Saw this photo on Facebook and knew I had to come up with at least a few responses
Home Fries = Asshole Fries
Lawrence of Arabia = Asshole of Arabia
Saturday Night Fever = Saturday Night Asshole
12 Angry Assholes
The Good, the Bad and the Asshole
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Asshole
The Asshole of the Lambs
The Usual Assholes
Saving Private Asshole
Once Upon a Time in an Asshole
Raiders of the Lost Asshole
The Asshole Knight Rises
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Asshole
Full Metal Asshole
Monty Python and the Holy Asshole
A Fistful of Assholes
For a Few Assholes More
The Bridge on the Asshole Kwai
And of course, the title that describes current events - Mr. Asshole Goes to Washington
The real story is not that the failure of the "American Health Care Act of 2017." Not to be confused with the World's Greatest Healthcare Plan, another doomed to fail bill introduced into the House of Representatives this term. That the bill was pulled before the vote is not the real story. Nor is the fact that Mr. Trump tried to spin things his way in the wake of his complete and utter failure by claiming he never said he would "...repeal and replace Obamacare in 64 days" when he actually said he would do so "...immediately."
The story is that he could not close the deal when he went to Capitol Hill this past week. What I find fascinating is that he was apparently only ten votes short of a win before he went to the Hill and when he left he had actually lost votes. This is a man who ran on the notion that he can get deals done. Apparently he cannot, not in the hallways of Washington, D.C. He cannot bully or buy his way to successful deals as he's done all of his life.
Trump threatened the Republican members of the House who would not give him their vote on this bill that they would lose their seats in 2018. Not that this would be a bad thing. Take Representative Mark Meadows of NC, leader of the so-called "Freedom Caucus." He is anti-abortion, opposed to same-sex marriage, wants to lower capital gains tax rates and was one of the key figures in the 2013 government shutdown. If he lost in 2018 that would be fine by me.
* * *
But will Mark Meadows of NC lose in 2018? Almost certainly not to a Democrat. He won reelection this past November with 64.2% of the vote in his district. That was an improvement over his 2014 reelection win where he got 62.9% of the vote in his district. Because of gerrymandering, he will almost certainly not lose to any Democrat.
He is not alone in being very safe from a Democratic challenger. Look at California's 22nd Congressional District. Devin Nunes, a Trump surrogate who is the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is that district's representative. Again, thanks to gerrymandering (controlled by California's Democrats after the 2010 Census), he represents a district that will almost certainly elect another Republican in 2018.
So how do we effect change in a situation where gerrymandering makes election of a Republican in these districts almost a certainty? Not by trying to find potential Democrats to challenge these incumbents. That is almost certainly a formula for failure.
Instead, the solution might be to find Republicans who are more to the center of the political aisle. Men and women who want to work with the Democrats to find real solutions to the problems we face as a nation. Republicans who do not want to cover up whatever wrongs have been done by the Cheeto-in-Chief and his minions.
Luis Torres is a U.S. citizen who was born in Los Angeles. That did not stop Customs Border Protection police from detaining him for 24 hours when he attempted to re-enter the United States at the border with Mexico.
CBP won't comment on the specifics of the case. But according to NBC 7, a station in the San Diego area, he and his parents (who are permanent residents of the U.S. and have the appropriate documentation of their immigration status) were separated from his daughter. She was allowed to enter but had to leave her father and grandparents behind.
What galls me about how CBP handled this is in their statement after they finally released Mr. Torres:
"CBP Officers review all available evidence at the time of application for admission to make a determination of admissibility. In all cases, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate his or her admissibility.
"It’s important that CBP officers confirm the identity of each and every person who enters the United States. We routinely stop people who not only are not able to enter the U.S. legally, but also might have previous criminal histories or even active warrants for their arrest. Stopping these people who are trying to illegally enter the U.S. keeps our communities safer.
