Friday, July 14, 2017

Psychiatrist's Thoughts On President Trump


Remarks by Dr. Keith Abelow, Psychiatrist, following President Trump's
announcement that the USA would withdraw from the accord.

Former CBS anchor (now with AXS TV) slammed the President with
a series of ad hominem (eg: based on feeling or prejudice, rather than
facts, reason or logic) attacks, that ended with strong suggestions that the
President had some serious psychological issues.

Many others have made the same assertion. This begs the question... What do psychiatrists think?  In the paragraphs below, Dr. Keith Abelow provides his opinions on this subject.

____________________________________________

Remarks by Dr. Keith Abelow, Psychiatrist

Let me issue the standard disclaimer of psychiatrists who discuss the
mental health of public figures: I have not personally examined
President Trump.

Now, let me put to rest the concerns of Sen. Al Franken and political
commentators John Oliver and Andrew Sullivan and anyone else who
publicly or privately has questioned the president's sanity: Donald
Trump is stone cold sane.

When a man acquires billions of dollars through complex real estate
transactions, invests in many countries, goes on to phenomenal success
in television and turns his name into a worldwide brand, it is very
unlikely that he is mentally unstable.

When the same man obviously enjoys the love and respect of his
children and his wife, who seem to rely on him for support and
guidance; it is extraordinarily unlikely that he is mentally unstable.

When the same man walks into the political arena and deftly defeats 16
Republican opponents and then the Democratic heir-apparent to a
two-term president's administration, the odds of that man being
mentally unstable become vanishingly thin.

And when that very same man attracts to his team the kind of intellect
and gravitas represented (to name just a few) by Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James
Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general and commander of the U.S.
Central Command, he cannot be mentally deranged. Period. It is a
statistical impossibility.

Those who assert otherwise are political opportunists, or fools, or
both (and I am thinking here, in particular, of Sen. Franken).

President Trump is the first human being to win this nation's highest
office without having held any other political office or serving as a
general. Most political pundits thought his quest was pure folly.

Most journalists assessed his chances as zero. So who was laboring
under quasi-delusional thinking?  Answer: Not Donald J. Trump.

Anecdotally, by the way, I have never had one bad Trump experience.
Not one. I own several of his ties, all of them of the highest
quality.

I have stayed in his hotels and never had a single complaint (and I am
a born complainer).

I have eaten in his New York restaurant; flawless service, excellent food.

I own an apartment at Trump Place in Manhattan. Impeccable design,
sturdy construction, fabulous amenities.

A mentally unstable man would be unlikely to deliver superior products
across multiple industries, don't you think?

If you're still worried about the mental stability of the president, note this: The stock market doesn't like instability. Investors, en masse, can take the measure of a man pretty darn well. The stock market has hit record high after record high since Trump's election, and if you think that's an accident, or that investors have all been
fooled, it's time to start wondering about your own capacity for rational thought.

I should note that nothing I am saying should besmirch the reputations of men like President Abraham Lincoln or Sir Winston Churchill, both of whom are said to have fought the ravages of major depression or bipolar disorder. One was instrumental in ridding America of slavery.  The other was instrumental in saving the world from tyranny.

Mahatma Gandhi, by the way, also reportedly suffered from depression.  Psychiatric illness does not, a priori, disqualify a person from rendering extraordinary service to mankind.

Mind you, neither Lincoln nor Churchill nor Gandhi led a nation after
becoming a business sensation and television star. That trifecta defines one man: President Donald J. Trump.

Now, think about those who are rabble-rousing about the president's mental status. Take Sen. Al Franken. He's all worried about the president allegedly over estimating the crowd size at his inauguration.  But Franken is allied with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who asserted she is Native American, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever.

And they're calling Trump's sanity into question? Really, you can't make this stuff up.

In God we trust will be on every email I send out from now on because I don't want to lose our right to say it!

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Queen & Country - God & Guns


An interesting and observant article by a Brit using a literary pseudonym.

