Here's Some Actual Important News

Here's some news that is actually important, unlike all the nonsense that the mainstream media normally pushes:  North Korea has been selling materials to Syria which can be used to manufacture chemical weapons.  In exchange, the Syrians are sending cash to the North Koreans which the NKs badly need to continue to fund their nuclear weapons programs.

The cash which Syria is sending to North Korea is coming mostly from Iran.  Remember all that money that Obama sent to the Iranians as part of the nuclear deal?  It's now going to North Korea to fund the NK program to get nuclear tipped ICBMs.

We've really reached a point where the time for action has arrived.  The USA has to decide if it will accept a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons that can reach America.  The USA also has to decide if it will accept a Syrian regime armed with and using chemical weapons despite Syria's "agreement" that it would give up all of its chemical weapons and the ability to manufacture them.

The decision belongs to President Trump.  For years, Obama did nothing on these two fronts.  He called the lack of action "strategic patience".  Apparently, in Obama-speak "strategic patience" means "kicking the can down the road".  The USA can thank Obama for putting us in the position we are currently in.  During the Obama years, the USA could have taken out the Iranian nuclear installations with relative ease.  America could also have taken out the North Korean nuclear sites in an overwhelming show of force.  Obama, however, did NOTHING.  What a terrible president he was!

Now There's A New Jared Kushner Story

Here's the latest:  the New York Times is reporting that White House adviser Jared Kushner had meetings with companies that had business about which he had to make decisions.  Those same companies then gave millions of dollars to Kushner's private "foundation" which was supposed to be a charity but which actually was used by Kushner to cover all sorts of personal expenses like all of his family's travel costs and the even the salaries of the family's personal and political staff.  The mainstream media is going crazy about this "corruption".

Actually, what I just described is how Hillary Clinton sold the influence of the State Department when she was Secretary of State.  The mainstream media thought there was nothing wrong with that.

Here's what Kushner supposedly did.  He had meetings with two large financial companies, Apollo Investments and Citibank.  Those companies later loaned hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner family business.  That business has not been run by Jared Kushner since he started working at the White House.  There is no proof that Jared Kushner even knew that Apollo and Citibank were involved in making business loans to the Kushner family business.  It would not be unusual for companies of the size of Citibank to have meetings in the White House with someone who is a policy adviser to the President.  There seems to be nothing in these disclosures that shows any wrongdoing by Kushner.  If he truly kept himself uninvolved in the family business while at the White House, he would not know about any dealings with Citibank or Apollo.  On the other hand, if Kushner kept himself informed about what the family business was doing, the New York Times and the baying hounds of the media would, no doubt, chastise him for conflict of interest.

The reality is that unless there is proof of something more than what the Times is pushing, there is no real story here.  That won't stop the story from being featured non-stop for the next two weeks on CNN and other mainstream media outlets.  The reality, however, is that at the moment, it is what a few months ago was called a nothingburger.

Hope Hicks Leaves the White House

The White House Communications Director Hope Hicks announced that she was leaving today.  The mainstream media is playing this as some sort of result of Hicks being questioned by a congressional panel about some part of an investigation or another.  That seems like major spin.  Hicks was unhappy living in DC rather than New York.  She had been with President Trump since before the campaign began, starting first as a PR person for one of Ivanka's brands.  I don't know, but my guess is that Hicks decided to depart when the guy she had been dating was accused of spousal abuse by his ex-wives and was then fired from the White House.  It would have made being unhappy in DC into finding DC intolerable.

One thing is for certain, though.  Hicks did a rather good job for President Trump.  She has always been a good influence on the media in a calm and positive manner, something that at times President Trump has truly needed.  We wish her well as she moves on to other things.

Some Really Surprising Results

It's pretty strange to see some of the results from the most recent polls on generic congressional candidates.  Those are polls that ask whether if the election were today, one would vote for the Republican or the Democrat candidate.  The latest result comes from the YouGov polling group.  It has the Democrats leading by 2% in this poll.  That's quite close compared to some other recent results.  One reason may be that this poll is conducted only by online interviews.  No one answering the poll has to tell a live person that they are voting for Donald Trump's party; there is complete anonymity.  This close result is not the most surprising part of the poll.  That honor belongs to the results found among Hispanic voters.  According to the poll, Hispanic voters favor the Republicans by a margin of 35% to 33% with 29% undecided.  If the results in November actually are that the Republicans beat the Democrats in votes by 2%, there will be a landslide in favor of the GOP.

