Well, It’s True.

I am very aware that there are Donald Trump supporters who frequent this blog.  I have the upmost respect for those who do.  That’s what is one of the most wonderful things about this blog.  I can say X, Y, or Z, and the people of this blog can state their position freely.  They may agree, disagree, or have a perspective entirely different.  Here, at Suyts, anyone can state it, and make their case. 

With that in mind, here’s this.


Eminent.  ….. someone should look up that word and try to understand what it means. 

Anyone who believes it’s okay to take someone’s private property for the good of someone else’s private property is a complete and total scumbag.  They are a POS who don’t even deserve the scraping off of one’s shoe.  I fully believe there’s a special place in hell for people who believe in such madness. 

I don’t understand people who cannot extrapolate such madness to it’s logical end.  If someone believes this is okay, then there is no such thing as private property.  It’s just someone holding property until the public (or someone else wanting it) desires it.  There is no actual ownership of property.  By definition that is a totalitarian communist society. 

There is no distinction between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, except for labels and mouth. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Well, It’s True.

  1. Me says:

    Very true, stop paying property tax and see what’ll happen!

  2. Scott says:


    It is all about perception and what a candidate represents, even if what they represent isn’t at all who they are. Trump is basically running on anti-PC and “I’m not Obama”. We should be very happy that he has been embraced for those two things…shows there’s still a good chunk of people that innately realize the horribleness of the far left PC/Obama regime. Unfortunately, I’m not sure what else Trump brings to the table, and I don’t think his attitude and disregard for the position will make for a good president. Mind you, it’s no worse than Obama’s attitude, but Obama’s is subtle in a way that tricks a lot of people (particularly the mindless foreign crowd that he panders to).

    Just my thoughts,


  3. TedG says:

    I must be a scumbag, I believe as long as you are well compensated the greater good, private (jobs/economy) or pubic (jobs/economy) in most cases is well served by eminent domain.
    Go Trump go!

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      Yes, the totalitarian communists take it without compensation.

    • suyts says:

      Ted, who determines what is and isn’t “well compensated”? What is and isn’t the “greater good”?

      The fact is I didn’t buy my property for the benefit of anyone other than myself and my vision. It’s mine. I’ve plans for it. I believe my plans for my property will end in the greater good.

      Take the notion to the logical end, which we all know will eventually happen unless this notion is entirely reversed. It’s the entire reason government was instituted to begin with! Because Man, left to his own devices, knows no bounds towards his ambition and avarice! It’s left to the strong eating the weak! There must be rules for a common and civil society. Leaving all property to the whims of the strong, rich, and powerful is anarchy, and deprives all else of any future opportunity.

      As mentioned down the line, yes, government or quasi-government works can and probably should be able to use “eminent” domain under very limited circumstances for the greater good. A private business? Absolutely not! If this is allowed to continue then there is no actual ownership of property, but, only use of the land until someone else with more money decides there’s a different use for the property. It doesn’t matter if it is even provable. That is, even if a business can prove the public will gain more (it can never be “proven”) but, even if it could be, so what? It’s not theirs! They can’t just take it! Or, rather, they shouldn’t be able to do so.

      There are so many business, economic and moral reasons why this is deplorable I can’t possibly list them all, but, towards the notion you just expressed …….

      What if some jackwagon wanted to make a parking lot where a couple of fellows named Steve started a business? The jackwagon could show where if the business was allowed to take the property, along with the garage and basement that they could employ more people and pay more local taxes. But, then, if that happened at the right moment, we’d never have seen a company called “Apple”. Even Walmart, in it’s early years would be susceptable to forced closure because some idiot would have decided it was the greater good to put a Montgomery Wards in its place.

      You can’t “know” it is the greater good.

      • suyts says:

        “Ward”, not “Wards”. ….. 😐

      • squid2112 says:

        who determines what is and isn’t “well compensated”?

        Well James, by law it is the present “market” value. For it is actually the “free market” that decides, and in cases involving other than the government acquisition, the market usually wins and the property owner is more than fairly compensated.

        However, with that said, when it comes to a private entity that wishes to pressure acquisition of a property (like in the Trump vs. Vera Coking case), the courts have historically and overwhelmingly sided with the property owner, as they should. For example, again in the Vera Coking case, the courts found in her favor, and she was not forced to sell (for more than 4000% of market value, I might add .. over $4 MILLION). I would suggest that people actually study that case. Trump is being portrayed unjustly in that case. Vera Coking was an idiot, clearly.