Guest Post by Revanchist

Though our stars tend to rise and fall in opposition through the years, your reputation for adventure, fearlessness and a legendary hunger for more lingers, and for the most part we find that admirable—no, more than that—we find it astonishing.

We may denigrate your American whisky (as well as your tendency to spell it with the Irish ‘e’) as you joke about our pasty faces and reliance upon dentures but we are cousins—if not always kissing—and share a rich common language, culture, customs and cuisine. We are more alike than different in nearly every respect but these: One, we are a constitutional monarchy and Two, despite what you may have heard we really, really envy you your guns.

America has always seemed the dangerous, glamorous older brother. You were the cowboy, the gangster, the astronaut and the comic book hero of our collective imaginations. You were the captain of the debate team, dating the homecoming queen and cruising through life in your ’55 Chrysler, one hand on the wheel, elbow on the door, working on that car tan.

The 40’s, 50’s and 60s were perhaps your finest hours. During World War II you were overpaid, oversexed and over here, breaker of hearts and hymens. The winds of heaven tousled with a loving hand your perfect hair, the sunlight glinted off your straight, white teeth. After the war you invented rock and roll and corn dogs and forty-seven million things to do with sugar including LSD, and we were dazzled.
While we were washing under our arms from basins of cold water in cold rooms in a bitterly cold country, you were inventing the hot tub. At the cinema, we would bask in shimmering visions of your highways and high fashions, your Endless Summer California culture, your glittering skyscrapers and flawless pavements, then trudge home and tune in the wireless for a Parliamentary debate on whether or not we could afford to clean centuries of coal smoke from our cracked and blackened buildings.

While you were bringing Caesar Salad, Martinis, Bananas Foster, Baked Alaska and the almighty, sacred Hamburger into the world, we anticipated the prospect of instant mashed potatoes finally becoming available down the local shops. We were unimaginably insular; it is within living memory that people in Britain believed spaghetti grew on trees.

Despite pretensions to polite behavior we relished your films and television programs like The Godfather, The Maltese Falcon, The Third Man and White Heat; more recently The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and Deadwood—the more violent the better. We admired Clint Eastwood’s entire oeuvre. We devoured books like Lonesome Dove and the works of Steinbeck, Hemingway, Mark Twain and Raymond Chandler. Some of us even like bluegrass but those people are mainly in the looney bin. We treasure pretty much everything about you, but we’re British so you don’t hear us mention it very often.

Some Britons flinch when one suggests ever needing a gun in Old Blighty but don’t believe the lukewarm protestations. As the past few years have unfolded any remaining hesitation is apt to change, and soon. What we are beginning to remember is that for thousands of years everyone on this island was armed at all times with daggers—with swords if you could afford them, with throwing axes and longbows for truly special occasions. Personal defense was not just a choice, it meant accepting full responsibility for individual safety beyond city or castle walls. Defending ourselves with grace and strength and skill was something we once took great pride in.

Our downfall can be charted in three separate events:  Two hundred years ago, give or take a couple of decades, Sir Robert Peel established a full-time, professional and centrally-organized police force with the passing of The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. It was not well received at the time; the public felt they did very well already with night watchmen and personal vigilance and besides, who was expected to pay for it? And why hadn’t the people been consulted? As things usually go between governments and their subjects, government had its way. We turned our weapons over to legally-sanctioned protectors and began to soften as a people.

In the midst of austerity after The Second World War, universal healthcare for all was rolled out to tremendous fanfare, followed by a steadily increasing system of welfare for mothers and children, later for pensioners, then veterans and civil servants. There was in the early days some shame associated with taking a government handout but practice makes perfect and before long anyone with a doctor’s note affirming a sprained wrist or dodgy knee could sign on and be supported for life. No one asked this time who would pay—no one wanted to hear the answer anyway. And we grew softer still.