The Hispanic results seem wrong in light of all the recent years of results that show Hispanics voting Democrat.  Who knows, however, maybe the straightforward offer by President Trump to resolve the DACA issue and the needed changes to immigration policy attracted enough Hispanics to break the Democrat stranglehold on this voting group.  If that is the case, it will doom the Democrats to minority status for at least the next few elections.

Of course, this may be nothing more than some bad poll results.

Once Again War Approaches

There's another step towards a new war in the Middle East.  The Iranians have built a base for their forces in Syria just northwest of Damascus and filled it with medium range missiles capable of hitting nearly all of Israel.  This is just the sort of provocation that led the Israelis to destroy a prior Iranian base near Damascus.  The Israeli government has made clear that it will not allow Iran to establish bases inside Syria for use against Israel.  Obviously, the base has been under construction for many months, but news of it has only recently become public when satellite pictures of the base were shown on Fox News. 

It seems most likely that we will soon see some sort of Israeli strike against this base.  No doubt, the Syrian/Iranian alliance will also use its anti-aircraft systems to try to take down the Israeli jets.  That will lead to Israeli counterstrikes against those systems.  That is what happened just a few weeks ago when the Iranians sent an armed drone into Israeli airspace.  After that clash, things quieted down.  We will have to see if that is once again the result.  Let's hope so. 

Another Big Success For The UN

A few days ago, the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding all parties in Syria to cease fire.  Since that time, the Assad forces have continued their assault on rebel positions in the Damascus region, the Turks have continued their assault on the Kurds holding Afrin, and there has been no lessening of the fighting anywhere in Syria.  After all the effort to get the cease fire resolution passed, it's sad to see that none of the people involved in the fighting are honoring it.

An Interesting Ploy In Wisconsin

A group led by former Obama attorney general Eric Holder filed suit today in Wisconsin against governor Scott Walker because of Walker's decision not to hold a special election to fill two seats in the legislature.  The suit alleges that Walker is subverting democracy and violating the constitution by failing to take steps to fill these seats.  Both are vacant because the Republicans who held them resigned to take positions in Walker's administration.

The media is covering this as a valiant attempt by Holder's group to get representation for the people in the two districts.  That's silly.  The truth is that the Wisconsin legislature will adjourn for the year for transaction of new business by the end of April.  There is no way to set and hold special elections so as to fill the two seats by then.  Walker saw no reason to incur the expense of holding elections to fill seats when there will be no legislative sessions for the winner to attend.

If you see coverage of this story, check to see if the media tells you why the seats were not filled.  My bet is that they won't.

Will the Russians Help Him?

Bernie Sanders son Levi has announced that he is running for Congress in the first district of New Hampshire.  Levi Sanders says that his goal is to help the "working class" for whom he has "struggled" for nearly 20 years.  Sanders becomes the seventh Democrat to enter the primary to replace the current representative who is retiring.

There must be a Democrat playbook somewhere that tells candidates to claim to "fight" for people.  Sanders changed that to "struggle" instead, but he threw in the good Socialist term of "working class".  You see, in the Sanders' world view, Americans are divided into classes.  He has accepted the old Marxist view of European society where the family into which one was born determined much of the course of one's life.  The son of a duke was always upper class, even if he was impoverished.  The daughter of a tailor was always lower class, no matter if she gained an education an became a doctor.  America, however, was always the place where one could be anything one wanted and rise to any level in society.  That all depended on one's hard work, talent and some luck.  That was what made the USA different than the old world.  For Sanders and his fellow socialists, however, the Marxist construct of the class system gets imposed upon American life even though it really is inapplicable for the most part.

It will be interesting to see if Levi Sanders can leverage his "upper class" political background into becoming the Democrat candidate.  With seven or more Democrats in the field, it won't take many votes to win the nomination.  With his exalted political father, Levi starts out with a notoriety that puts him at the front in this battle.

I do wonder, however, about one thing.  We know that in 2016, the Russians worked to help Bernie Sanders in his battle with Hillary Clinton.  Recent details on the Russians' campaign have emerged which make this clear.  (No, I am not saying that Bernie colluded with the Russians.  So far as has been determined, no American candidates (not even Trump) did that.)  I do wonder, however, if the Russians will mount a campaign to help Bernie's son in this new effort.  We will have to watch closely for signs of Russian interference.