        Eminent Domain is a double edged sword. On the one hand it can be construed as a violation of private property rights, while on the other hand it can be viewed as a necessary mechanism. When properly administered I believe it to be the latter. But therein lies the key, “properly administered”. Make no mistake about it, Eminent Domain is abused in some cases, predominantly and overwhelmingly by government, not by private industry.

        I had this very argument yesterday with a coworker of mine, who is a staunch libertarian and a very intelligent guy. After about 2hrs of discussion on this subject, I was happily surprised that he actually changed his position and sided with me on the subject. I think he finally realized that (a) we don’t live in a perfect world, and (b) Eminent Domain makes things possible that otherwise would not be, very important things to our wellbeing as the greatest society on Earth.

        The fact of the matter is, without Eminent Domain processes, we would not have the infrastructure in this country that we do. You couldn’t have energy, telephone, sewage systems, and a plethora of other things. And even if you somehow could have those things, they would be in total disarray. That is not to say there aren’t problems regarding Eminent Domain, there most certainly are, and I believe there are also suitable remedies for such problems that can resolve them.

        This side show of “Eminent Domain” is just that. It is a side show. Nothing is going to ever change one whit no matter who is president. And furthermore, it is simply a non-issue. A much bigger issue is the Federal Government’s continued massive land grabs in the west. I will point out, those are not performed through Eminent Domain processes. They are simply taken by the Federal Government at the barrel of a gun. THAT is tyranny and a clear violation of private property rights! … It is expressly spelled out in our Constitution, that the Federal Government cannot own “real” property outside of the “seat of government” (aka: District of Columbia). Despite the fact that the Federal Government has been seizing lands from the various sovereign States for more than 150 years, unlawfully so, in direct violation of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and a plethora of legal acts of the past century.

        So, if you want to direct your angst at something, select something other than Eminent Domain, as it is a non-issue and one that you are going to lose.

        As far as the current presidential election process, and considering the mess that this country is in, even if I had the world’s most powerful electron microscope, you still couldn’t see my concern about Eminent Domain. It is simply NOT an issue!

  4. leftinflagstaff says:

    As has been mentioned before, we may be down picking our the less malicious demon. Yes, I don’t like Trump’s use of Eminent Domain. But at least it was only local. I could easily imagine a Hillary, or especially a Sanders administration, using it much more nationally.

    And what if the use of Eminent Domain was necessary in the construction, maintenance and support of a completed southern border, by a Trump administration? By a Cruz administration?

    • kim2ooo says:

      “And what if the use of Eminent Domain was necessary in the construction, maintenance and support of a completed southern border, by a Trump administration? By a Cruz administration?”

      The construction of the “Wall” / border…hyway etc. – Is not a “BENEFIT” to a private company / corporation.

      Do you honestly think Mr. Trump had “Job Creation” on his mind – Or could it have been “Saleability” / Profitability? The parking lot would do what for jobs that the Casino didn’t provide [ The Casino already had parking…this was for Limo parking. ].Limo drivers tend not to use VALET Parkers. So a couple of Security Guards and Ticket takers??

      Mr. Trump, needs to think about how he’s been answering this charge… His accounting smells.

      • kim2ooo says:

        Mr Trump was trying to increase the VALUE of His Private Real Estate Holding… { How much more Saleability VALUE would that PRIVATELY OWNED Casino be worth?

        Why do people buy the lot NEXT to their property? … ESTATE VALUE ADDED.

        Why would he resort to Eminate Domain as a tool to obtain that property………. He tried to FORCE the Sale.

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        Construction and support of a wall could require literally small cities to spring up along it. From large construction corporations to hot dog vendors. And everything in between.

        • kim2ooo says:

          WHILE TRUE… that is based on Speculation … not fact! IT COULD. BUT it will , if it does happen that way BENEFIT the COUNTRY…not a private corporation.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          I would say a $50 million contract to Caterpillar would benefit Caterpillar.

        • kim2ooo says:

          I don’t think, you understand what difference I’m trying to point out.

          Caterpillar has no right to demand you forfeit your LAND ? Property to them….A PRIVATE CORPORATION [ even with shareholders…… it Caterpillar is NOT a Government entity.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          But eminent domain allows government to agree with that private corporation. Could limo parking at a casino bring more money to a State, building better schools? I don’t know. But as an example.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “leftinflagstaff says:
          February 12, 2016 at 7:35 am
          But eminent domain allows government to agree with that private corporation. Could limo parking at a casino bring more money to a State, building better schools? I don’t know. But as an example.”


          However, you must show [ prove ] that it will.

