Once More In Mass

Not to be outdone, the state of Massachusetts is getting into the sexual harassment mess.  According to the Boston Globe, four men have come forward to say that they have been molested by the husband of the leader of the State Senate.  Both the guy who heads the senate and his husband claim that they have no knowledge about the alleged incidents.  It will be interesting to see if the claims by men against a gay man will be treated differently from those made by women in the last few weeks.
Oh, and let's not forget that this is yet another Democrat caught in this harassment mess.

Maybe Conyers will Actually Go

This morning, both Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan called on John Conyers to resign.  Just three days ago, Pelosi was defending Conyers as an "icon" and claiming that the women accusing him of misconduct were unknown to her.  Suddenly, Pelosi says that the accusations are serious and credible.  Meanwhile, Conyers went into the hospital today.

What's going on?  The claims against Conyers must be really serious stuff if Pelosi has suddenly changed sides on the dispute.  The Democrat leader is not a genius but she always knows which way the wind is blowing.  For her to take on the senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus means that there is some really much more dangerous stuff that she knows but the public has not yet been told.  This is Pelosi trying to get out in front of the story (in my opinion.)

The truth is that Conyers is not the real issue here.  The true issue is Franken and Moore in the Senate.  It's looking more and more like Moore will win in Alabama.  There is no way that the Democrats could try to prevent Moore from entering the Senate if they leave Conyers in place in the House.  But that plan also puts Franken at risk.  And one has to wonder how many more senators and representatives are on the short list for expulsion if the payments from the congressional slush fund are made public.  $17 million buys a lot of silence about a lot of misconduct.  What if it turns out that some other big name Democrats are on that list, people like Schumer or Hoyer or even Obama?  We just have no idea now who is on the list, but it's going to be big news once it breaks.

UPDATE:  Jim Clyburn, the congressman who defended Conyers by noting that all his accusers were white and who then compared the women to a murderer, has now joined the chorus calling for Conyers to resign.  There really must be some awful stuff there.

Which One To Write About?

Two things just happened:  1.  Russell Simmons stepped down from his job after allegations of sexual harassment; and 2.  John McCain just announced he will vote for the tax reform bill.  McCain's decision pretty much clinches that the bill will pass the Senate.  It is a great victory for America and should move economic growth to a much higher level.  On the other hand, Simmons' resignation is not really important other than as the latest man (and Democrat/liberal) exposed as a sexual harasser.  The tax bill will have a lasting effect on the American people for decades.  Simmons will be news for a day or so and then will disappear from the consciousness of all but a very few people.

The media is covering Simmons to a much greater extent than McCain.  It figures!

Adventures In Harassment -- Thursday Edition

Since there seems to be no news that the media wants to cover other than sexual harassment charges or some way to attack President Trump, I thought it might be worth updating today's developments.

1.  A fifth woman has come forward to accuse senator Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat, of groping her.  She was in the military when Franken came to her base on a USO tour about a decade ago.  When she asked if she could take a picture with Franken, he put his arm around her and grabbed her breast.  She says she was so shocked that she froze but now that all the other stories have come out she wants to add hers to the list.  There's no reaction from the Senate or the Democrat Party.

2.  Matt Lauer says he's sorry.  Maybe I missed something, but one woman claims he forced her to have sex.  Sorry doesn't cut it when what happened qualifies as rape.  We will have to wait for all the facts to come out.

3.  Representative John Conyers says he has not decided to retire from the House, contrary to reports.  James Clyburn, a prominent Democrat member of the Congressional Black Caucus announced that he is suspicious of the charges against Conyers because all the women involved are white.  Clyburn also compared the women accusing Conyers to a woman who murdered her children but first told police that a black man had done it.   Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leader, said a few days ago that Conyers was an icon and that she didn't know who any of the accusers are.  Now, she says she spoke to one of the accusers and sees no reason not to believe her.  (I'm waiting for the guy from the Congressional Black Caucus to point out the Pelosi is white.)

4.  In Alabama, Roy Moore, the GOP senate candidate has moved back into the lead in the polls against the Democrat in the special election to be held in two weeks.  Moore continues to deny the validity of the claims of three women who accuse him of wrongdoing 40 years ago.  Gloria Allred, attorney for one of the women, continues to refuse to produce the yearbook supposedly signed by Moore 40 years ago, a signature that Moore's people say is a forgery.  Testing that signature would go a long way towards determining if the woman's story is true.

5.  CNN fired a senior producer yesterday for misconduct.  It's not even worth going into the details.  This is the 16th or 17th prominent liberal media/political person caught up in the sexual harassment storm.  So far Moore is the only Republican named.  The media used to focus only on him, but now there are just too many Democrats/liberals to ignore.

We will have to wait for today's list until later.  No doubt there will be a few more added by tonight. 

Burrowing Should Be Stopped

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee wrote today to the Office of Personnel Management to get information on how a political appointee at OPM became a senior career staffer at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.  Leandra English was appointed by President Obama to the OPM and worked as chief of staff for the director of that agency.  Just ten days before the end of the Obama Administration, that same director approved a request to make English a career, civil service appointee at the CFPB.  In taking that step, the director of OPM allowed Ms English to bypass the civil service exams and to leapfrog over a large number of civil service employees at CFPB.  To make matters worse, once Ms English got to CFPB, the director of that agency promoted her on multiple occasions and named her deputy director last week just as he was resigning from his own position.  Suddenly a political appointee from the Obama presidency was being placed into a controlling position at CFPB and given civil service protection.  The whole point of the civil service is to keep federal employees non-partisan so as to keep politics out of the process.

Of course, almost immediately after being appointed deputy director, Ms English brought suit to try to bar the actual acting director appointed by the President from taking office.  She claimed that she was, in fact, the acting director.  That claim was quickly rejected by a federal judge in DC, but it does show the lengths to which Ms. English would go to try to keep political control of CFPB.

Even worse than all this, however, is that Ms. English refuses to divulge who paid the legal fees generated in connection with her lawsuit.  It is illegal for a government employee to take gifts from people in connection with a government matter.  Any cash or in-kind contribution received by English was illegal, and if there were such contributions, Ms. English could be criminally liable.

The chair of the Senate committee asked for all sorts of documents regarding what transpired with Ms. English.  Hopefully, that request will be complied with quickly and fully.

The War on Women May Be Coming to an End

Garrison Keillor got fired by Minnesota Public broadcasting today for sexual improprieties towards female coworkers.  Keillor was the star of the Prairie Home Companion show for many years.  He put forth a show of folksy albeit left-wing charm.  The details of the charges made against Keillor have not yet been made public, so we really don't know what he allegedly did.  This makes 16 prominent media personalities -- all liberal Democrats -- who have been sacked after charges surfaced against them.  Add to that number the Hollywood celebs who have been brought down (again all liberal Democrats) and the members of Congress and the Senate similarly afflicted (again all liberal Democrats).  The only Republican in the mix has been Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore who vehemently denies the allegations.  And of course, we can't forget the granddaddy of all sexual harassers, Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary who led the charge to destroy any woman who would dare to accuse Bill of misconduct.

I mention the affiliations of the men accused of sexual harassment (and worse) towards women because it is important to remember that for the last six years the Democrats (including many of those accused) have been screaming about the supposed Republican War on Women.  The truth is now coming out.  The real War on Women was being conducted by the Democrats in Washington, Hollywood and the media.

If you are one of those people who accepted as true that Republicans were warring against women, take a moment to consider the validity of that charge in light of all that has now come out into the light.  Remember who in the media has been pushing that narrative.  Remember all those Democrat pols who have been spewing those lies.  Next time remember to be a bit more cynical when it comes to the motives and the (lack of ) honesty of the Democrats.

Lost In The Forest

This morning, there is news that North Korea now proclaims itself a full nuclear power with missiles able to hit anywhere in the USA to deliver atomic weapons.  There is also news that the GDP growth in the third quarter hit 3.3% even despite hurricanes Harvey and Irma which cut that growth; this is the best quarter in a number of years and it follows another quarter of good growth, something that is just a distant memory from pre-Obama days.  Oh, and Matt Lauer was fired by NBC.  So what gets the big news coverage?  The answer is Matt Lauer and his sexcapades.  The two stories that will impact the lives of all Americans (one very good and one very bad) are all but ignored.  We have to hear coverage of what some highly paid media phony did as he pushed supposed support for women while allegedly sexually harassing them as if none of his public positions meant anything to him.  Is it really a big story to hear that Lauer is just another Charlie Rose?  The media seems too taken with itself to report the real news.