Simultaneously, the government threw open its doors to the former colonies, or rather the brown colonies. Indians, Pakistanis and Caribbean Islanders answered the call to serve as a labor force and in short order became a demographic who never actually seemed to leave. Politicians had discovered the lucrative stand of virgin timber that was the immigrant class and promised them anything, even citizenship, in exchange for their vote. And vote they did, until their children grew up, stood for election themselves and were voted in by their own people on the color of their skin. When native Britons asked why they were never consulted on allowing this flood of immigrants they were called racialists. Since Britain had just finished dealing Jerry a bally good hiding, any accusation of holding Nazi sentiments was social poison. Hence we softened our principles and muffled the warning of our hearts.

This is how we joined the invertebrates. Now we are facing Islam, though not many know that what is happening today is just another battle in a very old war.
From the 16th to the 18th centuries upwards of two million Europeans were captured and sold as slaves in Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli. These weren’t people who were taken at sea but from their beds, in the dark of night in coastal towns and villages in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, up into Wales and along the west coast of Ireland, as well as throughout the Mediterranean. Why who would do such a thing, you may ask—the Barbary Pirates, of course—Muslims.

This carried on for two hundred years with only sporadic and half-hearted interruption. England talked a good game and now and then ransomed a lord or two out of slavery, but what’s a few missing Cornish fisherman, their wives and children here and there? It wasn’t until American ships began to be attacked and raided for goods and slaves that investors studied the situation and concluded, “You know, this could be bad for business,” and went to war.

First though, in the interest of fair play, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams made the perilous journey across the Atlantic to London for a sit-down with Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, the envoy from Tripoli. When asked what right the Barbary pirates had to force Americans into slavery, Jefferson recorded the ambassador’s answer in two letters and his personal diary:  “He replied that the right was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”  So, not a lot’s changed then.

In an Anglo-Dutch-American alliance three campaigns of The Barbary Wars were fought and the Muslims were at last subdued and colonized. Client kings and strong men were installed and until the present day Muslims have remained a benign tumor on civilized society.

It was a stunning victory and Francis Scott Key composed a song to mark the occasion. The original verses included:  And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,  And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare. It wasn’t a huge hit at the time though after the War of 1812 he dusted it off, rewrote some of the more labored lines and it eventually became the American National Anthem.

Were you taught all this in school? No? Nor I. Why is it that where our history intersects with Islam it always seems to either vanish like morning mist or become corrupted into making the Christian world into the bad guys and aggressors?
This brings us to the current mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the platitude-puss Pakistani with links to Hamas, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. When he’s not scurrying along the baseboards he’s raring up on his two hind legs and sporting the most punchable, weapons-grade constipation face this side of the Atlantic. It doesn’t take an adept in Texas Hold’em to ascertain that Khan’s tell is one of a man who is eternally biting back what he really wants to say.

Within an hour of the latest cultural enrichment, Khan is on hand with fair-minded and reassuring statements like, Terrorism is part-and-parcel of living in a big city or London is one of the safest cities in the world. Meanwhile, the poisonous flood of piety and bloodlust threatens to drown us all.

What people in Britain are gradually coming to grips with is that Islam teaches that this life on earth is merely a stepping-stone to Paradise and that Muslims must stop at nothing to attain it. To paraphrase Kyle Reese, they can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with, they don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all non-Muslims are dead or enslaved.
For politicians, though, hope springs eternal; just fire the old PR firm and hire a new one. Hence, the RUN•HIDE•TELL campaign is off to a rocketing start. Of course, scruffy young tearaways were quick to deface the posters by substituting the last word to read RUN•HIDE•SUBMIT but the kings of PR, the Americans, have gone us one better with DRAW•AIM•SHOOT as the only viable response. We respect this, of course, because we love your guns.

In other news, on 28 May 2017, police sent a helicopter and combat-ready police to confiscate a karaoke machine from a backyard BBQ because the hosts played a song mocking Osama bin Laden. Bear in mind this was four days after bomb and bloodshed at a concert attended by teenaged girls in Manchester Arena. Several days after the karaoke caper, the horrific massacre on London Bridge took place. Clearly, prioritizing threats could do with some work.

