acquit.

    Like

  3. geo_ says:

    “Soft coup”? This republican administration broke numerous laws, laws which his oath of office required he obey. Yes he was impeached only over one broken law and his subsequent refusal to cooperate with investigators. A real man, a real American would want to prove his innocence with all the evidence on the table, unless of course he’s not innocent. Now we know, republicans are indeed afraid of truth and justice, otherwise even they would want to see all the evidence pertinent to this case.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Soft Coup: Sometimes referred to as a silent coup, is a coup d’état without the use of violence, but based on a conspiracy or plot that has as its objective the taking of state power by partially or wholly illegal means, in order to facilitate an exchange of political leadership

      Yes geo, what the DC Democrats are doing looks a LOT like a soft coup. They are violating their oath of office and bastardizing the United States Constitution to undo an election that they lost and cannot get over, they’re psychologically obsessed!

      This republican administration broke numerous laws, laws which his oath of office required he obey.

      You accused, time to support your accusations. The burden of proof is on you now.

      What laws did the administration break? Please be specific.

      Yes he was impeached only over one broken law and his subsequent refusal to cooperate with investigators.

      You accused, time to support your accusations. The burden of proof is on you now.

      What law(s) did the President break? Please be specific.

      A real man, a real American would want to prove his innocence with all the evidence on the table, unless of course he’s not innocent.

      You like so many other brainwashed-with-propaganda Americans don’t understand how things work in the United States of America; a “real American” would know that the accused is not required to prove their innocence, the accuser is required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is upon the accuser – PERIOD! Your thought process in this regard is anti-American, so you must not be a “real American”.

      Now we know, republicans are indeed afraid of truth and justice, otherwise even they would want to see all the evidence pertinent to this case.

      Hogwash! The Democrats have presented their case and there is no there, there. All they have is reading between the lines, reading people’s minds, hearsay, and opinions – the facts are on the President’s side of the arguments.

      What’s actually the truth is; now we know that the DC Democrat liars (Pelosi and the House Managers to be specific) are willing to shred the United States Constitution to “get” President Trump. The DC Democrats have extrapolated their reading between the lines and anti-Constitutional rhetoric to absolute hysterical absurdity and the majority of DC Democrats support their anti-American absurdities.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

        Oooooooomph; right in the breadbasket!

        That’s gonna leave a mark, Steve!

        The Gotch

        Liked by 1 person

      • 1. You do not cry that there is no first hand witnesses and then? Block the first hand witnesses from testifying.
        2. You do not lock up in a secure server the full transcript of the phone call and only release a summary of it.
        3. You do not cry that you have had no opportunity to defend yourself, when? You were in fact? Invited to defend yourself and make an appearance at the House hearings.
        4. Show us the real evidence that clears Trump in this.

        Like

        • atheistmilitantsrising,
          Where are the laws broken in your list?

          There is clear a separation of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch with the courts as the arbitrator. The Executive branch, the office of the President of the United States, and the person holding the office of the President of the United States all have rights and every member of the House of Representatives that voted for the articles of impeachment stomped on those rights and declared with a loud resounding voice that they believe these rights to be non-existent when they voted for the second article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress. The House was wrong!

          Your statement below “Trump is guilty as hell.” is all we need to know that you want to get Trump no matter what, the ends justifies the means.

          Like

      • geo_ says:

        Just a few of the laws Trump broke: 1) Doing business with Russia when sanctions where
        in place, 2 counts.
        2) Violating the emoluments clause of the
        Constitution.
        3) The President has no authority asking a foreign
        government to investigate an American citizen
        based on that nations laws rather than laws of the
        US.
        4) it is a misuse of presidential power to withhold
        aid while unlawfully seeking a thing of value
        from a foreign entity for use in an American
        election campaign.
        5) The impoundments Control Act of 1974
        There you go, next time I have to hold your hand and spoon feed you I’m charging your parents for babysitting.

        Like

        • I don’t have time to deal with all these claims, maybe someone else can swat the rest of these flies. I’ll smack down this one with a 2 X 4.

          geo_ wrote…

          The President has no authority asking a foreign
          government to investigate an American citizen
          based on that nations laws rather than laws of the
          US.

          Hmmm… interesting claim… but it’s verifiably FALSE!

          Don’t let actual facts get in your way of posting false information geo.

          TREATY DOC. 106–16

          TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

          President Clinton signed it and Joe Biden voted for it back in 1999. Here’s a link to the full treaty .

          Here is a piece of it…

          Liked by 1 person

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          I actually tried to post that li’l jewel yesterday afternoon, but, like some other comments (with no rhyme or reason), it didn’t post.

          Glad yours did.

          The Gotch

          Liked by 1 person

        • geo_ wrote…
          Just a few of the laws Trump broke:
          1) Doing business with Russia when sanctions where
          in place, 2 counts.