No Surprise; Mulvaney is the Acting Director According to Court

A federal judge in DC has ruled that President Trump's pick to be acting director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is indeed to be seated in that role.  A woman who had been 'named" as deputy director by the prior director when he resigned a few days ago brought the suit seeking an emergency order to accept her as the proper acting directory.  She has now lost and the judge held that she was unlikely to be successful on the merits.

The decision today is not appealable at the moment.  There will need to be further proceedings before any appeal will be possible.  In all likelihood, that will take a while and by that time a new director will be nominated and confirmed by the Senate, something that will make this case moot.

The outcome today is not a surprise.  Even the general counsel of the agency itself sided with the Trump appointee, and that counsel is a Democrat named to his position by the prior director.  More important, the interpretation pushed by the losing side would have made the agency one that was not subject to any control by the Executive or Legislative branch of the federal government.  Simply put, that would be unconstitutional.

Today"s Chuck and Nancy Nonsense

Washington is coming up to another of those government shutdown deadlines.  The spending authority for the federal government ends on December 8th unless Congress passes another spending bill.  As a result, the whole performance of the Democrats and Republicans on spending is beginning once again to play out.  The show began today with the Democrats' leaders boycotting a meeting they were supposed to hold with President Trump and the Republican leaders at the White House.  The stated reason for the boycott is that the President tweeted this morning that he couldn't see a deal with the Democrats because they are soft on crime, want unlimited immigration, and want to raise taxes.  Oh, the horror!  Nothing Trump said was new.  Indeed, all that the President said was the opposite of what the Democrats say on a non-stop basis.  We've all heard Democrats shout that the GOP is against all immigrants, won't act to stop gun crimes, and want to raise taxes on the poor to give the money to the rich.  These political positions on both sides have been stated and restated for months if not years.  They really cannot be the reason that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi decided to boycott the White House meeting.  In fact, the political positions are just an excuse.

So is this a good move by Schumer and Pelosi?  Will they be able to get their agenda enacted by threatening a government shutdown?  Strangely, I don't think it will work this time.  The Democrats have made a career of blaming the GOP for any government shutdown, but they are in a difficult position this time.  Indeed, they may not realize just how difficult a position they face.

First of all, President Trump has already started to position the Republicans so that the Democrats will get the blame they deserve if the government shuts down.  Trump announced that with the firing of the North Korean ICBM, America has to have full funding for its military.  Will the Democrats really want to shut down the government and leave the armed forces unfunded?  I doubt it.  Moreover, there even the issue of not showing up for the meeting today.  It's hard to make yourself seem reasonable when you boycott meetings designed to arrange for funding the government.

Second and more important, the President has the ability to use a shutdown to truly slam the priorities of the Democrats.  If the government funding is not passed, federal law provides that the President decides which government programs are "critical" and need to continue in operation.  In essence, President Trump decides what gets funded and what does not.  Imagine a government shutdown where the EPA, the Consumer Finance agency, and all the favorites of the liberals get shut down completely.  On the other hand, Trump can fund the military for the most part as well as ICE and Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies.  The funding for Planned Parenthood would be stopped.  So too would the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts as well as most of the grants to various academics across America who are studying things like the sex lives of women at college.  All those groups that support the Democrats would see their funding shut off.  I doubt that the Democrats would want to see this cut off continue for very long.

Third, in the current environment, the Democrats will not be able to control the narrative of the shut down.  When Obama was in office, he pushed the line of blaming the GOP and got major coverage.  With Trump in the White House, that platform for generating news will push against the Democrats instead.

My prediction is that there will be no shut down.  Still, if I am incorrect and there is one, I don't think it will end very well for the Democrats.

The GOP Tax Plan Passes Out Of Committee

The Senate Finance Committee passed the tax reform bill today.  The vote was 12 to 11; it was a straight party line vote.  The next step is for the measure to be debated and voted upon in the full Senate.

It's sad that not a single Democrat voted to advance the bill.  After all, this is a bill that should greatly speed up economic growth across the country.  That growth will help everyone.  It will be good for those who need jobs.  It will be good for those who want raises.  It will be good for those who invest.  It will be good for American companies that have to compete with foreign competitors.  In fact, just about everyone will benefit.

So how can it be that not a single Democrat will vote for this bill?  Are they all so stuck in the mindset that private corporations are the "enemy" that they don't want to help US firms grow faster?  Are they all so desperate to regain power that they prefer to stick with lies about who will benefit rather than look at the actual facts?

North Korea Launches An ICBM -- Media Covers "Pocahontas"

This afternoon, the North Koreans lauched their latest missile test.  This time, the data indicates that the missile was an ICBM, a missile capable of hitting the continental USA.  We don't know if these missiles are capable of carrying a North Korean nuclear weapon, but if they're not, we are only a few months away from the NKs getting that capability.  After years and years during which the USA did nothing to stop the North Korean nuclear missile program, we have reached the terrible moment when the NK's gain that capability. Eight years of inaction under Obama has put the burden of the response on President Trump.  It all boils down to one simple question:  do we accept a North Korea that has the capability to kill tens of millions of Americans in one day, or do we go to war?  There are countless variations of this question, but ultimately, it is the final question.

So in the face of this major crisis, what is the media covering?  No surprise there; the mainstream media is still focused on President Trump calling Senator Warren Pocahontas and it remains worried that this name might indicate racial bias.  That's right; life and death decisions must be made by the President, but the media is consumed by a phony issue manufactured by a woman who lied about having Native American roots.

Luis Gutierrez Leaving Congress

Democrat Luis Gutierrez is leaving Congress.  The representative from Illinois announced that he will not run for re-election.  No one is quire sure why the sudden departure came about.  There is speculation that he may have a problem like John Conyers and Al Franken, but that is all it is: just speculation.

Gutierrez has been a generally disagreeable congressman who spends more time denouncing people on networks like MSNBC than on actually accomplishing anything.  All I can say is "good riddance".

It is worth noting that I have yet to see an article discussing how this departure is an indicator of the declining prospects for the Democrats in 2018.  Whenever a Republican congressman retires, we always get such articles.  It's a staple of the media narrative.

The War On Warren - Or - The Surfeit of Slurs

Senator Elizabeth Warren has come forward today to denounce President Trump for using a racial "slur" to describe her.  Most of the mainstream media is in full melt-down mode about it too.  So what did the President say?  He called Warren "Pocahontas".  If you're not certain, Pocahontas was the daughter of the chief of the tribe that met the English settlers at Jamestown in the early 1600s in Virginia.  She helped the settlers and has been honored since that time.  Disney went so far as to make an animated movie about Pocahontas a few years back.  Now, however, the President's use of the name to describe Warren is denounced as a racial "slur".  It isn't.  Trump was not demeaning any racial group by using the name Pocahontas.  Instead, the President was calling out Warren for her phony claims that she is a Native American.  Warren claimed to be a Cherokee about the time that she first tried to get employment on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.  That phony claim is said to have cinched the deal for Warren to get hired at Penn.  When Warren switched jobs to work at Harvard Law School, she continued with the lies about her ethnic identity.  Harvard even identified her as the Law School's first professor who is a "woman of color."

When a woman running a local NAACP branch in Washington state turned out to be white after trying to pass herself off as black, she was condemned and disgraced.  That woman is said to have had mental problems that led to her assumed identity.  When a white woman trying to get a job at a law school falsely claims to be a Cherokee in order to gain preference in hiring and that is disclosed, she is neither condemned or disgraced.  This very intentional deception instead is supposed to be ignored.  Indeed, when the President calls out this liar for her phony claim of being Native American, her response is that President Trump is using a racial "slur".

Calling senator Warren "Pocahontas" is not a racial slur; not even close!  She's just a liar who has been caught and is trying to deflect attention from the truth.  Her friends in the media are helping her with this effort.  It's disgraceful.  They all should be ashamed. 

Hillary in China

For quite a while, everytime I've seen a story about Hillary Clinton and her latest excuse for losing in 2016 (I think the last one had something to do with extraterrestrials and mind control), my reaction has been to wonder why she doesn't just go away.  I doubt that my thoughts had anything to do with it, but Hillary indeed has gone away.  She's now in China speaking at a major conference in Beijing.  Her main topic was North Korea.

First, let's start with the elephant in the room.  I have yet to see an article discuss how much Mrs. Clinton got paid for her speech.  No doubt, it was a big payday for her.  I would put the over/under at $250,000 plus expenses.

Back to the speech.  Hillary told the assemblage that the USA and even China were being too hard on North Korea.  She called for a softer approach in order to avoid a war.  Get it?  The woman who ran foreign policy for four years during which America took no action against the North Korean and they, in turn, continued building nuclear weapons and missiles, thinks that going back to that policy would be a good thing.  According to Hillary, we would all be better off just letting Kim Jung Un have nukes and missiles so that he could take out a few American cities if he ever felt the need.