Our current PM, Barren Cat Lady, famously stated upon her election, “Brexit means Brexit.” We’re still waiting. After the London Bridge Massacre she said, “Enough is Enough.” At this rate she’ll probably say,”Potatoes are Potatoes,” next and the media will still stand up and applaud it.

But now I am just lobbing outrage darts at the page so I’ll wind this up.
Governments which no longer guarantee the security of their citizens are worthless, and those that disallow the right to defend oneself are worse than negligent, they are clearly dangerous to support in any way. People here are beginning to get this, but I still feel it’s too late to prevent the rivers of blood alluded to by the brilliant Enoch Powell, king of ‘racialists,’ true patriot and martyr.

As I write this it’s less than seventy-two hours till we march once more unto the polls to vote in an election that probably won’t make a bit of difference except to take our Brexit away for good. And yet it could also upset the entire apple cart as well. Such are the times we live in.

My American friends, you are surely aware that you don’t have to own a gun to fight like hell to retain your right to bear arms, as well as the freedom to play anything you damn well please on your karaoke machines. Preserve those rights, defend them, they are more precious than you know. Never sell them. Never soften.

They say a falling knife has no handle and yet our British politicians keep snatching it in mid-air, then expressing astonishment and dismay at the cuts on their hands.

Based upon past experience they’ll just carry on trying to catch it while the rest of us bleed to death.

 

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Comey Talks About Loretta Lynch & Hillary Clinton

Comey told Congress that He Confronted Loretta Lynch and She was NOT Happy about it.

After former FBI Director James Comey testified in an open hearing for the Senate Intelligence Committee he then went on to testify before a closed session of the same committee. In that session, he made some rather interesting comments that… of course, leaked out.

On Tuesday, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), alluded to those statements and to the fact that less than 20 minutes after the closed hearing someone illegally leaked the privileged information to the press. One of those stories ran on the pages of Circa Tuesday morning and the details delivered there provide even more reason for Congress to begin and immediate investigation into the possible crimes of Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton.
Here’s what Circa is reporting from the closed (and classified) hearing:

Ex-FBI Director James Comey has privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed, according to sources who were directly briefed on the matter.
During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, Comey alluded to the exchange after publicly discussing an encounter with Lynch, where she ordered him not to refer to the criminal probe of Clinton’ handling of classified emails not as an “investigation” but rather as a “matter.”  He suggested it smacked of political spin rather than the way professional law enforcement officers talk.

“That concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning,” Comey testified.
Comey said the conversation occurred well before the email probe was shut down and shortly before both Comey and Lynch were expected to testify in Congress and possibly field questions about candidate Clinton’s email issues. He said her request gave him a “queasy feeling.” 

This exchange has already had and important impact on the national conversation, as it has led Senator Dianne Feinstein to call for an investigation into what Loretta Lynch was doing when she seemed to be playing politics with an important investigation.
But Comey had more to say because it wasn’t just Lynch’s decision to give Hillary Clinton’s campaign cover for her crimes, Comey had other evidence that he found far more troubling than her comments to him.

Comey told lawmakers in the close door session that he raised his concern with the attorney general that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while the investigation was ongoing.
During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.

Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed.
Comey “took that interaction and the fact she had met with Bill Clinton as enough reason to decide he would not allow the Justice Department to decide the fate of the case and instead would go public” with his own assessment that the FBI could not prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the law when she transmitted classified information through her private email and therefore should not be criminally charged. Another source said the “tarmac meeting was the public excuse for not going to Lynch when all along there was other evidence that was more concerning to Comey.” 

Interestingly while Comey discussed some documents that he had that seemed to show collusion between Lynch and the Clinton campaign, he did not tell Congress that the information had been debunked as some liberals have argued. In fact, sources tell Circa that the documents liberals and their friends in the media keep referring to were not the “source” that Director Comey referred to in the closed hearing.
“Comey’s account to Congress does not sync with those media reports,” one source said, declining to be more specific. In public, Comey also seemed to suggest as much, saying some of the reports about why he went public with the email case findings were “nonsense.”