          He couldn’t claim more employees…Limo drivers don’t allow you to Valet park their vehicles………………… It would be like trying to JUSTIFY the Jobs crated by the Stimulus Act……………

          He already had parking…so he couldn’t use that.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Mr Trump…I suspect [ based on the other emanate domain cases he lost in that same area ] Was trying to increase SIZE and VALUE of his real estate holdings……………

          NOW…a what if hypothetical .

          What if he did use emanate domain….. A SIZABLE EDGE over his competition, Broke the backs of the OTHER Casinos in the area? LAYING OFF ALL THEIR WORKERS….

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          He would probably hire them. Walmart isn’t the devil either. Gotta be careful with how we look at Capitalism. How many more will be unemployed under President Bernie.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Mr Trump might be able to employ 1/4 of themn…but he would not double up….Twice the dishwashers…etc.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          If he ended up owning the others casinos….needing the same number of employees.

        • kim2ooo says:

          He tried running a number of casinos….he filed chapter 11 bankruptcy.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          As could any of the current owners.

          I’m not a huge Trump fan. I’m just saying that there worse people vying for voters.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ABSOLUTELY!!! Hillary or Bernie!

          I DO appreciate Mr. Trump bringing the https://widgets.wp.com/notifications/2295473601#conversation around… I thank him.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Dono how that link got in there???

          Snickerin’ I wrote “conversation”

        • leftinflagstaff says:


          And I’m not a huge fan of eminent domain either. But I am a huge fan of reality. And I know emotion should never be a factor in addressing it. This issue will arise in any attempt to secure our border.

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      And, again, I didn’t like Trump’s use of it for the Casino. But if a wall forces a grandmother from her home? Law shouldn’t be subject to emotion. It’s why there’s still no wall. And most likely never will be.

      Repeal the law then.

  5. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Thank you for the post, James. As you know, this issue hits close to home (literally) for Mrs. Minotti and me.

    • Me says:

      Tis funny the person with the name of Illuminati, the enlighten one, the one that well you know what, is so religious. Not that I believe in that, but you people are the ones saying he is the deciever! 😆

  6. sth_txs says:

    Trump did make a good point about eminent domain in that the private Keystone Pipeline could possibly not be built without it. If you go do some research, there are plenty of property owners not happy about the pipeline and don’t think they should be forced to give access even if they are paid.

    I think most of us here would agree eminent domain is for public utilities like roads, electrical transmission lines, and maybe pipelines. Eminent domain is not for economic development projects like a sports stadium or a new retail space at another owner’s expense.

    • kim2ooo says:


      “think most of us here would agree eminent domain is for public utilities like roads, electrical transmission lines, and maybe pipelines. Eminent domain is not for economic development projects like a sports stadium or a new retail space at another owner’s expense.

    • kim2ooo says:

      The difference that I see, Casino VS Keystone,….. One is taking – One granting access?

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      But there will always be overlap, especially on a project so large as a border fence/wall.

      Which economic development is good for the greater public and which isn’t?

  7. Latitude says:

    I see it this way….we’ve tried
    a cowboy
    a movie star
    a farmer
    a affected community organizer
    a almost effeminate southern royalty
    a deviate
    etc etc

    What is the one thing they have all had in common?

    ..they were all picked by the political machine…

    I’m voting outside the political machine…

    • DirkH says:

      There’s one thing that speaks for Trump.
      He’s a problem solver.
      USA has problems.
      Whether he could solve THAT kind of problems I don’t know.
      He’s not nice.
      You tried nice. Well sort of. Obama at least PLAYS nice.
      Didn’t help.

      • Latitude says:

        ..and the political machine is a problem creator

        He can’t be as bad as the machine…and if he is, so what…..we know the rest of them are

        • >>
          He can’t be as bad as the machine…and if he is, so what…..we know the rest of them are

          So basically, you’re just “screwing the pooch.” If everything does go wrong then you’ll just wash your hands of it and claim it couldn’t have been better.

          Kiss the Republic good-bye. Hillary will probably win anyway.


        • leftinflagstaff says:

          And if she or Bernie does win, then Americans want the Republic to be gone. They’re running on that. Millions demand they do so. For those that disagree, it looks like either Cruz or Trump. If they even can really stop it.

          I have my doubts. I think history shows that only true option for this nation’s attempt at self-preservation will be violence. As some rather knowledgeable men saw coming over a couple centuries ago.

        • Latitude says:

          Jim, you’re not that stupid….are you just playing one on the internet?

          There’s only one candidate that not owned by the machine.