"Inadmissible aliens at U.S. ports of entry, include persons who arrive at the border crossing and weren’t legally admitted to the U.S. When someone arrives at a legal border crossing and is determined to be inadmissible, they may arrive in a number of ways – they may simply present themselves with no documents/legal status; they may try to use a counterfeit or altered document; they may attempt to hide from officers and enter without inspection (or run or drive past officers to enter without inspection); or they may be an imposter, attempting to use a real document that does not belong to them, for example.
"Individuals may be referred for enhanced screening for a variety of reasons, such as: prior convictions, criminal records for crimes of moral turpitude, inclusion on a national registry for sex offenders, prior immigration or customs violations, or may even be randomly selected.
"The Privacy Act prohibits CBP from commenting on individual travelers, however, each visitor to the U.S. is considered for admission on a case-by-case basis and may in some cases, be refused entry if a determination is made that the visitor is attempting to enter the country in violation of terms of their visa or other applicable U.S. laws. Any international traveler who seeks resolutions regarding difficulties they experience can use DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program."
How hard is it for these people to grasp that this man isn't a visitor. He's a citizen returning home. Now if the CBP can prove he didn't have the appropriate identification to verify that he is a citizen, they might have an excuse for a short delay. Not a 24 hour delay.
I can tell you this much. If I ever leave the U.S. again, even for a few hours, I'm taking a certified copy of my birth certificate with me. Assuming of course that these CBP "professionals" aren't engaged in profiling based on appearance, of course. My bad, they are doing just that.
Someone put what is allegedly a copy of the first two pages of Donald Trump's tax return in the hands of a reporter who passed the documents on to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. You can see the pages here.
Everyone is spinning the facts in those two pages. One way is that the fact 45 paid over $31 million in Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in 2005 proves he has a personal stake in eliminating the AMT. After all, had the AMT not existed in 2005, 45 would have paid only $5.3 million in tax on income of over $152 million. A mere pittance.
45's son is touting the information that his father paying over $36 million in tax proves that he is a remarkably successful businessman.
Two numbers leapt off the page at me:
Line 12 - Business income of $42,395,804
Line 58 - $1,887,596
The reason that these two numbers are interesting is that something is missing in making them connect. The self-employment tax on that amount of self-employment income from line 12 is only $1,135,423. So either this isn't a real tax return, or there is other income present that is subject to self employment income.
Look at line 17. Based on the missing $752,173 in self-employment tax, there is over $25 million in that line's $67.3 million that is subject to self-employment income. Or to put it more simply, partnership income.
That's right, in 2005 the Cheeto-in-Chief was in at least one business partnership with someone else. We have suspected all along that with his numerous S-corporations he had ties to other business people, but now we know there are business partnerships in which Trump and others have an interest.
Who are these people? Are there any conflicts of interest involving 45 and these still-unidentified partners?
Inquiring minds want to know.
* * *
On the other hand, this disclosure, described by the White House as illegal, disproves the notion that Donald Trump pays no income taxes. Over $36 million in one year.
That takes the wind out of the sails of those who are demanding that 45 release his tax returns because he pays no income taxes.
Is this a deflection, orchestrated by Herr Drumpf and his minions to distract us from other things? Perhaps.
How many different pejorative names have people come up with for Donald J. Trump? Lots.
Herr Drumpf
Agent Orange
Prima Donald
The Angry Cheetoh
The Cheetoh in Chief
Cinnamon Hitler
Twitler
Short-fingered Vulgarian
There are many, many more, all amusing to some degree. But the best (IMHO) is the one that is actually derivative of what he called Hillary Clinton. He referred to her constantly as "Crooked Hillary."
Making it highly appropriate to call him Dishonest Donald and his latest deed of dishonesty was in the news today. Remember these tweets from the Liar-in-Chief?
"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"
"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
Well, now his White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is trying to walk back this specious allegation by saying...well, listen for yourself:
Spicer said "..the President used the word wiretapping in quotes..."
Not entirely true. He did use quotation marks in two of those four tweets. But his meaning is obvious to even the most casual of observers (borrowing that phrase from one of my favorite people from my military service, CMSgt Zachary W. Taylor). He wasn't talking about surveillance in broad terms. He made a specific allegation that is now being walked back because there is no evidence that wire tapping took place.
