Search This Blog

Sunday, July 15, 2018

What Am I Missing?

Yahoo News is breathlessly reporting that President Trump was snubbed by the royal family in the UK because when the First Lady and President went to the palace, the only member of the royal family present was Queen Elizabeth II.  Prince Charles and Prince William were not there.

I guess my only reaction is "Huh?"

The queen is the monarch.  Her presence is all that matters.  This is the rough equivalent of the press telling us that the USA snubbed prime minister May because when she came to the White House she met only with the President without the vice president and the Speaker of the House being there.  The President is the one who matters, not the others.  And, by the way, the vice president and the Speaker are much more important in our system than Charles and William are in the British system.

I get that the media just hates President Trump.  I still think it's wrong for them to make up stuff like this. 

Changing the Argument -- An Old Style Obama Straw Man

One thing at which Barack Obama was a master is the creation of a straw man argument.  Simply put, Obama frequently didn't argue against the points being made by the other side.  Instead, he changed their argument to something else and argued against the new version.  For example, when ISIS first appeared on the scene, there were calls in Washington, particularly from Republicans, to take these new terrorists seriously.  When president Obama was asked about this, he didn't actually respond.  Instead, he said that some believe that ISIS would threaten the future of Iraq and the region.  He then went on to say that ISIS was just the "jayvee" team.  They were not going to bring down Iraq or any other country.  Of course, the Republicans at that time weren't arguing that ISIS would bring down Iraq; they just wanted there to be a coherent American response to this new terror group.  Obama did nothing and justified that by talking about an argument no one was making. 

Today, the Democrats are trying to use that straw man argument style once again.  This time the issue is the meaning of the indictments just brought by the special prosecutor against a bunch of Russians for allegedly hacking the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  The target is the argument by President Trump that the investigation into supposed collusion by his campaign with Russia against the Clinton campaign is a "witch hunt".  The Democrats and many media pundits aligned with the Democrats are pushing the idea that the indictment means that the Mueller probe cannot be a witch hunt because Mueller found that the DNC was hacked by Russians and got indictments against those Russians.

But think about this for a moment.  What was the witch hunt that the President complained about?  President Trump has said repeatedly that there was no collusion and that looking for collusion is a witch hunt.  Notice that Trump doesn't say that there was no hacking of the DNC.  He never said that.  In fact, the whole world knows that internal information from the DNC was published in 2016.  Right before the Democrat convention, emails were published by Wikileaks that showed that the DNC and Hillary Clinton had worked together to rig the primaries and caucuses in 2016 to guarantee that Hillary would get the nomination over Bernie Sanders.  No sane person argues that looking for those who got this information from the DNC is a witch hunt.  Of course, that is what the new indictments are all about.  The Russians allegedly hacked the DNC.

But notice what the indictments don't discuss.  They don't mention any knowing involvement by Americans in this mess.  They don't mention collusion by Americans in the hacking effort.  They certainly don't mention any involvement by President Trump.  In other words, the indictments have nothing to do with collusion.  When the President calls the investigation into supposed collusion a witch hunt, those statements are unaffected by the indictment.

There is no reason to accept the straw man arguments now being pushed by the Dems and the media.  These indictments don't change a thing.  The Mueller probe of collusion was a witch hunt and it remains a witch hunt. 

The Climate Change Crisis With Carbon Dioxide

For the last 20 years, we have been told about Global Warming (now Climate Change) due to excessive emissions around the world of carbon dioxide due to the activities of human beings.  I'm sure you recall all the predictions made by people like Al Gore when he released his movie 15 years ago.  These were predictions by scientists, so they had to be correct, right?  Here are a few of the best ones:

1.  Sea levels would rise by 2015 to a point at which there would be constant flooding in port cities around the world.  (Somehow, it didn't happen.)
2.  Temperatures would rise in a steady fashion.  By 2012, it would be too late to take any meaningful action to stop the rise.  (Temperatures in the atmosphere measured around the globe by satellites were essentially steady for the last 20 years.  Indeed, the lack of any rise in these temperatures led the Global Warming people to change the name to "Climate Change".)

There are more of these predictions, but let's focus instead on the efforts to prevent climate change.  The biggest effort, of course, was the Paris accords.  President Obama signed those accords, but President Trump withdrew the USA from that agreement.  The Democrats and the media told us that by withdrawing from Paris, Trump had placed the USA in position to become the world's biggest polluter.  After all, the goal of the Paris accords was to reduce the growth in carbon dioxide emissions around the world.  So here's a test.  Which of these countries had the biggest growth in carbon emissions in 2017?

a.  France
b.  USA
c.  China
d.  Russia
e.  Germany
f.  Iran

That shouldn't be too hard to answer if you follow the Climate Change debate at all.  The answer is China which had the biggest growth in carbon emissions of any country around the world.

So which of the six countries had the biggest decline in carbon emissions in 2017.  The answer is the USA which reduced carbon emissions by more than any other country in the world.  American leadership in carbon emission reduction put us first in the world for the ninth time in the last 16 years.

By the way, China and those other countries mentioned above are all signatories to the Paris accords.  Each of them had INCREASES in carbon emissions.  Those Paris accords really don't do much, do they?

Liberals' Idea Of The Will Of The People

In the recent California primary for the US Senate, incumbent senator Dianne Feinstein got 44% of the vote.  State legislator Kevin De Leon got just under 12% of the vote but came in second.  Both Feinstein and De Leon are Democrats in the heavily Democrat state.  Feinstein, of course, is the long time incumbent.  So what was the reaction of the California Democrat Party?  Yesterday, it endorsed De Leon for the seat.  The vote wasn't close.  Feinstein got the vote of only 7% of those attending the meeting of the state central committee.