    • suyts says:

      The political machine hated the “movie star/cowboy”. If you’re voting for Trump you are not voting outside the “political machine”, you’re voting for a person who constantly uses the political machine for mutual gain. He’s the ultimate insider.

      • Latitude says:

        I see it as candidates that the machine owns….
        …and one candidate that’s going to own the machine

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        The ‘Machine’ now hates Trump and Cruz…no?

        • Latitude says:

          my take….the machine can destroy Cruz….Hillary wins
          Trump is just as much a threat to the machine as it is to Trump….

          ..And Joe Scarborough is now in trouble with the machine at NBC….because he likes Trump

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Probably… My point was directed more about: regardless of the degree of ‘insider’ either of the two Repub front runners are, the machine doesn’t want them. That’s probably a good thing. As it was with the ‘movie star’. And, no, I’m of course not comparing either to Reagan.

          And the machine can’t destroy any one we don’t allow them to, if it happened to be Cruz. So far, we’re not allowing them to destroy Trump.

        • DirkH says:

          Latitude says:
          February 12, 2016 at 7:43 pm
          “my take….the machine can destroy Cruz…”

          Heidi Cruz is (ex?) Goldman Sachs.The machine would destroy Cruz as much as they would destroy their man Mario Draghi.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          As would curtailing runaway legal immigration.

      • suyts says:

        Does anyone seriously believe Trump will alter the machine one iota? Or, does anyone seriously believe Trump intends to even try to alter the machine one iota? He certainly hasn’t campaigned on such a notion. He’s part of the “machine”. That’s how he makes a living.

        But, let’s say he “owns” the “machine”. (He doesn’t come close.) What’s he going to do with it? He’s not going to tear it down. He’s going to enhance it. That would be the same machine people rail against …… who are supporting Trump …. I don’t get it.

        • Latitude says:

          ok uno mas tiempo….despacio con passion
          “owns” is not the way you’re using it….think ethnic

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          He absolutely has campaigned on it. A border wall would certainly disrupt the machine.

        • suyts says:

          He’s campaigning against something the “machine” likes, he’s not campaigning against the machine. He embraces and feeds off of the establishment. He brags about it.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          As has Cruz.

        • suyts says:

          LOL!!!! ….. K ….. lo siento, was thinking too literal. But, Lat, that’s more to my point. Take the brashness, bravado, and wall out of the equation. What’s he going to do? Everything from his history and current statements say he’s a big government guy. He’s also, clearly, a totalitarian. Let’s say he’s a great tyrant. Let’s pretend he has all of our well-being in mind. ……. the best case scenario is that he leaves us richer, but, less free, with a more onerous and empowered federal government. I wonder what the next Obama would do with it?

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Could it all be lies? Sure. Could Cruz turn out to be all lies? Yes.

          But if ‘we’ go Trump, do you trust him more than the one we know for certain to be a liar, or the one so delusional he thinks his lie is the truth?

        • Me says:

          So you haven’t figured out the lesser of the evils yet?

        • Latitude says:

          ok….you know thinking…it’s never cut and dried

          I also feel that every one of them are career politicians…
          It’s their job, their career….for life….it’s the only thing they have done and do
          They will also do whatever it takes to keep that career….including lying and screwing us over
          That’s exactly what every one of them have done so far.

          Trump is the only one I feel does not give a flying….he doesn’t need the money, he has a better career

    • kim2ooo says:

      “I’m voting outside the political machine”

      HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Trump over Bush

      Cruz or Rubio over Kascih

      Problem is… when do we know that the establishment has heard and made changes?

      • Latitude says:

        I’ve never seen such an effort….on both sides….to trash a candidate…especially one that’s so far ahead there’s not even a second place

        They, the machine, is so afraid of him they don’t even care what they look like.

        …and that’s the number one thing that’s going to make me vote for him

  8. DirkH says:

    Palestinian style knife attack by person called Muhammad Barry on Israeli-owned restaurant in Ohio, perpetrator killed by police. 4 wounded.

  9. cdquarles says:

    This is one of my peeves with Trump. What’s this about Cruz and lies? Right now, I intend to vote for Cruz in the primary March 1st.

    • Me says:

      And yet the thing with Obama, AKA Bary Sortoro, and the constution, all that goes out the window now with Cruz, being born In Canada? And I’m Canadian?

      • Me says:

        And I didbn’t vote for the Obama lite PM we have here now! Just saying!

      • >>
        . . . all that goes out the window now with Cruz, being born In Canada?