So, more evidence that Lynch was colluding with the Clinton campaign to protect Hillary Clinton. That evidence is not the supposedly debunked “Russian forgery” that the media keeps talking about. And most importantly, Comey was sure enough about the fact that Lynch was colluding with Clinton that he confronted her on the matter and then that he went over her head and ignored the proper chain of command when telling all of America about what the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails had found.
There sure seems to be a lot more smoke (and maybe fire) with this collusion story, than the Russian one that the media keeps pushing.
By Onan Coca
June 14, 2017

 

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Trump's Food Stamp Reform - by Robert Rector


Research shows overwhelming bipartisan support for work requirements in welfare policy. This article is by Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty, welfare programs and immigration in America for three decades. He is The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow in domestic policy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Donald Trump’s newly released budget contains a proposed food stamp reform, which the left has denounced as a “horror” that arbitrarily cuts food stamp benefits by 25 percent.
These claims are misleading.

In reality, the president’s proposed policy is based on two principles: requiring able-bodied adult recipients to work or prepare for work in exchange for benefits, and restoring minimal fiscal responsibility to state governments for the welfare programs they operate.
The president’s budget reasserts the basic concept that welfare should not be a one-way handout. Welfare should, instead, be based on reciprocal obligations between recipients and taxpayers.

Government should definitely support those who need assistance, but should expect recipients to engage in constructive activity in exchange for that assistance.
Work Requirements

Under the Trump reform, recipients who cannot immediately find a job would be expected to engage in “work activation,” including supervised job searching, training, and community service.
This idea of a quid pro quo between welfare recipients and society has nearly universal support among the public.

Nearly 90 percent of the public agree that “able-bodied adults that receive cash, food, housing, and medical assistance should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving those government benefits.”
The outcomes were nearly identical across party lines, with 87 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans agreeing with this statement.

Establishing work requirements in welfare was the core principle of the welfare reform law enacted in the mid-1990s. That reform led to record drops in welfare dependence and child poverty. Employment among single mothers surged.
Despite the harsh impact of the Great Recession, much of the poverty reduction generated by welfare reform remains in effect to this day.

Unfortunately, though, welfare reform altered only one of more than 80 federal means-tested welfare programs. The other programs were left largely untouched. Trump’s plan is to extend the successful principle of work requirements to other programs.
Restoring State-Level Accountability

The second element of Trump’s plan is to restore a minimal share of fiscal responsibility for welfare to state governments.
As noted, the federal government operates over 80 means-tested welfare programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care, training, and targeted social services to poor and low-income persons. In addition, state governments run a handful of small separate programs.

Last year, total federal and state spending on means-tested aid was over $1.1 trillion. (This sum does not include Social Security or Medicare.)
Some 75 percent of the $1.1 trillion in spending comes from the federal government. Moreover, nearly all state spending was focused in a single program: Medicaid.

Excluding Medicaid, the federal government picks up the tab for nearly 90 percent of all means-tested welfare spending in the U.S.
The United States has a federal system of government with three separate levels of independent elected government: federal, state, and local. Under this three-tier system, the federal government already bears full fiscal responsibility for national defense, foreign affairs, Social Security, and Medicare.

It makes no sense for the federal government to also bear 90 percent of the cost of cash, food, and housing programs for low-income persons.
But for decades, state governments have increasingly shifted fiscal responsibility for anti-poverty programs to the federal level. As a result, the federal government picks up nearly all the tab for welfare programs operated by the states.

This is a recipe for inefficiency and non-accountability.
One of the key lessons from welfare reform—now 20 years ago—is that both blue and red state governments spend their own revenues far more prudently than they spend “free money” from Washington.