More on Broward Sheriff -- He Kept EMT's From Treating Florida Wounded

There's a news story just out that reports that says that Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel blocked the EMTs from entering the high school in Parkland, Florida during and after the mass shooting there.  Accepted procedures call for medical personnel to go into the shooting zones immediately to help the wounded and perhaps, save some of the more seriously wounded.  Barring the EMTs from the school may have caused the loss of life.  It's almost inconceivable to think that the sheriff would have done such a thing.

This news may also indicate that the reason that the Broward deputies were outside the school during the shooting rather than inside trying to stop the shooter is that the Sheriff gave a stand down order for them as well.  There have been rumors of such an order being given, but there is no proof of it happening.  Nevertheless, the order to keep the EMTs out of the building is just another reason why the sheriff ought to resign NOW.

The End of Pressure on DACA

The Supreme Court declined to grant an expedited review on the appeal of that lower court order that enjoined the ending of the DACA program.  That means that the order will need to be appealed to the 9th circuit and only then go up on appeal to the Supreme Court if the 9th circuit were to affirm the clearly erroneous lower court order.

It's a silly decision by the SCOTUS.  I understand that they don't like to encourage appeals directly to them, but it is truly a waste of time to wait for the 9th circuit.  Meanwhile, DACA (which is clearly unconstitutional) remains in effect.

Perhaps the best course of action would be for someone like the attorney general of Kansas or Oklahoma to bring an action to declare DACA unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.  That might be decided on summary judgment with the program ending judicially rather than by executive order.

Meanwhile, on the Fake News front, Nancy Pelosi told the press today that the ruling by SCOTUS -- which dealt only with the order of the appeal process -- showed that the move by President Trump to end DACA was "unjust and cruel".  That's about as ridiculous a lie as if she had said that when the traffic light on the corner turned from green to red it proved that everyone should have a hamburger for lunch tomorrow.

Time For Hogg To Shut Up

The most vocal of the students from the Parkland Florida high school that was the scene of the recent mast shooting is David Hogg.  He has become a fixture on the mainstream media as he blames the NRA and gun control failures for the massacre.  Hogg is entitled to his opinions, but he has gotten way beyond reality in much of what he has to say.  Think about it.

1.  The FBI was warned twice about Nikolas Cruz, the shooter, by name and was told that he was threatening a school attack.  NOTHING WAS DONE.

2.  The Broward County police were warned over twenty times about Cruz including that he was making threats to shoot up a school.  Some of the things about which the police were warned were criminal acts like making threats of violence on the internet.  NOTHING WAS DONE.

3.  The Broward County police were also told that Cruz had rifles and that he planned to use them in some spectacular shooting.  NOTHING WAS DONE.

4.  When the shooting began at the high school, the Broward County deputy who was on scene as the school safety officer stayed outside and did not attempt to engage the shooter.  People died as a result of his failure.

5.  According to the Coral Gables police, when they arrived on scene, they found four Broward County deputies hiding behind their cars outside with their weapons drawn.  The shooting was continuing inside the school.  More people died as a result of these failures.

6.  The Broward County sheriff, Scott Israel, came out immediately after the shooting and attacked the NRA.  Israel also had next to nothing to say about the performance of his department other than to say that he himself had provided great leadership and that his officers had done a fine job.  Even now, Israel has yet to explain how his department ignored thirty or so warnings about the shooter and then failed to try to stop the shooter once he attacked.

David Hogg has been strident in his attacks on the NRA, senator Rubio, and others because they haven't supported gun control.  He praised Sheriff Israel for his support of gun control legislation.  Hogg had nothing to say about the failures of law enforcement that let this massacre happen and continue until 17 were dead.  Now comes the latest.  Hogg is blaming Florida governor Rick Scott for the failures of the Broward police.  But that's silly.  The Broward Sheriff is elected by the voters and runs the police department.  The governor is not in charge of that department.  For David Hogg, however, it is more important to blame someone who doesn't supervise the police than to blame the man in charge of the department who supports gun control.

The truth is that Sheriff Israel should resign or be removed from office.  No matter what his views are on gun legislation, Israel has been incompetent in running his department.  People are dead as a result.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that.

I realize that Hogg went to the school that suffered the attack.  It doesn't give him the right to just spread misinformation.  It's time for Hogg to shut up. 