What amazes me is not that Hillary holds this view.  After all, right now Hillary's main point of reference is to oppose anything that President Trump is doing.  If the President came out for a softer North Korean policy, Hillary would no doubt call for war.  We know that Mrs. Clinton is not speaking from her own convictions.  The only bedrock principle that Hillary holds is doing what is good for her no matter what is right.  (And using conviction in a sentence with Hillary tends to make her nervous for obvious reasons.)

I am, however, surprised that Hillary would use a Chinese conference to confront the Chinese cooperation with President Trump to stop the North Korean missile program.  After all, these days those high price speaking engagements for the Clintons don't grow on trees.  I'm really surprised that she would jeopardize a return engagement by criticizing President Xi's policies.

More "Truth" about the Mainstream Media -- This Time CBS News

The pontificating left-wing punditry that pretends to "report" the news over at CBS just got another black eye.  This time the blow came in the form of a lawsuit brought by a long time news division employee for the CBS Evening News and then the weekend edition of that same show.  According to reports, this woman was advised by her boss at CBS News that the way to get ahead there was for her to sleep with her co-workers.  She reported this "advice", but nothing was done.  Instead, the guy who gave her the advice was promoted.  There were other instances like that one, but you get the picture.

The reality is that, assuming the allegations are true, CBS News was busy lecturing America about sexism etc. while at the same time running a boys club that never gave women any position of authority.  It sounds a lot like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton and their "support" for women's causes.

The Strange Response to Conyers

Two prominent Democrats in Washington have been condemned by women as sexual harassers and abusers.  Senator Franken of Minnesota and Congressman Conyers of Michigan have been accused of misconduct and those accusations spread in the media.  It's been interesting, however, to see the difference in the media reaction to the two stories.

First let's talk about what is alleged.  Franken is on film groping a sleeping woman during a USO tour some years ago.  He is also alleged to have repeatedly groped other women, supposedly in jest (according to Franken).  There is no way to deny the photograph, so Franken apologized.  Franken also apologized for the other instances but claims he remembers them differently.  Conyers is said to have fired a staffer after she refused his sexual advances.  He paid the woman a substantial settlement when she filed a claim, but Conyers says it is for severance pay rather than for damages due to sexual misconduct.  Other staffers and women who worked with Conyers have also accused him of making improper advances or meeting with them when he was in his underwear.  The conduct is alleged to have gone on for many years.

So, which of the two is worse?  Is it Franken's groping or Conyers demands for sex?  They're both clearly wrong, but I think it's pretty clear that what Conyers did is worse.  After all, Franken can say with a straight face that he was just joking.  I don't believe him, but it's at least plausible.  Conyers and his conduct was no joke under any circumstances.

And which story has gotten more coverage?  Again, the answer is clear:  Franken.  To be clear, the media has not covered either story with the missionary zeal used in the attacks against Roy Moore.  Moore, of course, is the GOP candidate for senate in Alabama who is accused by three women of sexual misconduct.  I get why the Republican is the subject of relentless media attack and the Democrats are not.  It's just regular media bias.  But why is Franken nevertheless subject to much more negative coverage than Conyers?  Franken may be a senator and Conyers a congressman, but that doesn't explain the difference.  Conyers has great seniority and is the ranking member of an important committee.  Franken makes a lot of noise but holds little power in the Senate.  If anything, Conyers is the more important target.

My guess about why Franken is covered and Conyers gets something of a pass is that Conyers is African American.  Many in the media do not want to be accused of being racist by providing negative coverage for Conyers, so they hold back.  Just today, Nancy Pelosi was defending Conyers on TV.  She too does not want her actions labeled as "racist", so she's calling for a presumption of innocence.  Just imagine Pelosi saying the same thing about Roy Moore.  Okay, that may be too difficult to do, but you get the picture.

I don't know if Conyers actually did any of the things of which he is accused.  It ought not be too difficult to ascertain, however, since the main claim of wrongdoing was settled under the auspices of the House itself.  There should be records that can be reviewed here to see who is telling the truth.

 

Explaining Net Neutrality

There's a great deal of nonsense being spouted lately about New Neutrality and the coming horror of it's undoing.  Net Neutrality sounds like some bit of equality on the internet.  The left picked a good name when they came up with Net Neutrality, but the reality is that the concept has little to do with equality.  The issue really is Net Control.  From the creation of the internet until 2015, the internet was unregulated.  People, companies and ideas competed on the net with no overarching body or law telling them what they could or could not do.  Since the left hates anything that is not regulated by the government, they found a problem where there was none.  As a result, they demanded internet regulation which they named Net Neutrality.  Net Neutrality has the government pick winners and losers on the net.  Internet providers like cable companies or others that sell high speed internet service were pushed into the government's regulatory net.  The government tells those companies under Net Neutrality how they are to charge for their services.  This bars innovation and slows growth.  Remember dial-up internet connections?  Somehow that slow service was replaced by faster and faster service across America without Net Neutrality.  Today, however, the Democrats and the others on the left who want the government to regulate everything are telling us that unless the regulations continue, the entire internet will fall apart.  Washington has decided that the content providers should hold an advantage over those who provide the actual internet connection, but that will be lost if Net Neutrality goes.

It's worth keeping in mind the history of the internet and how well it has developed and functioned the next time someone tells you about how horrible life on Earth will be without Net neutrality.

The Whine Tour of America

The Senate is going to vote on the GOP tax bill this week.  For quite some time now, the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have been whining about this group or that group that will be "hurt" by the tax plan.  We hear from the Dems that the tax plan will take money from the poor to give to the rich even though that is not true.  At the same time we hear from the same people that a move to end the tax for not having health insurance which is paid 80% by poor people ought not be ended because it will cause millions to lose their health insurance.  That too is false.  No one will "lose" health insurance.  Some will choose not to have it, but that's a choice not a loss.  Indeed, according the Dems and their media allies, nearly six million people on Medicaid will "lose" coverage.  That one claim shows how ridiculous the Democrat position really is.  Medicaid costs the recipient nothing; it's free.  Nevertheless, the Dems claim that by eliminating the tax for not having health insurance, six million people will be forced to give up their free coverage even though nothing but the tax has changed.  Think about it.  Suppose you lived in an apartment rent free and the tax law was changed in a way that would let you be homeless without paying a tax.  Would you move onto the streets?  Do you think six million people would make that choice?  It's absurd.

The problem with the Democrat opposition to the tax plan is that they say almost nothing about the effect of the plan on the nation as a whole.  Oh, a few of them claim that the federal deficit will get larger, but that rings about as true as a bunch of heroin addicts denouncing the addictive nature of tobacco.  There are also a few who try to claim that a tax cut won't increase economic growth, but we already know that they are wrong.  Each tax cut in the last sixty years has boosted growth, some quite considerably.  The reality is that the tax cuts and reform will give America and the American people a big boost towards increased prosperity.  Will some people do better than others?  The answer is surely yes, just as has been the case in the last eight years under Obama.  Remember, during the paltry Obama "recovery", something like 90% of the gains went to the richest 10% of the population.  In other words, Obama ran a recovery that benefitted the rich at the expense of the poor.  Those Democrat policies are exactly what the GOP tax cuts are designed to reverse.  A successful tax reform will result in millions of additional jobs for all those people who have given up and left the work force.  It will result in wage gains for the average American worker, something that Obama couldn't achieve ever.  Most important, the tax reform will bring greater prosperity to ALL Americans.  It will be good for the country as a whole.  For once, it would be nice for the Democrats to deal with the entire country rather than trying to divide us into warring factions for political gain.

It's time for everyone to call their senators and tell them to vote for the tax bill.

Finally Some Sense in Afghanistan

For the last 16 years, the USA has been fighting in Afghanistan.  When he ran for president, Barack Obama called the Afghan fighting a war of necessity.  Nevertheless, in all that time, the USA never made a concerted effort to wipe out the production of narcotics.  That's right, poppy cultivation and the heroin it produces was never targeted despite 1) Afghanistan being a major supplier of narcotics that are streaming into the USA, and 2) poppy cultivation being the single largest source of funding for the Taliban.  The thought was that the USA didn't want to take away the livelihood of the Afghans who make a living by growing poppies and selling heroin.  Finally, President Trump has changed that decision, and American planes began taking out drug production centers in the last week.

Just imagine what will happen if the USA is able to cut off the production of drugs in Afghanistan.  First, the Taliban will be impoverished.  That alone will provide a major boost to the prospects for victory in Afghanistan.  Second, tons and tons of heroin will be removed from the market in the USA.  Our drug crisis will be lessened.  In other words, it will be a win-win.

