Search This Blog

Saturday, September 30, 2017

It's Really Strange to See The Mayor Of San Juan

Here's a picture worth viewing:


Michelle Obama Should Know Better

Earlier this week, Michelle Obama demonstrated that she doesn't always think things through.

Obama spoke at a conference and told those assembled that "any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their (sic) own voice."  She went on to say that those woman who voted for the man (Trump) were only choosing the thing they were told to chose rather than listening to their own voice.

Think about that.  Michelle Obama sounds much like Hillary Clinton on this point.  Women who voted for the man rather than Hillary were being ruled by the husbands or boyfriends rather than following their woman's voice.  Somehow, Michelle seems to have forgotten 2008 when a great many women voted for the man (Barack Obama) rather than Hillary Clinton.  It seems that those women too were ignoring their own voice -- in Michelle's parlance.

The truth is that it's ridiculous for someone like Michelle Obama who spent a year campaigning against Hillary in 2007 and 2008 to suddenly proclaim that a woman who voted for a man rather than Hillary is a victim of sexism.  Does she assume that women are morons or that they have no memories? 

High Praise forJustice Gorsuch

Writing in the New Yorker, left-wing "legal analyst" Jeffrey Toobin has delivered some rather high praise for new Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch.  The Toobin article is entitled:

How Badly Is Neil Gorsuch Annoying the Other Supreme Court Justices?

Let's be clear, if Toobin is speculating that the other justices are annoyed by Gorsuch (and the whole article is such speculation), it means that Gorsuch has been an effective conservative voice on the Court.

Some of what Toobin says is rather comical.  He claims, for example, that Gorsuch is speaking too much at oral arguments.  Really?  It's "annoying" for a Supreme Court Justice to ask questions?  That's actually exactly what all of the Supreme Court Justices do.

Toobin then claims that Gorsuch gave a speech in front of a "political" organization.  Even Toobin was not silly enough to leave things at that alone.  After all, every justice on the Court has given such speeches.  Conservatives tend to speak in front of conservative organizations.  Liberals tend to speak in front of liberal organizations.  It happens all the time.  So Toobin came up with a kicker for this item; it seems that the conference before which Gorsuch spoke was held at (gasp!) the Trump hotel in DC.  Oh no!!!  Gorsuch was in a meeting in a Trump hotel!  Toobin says that the hotel might become embroiled in some litigation about the President and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  That's nonsensical, however; there is no such case pending before the Court.  Even if there were such a case, however, it would not be unethical or improper to speak at a meeting held in that hotel.

Toobin's biggest item is that Gorsuch has agreed on nearly every decision with Justice Thomas.  Get that?  Gorsuch's positions on cases are very similar to Justice Clarence Thomas'.  That is somehow supposed to annoy all of the other justices.  Why?  If I were a typical liberal, I would think that Toobin is accusing the other justices of racism because they are annoyed that Gorsuch is agreeing with the only black justice.

It's weird that even the far left media like The New Yorker would publish this idiotic article.

Friday, September 29, 2017

It's About Time

A 22 year old Antifa member was convicted today in Oregon of arson arising out of a riot last May in Portland.  He pled guilty in a plea deal that will result in a 5 year sentence for setting fires in a Target store and burning a police vehicle.

It's good to see that justice has finally started to work to get these thugs off the streets.  No group--on the left or right--should be allowed to use violence for political expression.  Hopefully, this will just be the first of many convictions.

The Loony Left Just Gets Nuttier

I should have written yesterday about the elementary school librarian who rejected a gift of ten books for the school from the First Lady on the grounds that the selected works were "racist".  That's right, the librarian of this school thought that Dr. Seuss books are racist.  I'm not making this up; it's real.

I think I've read essentially all of Dr. Seuss' works.  Even by the distorted standards of today's left, no sane person could call these books racist.  No, the books are not racist.  What is happening is that the librarian is trying to virtue signal by rejecting books that come from the dreaded Trump family.  She is showing that she will refuse to accept books that the students in her school might read and enjoy because she's better than helping the kids if the help comes from Melania Trump.

The truth is that in a sane world, the librarian would be fired.  Sadly, however, our world is not totally sane.

Here's A First

I agree with Glen Greenwald.

That's a sentence I thought I would never write, but I have and it's true.  In a column on The Intercept, Greenwald points out how the media is willing to accept any claim that indicates collusion between Trump and Russia in the campaign without ever bothering to check the facts on which the claim is based.  Greenwald bases his column on the latest story to collapse, namely the one from last week in which we were told that 21 state election systems were the target of Russian hackers.  Except the story was false.  The chief election officer in Wisconsin said the claim that his state's system was hacked is bogus.  Then the Secretary of State of California issued an angry denunciation of the same story as false.  Then more states joined the chorus.  Then the whole story collapsed.  But as Greenwald points out, the denials don't seem to matter; the story was published in the NY Times, so it MUST be right.

Greenwald goes on to debunk the claim by Bill Kristol's new group that Twitter was used by the Russians to affect the election.  That's based upon supposedly finding "bots" controlled by the Kremlin that posted inflammatory items on Twitter designed to help Trump.  Of course, the Kristol group refuses to name even one such "bot".  We're just supposed to trust them.  Trusting Bill Kristol, however, is not something that any sane person would do, but the media reported the latest story nevertheless.

Here we are nearly a year after the election and nearly a year and a half after the federal government supposedly knew of Russian interference in the election, but there's still no proof of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  Sure, Donald Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer and discussed adoptions even though he was lured to the meeting by claims that the lawyer had some dirt on Hillary (she didn't).  Is this supposed to have swung the election?  Of course not.  It's hard to see how a non-public uneventful meeting made any difference.  So again, where's the proof? 

Of course, we now have people like former DNI James Clapper who is worried that the election was swayed by Russia.  Clapper is the guy who lied under oath to Congress about the existence of the largest program run by the NSA in which millions of Americans were spied upon.  Clapper is also the guy who testified under oath last March that there is no evidence of any sort of any Trump/Russia collusion.  Funny how Clapper gets no new information but switches sides on the story, isn't it?  That means we have a guy like Clapper who is honest as the day is long (so long as you are above the arctic circle in the winter when the sun never rises) making these charges, and the media prints them as if they have any more validity than the ravings of madman.  What's next?  Will we get morality lectures from Anthony Weiner?  Maybe we'll hear non-violence appeals from Antifa.  We could even get Hillary Clinton admitting she was a bad candidate.  No, that last one is surely a bridge too far. 

It's time to give the Russia story a decent burial.  There's nothing to it.  Even the special prosecutor who was supposed to look into it has moved on to other subjects -- according to the regular leaks from that office to the press.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

TimeTo Get A Grip On Reality

In today's New York Post, there is an article explaining how a North Korean nuclear test over the Pacific Ocean could be "catastrophic".  It's just another article written by a reporter who has no idea of reality.

Okay, let me stop here for a moment.  I am not saying that a nuclear test in the atmosphere over the ocean is a good thing or even an inconsequential thing.  It won't lead to mass disasters and the death of many humans and even more animals as the Post article predicts.

Here's something that the reporter might have wanted to consider.  In the 1940s to the 1960s, the USA conducted 105 nuclear tests either in the air over the Pacific or under the water of the ocean itself.  Somehow the world survived.  After the Test Ban treaty was signed in the 1960s, the USA stopped atmospheric tests, but France continued them.  The French conducted their tests over the Pacific Ocean.  That was another batch of bomb blasts that the world survived.

I think it's safe to say that while it would be better if the North Koreans did not conduct Pacific testing, it is not the end of the world if they do.  Maybe someone could tell the New York Post.

Should People in Orlando Subsidize Those in Manhattan?

Is this situation fair?  A family of four lives in Orlando, Florida and has income of $80,000 per year.  Another family of four lives in New York City and has an identical income.  Each family spends the same amount on rent, food and the other basic necessities of life.  The difference, however, is that the family in New York pays lower federal taxes than the one in Florida.  Why is that?  The answer is because the high state and local income tax paid by the New York family is deductible for federal purposes and the family in Florida pays no state income tax.  So again, is it fair that the Florida family pay more federal tax than the family in New York with identical income and expenses?

Until now, the answer from the federal tax code has been that the unequal treatment is perfectly fine.  The key provisions that made state and local taxes deductible were put in place by the Democrats who represented the high tax states, so they did their best to protect their voters. 

In the latest tax outline from the Republicans, however, this unequal treatment is set to be phased out.  No longer will the people from high tax states be treated better than those from low tax states.  Everyone will be treated equally.  You would think that equal treatment for all would be something that the Democrats would rush to support.  After all, they tell us all the time how they favor equality.  But no, the Democrats only favor equality when their voters are treated "more equal" than the rest of the country.

There is no reason that people in places like Orlando, Dallas and Omaha should subsidize the folks who live in Los Angeles, New York and Boston. 