Base Problems

There's an interesting article in the National Journal by Josh Kraushaar discussing how a problem that bedeviled the GOP is now affecting the Democrats.  The problem is primary challenges by strident candidates favored by the party base over more moderate and electable opponents.  The GOP has lost a number of seats over the last decade because the primary chose a far out candidate.  Remember the "witch" who lost the senate race in Delaware, or the weak candidate who lost the senate seat in Nevada?  They may have been Tea Party favorites, but they were just too much for the state's entire electorate.  Now, the same thing is happening to the Democrats.  Kraushaar uses the example of one competitive Texas congressional race in which a very progressive candidate is ahead in the Dem primary.  Her problem is that she is on video saying that she would rather have her teeth pulled without novacaine than move to rural Texas.  Since the district has a rural section, this is likely enough to sink her in the general election, but she may still win the primary in a split field.  The same sort of thing is happening in California where very liberal candidates are being challenged by extremely liberal candidates in large numbers.  Under California's jungle primary laws, there are not separate party elections; all candidates run in one primary and the top two go into a run off on election day.  Because of the surplus of Democrat challengers, there may be some districts where the top two finishers are both from the GOP, thereby guaranteeing the seat to the Republicans.

We're not that far away from primary season.  The Texas primary is in a week and a half, for example.  It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

The Democrat Memo

The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee had their rebuttal memo released today after it was redacted to remove the portions that the FBI felt disclosed intelligence sources and methods.  You can read the memo itself, but it has turned out to be a big dud.  Here's the key points:

1.  The main subject of both the original Republican memo and the Democrat memo is the application made by the FBI and DOJ to the FISA court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page.  The Republican memo says that the application for the warrant relied heavily on the Trump Dossier, a collection of phony claims put together by Christopher Steele from Russian sources.  Steele was paid for this work by Fusion GPS which in turn was ultimately hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  The Democrats don't try to contest that the Trump Dossier was the product of work funded by the Democrats and the Clinton campaign.  The Republican memo says that Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the FBI at the time testified that no application for the FISA warrant would have been submitted but for the Trump Dossier.  The Democrat memo doesn't contest this either.

2.  The Republican memo says that in the FISA application, the court was never told that the Democrats and Clinton campaign had funded the Trump Dossier which was being used to support the application.  The Democrats contest this by saying that the court was told of a "possible political motivation" in connection with the compiling of the Trump Dossier.  That's ridiculous.  It's one thing to tell the FISA court that Hillary and her party paid to compile this pile of BS in the Trump Dossier.  That would clue in the court that this was a wholly unreliable document.  It's quite another thing to put in a note that the document might possibly have a political motivation.  The FISA court was entitled to know that this was a political hatchet job, particularly since the FBI and DOJ personnel knew this to be the case.

3.  The Democrats also try to deflect attention from the points made by the Republican memo by arguing about what gave rise to the investigation in the first place.  They say that the investigation predated the Trump Dossier and actually was the result of something that George Papadopoulos allegedly said in a bar one evening in London.  Of course, this is a red herring.  The issue raised by the Republicans was misuse of the FISA process, not what gave rise to the investigation in the first place.  The FISA application submitted the Trump Dossier to the court in support of obtaining a warrant to spy on an American citizen and his contacts with the Trump campaign.  It's not enough to say that there was an investigation prior to the creation of that bogus document, especially since the FBI and DOJ didn't tell the FISA court that they knew this was a bogus, political hatchet job.

4.  The Democrats also try to make the point that surveillance of Carter Page was necessary and would have happened even without the Trump Dossier.  Because of redactions, there's no way of knowing what other purported evidence there was of Page's supposed involvement with the Russians.  The Democrats do make mention of the attempts by Russians to lure Page into helping them a few years earlier.  That was told to the FISA court.  The FBI and DOJ, however, did not tell the FISA court that Page himself reported these approaches by the Russians and that he cooperated with the FBI in attempts to catch the Russians involved in that approach.  In other words, contrary to the point in the Democrat memo, the prior attempts by the Russians to coopt Page actually mitigated against the need to surveil him.  The FISA court should have been told that.

There's more stuff in the Democrat memo, but in totality, it is not even worthy of discussion.  After telling America that their memo would show that the Republican memo was wrong, incomplete and misleading, the Democrats should have produced something more.  They haven't.