For too long, America ran the Afghan war more concerned with niceties than with winning.  All the time we were worrying about the livelihood of farmers growing illegal crops that kill drug users around the world, we have been allowing the Taliban to raise billions of dollars by selling this cash crop.  It's about time, someone with some common sense is in charge of our efforts in Afghanistan. 

Pink Slip For Blue Slips

"You're fired" was the tag line for President Trump on his TV show The Apprentice.  Earlier this week, though, it was senator Grassley of Iowa who got to use that line in a very important way.  Grassley announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee would no longer honor the tradition of blue slips, the right of a judicial nominee's home state senators to hold up hearings on the nomination.  Long ago, it was believed that a senator from the nominee's home state would have more information about that nominee, so the Senate started an informal process of delaying hearings until the home state senators returned paperwork (called blue slips) approving of the nominee.  The process continued on and off for many decades.  Now, one nominee for the court of appeals from Minnesota was being held up by, of all people, senator Al Franken.  The nominee is a widely respected member of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and there was no real opposition to his confirmation.  Nevertheless, Franken tried to use the blue slip like a filibuster to prevent there ever being a hearing on the nomination.  Senator Grassley decided this week that he would no longer wait for Franken's blue slip to be returned.  It won't be long before the nominee gets confirmed.

The funny thing about all this is that most likely, Franken himself could not be confirmed were he nominated for a judicial post.  Franken has too many women accusing him of sexual misconduct for that approval to happen.

The end of the use of blue slips announced by Grassley will also expedite the approval process for the other court nominees made by the President.  The huge wave of Trump appointments to the judiciary will shortly become a tsunami. 

What Happened in London Today?

There were reports today of a terrorist attack at Oxford Circus in central London's shopping district.  There were screams and people running.  Police and emergency services came quickly.  Many people were asked to shelter in place and stores locked their doors to keep those inside safe.  As of now, however, there are no victims, no evidence of shots fired, no suspects and generally no evidence of an attack.

So was this a new form of terror attack or was it just a hoax or a misunderstanding?  Imagine a very crowded shopping street at the start of the Christmas season to which we add seven or eight people who start screaming and yelling that there is a terror attack down the street.  It wouldn't take much to get people to start running in the opposite direction followed quickly by mass panic.  The terrorists could then just blend back into the crowd and watch the panic surround them.  Disrupting a major shopping venue like Oxford Street in London could cause a major economic disruption even if no one is injured.  Alternatively, we could just have some kids deciding to play a prank by doing the same thing.  Maybe we will learn the truth later, but I really doubt it.

The key at the moment, however, is that aside from one minor injury in the panic, no one has been hurt.

Murder and Mayhem in El Arish

The last time I was in El Arish in Egypt, it was a sleepy and small town on the north coast of the Sinai peninsula.  It still is sleepy and small, but today it is also the site of a massive terrorist attack.  Gunman attacked worshippers at Friday services at a mosque in El Arish and the death toll is getting close to 300 as I write this.  The mosque followed Sufi Islam which groups like ISIS consider heretical.  Nevertheless, an attack on a mosque has been a rarity in Egypt in recent years.  This is a blatant move which indicates either that ISIS in the Sinai now feels strong enough to attempt such carnage or, conversely, that ISIS in the Sinai feels so threatened that it attempted a massive attack to get publicity and adherents.

There has been an ongoing battle with ISIS in Sinai.  The Egyptian military has fought a number of battles with ISIS in the region.  Because of the undeveloped nature of the countryside, however, it is not easy to gain control over the ISIS forces.  Sinai is about the size of West Virginia, but it has just over half a million residents.  That means that there are a great many places where the ISIS forces could hide undetected.

Hopefully, the terrorists will be caught and dealt with by the Egyptian forces. 

 

The Demnocrats Are Trying To Make 2020 Look Good -- It Doesn't

There have been a spate of 2020 articles recently.  Today The Hill is out with an article ranking the Democrats' 2020 contenders.  It begins by saying that there could be 30 Democrats vying for the nomination.  That's supposed to be a good thing, but we all remember candidates like Lincoln Chafee who ran in 2016 just long enough to look foolish and then dropped out as soon as the primaries/caucuses began.  Would it help the Democrats to have 20 more of these people floating around the nation?  I doubt it.  Certainly, it did not help the Republicans to have all the second and third string candidates like Lindsay Graham, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee in 2016.

Let's look at the top three according to The Hill to get a sense of the new face of the Democrats.  Here are the three that The Hill says are the pick of most Democrat insiders:  Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.  The three share a few common characteristics.

1.  They are really old.  Warren is the youngest, but she will be in her 70s in 2020.  Sanders will be a few months from his 80th birthday with Biden close behind.  The bigger question is not which of the three will be nominated, but rather will all three survive to 2020.

2.  They are not just old, but they are remembrances of the past.  Sanders is a throwback to the Cold War, but on the side of the Soviets.  Biden has been in Washington for over 40 years.  Warren also seems like she was freeze dried 25 years ago and just brought out now.

3.  They are not successful candidates.  Biden ran for president repeatedly in the past and was quickly rejected by the voters in the early primaries.  Other than in Delaware (which is hardly a state of importance) and while running with Obama, Biden has never won an election.  Warren has shown herself to be a weak candidate in Massachusetts.  She barely won her election to the senate and has not yet had to run for re-election.  Sanders has been successful in Vermont, but he lost to Hillary Clinton in 2008.  That may sound good, but remember that Sanders is the only person to lose a national election to Hillary.  (She lost to Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016.)

4.  Each of the three comes with a lot of baggage that gets worse with age.  Biden is on video doing the "Al Franken".  One wonders how many women and even children he has "hugged" inappropriately.  Those videos and photos would all be brought out in a 2020 election.  Sanders may have to run in 2020 with his wife in prison for defrauding a bank in Vermont.  She is currently being investigated by the FBI.  Warren used her bogus claim of Native American heritage to gain employment at Penn and at Harvard in the past.  That will not sit well with many voters.

The truth is that there is not yet any Democrat who can take on President Trump by offering something new and different.  Trump could still lose, but the Democrats right now would be trying to beat somebody with a nobody.

Thanksgiving

For nearly the entire year, we Americans have been fighting with each other over all manner of things.  Let's take today to stop and be thankful for all that we have and all that God has given us. 

More Women Accusing Senator Franken

Two more women have come forward to accuse senator Al Franken of grabbing them inappropriately and otherwise harassing them.  That makes four accusers of sexual harassment and one who just said that Franken harassed her but not sexually.  These latest two women don't want to disclose their names for fear of getting harassed by Franken's supporters or having problems at work.  Franken says he can't respond to anonymous allegations.  That's a fair response, but the story is in the left wing site Huffington Post and the two women are both strong Democrats according to HuffPo.

There are now more women accusing Franken of sexual wrongs than those who accuse Roy Moore.  Strange how no one in the senate has called for Franken to resign.

Of course, the hypocrisy in the senate is spread all over the place.  Perhaps the best example is Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.  Lindsay has denounced Judge Moore and called for him to drop out of the Alabama race.  Meanwhile, he also went to testify as a character witness for senator Bob Menendez in his bribery and corruption trial.  Menendez was actually indicted with tons of evidence against him.  Menendez was also accused of flying to the Dominican Republic repeatedly to have sex with underage girls (prostitutes). 

I don't know whether Franken did any of the things of which he is accused aside from the one for which there is photographic evidence.  Given the photo, however, I do suspect that an investigation would not go well for him. 

Here We Go One More Time With the Lies

Fake News is back again today.  Newsweek published an article in which it claims that President Trump has told his daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner to move back to New York.

I'm sure this is fake news because if the President actually told his daughter and son-in-law to move back to New York, none of the three would leak it to the media.  In fact, I doubt any of them would even tell any of the other presidential advisers.  Since Trump's supposed reason for getting Ivanka to go back to New York is to help her avoid negative press (which also sounds silly), it makes no sense for Trump to embarrass Ivanka by letting the story leak.

Decades ago, Newsweek was a respected news magazine.  Now, it seems nothing more than a journal of left wing Fake News.

That Didn't Take Long

A short time ago, I posted about congressman Joe Barton of Texas and my expectation that there would soon be calls for him to resign.  We haven't quite gotten all the way there, but there are a series of articles on the web now under headlines like "Barton Refuses to Resign."  No doubt by tomorrow, some left wing group or another will be calling for his resignation.