More Fake News -- This Time On Taxes From ABC

Here's the headline on an article from ABC News today:

Trump Adviser 'can't guarantee' taxes won't go up for Middle Class"

What does that mean to you?  If you spend a moment, it's pretty clear; ABC is reporting that taxes on the middle class may go up under the Trump plan.  Since the President promised a middle class tax cut, that's a pretty big transgression that ABC is reporting.

Of course, if you read the article down in the text you find that Gary Cohn, a White House economic advisor, actually said that there could be a middle class family somewhere that could have unique circumstances that would lead to its paying more in taxes under the Trump plan, but that the whole point of the new tax plan was to lower the taxes by 500 to 1000 dollars for the average middle class family.  Cohn was clear; taxes will go DOWN for the average middle class family; the headline from ABC indicates just the opposite.

Why must the mainstream media be so dishonest?

Big Breakthrough If Real

The AP reported the following this morning:

"China orders most North Korean-owned businesses, ventures with Chinese partners closed under U.N. sanctions."

This is enormously important if it is true.  The North Korean economy conducts about 90% of its trade with just one country, China.  If the Chinese really cut that off, it would be a major blow to the North Koreans.  Of course, the AP doesn't say that ALL of the North Korean businesses were closed, just MOST.  We don't really know what that means.

If the report is accurate, however, then major congratulations are in order for President Trump.  Previous presidents tried to get the Chinese involved to stop the NKs.  Previous presidents all failed.  President Obama even stopped trying and called his inaction "strategic patience" so his apologists in the media and academia could have a talking point to defend his fecklessness.

More Media Lies

The Los Angeles Times is strongly left-wing.  That's fine with me if they want to have a slant to their reports; I don't agree with it, but it's their right.  What's not fine with me is when the reporters make up new facts and publish it like they were real. 

A good example of this Fake News came again this morning in an article about how right wing populism threatens the GOP majority in the Senate.  The reporter, Lisa Mascaro, begins her report with this claim, "The potential showdowns are reminiscent of the tea party uprising that just a few years ago cost Republicans the majority in the Senate."  That sounds good (if you're a Democrat), but it's totally wrong.  I don't mean it is wrong from an analysis standpoint; it's just factually wrong.  The Tea Party was started in the Spring of 2009.  At that point, the Democrats controlled the Senate by 60 votes to 40.  The GOP minority was so small that it could not stop any bill even with a filibuster.  Almost immediately after the Tea Party started, Scott Brown won the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, so the chamber went to 59 to 41.  In the following elections, the GOP gained seats until now there is a GOP majority of 52 to 48.  In other words, the Tea Party did not cost the GOP the majority.

I wrote to the reporter to point this out but have received no response.  My guess is that the LA Times won't make any changes.  That's not how Fake News works.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Here's the Ultimate In Fake News

Here's the headline from Newsweek this evening: 

Donald Trump Refuses to Send More Aid to Puerto Rico, Citing Business Interests

Here's how the story begins:

President Donald Trump has made it clear his administration isn't planning to allow any additional outside aid to get into Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria.
Speaking with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, the president cited business interests as the reason for refusing calls from lawmakers and activists to allow international organizations and governments to ship aid to the island

There's a big problem with this story, however.  IT'S NOT TRUE.  IT'S FAKE NEWS!!!!

The President never refused to allow organizations and other government to send aid to Puerto Rico.  Nothing even close to that happened.  There is no bar to shipment of aid to the island.  All that has happened is that the federal government has not waived the Jones Act.  That law says that shipments of cargo from one American port to another must go on US  flagged ships.  If the government of Canada wants to ship aid from Montreal to Puerto Rico, it can send that aid on any ship it wants.  There is no bar.  If the American Red Cross wants to ship aid to Puerto Rico, it can use one of the many American flag cargo ships in the regions to ferry the aid.  It's just that simple.  THE STORY IS A TOTAL LIE!!!

I've written before about how the mainstream media and the Democrats are trying to convince America that President Trump does not care about Puerto Rico because the people are Hispanic.  It's another lie.  For a day they put out stories about supposed poor responses by the federal government to the disaster on the island.  Then the governor of Puerto Rico and the mayor of San Juan came forward to praise the work of FEMA and the entire federal government in responding to the crisis.  In fact, so much aid has arrived that it has backed up in the ports due to problems of transportation on the island due to roads that are still being cleared of debris and a shortage of trucks (due to hurricane damage).  That pretty much destroyed the whole narrative by the media and the Democrats.  Since that failed, they have no moved on to completely making up phony stories. 

It's disgusting.  There are enough problems in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico due to the hurricanes.  The Democrats should not try to make things worse by being dishonest about conditions there.

The Non-Stop Attack on the Truth Continues

The outline of the Republican plan for tax reform was unveiled today.  It was met with an immediate counterattack by the mainstream media and the Democrats.  Here's the problem: the outline of the plan is not enough for anyone to respond to the details of this tax proposal.  That does not matter, however; we got all sorts of responses from the media and the Democrats.  They are best described as "fantasy" responses.

Let me give you an example:  The plan calls for three tax brackets:  12, 25 and 35%.  Some of the Democrats and many in the media said that this will mean a rise in taxes for the middle class.  After all, the lowest bracket is now 10% and it will go to 12%.  Of course, this is silly; we have to know the size of the 12% bracket.  Let me illustrate.  If the 12% bracket covers all taxable income up to 30,000, it is much different than if that same bracket covers the first 100,000 dollars of taxable income. 

Another example deals with deductions.  Nearly every deduction is "on the table".  The Democrats in Congress went crazy on that one.  Nevertheless, until we know which ones the Congress chooses to eliminate, we cannot know how that affects the final bill.

Tax reform deserves significant debate across the country.  It does not deserve phony arguments that may have no relevance at all.  Rather than complaining, the Democrats should come forward with their own tax proposals.

Time For American Action

The results of the independence referendum in Kurdish areas in Iraq are not even final, and the region's neighbors are already threatening war.  Preliminary results show a very heavy turnout with over 90% voting in favor of independence for the Kurds.  Here's a short summary of the responses from Turkey, Iran and Iraq.

Turkey's president threatened to enforce a total blockade against the Kurds.  He says that the Kurds will not be protected by "waiving Israeli flags."  Turkey will shut down the pipeline that moves the oil produced in the Kurdish region and bring the Kurds to their knees. 
It's sad that Turkey feels compelled to throw anti-Israeli nonsense into its attack on an independent Kurdish state, but not all that surprising.  Remember over a quarter of the population of Turkey is Kurdish, so Ankara fears that these people will want to take part of Turkey and join it with the Kurdish state.

Iran has denounced the Kurdish independence movement as a "Zionist plot".  The Ayatollah said that Muslim nations will not allow the creation of a "second Israel" in their midst.  Of course, the Kurds are Muslims, so what the Ayatollah has said is complete nonsense.  In Iran, there are also substantial Kurdish populations who could want to join with a free Kurdistan.

The Iraqi government in Baghdad has denounced the Kurdish vote.  Indeed, the central government gave the Kurdish authorities until this weekend to turn over control of all airports in the Kurdish region to the central authorities.  There is an unspoken threat of violence towards the Kurds by the Iraqi army.  Of course, having seen the fighting prowess of the Iraqis and the Kurdish forces during the fighting with ISIS, it does not seem like much of a threat coming from Baghdad.

Nevertheless, it does seem as if by next week we could see fighting in the region with the Kurds fighting Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish forces.  So that bring us to the question of the American response.

For decades, the Kurds have been the best and most consistent friends America has had in the region.  We cannot forget them now that they are facing a major problem.  The real questions is what would happen if the USA were to recognize an independent Kurdistan?  Could American recognition and possible support be enough to keep the Turks and the Iranians from invading?  Could it put a lid on the reaction of the Iraqi government?  Those are questions that will have to be answered by the President.  Without a doubt, the view in the State Department will be for the USA to stay out of this matter.  It's hard to forget all the help the Kurds have given us even if the cold hearted diplomats think we ought to do so. 

In many ways, the key here is the reaction of the Saudis and the Jordanians and other Arab countries in the region.  There's no reason for them to side with the Turks or the Shiite regimes in Iran or Iraq.  On the other hand, if they decide that they do not want to do anything that could redraw borders, then they could take the side of the Turks.

My preference would be for the USA to try to help with the establishment of independent Kurdistan.