Facts Or Fake News

Many times a day (or so it seems) we are confronted by news stories that just seem wrong.  Sometimes, I know the report is wrong.  Still, it's not often that scientific data is reported incorrectly by scientists (as opposed to reporters).  That's why I find it astonishing that a new piece points out that NOAA is falsifying the data on the ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean.  In the last ten years, the ice has gotten thicker, indeed substantially thicker, but NOAA is now saying that global warming has weakened and almost removed that sea ice.  To really see the comparison between what NOAA is saying and the facts, you need to read the article linked here.  I realize that the article is from Breitbart, so half of you probably just decided that it cannot be reliable.  Nevertheless, I suggest you read it.

Global warming is too important for it to be pushed by false data.  If, as it appears from the actual temperature data, the models upon which global warming predictions are based have been proven wrong, then it is idiotic for the world to spend billions of dollars trying to prevent something that isn't happening.

The Parkland Debacle

Not that many days ago, the high school in Parkland Florida was shot up by a former student who killed 17 and wounded others.  In the few days that have followed, the media and the left have hijacked the story into a big push for gun control.  But let's remember what happened in Parkland.

1.  The FBI was specifically warned about the threats being made by Nikolas Cruz (the shooter) that he would attack a school.  There were two separate warnings.  The first time, a youtube poster gave the FBI a screenshot of the threat along with the exact name and internet info for Cruz.  The FBI claims that it couldn't track Cruz down.  The second time, the FBI was warned about Cruz, given his name and location, told he had guns, and told of the specific threats he had made to shoot up a school.  The FBI failed to even have its local office in Florida check out Cruz.

2.  The local police in Broward County, Florida, knew all about Cruz.  They had been called to his home 39 times because of disturbances.  They too were told about the threats that Cruz was making to shoot up a school.  They did nothing to stop Cruz.

3.  The school district knew Cruz was both troubled and a potential threat.  Teachers and the security guard were even directed not to let Cruz on the grounds of the high school with a back pack or other bag that could conceal weapons.  Ultimately, Cruz was expelled.  It's unclear if the school district notified the police of the threat that Cruz presented.

4.  When the shooting began, a local police office showed up outside the school.  The cop was armed.  When the shooting began, the policeman stayed outside rather than going in to try to stop the carnage.  No one has yet explained why the cop waited and let the kids be killed.

5.  Cruz had purchased a number of guns legally.  He went through all the background checks.  He passed.  The school authorities who knew that Cruz was troubled and a danger to himself and others did nothing to try to put Cruz on the list of those who should not get guns.

6.  And let's not forget Cruz himself.  This is the guy who went into a school with weapons and killed so many people.  The guns did not fire themselves.

So after all these events, who is it that the media and the left blame for the deaths at Parkland?  Why it's the NRA.  They're the villains in this story.  There's a complete failure by the FBI, the local police, the specific policeman outside the school and the school authorities.  There's the evil shooter himself.  But the NRA-- they're the villains.

I'm sorry to say that I believe that the left and the media have once again overdone all this.  It would be fine to have a discussion as to how to strengthen rules that could prevent guns from going to another crazy who wants to shoot up a school, but the media/left alliance just can't bring themselves to hold a rational discussion of the issue.  They have to use the tragedy as the reason to hold a hatefest.  They hate the NRA, so they have to attack everyone and everything associated with that group even though it wasn't the NRA that caused the massacre.  They also hate Republicans, so they attack people like senator Rubio at that "town hall" the other night in ways that would make an ordinary citizen recoil from the tactics the left/media are using.

When the Las Vegas shooting took place, there was a move to pass a law banning the sale of bump stocks.  Those devices were used in Las Vegas by the shooter to increase the number of bullets fired to essentially automatic weapons' rates.  Bump stocks were ruled legal by the Obama Administration just a few years earlier.  When the bill was brought forward, though, the Democrats tried to add all sorts of other restrictions to it, items that they knew would never pass.  They didn't want to actually ban bump stocks; they preferred to keep the issue for future elections.  Instead, they pumped out their hate and the rest of the people gave up.  The left/media wouldn't take yes for an answer.