Think about that.  What Barton did is embarrassing, but not illegal in any way.  He didn't rape anyone (like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton are alleged to have done).  He didn't even touch anyone in a way that upset the person being touched.  He didn't send inappropriate pictures to children.  He didn't fondle a sleeping woman.  All that happened is that he was seeing some women at a point when he was separated from his wife and they were in the process of getting a divorce.  He sent nude photos to a woman he was dating who has not complained about it at all.  And now someone posted one of those photos on the internet to embarrass the congressman.  Now, I do wonder why a man of 66 would think that a nude photo would be a good thing to do, but it's not illegal or wrong in any way (aside from showing a lack of good taste.)  Obviously, there is no reason for him to resign.

 

Fusioin GPS Was Paying Journalists Too

Remember Fusion GPS?  That's the firm that compiled the famous Trump Dossier at the behest of Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee.  Fusion GPS was paid about 12 million dollars and it used some of that money to buy information made up by the Russians to discredit Trump.  There's more information about Fusion's activities, however, in an affidavit put into court by the deputy counsel of the House Select Committee.  Here are a few of the important items disclosed:

1.  Fusion GPS acted as an agent for Russian interests but never registered as a Russian agent.  So let's stop right here for just a moment.  That fact means that Clinton and the Democrats worked together with an actual Russian agent on the campaign.  That's something that the Democrats constantly accuse the Trump campaign of doing but never seem to find any evidence of it.  The collusion with Russia, to the extent there was any, was done by the Democrats, not the Trump campaign.

2.  Fusion GPS didn't just compile the dossier.  It also made payments to journalists, something for which the House Committee is seeking relevant bank records.  We do not yet know the names of the journalists on the payroll of this unregistered Russian agent, but it's probably safe to say that these journalists supported Clinton.  The DNC and Clinton wouldn't have paid Fusion to funnel money to journalists who opposed them.

3.  There are also companies that paid Fusion alongside the DNC and Clinton campaign.  Since we are talking about political activities by Fusion, these payments would be political contributions in kind by corporations to the Clinton campaign.  Such contributions could be illegal for a whole host of reasons.  We need to know which companies made the contributions and how much they were.  We also need to know what the funds were used for.

These are just glimpses into the inside of the House investigation.  They don't look good for the Democrats and Clinton, however.

A New One

Congressman Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas, apologized for some text messages he sent along with pictures of his private parts to a woman.  These got posted on the internet today.  As these things go, Barton's problem is more an embarrassment than wrongdoing.  Barton says the texts/pix were sent when he was separated from his second wife prior to their divorce being finalized.  He says further that he had a few relationships with "mature" women during that time that were entirely consensual in nature and that the texts/pix were sent in that context.  So far, no one has contradicted the congressman's statement.

The reality of this latest bit of news is that it is not sexual harassment, but just something embarrassing that is now on the internet.  No doubt, we will soon hear from MSNBC calls for Barton to resign.

This Is Not True

According to recent reports in Buzzfeed, National Security Adviser, H.R.McMaster called President Trump an idiot and a dope with the intelligence of a kindergartner.  McMaster also reportedly badmouthed Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State), James Mattis (Secretary of Defense), Steve Bannon (former White House strategist) and Jared Kushner (senior Presidential Adviser) in the same conversation.  All of this was supposedly said to the CEO of Oracle, Safra Catz, at a dinner in July.  Buzzfeed "confirmed" the statements with four others, but these four only spoke to Catz, not to McMaster. 

The story is not true.

Normally, I would not be so categorical about such a report, but this one is clearly bogus that I feel quite confident in my view.  Let me explain why:

1.  McMaster knows he works for a President who does not tolerate disloyalty.  Calling the President the names ascribed to McMaster would surely have lead Trump to fire McMaster.  McMaster is not a fool and would not threaten his own position in that way.

2.  There is universal praise for Jim Mattis at Defense.  Even if McMaster doesn't like him, it is hard to imagine McMaster would call Mattis stupid also.

3.  It is unbelievable to think that McMaster would attack all five of these men in a dinner with someone whose discretion is unknown.  I don't think McMaster would even have said this to his wife even if he believed it.  Telling the CEO of a tech company these things without also resigning his position is just not something in McMaster's makeup.  Indeed, if you check Catz's political contributions in 2016, you find that presidential contributions went to Lindsey Graham and then to Marco Rubio.  They were accompanied by a maximum contribution to the Friends of Chuck Schumer.  McMaster most likely understood that Catz is not a fan of Trump.

4.  The kind of attack supposedly made by McMaster is just the sort of thing that your average liberal would make up.  It's a caricature claiming Trump is a dope.  One may not like Trump or his positions, but his intelligence is not now and has never been the issue.

So let me say again, this story is not true.

Sometimes People Don't Get It

A group of women who worked on Saturday Night Live with Al Franken put out a release saying that they were not harassed by Franken while he worked there.  They approve of Franken's apology to the woman whom he groped while she slept; then they called him a "family man" and generally supported him.

So here's the question:  don't these women understand that just because Franken did not harass or abuse them, he still could have harassed and abused others?  What's next?  Will we soon have witnesses at murder trials put on the stand to say, "Well, the defendant didn't murder me!"

The real question is what exactly did Franken do.  We know he groped Leeann Tweeden because there's a photograph of the moment.  We know that two other women, at least, have complained that Franken fondled them too.  Are those stories true?  There's no reason to doubt them yet.

Maybe we could let the process work before we all rush to judgment.  That applies too to Roy Moore and others.  Others, like Charley Rose, who admit what happened are a different matter.  Oh, and those who not only did these deeds but, like Franken, did it on camera deserve condemnation not support.

Net Neutrality and Economic Reality

The FCC is likely to move to rescind the Obama era regulation of the internet which was named "net neutrality".  Under the name of supposed equality, the government moved in to try to control how internet resources are used rather than letting the market do that function.  From the beginning of the internet until 2015, market forces had done a fine job in allotting internet resources, but the left found yet another job that the government bureaucrats absolutely had to do, and they set up Net Neutrality which, among other things, regulated internet service providers.

Today, the left and the media is portraying the end of Net Neutrality as an assault on democracy and freedom.  It is neither.  Service providers are not about to degrade the service obtained by users and these people claim.  In fact, we are likely to see speeds continue to rise.  Think about it and you will see why.  The big internet service providers like Comcast, Charter and Verizon have been under assault as a result of a phenomenon known as "cord cutting".  In other words, individual users have been stopping their cable TV services and just getting content online.  The providers have been rescued from major revenue losses due to their high speed internet connections.  Users may not still get cable TV, but they want high speed internet as a replacement.  The revenue from the internet connection services has been rising to make up for the losses due to cord cutting.  The opponents of ending Net Neutrality say that the ISPs will slow down internet connections for most people if the government is not regulating this stuff.  How many of the cord cutters will keep their internet connections with the service providers if the speed is suddenly cut and the service degraded?  A company like Comcast or Verizon would see its customer base collapse were it to suddenly restrict the quality of the connection.  That fact, more than anything else, will keep these companies from slowing connection speed.

For some reason, people on the left never seem to understand that the market is a potent force for keeping an efficient distribution of services in place.  One would hope that at some point, these folks could learn about reality, but that may be just an idle hope.

The German Elections

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been unable to form a coalition government and wants new elections in Germany.  After the recent elections, Merkel's party held a lead in the German legislature, but it needed a coalition with one or more other parties to form a government.  That effort proved unsuccessful, hence the call for new elections.  If you were to read one of the few opinion pieces in the US media about this event (why cover the German government when you can cover sexual harassment), you would think that democracy in Germany is under assault.  It's not.  In fact, Merkel is just doing what one would expect given the situation.  The Socialists had been in a coalition with Merkel's party for the last four years.  As a result, they suffered in the last round of elections, so they decided not to stay in the government.  The small parties with whom Merkel could form a government had extremely different views from each other, so there was no way to put the entire package together for a coalition.

The call for elections may yet lead to a coalition, but that seems unlikely.  Instead, Germans will head to the polls again to choose a leader.  Most likely, there will be somewhat different results than in the last voting.  Hopefully, there will be enough votes so that a government can be formed.

Now We Know Who

Yesterday, the question was who would be identified as the next prominent sexual harasser.  Now we know.  Michigan Democrat congressman, John Conyers gets the prize.  Think about that.  Conyers is 88 and the longest serving member of the House.  According to reports in the media, Conyers settled harassment claims with a female employee two years ago when he was 86.  We don't yet have all the details, but the story says that this was not Conyer's first time being the subject of such claims.

Conyers represents a district that would re-elect him no matter what he did, so the only way to remove him from Congress would be for the House to expel him, something that I believe highly unlikely.