        I guess the concept of dual citizenship escapes you. Since you usually can’t be born simultaneously in two countries, to have dual citizenship means you are able to claim citizenship through your parent or parents. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . .” and gives Congress the power to pass such laws. Since Cruz was born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 he has to meet the following to claim US citizenship:
        1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
        2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
        3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
        4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

        I believe Cruz easily claims US citizenship through his mother. His qualification to become President may be in doubt, because Article II, Section 1 requires a natural born citizen. Are derivative citizens also natural born? We shall see, maybe.


      • cdquarles says:

        I am saddened. What happened to “Equality under God and before the Law”?

        Here is the section of the US Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401.

        I am going to quote it in full: ”

        The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

        (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

        (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
        , That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
        (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

        (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

        (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

        (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

        (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
        , That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
        (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

        (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)” and you can follow the link back to read the footnoted amendments.

        Congress can, and maybe should, revisit this question. Again, my point is that if McCain and Obama both were qualified under this section, I see no issue with Ted Cruz, under this section.

        • gator69 says:

          (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

          This describes me, and yet I was told I was not a US citizen unless I provided form AA-311301 “CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP”.

          About five years ago I needed a new passport and contacted the Department of State after being informed my citizenship was in question. A little background first. I was born to two married US citizens in France, my father was an Air Force officer (seventh generation Floridian) and my mother’s family has been here for over three hundred years. Dad was on active duty and stationed at Deols AFB, and he and my mother had been married for over eight years at the time of my birth. I had provided the Feds with original BC’s (have three), an FS-545 “Certification of Birth” issued by the Department of State, expired passports and my original FS-240 “REPORT OF BIRTH ABROAD OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, issued by the American Embassy in Paris. I also provided documentation regarding my renunciation of any French citizenship that was required when I signed up for Selective Service on my eighteenth birthday.

          None of this was acceptable.

          I was told the only way to prove my citizenship was to provide the Department of State my original embossed copy of an AA-311301 “CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP” form, that was issued by the Department of Justice. Thankfully my parents had read an article about the “Immigration and Nationalization Act” section 301(a) effective Dec 24th 1952, which applies to Obama as well as me, and then made the trip to the DOJ office in Atlanta to obtain my AA-311301.

          According to the Department of State, and the Department of Justice, without an original AA-301311 niether Cruz nor Obama is able to prove US citizenship. I only wanted to go to Mexico.

          It’s all academic until it happens to you.

        • >>
          I was told I was not a US citizen unless I provided form AA-311301 “CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP”.

          Gator, I had to get that form back in 1968 before I could enter NROTC. I’ve had passports all my life, so getting new passports were never a problem. Maybe being a commissioned officer in the Navy helped. To apply for Social Security, I needed both the “Certificate of Citizenship” and the State Department birth certificate. An old passport is usually sufficient when applying for a new one. That’s all I needed for my current one. (Maybe all those passports referred back to my original Certificate of Citizenship.)


        • gator69 says:

          Hey Jim! I thought my old passports would be sufficient as well, but TPTB said not so. I was told clearly that only form AA-311301 would be acceptable as proof of my citizenship. In fact, it had to be the original copy, or it was no good.

        • cdquarles says:

          Dang, Gator, the Bureaucracy can be such a mean thing.

  10. DirkH says:

    Another thing that speaks for Trump. 4 times in history a company of his filed chapter 11 and he had to negotiate loan repayment. (Glenn Beck erroneously reports this as “Trump went bankrupt 4 times” – but Beck will in the near future have his own opportunity to gain more insight about the distrinction, if Trump is to be believed)

    So Trump’s got the skill set the next US president will need.

    • Latitude says:

      I can’t find fault with that….there’s nothing we need more right now than someone that knows how to negotiate a loan

  11. kim2ooo says:

    GREAT READS… FOLKS!!! Thank You.

  12. DirkH says:

    NATO member Turkey bombs Aleppo airbase held by Kurds equipped by USA (because, the US *HAD* to supply *somebody* to uphold the story that the US is fighting ISIS)
    Turkey promises rapid escalation within 24 hours. It will be interesting to see what NATO member Germany does who is fyling at least some surveillance planes there.
    My guess: Germans will hide, hoping everything goes away. (Our BND cooperates with Assad’s intelligence; and to what extent we help the Russians with surveillance planes while they roll back anti Assad elements is anyone’s guess.)
    At least we’ll get more clarity about whether NATO still has a pulse. Doesn’t look good.

  13. Justice Scalia just died. You can kiss the SCOTUS good-bye.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s