Now we have another opportunity to make some needed changes.  If the hatefest keeps coming from the left/media, nothing will happen.  It's sad to see all this hatred unleashed and then to have it block meaningful action.  For as long as I can remember, America has been told by the left/media that it is the Republicans who push hate.  The Republicans are racists, homophobes, anti-Semites, sexists, xenophobes, and white supremacists, or so the media/left keep saying.  The reality, however, is something quite different.  The main source of hatred in this country is the left.  It's irrational hatred, although I guess most hatred is irrational.  Still, it is a toxic problem of unleashed negative emotions devoid of reason.  It's truly a danger to our country. 

Trump at CPAC

Twitter is going wild because this morning at CPAC, President Trump criticized a Republican senator for being the vote to kill the repeal of Obamacare.  That senator, of course, is John McCain of Arizona.  The consensus of the Trump haters on Twitter is that the President should not have mentioned this or criticized McCain because the senator is at home dealing with brain cancer.

This is just another of the many attacks on Trump that come from the never-Trumpers no matter what the President does.  The point is that McCain ran for re-election in 2016 in Arizona promising that he would repeal Obamacare.  When the chance came to do just that, McCain blocked that repeal.  McCain is still a senator.  He's not above criticism for breaking his promise.  And Trump who fought hard to repeal Obamacare doesn't have to be quiet about the continuing effort to do just that.

It's sad that McCain is dealing with brain cancer.  His condition is so serious that he no longer votes in the Senate.  I don't know what his doctors have told the senator, but if the prognosis is grim, he ought to resign his seat so that Arizona can have a senator representing their interests.  It's the right thing to do.  But it has to be one way or the other.  If McCain is so seriously sick that he ought not be criticized for breaking his promise to the electorate, then he ought to resign and open up his seat for someone else to serve.  If, on the other hand, he's well enough to continue as a senator, then he's also well enough to take criticism (especially valid criticism) for his actions in that role.

One thing is certain:  John McCain is a tough old guy.  I doubt he cares if the President criticizes him.  It's just the haters on Twitter (and no doubt the media) who make a big deal out of it.

The Russia Probe and The Truth

It's funny but it's also sad.  The Russia probe, the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians in the 2016 election, has come up with nothing.  After a year and a quarter, there's no evidence of collusion of any sort.  Instead, what has been found is that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid to manufacture a phony dossier that the Obama FBI and DOJ then submitted to the FISA court to get an improper authorization to spy on people involved in the Trump campaign.  There's also proof that people high up inside the FBI (and later the special counsel's office) were out to get Trump by any means possible, legal or not.  During all this time since the election, the Democrats and the mainstream media have been hyperventilating about the terrible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  People like Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and Anderson Cooper on CNN have spent more time by far reporting on this non-event than any other story.  Congressmen like Adam Schiff have created a career in media by selectively leaking bits of stories and then appearing on the news networks to "discuss" the supposed "news".  But this is all coming to an end.

A few months ago, when the payment by the DNC and Hillary's campaign for the Trump Dossier was disclosed, the media started covering the story less and the Democrats began to reduce what they had to say about it.  For a few weeks, they seemed not to know what to do.  Then they came up with their new approach.  The big story now is about the "need" to protect the special prosecutor and his office from interference and attack by Republicans who are "protecting" the President.  For example, roughly once a day, my senator Richard Blumenthal tweets about how Congress has to act to prevent interference with the special prosecutor.  In all these tweets, however, Blumenthal never tells us what interference has occurred.  Nor has he ever mentioned any attacks on the special prosecutor.  All we hear, however, is that the disclosure of the actual collusion by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to produce the Trump Dossier is somehow an attack by the GOP on the special prosecutor.  That's a non sequitur.

I've seen more and more of the Democrats and their media allies going to this "protect the special prosecutor" lie.  It's funny to watch these politicians and their toadies try to peddle a lie this outlandish.  It's also sad though.  There are millions of Americans who will buy into this lie without even knowing the facts.  It's a danger to democracy.  I don't believe it will work, though.  I have more faith in the American people than the Democrats or the media do.

New Indictments of Manafort and Gates

The special prosecutor has released new indictments of Paul Manafort and Richard Gates.  The indictments are for tax fraud, money laundering and bank fraud.  The indictments are interesting, but here's the key point:  nothing alleged in the indictments has anything to do with the Trump campaign or any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia or even the 2016 election campaign.  Paul Manafort may or may not be a crook, but the special prosecutor has zilch with regard to the key issue he was supposed to be investigating:  Russian interference in the 2016 election and any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. 