How ridiculous can it get?
The originator of the phrase "alternative facts" continues to deal in them, even after they have been exposed as outright lies. Then again, we are talking about how 45 should be referred to as Dishonest Donald.
I actually considered establishing a website to track Dishonest Donald's lies but realized there was simply no way I could keep up with the constant falsehood feed emanating from the Oval Office; without a large paid staff.
To use one of his pejorative labels that often end his tweets, "disgusting."
What if we held an election and no one voted? That won't really happen although what transpired in the elections held in the city of Los Angeles on March 7, 2017 are going to come darn close. Projections made early on Wednesday estimated voter turnout in an election where the nation's second largest city chose a mayor for the next four years would be shocking in any other country on this planet.
In 2009, the incumbent mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa won reelection in a contest where only 17.9% of the registered voters went to the polls. When you adjust that number to account for the fact that there are a lot of people who don't even bother to register to vote, you can see how few of the people make major decisions for those who don't care enough to take time to exercise one of our basic rights and responsibilities.
According to Los Angeles County Registrar of voters Dean Logan, he estimates that the turnout yesterday will be 1 to 2 percentage points lower than the then record low turnout in 2009.
Ever hear the name Fletcher Bowron? He served as mayor of Los Angeles from 1938 through 1953. According to the Los Angeles Times, Mayor Bowron won reelection in 1950 with 432,000 votes. The article making this claim states that Mayor Garcetti got over 202,000 votes yesterday.
I have a problem with the Times article since the last election Mayor Bowron won was held in 1949 (not counting recall efforts after that election), not 1950 and according to this source, Bowron tallied only 238,190 votes in his victory. That represented 53.8% of the vote.
I've written to the author of the L.A. Times piece asking for a source for the vote total he wrote about. I'll let you know what he says, if he responds.
Update: Turns out the author of the L.A. Times piece was referring to the November 1950 special recall election that failed to remove Mayor Bowron from office. Is it fair to compare the results of a special recall election to the regularly scheduled mayoral election? I leave that to you to determine.
* * *
Here are some more numbers showing election turnouts in our past:
Those are statistics from U.S. presidential elections since 1960 showing the percentage of the Voting Age Population, rather than the percentage of registered voters; who went to the polls.
2008 was the election of the first African-American to the presidency and less than 58% of those who could vote chose to register and do so. Eight years later, in a critical election between a woman who could have been the first female U.S. president, and a completely unqualified blowhard billionaire, voter turnout was nearly 2% lower.
Why is there so much apathy among U.S. voters? I'm sure many think that their vote doesn't matter. I heard more than one person say just that about the election this past November and how they said it was remarkably similar for all of them. "Why should I bother to vote, I live in California and no matter how I vote, Hillary will win the state."
Does the cause of this apathy really matter? Only if we want to change the equation and get more people to the polls.
We are living in an era where we keep seeing the stupidity level of statements by those in power in Washington, D.C. continue to reach new heights. Now comes this:
Yes, this graduate of Yale University and the University of Michigan Medical School just called people who were brought to the U.S. in chains, against their will; "...hardworking immigrants." Damn right they worked hard because if they didn't they'd be beaten, whipped or simply slaughtered.
How clueless is the man current in charge of the Department of Housing and Urban Development? After that statement, it is a question worthy of exploration. As to how we should react to this, let Samuel L. Jackson set the tone.
I'm sure at some point soon, Kellyanne Conjob will describe Carson's comments as merely "alternative facts."
* * *
Speaking of 45's Confederacy of Dunces in DC, Sean Spicer attacked reporters for asking for evidence of 45's claim that President Obama wiretapped Trump's offices in Trump Tower.
The FBI says this did not happen.
The former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper says this did not happen.
45 could order that all federal agencies that have the ability to wiretap release information to prove his specious allegation against President Obama, but instead he levels the accusation on Twitter.