          2) Violating the emoluments clause of the
          Constitution.

          5) The impoundments Control Act of 1974

          Interesting that the House Democrats didn’t include these things in their impeachment, you must be soooooo much smarter than they are to know for a fact that Trump broke these laws and that they could be used as part of their impeachment. Are the DC House Democrats just a bunch of ignorant dolts that couldn’t put together their articles of impeachment properly by omitting such things?

          …or could it be that…

          …you just don’t understand what the heck your talking about in regards to what they could use in their impeachment train wreck and you’re parroting more anti-Trump talking points. Yep, I think this last thing is what you’re doing.

          Prove your accusations.

          Like

        • geo_ wrote…

          4) it is a misuse of presidential power to withhold
          aid while unlawfully seeking a thing of value
          from a foreign entity for use in an American
          election campaign.

          That’s not any more true when you say it than it is when the House Managers say it, it’s all unproven accusations that are not supported by the facts.

          You and the House Managers have got nothing but innuendo an opinion.

          Like

    • madisonexpat says:

      President Trump does not have to prove his innocence. The fools in the house do.
      You cite laws, real men, real Americans, innocence, evidence, truth and justice yet you won’t afford your political enemy the assumption of innocence.
      You aren’t a troll and neither (particularly) is ABob. You, geo, area hack.

      Like

      • geo_ says:

        I believe he lost his presumption of innocence when he started blocking witnesses from testifying, purposely hid items from normal channels, withholding subpoenaed documents and lying to investigators. I’d expect this type of behavior from a drug dealers, despots and tyrants, but the president of a democratic republic?

        Like

        • geo_ wrote, “I believe he lost his presumption of innocence when he started blocking witnesses from testifying, purposely hid items from normal channels, withholding subpoenaed documents…”

          That is anti-American. The presumption of innocence extends all the way to the point where the accused is convicted. You really don;t believe in the Bill of Rights, do you?

          geo_ wrote, “…and lying to investigators.”

          What the neck are you talking about?

          Like

    • Gary L. Kriewald says:

      Please be so kind as to share with us your definition of the phrase “a real man.” In fairness, you should be warned that doing so will instantly plunge you into one of the left’s favorite snakepits, as “man” is now just one of fifty-three “official” categories of gender identification, at least according to New York City statutes.

      Like

      • geo_ says:

        OK, poor choice of words, let’s change that to “A real American”. After all Trump has already proven himself not to be a real man by grabbing women by their pussies.

        Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          Did the Former Serial Sexual Predator In Chief prove himself to be “A real American” with his forcible rape of Juanita Broadderick, et al?

          The Gotch

          Like

        • David Blaska says:

          On the pussies thing, I believe Trump’s statement was that the ladies he knew granted their permission, unlike Clinton bundler Harvey Weinstein.

          Like

        • geo_ says:

          At least 20 women have come forward and claimed Trump either assaulted them or raped them. So no, they didn’t grant permission, It was Trump believing he could do anything he wanted. That’s why he’s a social rejec

          Like

        • madisonexpat says:

          You should try it someday, geo. With consent at least and avid encouragement at best you’ll both appreciate it. Come back and discuss it after you’ve lost your virginity.

          Like

        • geo_ wrote, “After all Trump has already proven himself not to be a real man by grabbing women by their pussies.”

          Again, don’t let real facts stop you from posting verifiable false statements but thanks for your participation…

          Go back and listen to the audio again, he did not say he has done that, he claimed he could do that. If you don’t understand the difference then head back to 7th grade where they can begin to adjust your comprehension skills.

          Like

  4. geo_ says:

    P.S.
    Gee Dave, That’s really going out on a limb predicting the senate will acquit.

    Like

  5. geo_ wrote, “That’s really going out on a limb predicting the senate will acquit.”

    Not much of a limb when the Democrats didn’t prove guilt with facts. The Democrats did not present or prove their case based on facts, they presented their version of reading between the lines, reading people’s minds, hearsay, and opinions, the actual facts are on the President’s side.

    Like

    • Are you kidding? They proved their facts beyond any reasonable doubt. And it is the Repugnants crying how Trump was denied justice, when he was not. He was invited to the House to be part of that and he refused.

      And answer me this:
      1. How come Trump will not release the real, actual transcript of the phone call? How come they only released a summary? How come the full transcript is locked up tight in a secured server?
      2. How come Trump will not allow first hand witnesses like Bolton and Mulvaney? The Repugnants keep stating there is no first hand evidence, BUT? They refuse to allow the people with that first hand evidence to testify. Why?
      3. Show us all the actual facts that prove that it is all on Trump’s side. Prove it to us. Demand he releases the actual transcript. Demand he allows Mulvaney and Bolton to testify. What are you all scared of?