Keeping Up With the Jones Act

The latest false narrative about the federal response to Puerto Rico deals with the Jones Act.  That's the federal law that requires shipments from one US port to another to be carried on American flagged vessels.  After the hurricane hit Puerto Rico, there was consideration of waiving that law for shipments to the island, but the DHS recommended against it and no waiver was issued.  That was all the usual suspects on the left needed; it was RACISM!  After all, if the Jones Act wasn't waived, it had to be because the Puerto Ricans are Hispanic, right?  WRONG!  If any of these morons had bothered to look into the situation, they would have learned that the supposed purpose of waiving the Jones Act was to get help to the island more quickly.  The problem, however, is not a lack of aid arriving.  Right now, there are enormous numbers of containers of aid in port in San Juan and other smaller ports.  The problem is a lack of truck transport to take the containers from the ports to places across Puerto Rico where the aid is needed.  Basically, there are two parts to the problem:  1) roads, bridges, etc. have been blocked or washed out by the storm.  This makes it difficult to get from the ports to places where the aid is needed.  The roads are being cleared, but there will remain closures until bridges are rebuilt.  2) The number of large trucks available to transport the aid is reduced from normal because many on the island were destroyed in the storm.  Some are being repaired, but more are needed.  Only certain very specialized ships can carry these large trucks, and waiving the Jones Act would not add any to the fleet.  In fact, while waiving the Jones Act could mean more aid shipped to the island, there is no place to put it all right now because of the bottleneck in distribution at the ports.

These facts are taken from the briefings given by the mayor of San Juan and the governor of Puerto Rico.  Of course, those briefings were in Spanish.  No doubt the people like Hillary Clinton (and Chelsea) who are busy accusing the Trump administration of racism for not waiving the Jones Act didn't bother to check out the facts first.  Actually, Hillary may have checked it out and made the accusation anyway.  No one ever said she is a slave to the truth.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Hitting a New Low

Anyone who reads this site regularly knows by now that I don't think very highly of senator Chris Murphy from my state of Connecticut.  He's an always-political blow hard who never seems to have an original idea.  Today, Murphy hit a new low which surprised even me.

The subject of Murphy's latest mess is Puerto Rico and the devastation caused by Hurricane Maria.  The situation on the island is terrible.  There are shortages of food and water and very few areas with electric power.  Nevertheless, there is a massive effort underway to bring relief supplies to the island.  The national guard (including from outside Puerto Rico), the navy, the coast guard, FEMA and a great many NGO's are funneling aid where possible onto the island.  There remains, however, a bottleneck because of the damage that closed airports, piers and other access to the island.  Since there is such poor access to the island, there has been little direct media coverage of what is happening there.  As a result, we are getting the usual fear merchants telling dire stories about the supposed horrors happening there.  Remember what happened at the Superdome in New Orleans after Katrina hit?  For days we heard that people who took refuge there were being raped and murdered by gangs in a lawless mess.  There was mass outrage.  Then the media finally got in and found that none of the story was true.  Sure, there had been privation, but no crime wave; the people who took refuge had been quite well behaved.  That's where we are heading now with Puerto Rico.

The sad thing is that senator Murphy has become one of the main sources for false rumors about events in Puerto Rico.  Indeed, within the last hour, Murphy tweeted to President Trump that there are "people dying" on the island and Trump is ignoring them.  It's a lie.  Conditions are bad on the island, but help is getting through in ever increasing amounts as the airports and port facilities come back on line.  No one is ignoring the people of Puerto Rico.

I understand that Murphy is trying to make political points with his lies.  It's nothing new for him.  The worst thing, however, is that many people with loved ones on the island cannot get any information from them.  The phones are still mostly down.  There's just no way to communicate.  That means that when Murphy says people are dying, he is actually stoking the fear of those with family or friends on the island.  It's disgusting that Murphy is willing to inflict all that unnecessary fear on people just to score a political point or two.

Rational and decent people would expect more from a United States Senator.  Sadly, we never get that from senator Murphy.

The Coming Loss

Here's a key question:  what are the NFL players who take a knee during the national anthem protesting?  This morning, I read five different articles about the protests; three were at sites that are obviously leftist (like The New Yorker).  The other two were at sites that generally support the President.  Guess what?  None of the five articles discussed the reason for the protests.  If you only read these articles, you would come to the conclusion that the protests were about President Trump and what he said last Friday in Alabama, namely that it would be great if an NFL owner were to fire one of these protesters.  And if you didn't read these articles, you would think that the players were protesting against America itself.  After all, there are few symbols more clearly American than the Star Spangled Banner and the flag.

How can this be?  How could we have a major protest at the NFL with so little explanation of what is the target of that protest?  If Hillary Clinton's team were here, they would tell us that the protesters have a "messaging" problem.  Of course, with Hillary, there was always a messaging problem, no matter what was actually happening; four Americans got murdered in Benghazi, but the problem was with the messaging.  But I digress. 

The reality is that the original protest by a few NFL players has been hijacked by the anti-Trump forces.  The President spoke, and all the anti-Trumpers jumped on the opposition bandwagon.  This was an incredible mistake.  The left put the President in the position of being the defender of the flag and the national anthem.  He is the defender of America itself against those who now protest our own homeland.  There is no other explanation being offered.  Put that all together and it means that ultimately, the anti-Trump forces will lose.  No matter what the NFL owners do, they will ultimately bow to the loss of TV ratings, crowds and supporters.  Of course, when they do, the other side will strike back with a vengeance, and the owners will suffer again.  For the average American, however, there is not going to be much sympathy for a bunch of enormously rich and privileged players protesting against the America that made them enormously rich and privileged in the first place.  The loss by the protesters is coming and it is coming soon.

Monday, September 25, 2017

A Symphony of Words

I'm tired of hearing or reading statements of concern from politicians.  In the last day, I saw my state's senior senator (Blumenthal) announce that he was very concerned over possible carbon monoxide poisoning in Puerto Rico from the use of generators.  Oooooo.  The same senator told us that he was concerned over the need to help the people on Puerto Rico.  Oooooo.  Senator Murphy, the always-talking Democrat also from Connecticut, announced his concern regarding a series of general statements about the Graham-Cassidy bill under consideration in Washington.  These two senators are major practitioners of constant concern.  They don't really seem to offer any solutions or do anything, but they express their concern over and over and over again.  We were repeatedly told during the Obama years that "words matter".  That's a true statement, but it doesn't mean that actions (or inactions) don't matter.  If there's a hurricane, it's not enough to express concern, no matter how well you make that statement.  There are people who need help, and steps have to be taken to get that help there.  If the North Koreans come close to having nuclear tipped ICBM's, it's not enough to express concern or tell them that they are on the "wrong side of history" (as Obama liked to do.)  That course of action still ends with Kim Jung Un with his finger on the button of global destruction.

When did people start believing that speaking about a position was sufficient.  No amount of "virtue signaling" changes anything.  If there are poor people in need of help, it is not enough to say that you care about them.  It won't change their lives.  Only action will do that.  If a storm hits the USA, it's not enough to send hopes and prayers; what matters is sending aid or at least cash that can be used to get the aid needed.  The people who think that tweeting a message of support is enough are just fooling themselves.  No amount of words spoken, no matter how beautiful the oral symphony changes anything.  For all those who want to be a force for good, I suggest that you start by actually help someone else.  Do something, don't just tell us about how concerned you are.

What Happens Next Week?

We now know that the ratings for Sunday night's NFL game were down about 8%.  That's a rather ominous statistic.  The NFL's ratings were already falling.  The league has its revenue stream for TV locked in for the next few seasons, but it's unclear if any of the networks has an escape clause that could be activated in the even of lower viewership.  Remember, the bulk of the cash that gets used to pay for all the sky-high salaries of the "oppressed" players comes from TV revenue.  If that revenue falls, so will salaries, team profits and all the hoopla associated with the NFL.  It happened to major league baseball; it could happen to the NFL.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the NFL is about to fold.  I'm just saying that the protests by the players and the non-reaction by the league to those protests could mark the start of a serious decline in the number and loyalty of fans.  We will need to see what happens next week.  Politics and sports don't really mix.  Think of ESPN and how badly that network is falling in recent years.  It used to be the premiere cable network with no competition for that title.  Now, it doesn't even pull in the largest audience each week.  People who watch want to hear about sports, not about how sports or other figures view politics. 

Let me put this another way.  Every Sunday there are a series of shows on the main broadcast networks that discuss the current national news with a heavy emphasis on politics.  Shows like Meet The Press or Fox News Sunday get audiences of a few million people.  Also on Sundays, there are all sorts of football games broadcast.  If those games only got the ratings that the Sunday morning news shows get, the networks would go into a panic.  There's an audience for political news, but it is just nowhere near as large as the audience for sports.  Whatever genius decided that it makes sense to replace some of the sports content with politics ought to be fired. 

There's a place for politics, a place for protest and a place for sports.  It's not the same place, however.  The sooner the NFL and its players realize this, the more likely they are to recover from this latest self inflicted wound.

A Poll That Will Be Ignored

One group of voters are overwhelmingly in favor of something that will almost surely be ignored.  Democrats in New Jersey are of the opinion that if senator Menendez is convicted in his ongoing corruption trial, he should resign immediately.  The margin is 77% to 14%.  Among Republicans and Independents in New Jersey, the margin is even bigger.