One thing is certain.  All the current focus on Roy Moore and what he may or may not have done 40 years ago is misplaced.  He's just one of many who are getting hit with charges.  Further, unless the Senate expels Al Franken for what he did just a few years ago and the House investigates Conyers and dumps him for what he is alleged to have done two years ago, there is no way the claims against Moore, even if proven true, merit any action should he win the election.

Charlie Rose? Really?

CBS and PBS have both suspended Charlie Rose after many women came forward to complain about being sexually harassed by the soft spoken, liberal reporter/commentator.  It makes one wonder who will be next?  Maybe one of the muppets from Sesame Street?  Anything is possible.

There is also another woman accusing Al Franken of misbehavior, and this took place while he was a senator, not before.  Once again, Franken claims to have a different memory of what took place.  Maybe Al had a memory replacement, or maybe he needs to try Prevagen to improve his memory.

Oh, and one of the leadership of the Democrats in the California state legislature is retiring from office after multiple accusations were leveled at him by various women.  And an Oklahoma Republican legislator is pleading guilty to soliciting a teenaged boy for sex.  Then there are some new creeps in Hollywood who are being accused as well.

One thing is certain; if Charlie Rose is on the list, then it could hit anyone.  There are also great many men who have been behaving really poorly while hiding behind their supposed support of women's liberal causes.  For decades, these men have been protected by the feminists in the same way that they protected Bill Clinton in the 1990's.  Maybe we'll be lucky and this will all come to an end.

Raising the Deficit--Or Not

The federal budget includes a provision to allow a tax cut that will raise the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years.  In order to pass the Senate version of the tax bill without a filibuster, the bill must comply with those figures.  So, does that mean that the tax cut will lead to a higher deficit?  Strangely, the answer is no.

The rise in the deficit will be calculated by the CBO.  That's the same CBO that tells us that elimination of the individual mandate in Obamacare would cause between five and six million Americans on Medicaid to "lose" their insurance.  Remember, Medicaid is free for the patient.  The CBO is saying that without the individual mandate (which has no effect on the availability of Medicaid), more than five million people will choose to drop out of the program.  I would like the CBO to explain why a poor person getting free medical care would choose to get no medical care instead.  There is no such explanation, and there is especially no way that nearly six million people would do that.  Simply put, much of what the CBO comes up with is suspect to say the least.

But let's get back to the deficit.  The CBO will calculate the effect of the tax cut using static scoring.  What that means is that the CBO will look at the resulting revenue and expenditures without considering the economic growth that the tax cut will bring.  A tax cut will push huge amounts of money into the private sector of the economy thereby raising both consumption and investment.  That means a substantial boost to economic growth.  An extra 1% annual growth in the  economy over the next ten years means that the USA will be producing roughly two trillion dollars more of goods and services in the tenth year than it would without the tax cut.  Normally federal taxes take roughly twenty percent of that total, so in year ten, we would see an extra 400 billon dollars in revenues for the government, revenues that the CBO is ignoring.  Over ten years, those extra revenues which come from growth should total more than 1.5 trillion.  In other words, the tax cut ought to lower the deficit, not raise it.

Now, all this is prediction of the future, so it has inherent risks.  The CBO may be wrong.  The dynamic scoring model may be wrong.  Events may overtake both.  For example, a ten year projection in 2000 would not have considered the effect of 9-11 or the resulting war on terror.  Who knows what is coming in the next ten years?  The best and most reasonable estimate of the effect of the tax cuts, however, is that they will not have a materially adverse effect on the deficit.

Lies About SALT

The deduction for state and local taxes (or SALT as they call it in DC) is the subject of some of the most outrageous lies in the ongoing debate about the GOP plan to reform federal taxes.  Democrats and their allies in the media and in supposedly "non-partisan" think tanks are screaming how ending this deduction will cause higher taxes for the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.  That's just a blatant lie.

Let's consider this example.  The median household income in the USA is $59,000 at the moment.  A couple with income of that amount is right in the middle of all Americans, so they are obviously the heart of the middle class.  If they live in a state with a 7% income tax (which is high), they pay at most $4000 in state tax which they can deduct.  If they own their own home and pay $5000 in property taxes, they can deduct those too.  Most likely, these amounts would be less, but we are talking about a deduction of $9000.  Under the Senate plan, the $9000 deduction would go away, but the standard deduction would rise by $12,000, so these folks would be better off.  Under the House plan, the 5K in property taxes would still be deductible, but the 12K rise in the standard deduction would be there again as an alternative.  Under either plan, the couple would see a substantial tax REDUCTION.  This is especially true since the tax rate would be reduced as well.

Now let's consider this example:  a wealthy Hollywood agent and spouse earn $1,500,000 for the year.  They pay California income tax of $180,000, a deduction that they will lose.  They also pay $40,000 in taxes on their multi-million dollar home, and they get to keep $10,000 of that deduction.  Their tax rates actually go up slightly under the GOP plan as well.  The net effect on their taxes is an increase of roughly $60,000 per year.

These are not one-offs.  Nearly all the middle class will get large tax reductions under the GOP plan.  Nearly all the super wealthy will get no tax cut at all with many seeing increases. 

The point is that the cuts for business and the middle class will increase economic growth by 1-2% per year for a few years.  That will be a major benefit and job producer for everyone.  The Democrats are just telling lies when they claim that the GOP plan will raise taxes on the middle class.  For what it's worth, the Washington Post fact checker gave four Pinocchio's to claims by Democrats that middle class taxes would increase under the GOP plan.  If the Dems can't even get the WaPo to go along with their lies on the tax plans, you know those lies are truly blatant.   

Here We Go Again

For the second time in a few days, Israeli tanks have fired "warning shots" at Syrian forces who are violating the 1974 Armistice Agreement that ended hostilities in the Yom Kippur War.  The Syrians and Israelis agreed that there would be a demilitarized zone between the two countries and that no heavy equipment would be used to fortify and positions in that zone.  Syrian forces loyal to the Assad regime have been spotted doing construction inside the zone to build bunkers and other fortified positions in clear violation of the Armistice.  The Israelis objected to the local UN commander who oversees the armistice, but the Syrians did not stop.  The shelling by the tanks followed.

If the Syrians do not stop the violations of the Armistice, the Israelis will undoubtedly destroy whatever it is that the Syrians are building.  Israeli jets could pulverize the structure in less than a minute, but that might result in Syrian casualties.  The Israelis do not tolerate Syrian violations of the armistice.

Most likely, we will shortly see a third move by Israel, this time to destroy the new Syrian bunker.  Assad will denounce the move, but unless something new is afoot, he will do nothing other than to look impotent in the face of the Israeli military.  Let's hope that is how it turns out.  It would be terrible if the Syrians are just trying to create a reason to start fighting with the Israelis.  ISIS is almost gone from Syria.  Even though Assad may want to push all the Moslems into supporting him by fighting with Israel, it would be terrible for him to subject the Syrians to even more violence just to solidify his political position.

The Griffin Door (to Oblivion)

Kathy Griffin is back with a youtube video denouncing the "hate" she is getting online and lamenting the fact that she has no jobs whatsoever in the USA.  Think about the irony of that claim.  Griffin, the master of hate, is upset that people are denouncing her online.  She appears in photos with what is supposed to be the severed head of the President of the United States, and she complains when people boycott and criticize her.  She says she apologizes for the photo and then takes back the apology when it doesn't gain her acceptance, but she complains about being mistreated.

I hope this is the last time I will have to write about Kathy Griffin.  In fact, I didn't link to her video since I don't want to drive any hits to her effort.  Who knows, maybe Kathy can join Hillary and they could both just go away.

You decide

Suppose you were a corporate executive.  Would you be more likely to invest in the USA if taxes here were 35percent or 20 percent?  Bernie Sanders told ABC this morning that the answer is 35.  He says that with other provisions figured in the effective rate is really 14 percent. So Sanders claims that cutting taxes will move jobs abroad.  It's  not just that Sanders is wrong; he clearly is.  No, the problem is that Sanders is outrageously wrong, in fact, moronic.

How can the Democrats just lie about these things? 

More Hypocrisy

According to reports, New York governor Andrew Cuomo ignored repeated pleas for help from a woman working with one of Cuomo's favorite deputies. The woman is now suing both the deputy and the governor.

I don't know all the details of the story. I've read the woman's claims and seen Coumo's denials. One thing is certain; they cannot both be telling the truth. She claims she reported the abuse at least six times to the governor's office with Cuomo just ignoring her. The governor says it never happened.   This ought to be easy to prove with phone records or email. The claims seem believable because it would be foolish to sue absent some sort of corroboration.