The saddest piece of all of this nonsense is that 45's sycophants are probably completely convinced that Trump's offices were wiretapped during the election, possibly by President Obama himself. Imagine the President of the United States, protected by his Secret Service detail. sneaking into Trump Towers and planting wiretaps. That image is almost certainly in the minds of the most twisted Trump supporters.
* * *
What do Alanis Morrissette, Yasiel Puig, Derek Fisher and Cesar Millan have in common, aside from the fact all of them are celebrities? The answer is that all have been the victims of burglaries at their Los Angeles homes where tens of thousands of dollars worth of jewelry were taken.
What I don't get is that these people can afford expensive homes and jewelry but they can't invest in the best security systems? Considering their affluence and movements are well known, wouldn't they be aware they are more at risk for such things?
Puig had a relative staying at his place but the thieves came while that person was not there. I'd love to know if the house had an alarm system and if it was armed at the time of the break-in.
* * *
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said the following about healthcare:
"And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves."
Before we rake him over the coals for this incredibly insulting statement, let's go back in time a bit and consider this statement from President Obama when he speculated about someone who makes between $40,000 and $50,000 a year claiming health care coverage that costs about $300 a month would be too expensive:
“I guess what I would say is if you looked at that person’s budget and you looked at their cable bill, their telephone … cell phone bill, other things that they’re spending on, it may turn out that they just haven’t prioritized health care because right now everybody is healthy."
In response to criticisms that the Affordable Care Act coverage wasn't affordable, back in 2013 the former president said:
"One study shows that through new options created by the Affordable Care Act, nearly 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered for less than $100 a month. Think about that. Through the marketplaces you can get health insurance for what may be the equivalent of your cell phone bill. Or your cable bill. And that’s a good deal."
Conservatives are arguing that Mr. Chaffetz deserves a pass for his comments because they are an echo of what President Obama said. The problem is that the former president was trying to point out that coverage (for some...) would cost less than a cell phone bill. He wasn't saying people should choose between the two.
For most of us, cell phones are not a luxury. They are a necessity. I made do without one for years and year, until my car broke down and there wasn't a phone booth in sight. The next day, still exhausted from the trek to find a phone booth to call Triple A, I got a cell phone and I haven't been without one since. It also bears examination that for the poorest segments of the population, cell phones are much less expensive thanks to government subsidies. Subsidies that Chaffetz wants to take away from people seeking affordable health care coverage.
Why don't we make Mr. Chaffetz choose between his government-paid-for cell phone and his government-funded health care coverage? See how he responds.
While we're on the topic of this particular portion of the D.C. swamp, one has to wonder just when he will launch his next investigation into Hillary Clinton? I'm thinking he might decide to begin investigating what Secretary Clinton wears under her pant suits.
* * *
Devin Nunes is a Republican member of the House representing Fresno and Tulare counties in the San Joaquin valley. He is the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. On CNN he said that 45's claim that President Obama had wiretapped Trump tower was "...not a declarative statement..." but was instead simply a question asking if President Obama had actually done this dastardly deed (my words, not his).
There's a little problem with that claim by this fool from the Fresno region. Read the text of Trump's tweet on the topic:
"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
There is a question in that tweet but it isn't whether or not President Obama engaged in wiretapping. It is a question about the level to which President Obama sank to because he (according to the Twitterer-in-Chief) did the wiretapping. Apparently he managed to earn undergrad and graduate degrees from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo without learning the difference between a question and a declarative statement. Add his name to the ever-growing list of dunces in D.C.
* * *
Did the Associated Press really report that the total amount of student loan debt in the U.S. is only $1.3 billion rather than the actual amount of $1.3 trillion? They need more editors and fact checkers.
I have to agree that Nancy Pelosi, if she is the feminist she claims to be, should have spoken out against comments made by a fellow Democrat regarding Kellyanne Conway and the photos of her knees being on the Oval Office sofa. The comment was a comparison of Ms Conway and Monica Lewinsky alluding to both of them being on their knees in the Oval Office. Pelosi dodged taking the man who made that disgusting joke to task for his inappropriate comment. Is it true that crude jokes are okay when liberals make them regarding conservatives, but not vice versa? What is your take on that?