Most likely, Menendez will not resign even if he is convicted.  More precisely, he won't resign until 2018 when his replacement is more likely to be appointed by a new Democrat governor who will take office after Chris Christie's term ends.  It's the standard slimy political move that is famous in New Jersey. 

I don't know if Menendez is guilty or not.  From the few reports about testimony during the first third of the trial, it certainly sounds grim for him, however.  Clearly, if he is acquitted, he should not resign.  On the other hand, if he is convicted, then just for once, he ought to put politics aside and do the honorable thing by resigning. 

It Continues

This morning I wrote about the disaster relief efforts in Puerto Rico and how the media and the Democrats are beginning to attack President Trump for the unavoidably slow pace of recovery of the island.  This afternoon, the attack mode against Trump has moved to an amazing one for the media:  they are now criticizing Trump for not tweeting enough about Puerto Rico.  I know it sounds bizarre, but the same media and left wing politicians who criticize Trump non-stop for tweeting too much have switched to criticism that he has tweeted too little.  On Yahoo News, they have even published a report counting how many tweets Trump sent out since the hurricane hit Puerto Rico and how many dealt with that disaster.

These types of articles make me wonder whether or not the media has anything better to do.  Rather than covering the NFL and the number of Trump's tweets on Puerto Rico, they could be telling us the details of the tax reform plan or the latest version of the healthcare bills.  Alternatively, they could report on the results of the Kurdish independence referendum.  We could even get to hear about the results of the German election and the effect those results will have on our relations with that country.  But nope, we get tweet counters instead of reporters.

Kim The North Korean Keystone Kop

If there were no nuclear weapons involved and no threat of mass casualties, the latest ranting from Kim Jung Un would be funny.  The North Korean leader is clearly demented.  He spends months insulting the USA and President Trump in statement after statement, and when Trump calls him "Rocket Man" and warns him of the consequences of his actions, Kim has his foreign minister state that Trump "declared war" on North Korea.  It's a classic move by a bully; he's upping the ante in an effort to get Trump and the USA to back down.  It's also a strange move because there's no way that the NK's can really threaten the existence of the USA, but the opposite is not true.  During the Obama era, threats like Kim's latest would be met with an apology from Washington.  Maybe we would have even sent aid to the North Koreans.  It must be hard for the North Korean leader to realize that we now have a president who will not back down in the face of threats.

The terrifying thing is that we have to hope that Kim behaves in a rational manner.  He ought to realize that if he move forward towards a military confrontation with the USA, he and his regime (and perhaps his country) will cease to exist.  If Kim doesn't understand this basic truth, we could see an enormous calamity in Korea with massive death and destruction.  Still, President Trump is right to bring matters to a head now.  In two or three years from now, the cost could be much, much higher.

Now It's Hurricane Relief

In the last month, Texas got slammed by Hurricane Harvey, Florida got smashed by Irma and Puerto Rico was devastated by Maria.  That's a series of major crises, any one of which would fully tax the ability of the federal government, especially FEMA, to respond to disaster.  Everyone agrees that the response by the government has been outstanding in Texas and Florida.  There is a difference, however, with regard to Puerto Rico.  The response has been slower on that island.  The reason is twofold.  First, FEMA and the military are already fully occupied responding to Harvey and Irma in Texas and Florida.  We just don't have the resources ready to deal with the third hurricane strike; many supplies were used in the first two response efforts.  Second, and more important, Puerto Rico has been cut off to a great extent.  Trucks could roll into Houston or Florida once highways were cleared.  That let help come in from all different sources and directions.  In Puerto Rico, the only way onto or off of the island is by ship or aircraft.  The airports were damaged and the volume of supplies that can arrive by plane is therefore still limited.  The same is true of the ports to a great extent.  As the docks and the airports are repaired, the flow of aid will increase, but it will still be more constricted than was the case in Florida and Texas.  Even with these obstacles, the amount of aid getting to Puerto Rico is immense.

So what is the media response to all this?  We hearing complaints that Puerto Rico is not getting the attention it deserves because its residents are Hispanic.  That's disgusting and untrue.  So much effort is being put in to help the people of Puerto Rico that it is appalling to blame the initial delay in parts of the response on racism. 

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Hard To Imagine

I just watched a video of the fans in Gillette Stadium near Boston booing the Patriots when about 15 of them sat through the national anthem.  Boston fans booing the Patriots is astounding.

Look at the difference.

In Houston, you had a professional athlete who started a charity to bring relief supplies to hurricane victims after Harvey struck.  The original goal was to get $200,000 of relief supplies in to help the needy.  Instead, the response brought well over thirty million bucks from average Americans.  The athlete who led the effort did not seek to stand out or promote himself.  He worked alongside other volunteers for long hours to help those in need.  Other pro athletes joined in the effort as well, but again it was all done under the radar.  These were actual efforts to help people, not symbolic statements or protests that change nothing.

In the NFL this week, you have many athletes refusing to stand for the national anthem.  This is supposed to be a protest against America's failure to provide opportunities to people of color.  The athletes involved could easily have contributed $100,000 each to a fund designed to provide opportunities to minorities.  Everyone would have applauded such a move.  It would be an action for good.  Instead, we got a symbolic protest that helped nobody but disrespected all those who have served this country and all those who love this country.  The response was not cheers (except from the media) but instead the protests brought boos from diehard fans.

Am I the only one who sees this idiotic protest for what it is?  These protesters just want to complain rather than do anything to resolve the very issue about which they protest.

German Update

The exit polls in Germany show a rather poor showing by the CDU/CSU of Angela Merkel although it will still be the biggest party with 32.5% of the vote.  The Socialists are showing 20.2% which is their worst showing in ages, but it leaves them as the number 2 party.  In third place is AfD, (Alternative for Germany) which has 13.5%.  The Free Democrats and the Greens together have about 19.9% of the vote.  That means that Merkel could form a coalition with either the Socialists or with the Free Democrats and Greens. 

My guess is that we will see a coalition among the CDU, Free Democrats and Greens.  The Socialists seem to be dying off as a junior partner in the government.  Also, this set up would keep the AfD from being the main opposition party.

Very Important Elections

Attention in the USA is focused right now on the NFL players, the aftermath of the hurricanes, and the healthcare bill in the senate.  To a lesser extent, there is attention being given to the North Koreans.  It's strange how little American media has mentioned two elections that are happening today and tomorrow which are extremely important stories.

The first vote, of course, is the German national election.  Chancellor Angela Merkel is likely to see her CDU party win the biggest share of the vote although the expectation is that the party won't get enough seats to hold a majority in the parliament.  That may seem like there will be no big changes in Germany, but that is not true.  The real question is with which party or parties the CDU will form a coalition.  Right now, Merkel is in coalition with the Socialists who are the second biggest party.  That could repeat, although depending on the results, the CDU could move back into a coalition with the Free Democrats who are pro-business.  There could also be a coalition with the Green Party whose focus centers on the environment.  These would lead to big changes in all sorts of German policies.  As the strongest country in the European Union, Germany will affect much more than just itself.

The second vote is one that has gotten essentially no coverage in American media.  A referendum is being held in the Kurdish areas of Iraq concerning establishment of an independent Kurdistan.  There are tens of millions of Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.  They form perhaps the biggest ethnic group in the world without its own state.  The lack of an independent Kurdistan is the result of British and French imperial designs on the Middle East after World War I.  The lines were drawn to satisfy London and Paris and not the locals.  Now, the Kurds are seeking their own state.

Over the recent past, the USA has had few friends in the Middle East who have been as dependable and friendly as the Kurds.  The single biggest force confronting ISIS over the last few years has been the Kurdish militia, called the peshmerga.  Thousands of Kurds have given their lives or been wounded in that battle.  During the Iraq War, the only region of Iraq in which American forces did not have to fight and die was the Kurdish area.  After all this help from the Kurds, the USA owes them a debt of gratitude and we ought to support them in their effort to gain independence.  An independent Kurdistan could be an anchor for peace in the region. 

We will have to see if the Kurds vote in favor of independence as expected.  If they do, let's hope that President Trump recognizes the American debt to these brave people.

It Never Fails; It Was Racist

At a rally for senator Luther Strange on Friday, President Trump called out the NFL players who have been refusing to stand during the playing of The Star Spangled Banner.  It was controversial, and it had led to a furious countercharge by the left.  Predictably, we are now hearing that Trump's statement was "blatantly racist".  I decided to read the article by David Remnick in The New Yorker which centers on that charge to learn why Trump's attack was racist.