It's annoying to see yet another prominent politician dragged into yet another mess.  If the story is true, Cuomo is stupid to deny it. 

Can This Be True

I just saw an article that says that the average compensation for a subway worker in New York City is a breathtaking $170,000 and for managers, it's $280,000.  Think about that.

The New York Transit Authority and it's sister agencies at the MTA have been under attack for poor maintenance that has led to all sorts of delays and disruptions in service over the last year.  The response from the agencies is that they lack the funds to keep the maintenance current.  Are they kidding?  The median household income in the USA is $59,000.  That means the average subway worker makes about three times more than the median household income.  In many of those households, there are two workers earning a living, but their total is still about a third of what the subway workers make.  I realize that working in the subway ought to carry reasonable compensation, but $170,000 is ridiculous.

Just imagine if these jobs were thrown open to the public in New York and only qualified workers were hired.  Does anyone doubt that a salary of $90,000 per year would draw huge numbers trying to gain employment? 

Add on the penchant for the MTA to build palaces instead of a functional system and one can see why the maintenance of the system was underfunded.  The MTA board was spending on unreasonable wages and monumental new structures that beggared the maintenance of the system and put the average rider in a substandard train.

These people should all be dumped and some semblance of order brought out of the chaos of the MTA.

Keeping A Promise

I just read a column by Selena Zito in the NY Post in which she discusses the lack of coverage given to a big deal signed by President Trump in China this past week.  Specifically, Chinese firms are going to invest about $84 billion in petrochemical plants in West Virginia over the next decade.  That's a huge amount to be invested anywhere, but in West Virginia, it is an incredibly huge amount.  The state has been hit by the Obama war on coal so badly, that things are rough there.  Bringing this huge investment and the tens of thousands of jobs that it will produce is a major success by President Trump that the media has ignored.

I say that the media ignored this, because until I read the column today, I had never heard of the deal and I follow the news closely.  How can the mainstream media be so averse to reporting anything good that the President does that it could black out such a major success for the people in West Virginia?  It's a disgrace.

Zito makes a further point that is also worth repeating.  These investments are in West Virginia which is one of the strongest Trump states in the country.  The President doesn't need to campaign much in WV for 2020; if he can't win there, he can't win anywhere.  Meanwhile, both Ohio and Pennsylvania have similar areas with raw materials that would feed these petrochemical plants.  Building the plants in OH or PA would get Trump support from voters in critical swing states that could be central to his re-election effort in 2020.  Trump, however, promised the people of West Virginia that he would bring them jobs, and he has kept that promise.  Just try to imagine Hillary Clinton deciding to keep a promise rather than doing something that might help her politically.  Okay, I realize that's impossible to imagine.

The President deserves congratulations for this major deal.  The media deserves a spanking for blacking out news of the deal. 

More Lies About Tax Reform

If you're a Democrat and you want to fight against the Republican tax reform package, what do you do?  Easy, you find a group with a name that sounds non-partisan and then you put out a "study" that explains how the tax plan will raise taxes on the poor to pay for cuts for the rich.  The problem, of course, is that the study is phony and the conclusion is untrue.  That's not stopping the Democrats, though.

Here, for example, is a piece of a study put out by a group that calls itself the "Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy".

 

If you want to understand why this is bogus, all you have to do is to look at the states that this phony Institute says will pay more.  Remember, the biggest fight in the tax reform package so far has been the elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes.  We've been told for months now that high tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Illinois will get crushed by the bill.  Now look at the list above and notice that none of those five states high tax states are on it.  Without looking at anything else, that one fact tells you the list is completely bogus.  Remember, Florida has no state income tax, so its citizens will no longer have to pay federal taxes at higher levels to subsidize the high state taxes in other states.  Nevertheless, the phony Institute study tells us Florida will pay more in net new taxes than any other state in ten years.  It's total nonsense!

 

This is the sort of phony "study" that the Democrats and the media come up with in order to bash a plan that will provide jobs, higher wages and economic growth for the American people.  That result would be a big blow to the Democrats because it would prove to a new generation of Americans that the private sector can do much better growing the economy than the government.  We had eight years of no growth/slow growth with Obama.  We can't let the Democrats and their media allies trick America into staying with their failed policies. 

The Individual Mandate and the Tax Plan

I've written often about the tax reform plan in Congress.  One wrinkle with the Senate bill is the plan to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate.  That move would not prevent a single person from getting health insurance.  It would not reduce the subsidies paid to lower income people to help them afford health insurance.  In other words, all it would do is take away the tax paid mostly (80%) by poor and lower middle class individuals for failing to buy health insurance. 

The Democrats and the media tell us that this is an assault on people's healthcare, but it's not.  It just gives to people who choose not to buy insurance the freedom from a tax that penalized them for that decision.  The Democrats and the media all scream, "no, no, no!  The CBO tells us that this decision would deprive 13 million people of healthcare!"  For them, it's not people choosing to forego insurance; it's people being deprived of insurance.  Of course, the catch is that if these people wanted insurance, they could buy it just like they can under the current law.  But here's the biggest flaw in the Democrat/media argument:  It turns out that just about half of the people who the CBO says would lose coverage get their current coverage under Medicaid.  MEDICAID!!!  Medicaid is free for those of low income.  Get that?  Something like six million people who now get free medical coverage under Medicaid would "lose" that coverage according to the CBO.  The coverage is free now; it would still be free if the tax bill passes.  The coverage is available to low income people now; it would be available to exactly the same people if the tax bill passes.  There's no reason why anyone would drop out of Medicaid other than a personal choice.

Once you realize that the Democrat/media argument regarding the repeal of the individual mandate is based upon people who get coverage for free deciding they don't want it anyway, you can see just how flawed the Democrat/media argument really is.

But let's take it a bit further.  Some of the Democrats and media (but not many) argue that by letting the poor and lower middle class decide to forego insurance, it will raise premiums for the others who buy insurance.  In other words, the cash that these poor people have to fork over for their current coverage is, in essence, a subsidy for the wealthier people who are buying insurance without a government subsidy.  The truth is that the Democrats/media group are trying to force the poor to subsidize the middle income and wealthy.  The Democrats want taxes on the poor to give benefits to the rich.  It's exactly what they falsely claim the GOP is doing, except the Dems really are pushing for it.

Today in Tax Reform

It's amazing to watch the mainstream media desperately trying to undermine the passage of the GOP tax package.  The House passed its version of the tax reform bill by a rather large margin just two days ago.  So what are the headlines of yesterday and today on tax reform?  There are reports of the passage in the House, but the mantra of the media is that despite that passage, the chances for final approval of a tax bill are declining or even collapsing.  Really?  Nothing much has changed in a negative direction for the bill's prospects.  The Democrats who oppose the bill for political reasons are still in opposition.  The Republicans who support tax reform are still supporting it.  Sure, there are ongoing discussions about what ought to be in the Senate bill, but nothing is undermining passage.  Even Ron Johnson, the lone GOP senator to announce he is a "no" vote has made clear that with some changes in the bill, he could become a yes.

Why is the media so hell bent on undermining passage?  The answer is simple.  If the bill passes, it will be a victory for the Trump agenda, and they can't stomach any success for Trump.  Of course, tax reform will also be a huge victory for the USA and the American people, but for the mainstream media and the Democrats that's not enough to outweigh their hatred for Trump and the Republicans.

Bill Maher Defends Franken

On his weekly show on HBO last night, uber-liberal Bill Maher defended senator Al Franken.  Franken, you see, only harassed a woman by forcibly kissing her and then fondling her breasts while she was sleeping.  No big deal, right?  Not according to Maher.  On the other hand, Maher condemned Roy Moore for what he did to six or seven women.  Of course, for all but two of the women, what he did was to ask them out when they were 18 or 19 and he was in his early 30's.  He never used force or even touched them.  He just invited them on dates.  Oh, the horror!

Of course, there are hotly contested accusations from two more women which are not to be overlooked.  One says Moore fondled her when she was 14.  The other says Moore offered her a ride home from her job but instead drove her to the parking lot behind the diner where she worked (there has never been a parking lot there) then locked the doors to the car so she couldn't get out (those sorts of locks were introduced in the 1980s but this happened in the 1970s) and tried to rape her.  She's also produced a yearbook Moore supposedly signed (although one does wonder why she was getting her yearbook signed by a man who tried to rape her.) which somehow she hasn't turned over to be forensically tested after Moore said it was a forgery.

I'm not forgiving Moore if these allegations are true.  Meanwhile, we know that the statements about Franken are true -- there are pictures and he has admitted it.

So why is Maher defending Franken.  Two words sum it up:  Liberal Democrat.

It's both disgusting and revealing that the new awareness about sexual abuse doesn't apply to the left according to their biggest mouths.