I'm watching the 2002 film "The Rookie" starring Dennis Quaid as the real-life Jimmy Morris. Morris made his Major League Baseball debut as a pitcher at the age of 35 and as shown in the film, he did strike out Royce Clayton in his very first appearance on the mound in the majors. It was a magical moment. The story is that he managed to get to the "show" at his age, not what happened to him afterward. The film's closing credits say "Jim Morris pitched two seasons in the majors" and while that is technically true, it is also highly misleading. He made his debut in September of 1999 and made 5 appearances that year. In 2000 he appeared in 16 games and was released in May of 2000. Why bother with that? His reaching the majors was the story.
John Cox is a San Diego area attorney and CPA who has just announced he is going to run for Governor of California in the next election. He's a Republican. The proverbial snowball in Hell has a better shot than he does.
Were there hundreds of "explicit photos" of female Marine Corps personnel posted to the internet? The real NCIS is investigating. Wonder if the CBS police procedural NCIS will rip that story from the headlines and do an episode about this scandal?
I do not live within the city limits of Los Angeles but because more than one friend asked, I'm taking a look at the items on the ballot this coming Tuesday.
Measure H is a proposal to raise the sales tax rate by 0.25% in Los Angeles County for the next ten years, to raise funds to work to end homelessness. The Los Angeles Times editorial board endorsed a yes vote on Measure H.
I agree with their recommendation for one simple reason. The monies raised by this tax can only be spent on services for the homeless. The problem of homelessness needs more than just housing to be solved for the long term. Throwing money at this problem isn't a complete solution but it is the first step.
Every time I use Sepulveda Boulevard as an alternate route to my usual way to go to and from work, I drive by a homeless encampment in the Santa Monica freeway underpass. I understand that there are some people among the homeless who aren't interested in being helped, but believe them to be in the minority. Measure H is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
* * *
Measure S is a proposal to institute a moratorium on development. It would preclude any developments that would increase population density for a period of two years. The people behind it claim it is needed because developers can get whatever they want through city government by donating money to the powers that be.
That isn't a bad notion. The problem is that this isn't all it would accomplish. If I had a vote, I'd vote no.
* * *
Measures M and N involve regulating the sale of marijuana in Los Angeles. Given the strong possibility that the U.S. Department of Justice will probably begin enforcing federal laws that "trump" (pun intended) state laws permitting the sale of marijuana, having a strong system of regulation might well aid the efforts of the state in combating this move.
Then there is the issue that like many things, some regulation is required and it best be done by others than those who have a financial stake in said regulation. Measure N is sponsored by those who are involved in "pot shops." I'd vote yes on M and no on N.
Welcome to the Henagar Drive-in Theater, in Henagar, Alabama.
This is their marquee.
One movie that will not be appearing on this marquee is the upcoming Disney release, Beauty and the Beast and that is causing some controversy.
The theater's current owners took over in December, after the movie had already been scheduled to appear. The new owners, citing their Christian values, say they cannot show Beauty and the Beast in the wake of revelations that there will be a "gay moment" on the big screen.
Their Facebook post announcing this was taken down but you can see it below.
I do not agree for one moment that Disney or anyone else is trying to "...continually force their views..." on anyone. Like it or not, even the most fervent of Christians cannot deny the face that homosexuality does exist. They can make all the subjective judgments about the LGBT community as long as they don't do anything that violates the law. Those judgments are the height of hypocrisy in my mind, but we cannot force them to not judge, or to hold on to their ridiculous beliefs that homosexuality is a sin.
By the same token, these theater owners have every right to choose which films they will and will not show on their outdoor screen. I believe it to be a bad decision but it may well be a good business decision for them; considering their market may well be made up of a population that largely believes what they believe.