Here's the inside story according to Remnick.  Trump, in talking to the crowd at the rally, asked if "people like yourselves" agreed with him.  Even clearer, Trump called an unnamed player who took a knee during the anthem a "son of a bitch".  What could possibly be more racist?  Remnick says that these are not dog whistles heard only by other racists, but that they are explicit racism understandable by all.

The reality, of course, is nothing like what Remnick says.  Calling someone a "son of a bitch" may not be nice, but it is hardly racist.  I think we all know that; I mean all of us, other than Remnick, know that.  And if asking a rhetorical question of a crowd there's nothing wrong with asking about "people like yourselves".  Trump didn't know who was in the crowd other than that they were his supporters.  That's a political grouping, not a racial one.

So why is it that a leftist like Remnick has to go back to phony charges of racism in response to Trump?  The reality is that attacking Trump like that is all they have.  The players in question are beneficiaries of all that America has to offer.  Many make tens of millions of dollars.  They don't take their huge incomes and devote them to helping others.  Instead, they attack and disrespect the country that gives them their success.  That does not resonate, indeed it cannot resonate with the average American be that person white or black or something else.  It's just more phony symbolism without action.  So when Trump refuses to stay silent in the face of the affront, people like Remnick have to find something to say in response.  They go back to the old chestnut of calling opponents racist.

I had thought that with Obama out of the White House, we might return to a day when charges of racism were reserved for people who are actually racist or displaying racist behavior.  Sadly, Remnick shows that not to be the case.

I don't know if it is a good thing that the President criticized the NFL players in this instance.  I do know, however, that the criticism is not remotely racist.  Personally, I think Remnick is a son of a bitch for making the claim (and by the way, that is not meant to be racist.)

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Divisive? Really?

It's been rather funny to see the reaction to President Trump's statement that players in professional sports who won't stand for the national anthem should be fired.  These are multi-millionaires who refuse to stand for the anthem because of the supposedly unfair society that surrounds them.  It's hard to feel sorry for them given all the luxury and wealth that the "unfair" society has given them.  Still, they certainly have every right to refuse to stand for The Star Spangled Banner.  But guess what?  Everyone else has the right to react to their "statement".  Free speech doesn't mean no consequences for what you say, and it certainly doesn't mean others cannot disagree.  Free speech is only a limit on the government.  Indeed, were an owner of an NFL team to fire players who refuse to stand for the anthem, it is not a violation of anyone's rights (although it could be a violation of the relevant contracts.)  Remember, by refusing to stand, the players are insulting a great many of the fans who come to NFL games or watch them on TV.  It might make business sense for the owners to get rid of these players.

So what is the response from the NFL?  The commissioner of the league said that the President's remarks were "divisive" and "inappropriate".  The commissioner thinks that everyone has to adopt a practice of non-response to protests of this sort.  Why?  Why do the athletes get to make their point but if anyone else responds, it's divisive.  It's no more divisive than what the athletes are doing.  In fact, the response is probably less divisive because it is only a response.

For many decades, the media and the liberal establishment have always operated under the dogma that left wing protest was unassailable.  If a hundred leftists want to shut down traffic on a main road, we are supposed to accept that and live with it.  On the other hand, the same rules call for a clear response to conservative protests.  When the Tea Party rallies in 2010 denounced runaway spending by the Obama Administration, we were told they were racists.  When the IRS illegallyt targeted those Tea Party groups, we were told nothing was going on.  Now, with Trump in the White House, the liberals are being subjected to a new paradigm under which there are responses to their protests.  These are not violent responses like the crazies at Antifa.  Rather, they are simply clear oral responses clearly opposing what the lefties have to say.  As a result, the heads on the left are exploding as I write this.

None of this is divisive.  All that has happened is that there is a full debate going on once again in the USA.  The monopoly of propriety claimed by the left and its protesters has been blown away by reality.  That's a good thing, not a bad one.

 

An Illegal and Unconstitutional Letter Rule Bites The Dust

Are individuals in the USA innocent until proven guilty?  Does someone accused of a crime get to cross-examine the person making the complaint?  Is someone who is acquitted subject to being tried again for the same alleged crime?  The Constitution answers each of these questions in a rather clear way:  people are innocent until proven guilty; the accused does get to hear and cross-examine the person making the accusation and there is no double jeopardy for the same alleged crime.  These rules have been in place since the Bill of Rights was passed at the start of our republic.  They applied to everyone until the Obama administration decided to write a letter to universities explaining to them how to deal with cases of alleged sexual assaults on campus.  It wasn't an amendment to the Constitution.  It wasn't a law passed by Congress.  It wasn't even a regulation properly promulgated by the Department of Education.  No, it was a letter sent out from that department to colleges and universities across the country.  And that letter told the universities that in cases of alleged sexual assault they should only require proof by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.  The letter said that it was proper to bar the accused from cross-examining the complainant or even hearing her testimony.  The letter also told universities that if the accused is acquitted, they must let the complainant appeal that decision so that the accused could be tried a second time.  There's more, but that's enough.

The Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos has now withdrawn that letter and told the universities to follow the rules in place prior to the Obama era letter.  DeVos says that new regulations will be forthcoming -- adopted through proper practice -- but that until then she could not let the tainted and illegal Obama regulations stay in place.

The response has been predictable.  Many on the left have denounced DeVos and President Trump for not caring about victims of sexual assault on campus.  It's a nonsense charge, but it is being made by many nevertheless.  Think of it this way.  A horrible thing happens; a child is crossing the street in a cross walk and a car zooms through and hits him.  The driver does not stop; it is a hit and run.  There is only one witness, a 60 year old woman who tells police she thinks it was a red SUV that hit the kid.  About 15 minutes later, police find a man with an SUV pulling into a parking lot about two miles away.  They question him and learn that he had been driving nearby for the last half hour.  They arrest him for the crime of leaving the scene of an accident.  There's a trial that follows.  The suspect is not allowed to hear the testimony of the witness about the red car.  The suspect is not allowed to cross examine the witness either.  The police know that the witness doesn't know the make, model or age of the SUV.  In fact, she is not even sure that she saw an SUV rather than a sedan.  The jury, however, does not know this.  When the jury deliberates, the members were not really sure but they thought it more likely than not that the accused committed a crime.  They vote to convict him. 

If a case proceeded in the way outlined above, every court in the country would throw out that conviction and chastise the prosecution for proceeding in a clearly unconstitutional manner.  But that is what the Obama letter outlined for public universities across the country to do.  DeVos is correct to get rid of this travesty.  We don't get to ignore the Constitution because we want to show that we care about a victim.

Friday, September 22, 2017

So Will Menendez Resign?

Despite the lack of coverage, the trial of New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez is actually proceeding in federal court.  The evidence thus far has been extremely damning.  It looks to me as if the charges against Menendez are true and he will be convicted.  Of course, I say that without hearing the full defense (and the rest of the prosecution case.)  One thing is certain, even if Menendez were to be acquitted, he is certainly no angel.  I even wonder if Menendez is as honest as Hillary Clinton.

So if Menendez gets convicted, will he resign?  Will the Democrats call upon him to resign?  Will there be a move to keep him in office until his replacement would be a Democrat?  In other words, will politics triumph over morality?

My guess is that there will clearly be no pressure from the media to get Menendez out of office.  Democrats only care about corruption is the target is a Republican.

Like There Was Ever A Chance

A few days ago, a friend of mine asked me what I thought of the chances of the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal bill.  I told him it almost surely would not be passed.  Today, senator McCain made clear that the bill would not pass when he announced that he could not vote for it because it had not yet been scored by the CBO.

Let's be clear about two things:

1.  Getting all the Republican senators on board for the bill wasn't going to happen.

2.  McCain refusing to vote for the bill absent a CBO score is infuriating.  McCain knows that the CBO has no idea how states would implement their new powers under the bill, but the CBO nevertheless would put out detailed projections as to the effect of those unknown implementation measures.  In other words, McCain knows that the CBO projections on the bill would be nothing but uneducated guesses.  For McCain to refuse on that basis is silly at best.

The key moving forward is not Obamacare, however.  It is tax reform.  The GOP better get to work on that bill and get it passed by Thanksgiving.  It can be done is some of the prima donnas in the senate can keep their tiaras on straight.

Those Pesky Private Planes

There's a big buzz about the travel of two cabinet members, Betsy DeVos who is Secretary of Education and Dr. Tom Price who is Secretary of HHS.  Both have made use of private planes more than once per month to accomplish their travels.

Let's start with DeVos.  The media and the left hate her with a particular venom.  DeVos' use of private planes is just the latest brouhaha to erupt.  There's a problem with the story, however.  DeVos is using her own private jet for travel, and she isn't charging the government for that use.  That's right; unlike most other cabinet officials, DeVos is saving the taxpayers money by providing her own travel means.  In short, the complaints are actually rather silly.