There's no doubt that the mainstream media will go crazy with these new indictments.  CNN will tell us about the "shocking and outrageous" allegations and try somehow to tie it to the President.  On MSNBC Rachel Maddow will, no doubt, run her whole show about these indictments and also try to tie them to the President.  It just won't work, however.

We have now gone about a year and a half with investigations being done by the Obama FBI and other Obama intelligence agencies, by Congress, and by the Special prosecutor.  After all that time and effort, however, there is still NO EVIDENCE of any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.  Indeed, all that has been found is collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russians to come up with the phony Trump dossier.  That's the same phony dossier that the FBI and DOJ used to trick the FISA court into allowing them to spy on the Trump campaign.

The indictments are not good news for Manafort and Gates.  For the country, however, these indictments show that once again, there is nothing to the Trump-Russia allegations.

Le Loi Nouveau

There's a new immigration law proposed in France yesterday by President Macron.  Anyone entering France illegally will be subject to a year in jail plus a fine.  The goal is to stop illegal immigration according to the president.

Think about that for a moment.  In the USA, attempts by President Trump to enforce our immigration laws are met with non-stop resistance from the Democrats.  Those same Democrats are the ones who keep telling us that we should be more like European nations.  Now France (which is a European nation) is making illegal immigration not just something that leads to deportation but also a criminal act punishable by a year in prison.  Most likely, we will soon see some of the Democrats suffering from a nervous breakdown.  Their European idols are moving towards following Trump.  Oh, the humanity!

CNN Is Doing It Again

Last night, CNN held a "town hall" meeting between students from the Florida high school that was the site of last week's massacre and Florida's two senators.  There's a real question as to whether or not it makes sense to hold such an emotionally charged meeting, not for CNN but for the students themselves.  Nevertheless, CNN went ahead with the event.  Today, however, we learn that CNN preapproved the questions asked by the students and even WROTE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE STUDENTS!   Sure, CNN denies this, but CNN also denied that it's people passed questions ahead of time to Hillary Clinton in her debates against Bernie Sanders, something that was revealed to have actually happened when the emails were released by Wikileaks.  The Jr. ROTC student who shielded many others during the attack with a Kevlar blanket he had wanted to ask a question about using veterans to work as armed guards at schools.  CNN refused to let him ask that question and wrote a different one for him to ask.  As a result, the student didn't bother to go to the town hall.

There's nothing wrong with holding a public event to explore the issues of gun violence.  CNN ought not be presenting something as live and unscripted while actually writing questions in order to make push a particular viewpoint.

This is just another entry for CNN in the annals of FAKE NEWS.

A Question For The Day

The news today is filled with the mainstream media pushing the narrative of the high school students marching for gun control.  The murders have to end!  According to the media, anyone who questions these students is a heartless ogre.

Meanwhile, the news is out today also that the MS-13 gang of mostly illegal aliens is responsible for 207 murders in 2017 and has spread to 22 different states.  Of course, anyone who wants to crack down on these gangsters is, according the mainstream media, a heartless ogre who is a racist to boot.  In other words, the murders have to end, but only if they involve guns but not illegal alien gang members.

Sometimes, I find the distinctions that the media makes to be impossible to follow.

Fixing the Bogus Polls

Quinnipiac is at it again.  It released its periodic poll on President Trump's job approval.  The result according to Quinnipiac is disapprove 58%, approve 37%.  That's pretty terrible until you look at the other two polls on the same subject released today.  These two average disapprove 51 and approve 46%.  That's an 18 point difference from the spread in the Quinnipiac poll.  If this were an aberration, you could write it off as a statistical mistake, but it's not.  For at least the last six months, the results from Quinnipiac have bee very substantially worse for President Trump than all the other polls (of which there are many.)

Is there something that can be done to stop Quinnipiac from releasing polls that are obviously wrong and set to try to embarrass the president?  Not really.  It's just sad that a polling organization would think that releasing bogus polls makes sense.  Americans have the right to expect something close to the truth in these polls.  Sure, they might be wrong, but they ought to at least be issued in good faith. 

Unbelievable Spin Never Stops

There was a special legislative election in Kentucky yesterday.  The election was made necessary when a Republican legislator faced with allegations of sex abuse and a possible criminal indictment committed suicide.  His wife ran as a GOP candidate to finish out his term.  Her position was that her husband had been innocent and had been the target of a left wing hit job.  The Democrat candidate was the one who had lost the same seat in 2016 by only 200 votes while President Trump was carrying the district by a big margin.  Not surprising, the Democrat won.  Too many voters thought the GOP candidate was delusional (if loyal) in support of her late husband, given the evidence against him that made its way into the public domain. 