Businesses cannot and should not discriminate against people in a way that violates our legal protections codified in various civil rights laws. But those laws do not require that all movies be shown by every single theater in existence.
We can disagree with that decision. We can choose to speak out, and to boycott this business for its choice. We just cannot forget that it is their choice to make.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has given in to the pressure to recuse himself from any involvement into investigations of the 2016 presidential election. That is not enough. He needs to resign.
Why?
Because the defense that his misleading statements in testimony before Congress, and in answering a questionnaire from Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy were not deliberate lies might be enough to avoid criminal prosecution, but they are not representative enough of the level of transparency required for the leader of the Department of Justice. First, the questionnaire:
Q. "Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"
A. "No."
We know that then Senator Sessions had contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States on at least two occasions in 2016 prior to the November elections. It is however, impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those contacts involved the 2016 election; in spite of the fact that one of those two meetings was at the Republican National Convention.
Mr. Sessions claims that his meeting with the Russian ambassador at that convention was in his role as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So why is it that he used his own campaign funds rather than the budget of that committee to cover his travel expenses? His defenders will say that since the primary purpose of the trip to the convention was campaigning.
I've joked lately that any book or memoir about the Trump administration should be titled "A Confederacy of Dunces" but after an attack on Mr. Sessions by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, one has to wonder if that tome needs to be expanded to the entirety of the Legislative and Executive Branches. She tweeted this attack on Sessions:
"I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com." - dated March 2, 2017
The problem is that she sent out this tweet a little over four years earlier:
"Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process."
Again, misleading. She was part of a group meeting, not a private one with the ambassador.
Chalk up some of this to a problem of parsing. But when a claim requires explanation because it is just plain wrong without that parsing, what good is it? The denial of meetings with the Russians may be accurate with a bunch of qualifications. So what? In most cases, intent is required for an action to become a criminal act. What isn't criminal can still be morally and ethically bankrupt.
I'll spare you another reiteration of the testimony of then Senator Sessions before the Senate.
He needs to resign. He is ethically challenged and his ability to act in his new position is compromised.
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017, 45 gave his first address to a joint session of Congress. It was a speech I might have watched, fact-checked and mocked as he gave it. But I was at work. In point of fact, when another tax pro's client attempted to listen to the speech on their smart-phone, if that tax pro hadn't told the client to turn it off, I would have. I didn't want to listen to it, or be distracted by it.
Now I've read the transcript of that speech. I attempted to read the Wall Street Journal's version but that would have required subscribing and I would not do that. So I had to make do with CNN's version.
He spoke about spending $1 trillion on infrastructure.
He spoke about increasing funding for veterans.
He spoke about increasing defense spending (the media reports his proposed increase will be $54 billion)
He spoke about funding "school choice for disadvantaged children."
Spend, spend, spend. How does he propose to pay for this spending? Let's ask an old friend if this plan of 45's makes sense.
I was listening to analysis of the speech on my way home from work and I heard former California governor Gray Davis say that "the devil is in the details" and he also mentioned that roughly 80% of the federal budget goes to Defense, Social Security and Medicare. So where is 45 going to get the funds to boost defense spending after he has gone on the record that he will not cut either Social Security or Medicare?
Then there is another problem facing 45. In his speech he said: "I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history."
The problem is that the Republican majority in the Congress can't just eliminate the sequester on its own. They can pass a bill to do so in the House but it can be filibustered in the Senate by the Democrats. Given that there will undoubtedly be severe cuts in social program spending, there is no way that 45 will be able to find eight Democratic Senators to cross the aisle and vote for his budget proposal. The effort to eliminate the sequester will almost certainly fail.
There is a sneaky way to try and accomplish this. They could put the increase into the line item in the defense budget for Overseas Contingency Operations. But that won't get past the increased scrutiny of spending during 45's hopefully brief tenure in the Oval Office (one can hope, right?).
As for fact-checking the address from the main distributor of falsehoods in our nation, you can do that here. Or over here. Or here. When multiple sources demonstrate the same lies over and over, can we begin to recognize the Liar in Chief?