It's a different story with Price.  His department has chartered private planes for him something like ten times.  The travel people at HHS say that in order to meet his schedule, Price could not fly on commercial airlines on all occasions.  When there was time, he flew commercial, but when there was not, he went by private plane.  That seems reasonable to me.  Once again, it is not a major story.

Amazing

One of the members of the Board of Selectment in Greenwich, CT was arrested for shoplifting at a malls.  He allegedly took about $600 worth of items at two stores in an outlet mall in Clinton, CT.  Drew Marzullo has been the lone Democrat on the Board of Selectmen for the last eight years.  He is a candidate for re-election in November.  No plea has yet been entered in the case, and Marzullo was released on bail.

This mess is unlikely to change the election results in November.  Republican Peter Tesei, the First Selectman (equivalent to a mayor) is likely to re-elected once again.  Still, for those Democrats hoping for an upset in the traditionally Republican town in the age of Trump, news of the arrest must come as a major disaster.  I doubt if the voters in Greenwich will want to re-elect a selectman who is facing a trial for this crime, and that will most likely bring the entire Democrat ticket down.

The leadership in Greenwich is certainly not all that important for the nation.  Still, since each of the last three Republican presidents had strong ties to the town, it's worth noting.

So Did This Actually Happen?

There was some sort of explosion at a remote part of the airport in Damascus, Syria in the early hours this morning.  No one knows the cause.  The Syrians claim that it was a missile attack launched by Israeli planes flying over Israeli airspace.  The Israelis have not commented, but they never do in situations like this.  Also, it is a major holiday in Israel.

So did the Israelis really strike at some installation adjacent to the airport in the Syrian capital?  Who knows?  The holiday of Rosh Hashanah seems like a strange time for the Israelis to launch a strike, but that is far from conclusive.  After all, the Iranians could have decided that the holiday was the ideal time to transship weapons to Hezbollah through the airport in Damascus.  Israel would not refrain from hitting such a shipment even on the holiday.

If the Israelis did hit the airport, it should clearly demonstrate two things to both Assad and Iran.

1.  Israel has the ability to hit everything and anything within Syria, and it will not tolerate the shipment of weapons by Iran to Hezbollah.

2.  The Russians will do nothing to stop Israeli attacks on Iranian shipments in Syria.  That's important, since only the Russians and Americans really have the ability to launch a credible defense against such attacks by the IAF.

 

Will This Move Make A Difference?

President Trump took action once more against North Korea yesterday in the hopes of curtailing that nation's nuclear/missile program.  The nature of the move may have gotten lost in the swirl of harsh talk and insults coming from both sides.  Here, however, is the gist of the move:  Trump issued an Executive Order that authorizes the Department of the Treasury to impose sanctions on people and companies (including financial institutions) that do business with the North Koreans.  Right before the order was signed, the Secretary of the Treasury called his Chinese counterpart and informed him that the move was coming.  Most likely, this was previously discussed with China as well.  In response, the Bank of China directed Chinese banks to stop dealing with North Korea.

It's hard to overstate the impact of these moves if they continue in place and are observed.  Chinese banks provide the main financial link for the North Koreans to the rest of the world.  Chinese banks also finance North Korea's trade which is mainly with China.  With these banks out of the picture, it is likely that the bulk of North Korea's exports to and imports from China will stop.  Even foreign purchases of components needed for the NK missile programs will grind to a halt.  It's the ultimate financial squeeze on the NK's short of an embargo and blockade (which are acts of war.)

Kim Jung Un is someone who would be perfectly fine with starving his people in order to complete the missiles and nuclear weapons program.  At some point, however, he has to concern himself with the likelihood that the NK people will rise up and replace him and his cronies.  It may not come to that, but it ought, at a minimum, to be a concern for Kim. 

One thing is certain.  President Trump has achieved more in his confrontation with North Korea in six months than Obama, Bush or Clinton did in eight years.  Hopefully this will all get resolved, but if we end up in a war in Korea, it won't be because the President didn't try to avoid it.  There's no doubt that the anti-Trump media will condemn the President for some reason regarding this policy.  it doesn't matter what he does; they condemn him.  The American people, however, ought to understand just how well this has all been done.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Conjectures, Lies and Nonsense.....This Is CNN

I just watched an analysis presented on CNN regarding the potential impact should the Graham Cassidy healthcare bill pass Congress.  It was a joke.  In fact, it was so far from reality that one would expect that the CNN reporter couldn't present it without laughing.

Let me give an example.  Under Graham Cassidy, there would be block grants to states who will decide how to handle healthcare.  The exact breakdown among the states is not yet known, but CNN presented figures discussing how certain states would fare in three, five and ten years.  You could say it is amazing how CNN knows what will happen in California or Texas in 2030 under this bill when no one else does.  Or, you could say that CNN is just guessing.  Those are the nice ways of saying that CNN is presenting Fake News.

But it gets worse.  CNN didn't just tell us what federal funding for California would be in 2030, it also told the audience how supposed cuts in funding from currently expected levels would be handled by the state legislature.  That's right, CNN pretended to know how the future California legislature will deal with unknown funding levels received from the federal government.  It's totally Fake News.  It makes about as much sense as if CNN were to announce the winner of the 2028 presidential election in California despite the fact that no one knows who will run or what the issues will be in eleven years, and then, in addition, to tell us the percentages of the vote won by each of the unknown candidates.  It's not news, it's just pure fiction.

Foreign Policy or Domestic Politics

There's an article in Foreign Policy magazine declaring that President Trump's first year has been the worst ever for US foreign policy.  Let's take a look to see how accurate that assessment actually is.

We'll start with the big issues:

ISIS and Islamic terrorism.
1.  In his first eight months in office, the President has provided leadership that has smashed ISIS in its main areas in Syria and Iraq.  Mosul is no longer in control of ISIS.  Most of Raqqa has also been freed.  Many other cities and towns have also been liberated.  Trump's main change in the fight has been to free up the military from the total control imposed on it by president Obama.  This has allowed the military to act much more quickly to destroy ISIS targets once discovered.  That speed means that many more ISIS fighters and installations have been wiped out.  It seems likely that the Obama micromanagement style would also have ultimately defeated ISIS, but Trump has sped the process up.

2.  The President also got nearly all of the Sunni Muslim nations of the world to condemn Islamic terrorism at a meeting in Saudi Arabia last spring.  Obama wouldn't even talk about the problem, so this was a step forward.

3.  When Trump took office, the "experts" told us that he would be a major recruiting tool for ISIS and the other terrorists.  That has not turned out to be true.  The terrorists have not disappeared, but there are many fewer of them around the world.

North Korea
1.  Upon taking office, President Trump was faced with a nuclear armed North Korea on the verge of having fully operational ICBM's.  Obama had done nothing and then called it "strategic patience" so that he could seem erudite to the experts.  Trump has had to face the terrible mess left by Obama.  So far, the NK's continue to bluster and conduct tests of their weapons systems.  Trump has managed, however, to get China to participate in sanctions on the NK's for the first time.  The USA has also gotten the Security Council to impose strong measures against the NK's.  The tension has been ratcheted up, but this is a necessary part of any resolution that ends with a disarmed North Korean regime.

Western Hemisphere
1.  Relations between the USA and Venezuela and between the USA and Mexico are not as good as they were under Obama.  One reason for the decline in these relationships, of course, has been that Trump has not just ignored everything that Mexico and Venezuela do.  If Maduro takes an anti-democratic step in Caracas, Trump, unlike Obama, actually condemns it.  Trump also wants to cut off the free flow of illegals from Mexico into the USA.  This is certainly a switch in policy, but it is hard to call it a disaster.

Europe
1.  For all the efforts by the media to whip up some sort of confrontation between Europe and the USA, nothing of importance has actually happened.

Russia and China
1.  With regard to China, Trump has gotten a much more robust response from the Chinese than Obama ever got.  This has had some truly favorable outcomes as discussed above.  Russia is another story.  Under Obama, Russia took over Crimea.  Then Russia invaded eastern Ukraine.  Obama did nothing but watch.  Trump has been in office for eight months and there have not been any further Russian moves to take over Ukraine or other eastern European countries.  It remains to be seen whether or not Trump will do better with Putin that Obama did.

Put all this together and you find that Trump's first year has been quite successful when it comes to foreign policy.  The only people who disagree are the "experts" who are blinded by anti-Trump politics.

Permanent or "Temporary"

It seems as if the Senate GOP has made a rather sensible decision concerning tax reform.  The Republicans decided to accept a net tax cut of $1.5 trillion dollars over ten years in order to boost economic growth.  That, at least, is how the NY Times describes it.  According to the Times, the Republicans are ignoring our huge national debt and accepting that it will grow by 1.5 trillion bucks due to their "risky" tax cuts.  Of course, that's a highly partisan view of the decision by a Democrat paper that is doing its best to put the decision in a bad light.