Efficiency in welfare requires state governments to have some fiscal responsibility for the welfare programs they operate.
The food stamp program is 92 percent funded by Washington. Washington sends blank checks to state capitals—the more people a state enrolls in food stamps, the more money Washington hands out.

A dirty secret in American politics is that many governors, both Republican and Democrat, regard this type of “free money” poured from Washington as a benign Keynesian stimulus to their local economies. The more spending, the better.
The Trump budget recognizes that the food stamp program will become more efficient if the state governments that operate the program have “skin in the game.” Therefore, it raises the required state contribution to food stamps incrementally from 8 percent to 25 percent.

By 2027, this would cost state governments an extra $14 billion per year. Half of the so-called “cuts” in food stamp spending in the Trump budget simply represent this modest shift from federal to state funding.
The remaining savings in food stamps in the Trump budget come from assumed reduction in welfare caseloads due to the proposed work requirement.

A Proven Policy
Today, there are some 4.2 million nonelderly able-bodied adults without dependent children currently receiving food stamp benefits. Few are employed. The cost of benefits to this group is around $8.5 billion per year.

In December 2014, Maine imposed a work requirement on this category of recipients. Under the policy, no recipient had his benefits simply cut. Instead, recipients were required to undertake state-provided training or to work in community service six hours per week.
Nearly all affected recipients chose to leave the program rather than participate in training or community service. As a result, the Maine caseload of able-bodied adults without dependent children dropped 80 percent in just a few months.

A similar work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents, imposed nationwide, would save the taxpayer $80 billion over the next decade.
Even this would be a pittance compared to the $3.6 trillion the federal government will spend on cash, food, and housing benefits over that period.

The Trump policy is the exact opposite of so-called “block grants” in welfare.
In a welfare block grant, the federal government collects tax revenue and dumps money on state governments to spend as they will.

Welfare block grants have always been failures. In fact, the Trump budget would eliminate two failed block grant programs—the Community Development Block Grant and the Community Services Block Grant.
Instead of block grants, Trump is seeking to reanimate the principles of welfare reform from the 1990s that emphasized work requirements and renewed fiscal responsibility from state governments.

Deeply Needed Reforms
Of course, the left adamantly opposed welfare reform in the 1990s. In their view, welfare should be unconditional. Recipients should be entitled to cash, free food, free housing, and medical care without any behavioral conditions.

No wonder they have proclaimed Trump’s proposal to be “devastating” and a “horror.”
Contrary to protestations from the left, the U.S. welfare state is very large and expensive. For example, federal spending on cash, food, and housing benefits for families with children is nearly three times the amount needed to raise all families above the poverty level.

But the current welfare state is very inefficient. Trump seeks to reform that system.
In Trump’s unfolding design, welfare should be synergistic. Aid should complement and reinforce self-support through work and marriage rather than penalizing and displacing those efforts.

A welfare state founded on this synergistic principle would be more efficient than the current system. It would reduce both dependence and poverty.
More importantly, it would improve the well-being of the poor who have benefited little from the fractured families, nonemployment, dependence, and social marginalization fostered by the current welfare state.

 

Monday, May 22, 2017

Draining the swamp is messy.

May 14, 2017
By Michael Master (author of Save America Now, Rules for Conservatives, The Birth Famine)

Our home is in a community of 2,000 homes located on the intercostal in North Carolina.   Everything lives here.   Alligators. Water moccasins.  Rattle snakes.  Sea hawks.  Egrets.  Giant blue heron.  Mosquitoes… blood sucking mosquitoes.  We’ve watched from our back porch as dolphins chased sail boats and motor boats up the intercostal and watched the moon rise over the ocean and cast its glow over the intercostal.  


When the community decided to drain the swamp in the center of the community, it was a big deal.   
Draining the swamp was messy.   The swamp was about 10 football fields, about 6 feet deep, with lots of creatures living in it.   It was a dangerous swamp.  Not one that you would walk  or swim.   You would not dare sit next to it in the dark of a moonless night.   If not the snakes, then the mosquitoes would eat you alive.  