Think about that for a moment.  Feinstein beat De Leon in the primary by getting about four times as many votes as De Leon.  In political races, that is more than a landslide.  It's a total rout.  The Democrats, however, are going to support the far left De Leon in November with millions of dollars and thousands of volunteers of support.  Feinstein will still win barring some sort of earth-shaking event.  That means that California Democrats are so intent on moving to the far left that they are prepared to abandoned their long time senator Feinstein.  It also means that the Democrats are abandoning the bulk of their own voters.  The people spoke in the primary, and they chose Feinstein.  The far left Democrats, however, don't care about the voters.  They don't care about niceties like the will of the people.  This says more about who the Democrats in California are than almost anything else.

No doubt Feinstein will win in November.  Maybe by December we will hear that the California Democrats think that the Russians hacked the California election to deprive De Leon of his rightful victory.  You see, the left never "loses"; they just have elections stolen from them.

UPDATE:  I didn't want to let a discussion of Feinstein/De Leon go by without noting that De Leon is a strong supporter of the new Democrat mantra to "abolish ICE".  Feinstein has yet to climb aboard that train.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Something to Explain

With the new Mueller indictments of some Russian guys for allegedly hacking the DNC in 2016, the media is going crazy telling us how important,  excuse me IMPORTANT, the indictment is.  Trump has to cancel his meeting with Putin according to a whole host of Democrats and media pundits.  But here's the real question:

In 2016, when all this happened, the US government cyber group was developing alternative plans for actions to be taken against the Russians in response to this hacking.  President Obama had been told that it was the Russians who were responsible for the hack of the DNC.  As those plans were being developed for quick presentation to Obama, however, the White House issued a stand down order.  That's right, Susan Rice, then the National Security Adviser to the cyber group to STOP what it was doing.  No plans for any response to Russia were completed.  No response was ordered by the White House.  Obama just sat on his hands.  And guess what?  None of the Democrats or pundits who are now so exercised over the Trump-Putin meeting said anything.

By the way, for anyone who doubts the Obama administration order to the cyber group to stand down, it was recently reconfirmed by the man who was the head of the cyber group.  This is something that really must be explained.

A Thin Gruel

This morning, I read the op-ed in the New York Times which claims to explain why the latest indictments of 12 Russians is "bad news for the President".  Since I've read the indictment, I was curious to see how the Times put it together with other facts to make it into bad news for President Trump.  After all, Trump is not mentioned in the indictment; nor is anyone from his campaign involved in the wrongdoing according to the indictment.  That sounds like good news for Trump, not bad news.  But the pundits in the Times don't agree.  They point out that the indictment indicates that the special prosecutor with this indictment shows that he believes that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC computer systems.  Also, they point out that many of the highest people in the Trump campaign have yet to be interviewed by the special counsel.  Supposedly, this makes the indictment bad news for Trump.

Are they kidding?  Did anyone in the world actually think that Mueller thought it was someone other than the Russians who hacked the DNC?  Remember, just because Mueller believes that doesn't make it so.  The only way to know that for sure would be for the DNC computer system to be examined and proof produced to show that the hackers were Russian.  Even if Russia ended up with all the information from the DNC computer, it would mean that the Russians were the hackers.  For instance, if it were the Chinese who hacked the DNC but they then gave the data to the Russians, none of the accused Russian "hackers" would be guilty of anything.  Mueller knows this.  That's why it took over a year to get to the point of indicting these men who Mueller knows will never be brought to trial in the USA.  He gets to release the indictment without having to prove anything. 

And the lack of interviews with some high campaign officials doesn't mean much of anything.  They may never be interviewed.  It surely doesn't mean Mueller is "closing in" on Trump.

For the last year and a half, we have been told again and again about the collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.  To date, there has not been any evidence put forward to support that conspiracy theory.  The indictment doesn't change that even slightly; there is still no evidence of collusion.  That is the key takeaway from the indictment.  For the President, it's a non-event.  No matter how hard the New York Times tries to twist the truth, it cannot create evidence where none exists.  It's time to move on.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Now It's Royal Protocol

Never ones to run short of reasons to criticize President Trump the mainstream media is writing tonight about how the President breached "royal protocol" thereby insulting queen Elizabeth and all of Britain.  Unbelievable!

Here's how the article in yahoo news put it:

Overall, a certain deference to the queen is expected. Arrive before her, don’t speak unless spoken to or sit or eat until she has, and never turn your back or leave before she does. Trump managed to publicly flout a few of these rules of protocol.

Yahoo doesn't seem to understand that there is royal protocol for British subjects, and there are niceties that non-British individuals should follow, but there are also separate rules for other heads of state.  The head of state from another country need not follow the ordinary British royal protocol.  Indeed, another head of state is the only person who can treat the queen as an equal.  President Trump is the head of state of the USA.  American presidents do not bow to foreigners.  Remember the big upset when Obama bowed to the Saudi king in 2009.  The White House issued a statement denying that Obama had bowed.  Trump is not going to bow to the British queen now.  Similarly, a head of state need not wait for the queen to speak.  The same is true with regard to all the other rules.  All that is required is for the head of state to treat the queen with respect, something that Trump clearly did.

I know that most of the media hates President Trump.  They're allowed to have their views.  Still, it just gets so old to listen endlessly to baseless charges made against him by people who don't even know what they are talking about.