Let's look at reality.  The tax cuts will only total $1.5 trillion if they get scored by the CBO using static methods.  The point of the tax cuts is to grow the economy more rapidly, but the CBO method assumes that there will be NO increase in growth due to these cuts.  That's like turning on the oven to 450 degrees and then assuming that the inside of the oven will remain cold.  The reality should be quite different.  In fact, if the tax cuts lead to an additional 1% in the annual growth rate over the next decade, federal tax receipts should be about $350 billion higher in year ten than projected by the CBO.  In fact, over the ten year period, the extra growth will be sufficient to pay for the tax cuts.

The problem, it seems, is the outmoded methodology of the CBO rather than the scope of the tax cuts.  Most likely, however, the Senate will be stuck with the CBO's method when it comes to scoring.  That will lead to the tax cuts being only "temporary".  In other words, they can only be put into effect for ten years.  Of course, ten years is like a lifetime in the world of taxation.  Businesses usually use a shorter time from when analyzing investments, so ten years is the same as forever in that regard.  Even real estate developers, who have perhaps the longest time horizon of any business use a ten year span for valuations.  Even more important, most businesses understand that it would be foolish to assume that taxes will stay the same over the next ten years.  They change all the time.  There have been significant changes in tax rates, deductions and the like periodically over the last 40 years.  Ten year limitations on new tax rates, etc. really won't make much of a difference in that regard.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

So The Tweet Was Correct??

Remember the uproar when President Trump tweeted that the Obama administration had bugged his campaign?  The media and the Democrats denounced the tweet as false.  "Where's the evidence?" they all screamed.  Media outlets like CNN reported on what they called the "unproven" or "false" allegations, and that was only when they were being nice.  In all of the response, it was considered outrageous that Trump would claim to have had his campaign bugged.

Now, CNN itself has reported that both before and after the election, the FBI was wiretapping Paul Manafort who, for part of the relevant time, was the chair of the Trump campaign.  If this report is correct, that means that President Trump's tweet was also correct.  We're not likely to hear much coverage of that sort; most in the media don't like to admit that they were very wrong.  Nevertheless, it's nice to know.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Can't Someone Tell Her to Go Away?

The Hill is reporting today that Hillary Clinton "won't rule out challenging the 2016 election" if it turns out that Russia played a significant roll in her defeat. 

It's sad.  Someone should tell her that the election was nearly a year ago, and that there is no way to challenge the result now.  The Electoral College met and voted and the result was certified by Congress.  That's the end of that, at least according to something called The United States Constitution.  Perhaps Hillary has heard of it.

Hillary lost.  Now she's out trying to sell books by blaming everyone but herself for that loss.  In the last month, it has been Obama's fault, Biden's fault, Russia's fault, fearful women dominated by their husband's fault, Jim Comey's fault, and the list goes on.  Hillary hasn't blamed me for her loss yet, but I think I am the only one she has overlooked.  After all, I did write some blog posts slamming her during the campaign.  I might have influenced a vote or two.

The strange thing is that Hillary needs to realize that her endless whining about her loss will not sell books.  All it does is reveal that Hillary is and surely was completely unfit to lead the nation.  All she cares about is herself.  I say again; it's sad.

Few Seem To Care About the Emmys

Last night's Emmy awards show had really poor ratings.  In the demo, the numbers were down 18% from last year, and last year's show was down from the year before.  This year's show may set a new all time low in the ratings for the Emmys.  It seems as if not that many people cared what the various TV personalities had to say or who won Best Performance by a Vegetable in a Cooking Show.  (In case you missed it, the winner was a rather large Turnip on Lydia's Italy.)

The numbers are still preliminary, so there could be some change, but it's highly unlikely to be big enough to rescue host Stephen Colbert from being the face of the biggest Emmy failure ever.

There ought to be a lesson to Hollywood in these results (and also from the terrible box office numbers of this past summer.)  Sadly, the Hollywood people will surely miss this.  Nevertheless, these people ought to understand that the half of America that supported President Trump really didn't want to tune in so that they could be insulted as racists, sexists, homophobes, and Islamophobes or to hear Trump bad mouthed for three hours.

Besides, even without the politics, does anyone still care about the Emmys?  Not many, it seems.

The Clarity of Fog

This morning, I saw two articles.  The first said that war with North Korea is inevitable.  The second said that having to live with North Korea as a nuclear power is inevitable.  To say the least, the two did not agree, but they each presented their point of view as the certain truth.

Let's get one thing straight:  no human being knows the future.  I was told yesterday by a friend that the world is going to end on Friday of this week.  I doubt that, but I really don't know.  Maybe it will.  Of course, in that event, one could ask why I am bothering to write this.  It's a good question with an easy answer.  I'll let you all figure it out.

We all have to be less certain about what the future will bring. 

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Looks Like Another Story to Cover Up

We know now that at least one of the two men arrested in connection with the London subway bombing is a Syrian refugee.  There's some stories on the web that say that the other person in custody is also a refugee from Syria, but this seems as of yet unconfirmed.  There are also news items that say that the one of the terrorists planting the bomb was under surveillance by Scotland Yard.

Do you realize what this means?  First, once again Europe has been attacked by refugees from Syria.  Those are just the people who President Trump has wanted to subject to "extreme vetting" and to keep out until a sufficient system for that vetting is in place.  For that reason alone, there is very little coverage of the identities and backgrounds of the men arrested in the UK.  Second, it means that President Trump's tweet about the bomber being on the radar of Scotland Yard was accurate.  Oh, the horror!  The media could not possibly tell us that Trump was correct and all the upset about the tweet was not just nonsense but erroneous nonsense.  No doubt editors are fainting at the newsrooms of the NY Times and Washington Post just thinking of the prospect of telling America the truth.

Don't worry.  They'll be fine.  Either they won't report the story or they will bury it on page 41 of the paper.

Time To Get A Grip on Reality About the President

The media is conducting an all out assault on the connection between President Trump and his base.  President Trump made a deal on the debt ceiling, government funding etc. with the Democrats.  Then he met with Pelosi and Schumer and made progress on a resolution to the DACA issue as well as funding for border security.  Those are the facts.

Then there are these items:
1.  Pelosi and Schumer indicated that the border wall was not to be part of the DACA deal.  The media went crazy with this, and all manner of Republicans and Trump supporters had an angry or upset reaction.  The White House then made clear that there was no such agreement to end the push for a border wall.  We had a few days of confusion, but Trump has said that he was still committed to the border wall.  The GOP response died down.

2.  Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that unnamed sources in Europe said that the USA was no longer going to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord.  The White House immediately put out a statement saying that the story was untrue.  There was no major reaction among the Trump base because the White House response was so quick and the media did not have time to build the story up into a big deal.  It is rather shocking that the Wall Street Journal would print a story based upon an anonymous foreign source without even getting a White House comment first.

There's more, but the new story line is from the media is that Trump is abandoning his base.  It's ridiculous.  Indeed, it's totally ridiculous.  There's no indication that Trump is doing anything other than something many other presidents have done, that is talk to and make deals with the other side.  Bill Clinton was known for triangulation which was moving towards the Republican position on many issues to get things done.  Ronald Reagan often said that if he could get 80% of what he wanted and had to give way on 20%, it was a major victory.  The country, however, has gotten used to the aberrant way that Obama operated.  With few exceptions, Obama never considered the GOP position or made deals with Republican leaders.  Since the GOP controlled at least one house of Congress except for Obama's first two years, the result was gridlock.  Nothing major got done during Obama's last six years.  That's why Obama started issuing all of his unconstitutional executive orders.  Trump is going back to a more normal method of operation by a president. 

Of course, Trump is returning to the norm in his own unique style and in the face of a major campaign of hate against him by the media.  Still, this is not something that should give rise to all the hysteria.  It's time for everyone to get a grip on reality about the President.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Another Word on Global Warming and Hurricanes

It's been a bad year for hurricanes because of two major storms:  Harvey and Irma.  Those were the first major hurricanes to hit the USA in 12 years.  That dearth of strikes by major hurricanes is the longest period without one in recorded history.  Despite that record period without hurricanes, the media and even many of the "experts" were quick to blame the two latest hurricanes on climate change.

It's worth going back a bit to look at what the climate scientists and those pushing the global warming position have said about hurricanes over the years and their connection with global warming.

Back when Al Gore made his first movie and started really pushing the idea of man made global warming, the "settled science" was that rising temperatures would cause more and stronger storms.

When Katrina hit New Orleans and Rita hit Texas in 2005, there was a chorus of global warming supporters who kept shouting "We told you so!"  It was the beginning of the end; super strong hurricanes were now here to stay.  They said that even though for the last century, a major hurricane has hit the USA on average about every 4 years.