Doesn't Anyone Care About the Truth?

I just heard the umpteenth report from the mainstream media that denounces the GOP tax plan because it treats big businesses better than small businesses.  There's only one problem with this claim:  it's a lie.

Here's the basis for what the media is saying.  A big corporation is normally a "C corporation" for tax purposes.  The tax bill would cut the corporation's tax rate from 35% to 20%.  Of course, as a C corporation, dividends paid to shareholders would then get taxed at least an additional 15%, and that rate will continue in place.  That means that profits returned to the owners of the C corporation will be taxed first at 20% and then at 15% more.  Small businesses are mostly "Subchapter S corporations."  That means that they pay NO corporate tax, but the owners pay the tax instead by including the company's profits on their personal returns.  For owners who are in the 25% bracket, that means a total of 25% tax paid on the profits instead of the 20 plus 15% paid by the C corporations.  That means that most small businesses pay taxes at a lower rate than C corporations even after the big tax cut.

Remember also, that a small business could always convert itself to a C corporation if the taxes were lower on those entities.  They get to choose which form to use.

Put all this together, and you find that small businesses are still paying tax at a lower rate than big businesses.  The media story is just another tax lie.

Blumenthal Accused of Sexual Abuse

Wow.  there's now apparently a woman accusing Democrat Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal of sexual harassment.  Blumenthal is constantly claiming to be a vigorous opponent of this sort of thing.  I don't know if this is true, but I've seen the posts on Twitter.  Here they are.

 

Previous

Next

Robby Starbuck‏Verified account @robbystarbuck 1h1 hour ago

Senator Blumenthal is accused of sexual assault by Linda Flores. She says they worked together at a law office and he "sexually assaulted her countless times." Her account is protected now so here's screenshots of the tweets circulating.pic.twitter.com/myF0AuzMds

 

 

 

Another One Goes

The Chairman of the Florida Democrat Party resigned today after six women staffers came forward to complain about sexual abuse from him.  Stephen Bittel resigned as soon as the allegations surfaced and "apologized" as if that made any difference.

If the new thing is for office holders to resign when they admit having committed sexual abuse, then when will Al Franken take that step?

It's not that there never was any sex abuse in the past.  It's just that there's an avalanche of it now.

The funny thing is that since Harvey Weinstein, there's only been on prominent Republican, Roy Moore, who has been embroiled in the mess.  Of course, he's the one that the media focuses on all the time.

By The Way, The Tax Reform Bill Passed the House

With two women coming forward today to accuse Minnesota senator Al Franken of misconduct, a similar accusation against actor Sylvester Stallone, and the ongoing saga regarding Roy Moore, the media is not reporting much about anything else (although the media is still fixated on Moore and mostly ignoring the other two).  The real news today is that the tax reform bill easily passed the House with a margin in excess of 20 votes.  All of the Democrats voted against giving tax relief to American families and businesses.  I have yet to hear a coherent reason to oppose the GOP bill other than to deprive the GOP of a political victory.

So the Democrats act purely politically and the media ignores this big event.  After all, what will most of America care about?  a) getting a tax cut for the future, or b) hearing the latest about Roy Moore.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say A will win.

Sauce For The Goose?

Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, is the latest figure to be charged with sexual misconduct and abuse of women.  Unlike some of the other instances, however, this one does not boil down to a "he said, she said" problem.  The woman making the charge, Leeann Tweeden, a radio personality and actor actually has a photo that Franken had taken during a USO tour when Tweeden was asleep.

KABC

There's the senator groping the sleeping Tweeden.

Tweeden also charged that Franken misbehaved during a rehearsal for a skit when he kissed her and forced his tongue into her mouth.

Since Franken can't deny the photo, he only says that he remembers the rehearsal differently.  Then he apologized profusely.  After both the Republican and Democrat leadership in the Senate called for an investigation of Franken, he himself joined the call for an investigation.

The key here is that we now have a prominent Democrat in the Senate charged with sex abuse just like Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican candidate for the Senate.  If Moore wins and any action is taken to expel him, a similar fate should befall Franken.  Truly, I doubt that many Democrats will want to expel Moore if Franken is joining him.

 UPDATE:  In the five minutes since I posted this, I've already heard that there is a second woman who came forward now to accuse Franken of abuse.  I don't know the details, but this should be interesting to watch.  Also, a media person on NBC has already announced that what Franken did wasn't really "groping".  Maybe she's blind and can't see the picture. 

Reality Sets In

This morning on CBS radio, I heard a report that the new tax bill could lead to having some families that earn over $200,000 pay higher taxes.  The reporter then said that in previous tax cuts he never recalls anyone paying higher taxes.

Think about that and what it means.  First, remember that for years and years the Democrats and their media cheerleaders have told us that the wealthy do not pay enough tax or, as they put it, "their fair share".  Here's a plan that could cause a rise in the taxes paid by the wealthy and the media is complaining about that.

Second, realize that for the last month or so, all we have heard from the Democrats is that the tax plan would raise taxes on the poor and middle class (untrue) and give a gift to the wealthy (also untrue).  Finally we are getting media reports that reflect the actual reality rather than the lies of the last month.

Third, understand that no matter what the tax plan does or does not do, the Democrats and the media will denounce it.  They just want a political victory and don't really care what would be helpful for the economy and the American people.  It's like the spectacle of Democrats suddenly worrying about the deficit when we know that for the last decade and longer they only wanted to spend and spend and spend.

In may ways, it's like the current upset over the potential repeal of the individual mandate.  They all scream that people will lose insurance.  That's phony.  There will be people who choose not to buy insurance, but it will be their choice.  The Obamacare subsidies will still be there for those who want to use them, but someone who doesn't want insurance won't have to buy them.  If I decide not to buy a car, I haven't "lost" my car.  I have chosen not to have one.  It's the same with insurance.  On top of that, these people who choose not to buy insurance won't have to pay the tax that results now after such a decision.  About 80% of the people who are currently paying that tax are in the lower half of the income scale.  So basically the poor and lower middle class will get a major tax break and a choice on insurance, but for the Democrats "people will lose insurance."  Are they kidding?

It seems to me that perhaps, just perhaps, the reality of tax reform is setting in.

Why No One Believes The Media

The entire nature of the mainstream media is on display just with regard to how it deals with a few things regarding Roy Moore.  Here's a few examples:

1.  The media is dishonest.  Essentially every article about Moore says that he has been accused of sexual abuse by five women.  Whether or not you believe Moore or his accusers, that is an untrue statement.  Two women, and only two women, have accused Moore of any misconduct.  Three others were mentioned in the original article in the Washington Post, but each of those three said that Moore never did anything wrong.  They said that he asked them out when they were 18 or 19 and he was around 32.  The media decided, however, to just say that five women have accused Moore.

Another example of dishonesty is the coverage given to what Sean Hannity said yesterday about Moore.  According to the media like Yahoo News, Hannity called for Moore to leave the race.  That's just not true.  What Hannity said was that Moore had a day to clear up his story and show why he ought to be believed.  If he couldn't do that, then he should leave the race.  In other words, Hannity asked Moore to present his side of the story and to convince the public that he is innocent.  Only if he cannot do that, should he leave the race.  Again, it doesn't matter whether or not one believes Moore or not, there is no reason to falsely report what Hannity said.

2.  The media is excessively partisan.  Let's go back to Sean Hannity.  When the Moore story first broke, Hannity interviewed Moore on the air.  It wasn't an easy interview either.  Hannity asked Moore many hard questions.  But what was the reaction?  Many in the media were outraged that Hannity would interview Moore.  They reported that Hannity was supporting Moore and many even supported a move to boycott the advertisers on Hannity's show.  Why is that?  The answer is simple:  most of the left wing media has been out to get Hannity for years.  They decided to use Hannity's interview of Moore as a weapon against him.  There was essentially no coverage of what Moore said in that interview.  Instead, we were barraged with partisan anger and outrage but no news.

3.  The media is selective in its coverage.  For months now, we have had Harvey Weinstein and the endless claims of rape and abuse, Mark Halperin and all who accused him, and one after another of the powerful in Hollywood and DC.  These men were all Democrats and liberals, and the story was getting less and less coverage.  Suddenly, when a Republican is finally accused, the media is covering nothing else.  President Trump was on an extremely important trip to Asia which will have a significant impact on the future of America, but the media hardly covered it, instead focusing on more and more Moore stories.  Even today, when the President gave a speech about the results of his trip, the questions from the media after the speech were all about Moore.  The important stuff is ignored to spend endless time on one story.

It's sad that despite the First Amendment, the media in America has declined to such a poor state.