      By hiding all this? It just proves? Trump is guilty as hell.

      Like

      • atheistmilitantsrising wrote, “By hiding all this? It just proves? Trump is guilty as hell.”

        Those three statements put together in that way are all I need to know that you could care less about justice and just want to “get” Trump. It’s people like you that are the problem.

        Like

      • dad29 says:

        It’s hard to believe someone can be as ignorant as you are. Are you over the age of 14?

        How come the full transcript is locked up tight in a secured server? National Security. As to the “summary,” ALL of the RELEVANT PARTS of the convo are in that summary and it is accurate; 4 transcriptionists have to agree on the content before it’s published.

        How come Trump will not allow first hand witnesses like Bolton and Mulvaney? The President–and all other Presidents before and after him–have executive privilege which allows them to withhold certain conversations and personnel. By the way, the House could have sued over the matter, but did NOT do so. Why? Hmmmmmm???

        Prove it to us. We’ll try one more time: in the USA–are you a citizen??–the prosecutors must prove GUILT. The defendant does not “prove” innocence. Maybe on your planet things are different….

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Bob Dane says:

    “Blaska still wishes Trump were more Vito Corleone instead of Sonny.” Excellent! Says it all!

    Like

  7. geo_ says:

    No crime committed? The GAO says laws where broken, many witnesses to the act (the ones republican are afraid of) believe laws were broken. There is a certain quaintness to adults burying their heads in the sand.
    Then there’s slew of laws the republican administration broke that the president wasn’t impeached for.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I find it interesting how much you Trumpsters defend this Putin Puppet Trump and the Russian Republicans.

    Now, if President Barack Obama or Bill Clinton had made such a phone call? You hypocrite Repugnants? Would be demanding that they be impeached and removed from office.

    If Obama or Clinton had had a two and a half hour private meeting with only an interpreter with Putin? And then came out of that meeting defending Putin and trashing our own people? You all would be demanding they be arrested and tried for High Treason.

    If a Democrat head of the Senate had told a Republican President they were going to be denied a Supreme Court pick and that it would have to wait until the next election? Repugnants would have a meltdown.

    If Democrats had spent 90% of their time in the Senate? Approving liberal left wing judges? Like the Repugnants are now doing? Putting in basically ChristoTalibans to do their bidding? You Repugnants would have a meltdown over it.

    If a Christian pastor stated that if President Bill Clinton had been impeached and removed from office? That it would start a Civil War? You Repugnants would again? Meltdown. But you all got no problem with Christian pastors like Robert Jeffress, Rick Wiles, Franklin Graham, Jim Bakker has stated that if Trump is impeached and removed from office? Then a Civil War will start and there will be blood in the streets.

    IF during Bill Clinton’s Impeachment trial in the Senate? Democrats all basically said we are not going to abide by our oaths we just took, and we are going to coordinate with Clinton and we are not going to find him guilty no matter what evidence there is? And we are going to deny you any first hand witnesses and documents? Then you all would have melted down.

    But when Repugnants are doing this? WHY IT IS PERFECTLY OK WITH YOU HUH?

    AND YOU WONDER WHY WE CALL YOU HYPOCRITES?

    Like

    • atheistmilitantsrising,
      I think we all get it by now that that you unconditionally HATE all Republicans, anyone that supports President Trump and anyone that supports the rule of law.

      But of course anything that Trump does to wield the LEGAL powers of the Executive branch of the United States Government is bad because orange man bad.

      Get some professional help with all that hate atheistmilitantsrising.

      Like

    • madisonexpat says:

      Is there any idiotic BS alleged against Trump you haven’t swallowed?

      Liked by 1 person

    • atheistmilitantsrising wrote, “I find it interesting how much you Trumpsters defend this Putin Puppet Trump and the Russian Republicans.”

      Do you understand that when you start a comment like that it negatively colors every word that follows as being written by a political hack that is completely consumed with hating President Trump.

      Like

  9. George's Son says:

    atheistmilitantsrising, NOT to suggest yer a blathering bang pot BUT

    You skipped the part of “Burden of Proof”. Seems kinda important, relative to the Constitution. Supposition, Trump Derangement Syndrome and rumors/3rd person testimony in the House do NOT make a serious nor responsible challenge to “Burden of Proof”.

    Not only you, (but geo_ as well) are assuming facts not present, RE: what Trump did/didn’t do, and a decision/outcome not made yet.

    PROVE sumthin’ by supplyin’ truth, facts and evidence. Kinda thinkin’ that’s what the Senate is trying to do.

    BTW, Geo_, since yer talkin’ spoon feedin’ and hand-holding, who exactly changes yer diaper? Perhaps a new caregiver is in order: That rash that seems to make ya awful cranky. Just sayin’…. P’raps, like coronavirus, it has spread to yer new l’il pal athiest-whatever….

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.