After Katrina, we had 12 years with no major hurricane strikes.  That was contrary to the "settled science".  It did not present much of a problem; the global warming supporters just changed "settled science."  If you go back just a year or two, you can find a series of articles explaining that global warming actually causes FEWER hurricanes, but stronger ones.  For example, here's the link to an article by the Weather Channel discussing a new study that determined that we would no longer have as many hurricanes each year but that they would have maximum winds about 3 MPH faster.  In years with unusually warm sea temperatures we would have many fewer hurricanes than the average total (12) per year.

Now we are here in 2017, and the hurricane season is half over.  In fact, September 15 is usually designated as the peak of the season.  Sea surface temperatures have been much warmer than average, so the "settled science" from last year predicts that we should have many fewer than 12 hurricanes for the entire season.  So how many hurricanes have there been?  The latest one is Hurricane Lee which just formed.  It is storm number 12 of 2017.  That's right, instead of having many fewer than 12 hurricanes for an entire season, we have had 12 with half the hurricane season left to go. [UPDATE: in the few hours since I wrote this piece, yet another named storm appeared in the Atlantic.  That means we already have 13 in only half a year.]

Have you heard anyone report on why there are so many hurricanes this year when the "settled science" says that there ought to be many fewer?  Have you heard anyone who tells us that Harvey and Irma were so destructive because of global warming mention that these monsters were, on average, only 3 MPH stronger due to that effect?  Of course not.  Now that we finally have two monster hurricanes, we are still being told that both of them were wholly the result of global warming.

It never fails to amaze me just how dishonest the global warming community is in pushing its theories.  Don't get me wrong; there may be warming.  It would not be a surprise since the Earth has been warmer than now for most of the last million years (to the extent we can determine it.)  Nor is it beyond belief that human activity is contributing to global warming, although there is nothing that so indicates as of yet.  We do know, however, that all those computer models on which global warming prophecies are based have been proven wrong.  "Settled science" is nothing more than a widely held belief in an unproven belief based upon extremely faulty computer simulations.

Before we reconstitute our economy and way of life to deal with man-made global warming, we ought to first get some valid proof that the phenomenon actually exists.

What Is News?

Yesterday, there was a terror attack in the London subway in which a bomb placed in a white plastic bucket filled with nails exploded.  Fortunately, only the detonator blew up; the main explosive failed to ignite.  Nevertheless, about two dozen people were injured.

What do you think is the big news of the day regarding the London terror attack?  Here are four potential stories.

1.  British police have arrested an 18 year old male in Dover as he was attempting to leave the country.  He remains unidentified, but police believe him to be the bomber.

2.  The UK government raised the threat level to indicate that another terror attack is "imminent".

3.  Across Europe there were three other terror attacks yesterday.

4.  President Trump tweeted "Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.  These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard.  We must be proactive." 

So I ask again, which of these four stories do you think was featured prominently on page one of today's New York Times?  That's right, it was choice number 4, the tweet by the President.  The article discussed how the British prime minister, when first asked about the tweet, said that it was "unhelpful".  The focus at the Times is not on the terror attack, but rather on the tweet.

Somehow, I think that the people at the Times cannot get past their hatred for the President so that they can cover the actual news.

Friday, September 15, 2017

What A Difference A President Makes

The State Department announced yesterday that the Trump administration supports passage of the Taylor Force Act.  For those of you who have never heard of this bill, it provides that the USA will not give foreign aid to governments that reward terrorists or their families for their actions.  Specifically, the Taylor Force Act would cut off much of the aid given to the Palestinian Authority unless it stops paying monthly pensions to terrorists and their families.

Taylor Force was an American graduate of West Point who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist while visiting Israel.  His family was outraged that the Palestinian Authority was rewarding Taylor's murderer and his family with a pension.  As a result, the Taylor Force Act was introduced into Congress some years ago.  President Obama opposed passage of the act, so it never moved forward.  Obama thought that having the Palestinian Authority reward terrorists who killed Americans was just something that the USA had to accept.  Fortunately, President Trump disagrees.  America will no longer give money to the Palestinians which they can then use to pay rewards to terrorists who kill Americans.

Hopefully, support from the White House will lead to the quick passage of the Taylor Force Act. 

Disaster Tourism

Many years ago, my national guard unit was activated to help deal with some really serious flooding after a hurricane.  In a town with 5500 homes, all but 2 had been flooded with many being totally submerged.  By the time my unit got to the town, two days had passed since the end of the storm; the waters had mostly receded.  We spent days going house to house helping homeowners cart all of their belongings as well as waterlogged parts of their houses onto huge trucks.  The refuse was then taken to a nearby deep mine where it was dumped.  It was a terrible tragedy to watch all these people lose everything, but at least we were helping.

I mention this story because the biggest problem we faced during the clean up effort came from disaster tourists.  These were people who lived in other areas who were coming to see how badly the flood had affected areas that had been hit.  Within a day or so after we got started with the cleanup effort, the problem of disaster tourists got so bad that we set up roadblocks outside town and stopped anyone who was not a resident from entering.  After a few days, we took down the roadblocks, but the disaster tourists came flocking back and we had to shut down entry again.

I was reminded of this problem of disaster tourism by a story I just heard on the news.  New York's governor Andrew Cuomo is on a trip to the US Virgin Islands to survey the damage from Hurricane Irma.  Why did he go?  Think about it.  The governor of NY has nothing to do with the Virgin Islands except for the possible occasional vacation there.  New York will not take any actions with regard to dealing with the disaster.  On top of that, having the governor of NY in the Virgin Islands will distract the relief teams from their efforts on the islands.  Do the people in Charlotte Amalie really need to have a motorcade for Cuomo breeze through their city and interrupt the relief effort just so that Cuomo can see the damage first hand?

Even worse, we all know that the only reason that Cuomo is going to the islands is because he wants to run for president in 2020.  This trip is meant to portray Cuomo as a caring individual; it's a long photo-op in anticipation of the campaign.  It's a rather cynical move in which Cuomo gets positive press despite the fact that he disrupts the ongoing clean up work.

Someone should have told Cuomo to stay home.  It might not help the islanders, but at least it wouldn't add to their problems.

Some Confusion At Harvard

Yesterday, the Harvard School of Government announced that Chelsea Manning was being named a "fellow" of the school and would be speaking there soon.  The response was predictable, although it seems to have come a shock to Harvard.  Manning, of course, spent seven years in prison for stealing national security secrets and making them available on line to the public and to America's enemies.  Then, at the end of his term, president Obama commuted the rest of Manning's sentence.  During that seven years, Bradley Manning, the male soldier who was convicted of this crime, transitioned to Chelsea Manning, the female felon who Obama freed.  And, of course, the huge cost for the sex reassignment surgery was paid for by the American taxpayer. 

When the naming of Manning as a fellow was announced, a former head of the CIA who was also a fellow at Harvard resigned that position.  He said he could not continue in his position at a school that would honor a person who so severely and intentionally endangered this country.  Then the current head of the CIA withdrew from an upcoming appearance at Harvard.  No doubt, many others also contacted the school to express outrage and, perhaps, threaten to stop contributions to the school.

This morning Harvard relented, but in a way only Harvard could.  The dean of the school of government announced that Chelsea Manning would no longer be a named a fellow of the school.  She would still appear to speak to the students, however.  In other words, Harvard and Manning will still proceed as planned, but Manning would no longer be called a fellow.

I'm a graduate of Harvard Law School.  I well know the Harvard ethos and the superiority complex that so permeates the campus.  No doubt, the dean of the school of government did not even consider that Manning's appointment as a fellow and the invitation for Manning to speak might be controversial.  Who could object?  After all, in normal liberal parlance, Manning is a victim.  She is a transgender individual.  She has to be considered a victim, right?  And if she's a victim, anything that gets done to "help" her has to be a good thing, right?  At least, in the normal leftwing view that so courses through the veins of most people at Harvard, no other conclusion is even conceivable. 

Indeed, it is the normal leftwing view that we see at work with Harvard's "correction" of its mistake in naming Manning a fellow.  The dean throws a bone to those upset about his action which he still sees as clearly correct.  He doesn't change what is happening, just how it will be described.  It's a classic leftwing action, a belief that words matter more than actions.  A terror attack in Benghazi is somehow not so bad because the administration says it was just a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video.  A terror attack at a nightclub in Florida kills 50, but it's not so bad because it was carried out by a lone wolf rather than a terrorist.  The Syrian government launches 17 chemical weapons attacks on its own people, but we need not respond because the president says we don't have sufficient proof that there really was such an attack.  Fortunately, the "words are enough" crowd is not in the White House anymore, but the legacy lives on at Harvard.

Manning ought not be speaking at Harvard.  Would they bring in Charles Manson to speak on population control through murder?  Will they bring in O.J. Simpson to speak on ways to have better marital relations?  Maybe they can bring in Nidal Hassan to speak on the psychological benefits of reducing the size of the military.

The pressure on Harvard ought not end.