As the water level decreased, the creatures were exposed.   As the water level disappeared, all that was left was 3 feet of yucky black mud and the roots to dying cypress trees.   The fish, snakes, frogs, rats, and birds were all stranded in the yucky mud.   
Those creatures of the swamp fought for their lives as the swamp disappeared.   The fish flopped around in the black mud looking for some water for life.   The frogs croaked incessantly all night while their young pollywogs were stranded  lifeless at the top of the black mud.   Snakes slithered in every direction in the black mud in search of food.   The rats that live in hollows all along the water abandoned their nests while the birds that feed off the swamp creatures also abandoned the area.   

Finally, the mud dried out.   No more snakes.  No more rats.  No more fish.   No more frogs.  No more mosquitoes.  And no more birds that feed off those creatures of the swamp.   
That same thing is happening to the political swamp in America.   Trump is draining the swamp.   His picks for his cabinet are all swamp drainers.   Yeah, 3 are from Goldman Sachs.  3 of 23.   Practically all of his cabinet have executive experience (military, or government, or private sector) .. and it is the executive branch, now isn't it?   

The mud is becoming visible as all the creatures who live in the swamp are fighting for their lives.   Government employees at the IRS, EPA, and Education are flapping in the mud like dying fish.   The lobbyists are slithering here and there looking for government funds like the snakes in the mud ... especially those who wrote Obamacare.  The liberal media cartel is chirping and croaking  all the time like frogs trying to reverse the draining.   The tax and spend politicians are dying off like the blood sucking mosquitoes.  The political appointees of Obama are fleeing DC for other jobs like the birds who lost their meal tickets.   And the information leakers like Comey and Lynch are looking for new places to nest like the rats that left the swamp.  Soon, all that will remain will be the dying institutions like public education as the dying cypress trees of our society.   
Everyone who lived off the swamp is praying for rain.   Election rain so Democrats might win some elections from Republicans since the Democrats suffered such horrible defeats during the 8 years of Obama.   Impeachment rain so the professional politicians can get rid of Trump as the swamp drainer.   Low approval rating rain so the media can claim they were correct about Trump.   Virtual rain, fake rain, so pundits can claim that Trump is not making any progress even though the results say the opposite.   

Draining the swamp is messy, muddy.   But the mud will soon dry.   Democrats just lost special elections in Arkansas and Omaha after sinking millions into them.  Democrats might grab an election here or there in places like Georgia where the demographics are changing to black communities, but not without millions and millions of campaign money ... and Democrats cannot afford to do that for all the elections in 2018.  Democrats must defend 23 Senators in 2018 as compared to 10 for Republicans and Democrats must win 25 seats in the US House from Republicans and then win back 900 state legislative seats and 14 governorships.  If Georgia is an example,  that will cost Democrats hundreds of millions to try.  
SCOTUS will be rendering its decisions about Trump executive orders just before the 2018 elections ... and more than likely, SCOTUS will rule against the Obama appointed judges who live in the lower court swamps.  SCOTUS will help Trump. 

Comey is gone.  Lynch is in trouble.   Clinton is back in trouble. The Clinton Foundation donors are talking.  Clapper and Yates both said that there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. 
Schumer is gasping for rain like one of those stranded fish.  His Republican swamp buddies like McCain will abandon him as he dies … a rat leaving the swamp even though they shared an apartment together.   His Wall Street swamp buddies cannot help him.   The Washington Post and The New York Times and CNN and NBC are all trying to seed the clouds.  But none of it is producing enough rain to help Schumer stop Trump from draining the swamp.   

Draining the swamp is loud.  Listen to all the hysterical liberal media cartel who are trying to make it rain in order to save the swamp where they live.   Chanting.  Lies.  Rain dances.   But no real rain is coming.  Only fake rain.   The swamp will soon be dry.    And when it is, then the next task to make America great again can begin.