That's the news; now here's the spin.  The Democrats are pointing to this result as "proof" of the major Democrat wave sweeping the nation.  It's laughable.  Sure, the Democrat won, but this local election was governed by special circumstances, not national politics.

That Didn't Take Long

I just got a fund raising email from Romney for Utah.  It's only been a day or two since Mitt announced he is running for office from his fourth home state.  I made it on the list of potential donors.  Lucky me!

For what it's worth, I unsubscribed from the list.  I'm curious to see if I get further requests for funds from the Romney campaign. 

I'm also curious to see which Mitt Romney shows up on the campaign trail in Utah.  When Mitt ran for governor and won in Massachusetts, he was moderate Mitt.  In his first presidential try in 2008, he was moderately conservative Mitt.  When he ran in 2012, he was conservative Mitt.  My guess is that in 2018 in Utah, we will see ultraconservative Mitt (at least until he gets to Washington).  I have no desire to support him; he should win anyway.

 

Will CNN and MSNBC Admit Their Complicity?

One part of the indictment from the special prosecutor against a group of Russians concerning the 2016 election discusses the competing rallies that the Russians organized for the day after the election in 2016.  The first rally was a "support Trump" rally; the second was a "not my president" rally against Trump.  In an interesting article, a reporter went back to look at the coverage of the Not My President rally at Trump Tower on that day.  CNN and MSNBC featured the rally prominently in their coverage for hour after hour.  The supposed reporters at CNN even told viewers that the event was extremely well organized and that it had been put together by a local college student.  That seems unlikely, as getting these rallies set up is a time consuming and difficult undertaking, particularly in New York.  The unlikely supposed fact that they were reporting did not lead the CNN investigative crew to uncover the truth:  the rally had been organized by the Russians.  I wonder if CNN and MSNBC will now report how they helped the Russians in their efforts (whether wittingly or not).

The Rankings

I just saw an article in Newsweek (I thought it had gone bankrupt and closed) about the rankings by "experts" of all of America's presidents.  The so called "experts" were 170 social science professors and others in academia in those fields.  No surprise, these people ranked President Trump last of every US president in history.  That's right; Warren Harding may have held office for two years with his biggest accomplishment being the Teapot Dome scandal, a sordid mess of corruption involving oil leases on federal lands.  James Buchanan may have sat idle in Washington as the nation split apart and the Civil War began.  Jimmy Carter may have led us into the highest spurt of inflation in American history and been unable to gain the freedom of American hostages held by Iran after Iranians overran the US embassy in Teheran.  Other presidents long ago favored slavery.  Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist who segregated the US Armed Forces, supported the Ku Klux Klan and worked to make sure that minority voters could not vote in federal elections.  But the "experts" have decided after one year that Trump is the worst. 

It's a joke for such a survey to be done.  The people doing the survey go to one of the most Democrat oriented groups in the nation to ask their question.  It's no surprise that these strong Democrats don't like President Trump.  But to call these people "experts" is still a joke.  They're not expert and they're not impartial.

Is Texas Ready for This?

The governor's race in Texas this year will pit governor Abbott against a Democrat challenger.  In the latest polls, the leading Democrat is former sheriff Lupe Valdez.  She's ahead by just under 20%.  Now things change, and Valdez may not get the nomination, but if she does, it should be quite and interesting race.  Valdez won the sheriff's position in Dallas County some years back and became the first Hispanic female lesbian sheriff in the state's history.  Are Texans ready to elect the first Hispanic lesbian as governor?  My guess is that most states are not ready for that, and this is Texas that we are discussing.  Any victory by a Democrat in Texas is a long shot, but adding in the minority and sexual preference of Valdez could present an even bigger difficulty for her in this race.

My prediction is that if Valdez is the candidate, she will lose in a landslide even bigger than the usual loss by Democrats (the last Democrat lost by 20% four years ago.)  That should be big enough to guarantee that Ted Cruz gets re-elected to the senate and that the GOP holds onto its seats in Congress and maybe picks up one or two more.

Some Perspective

How important were the activities of the Russians in the 2016 election?  What was the focus of the Russian efforts in the 2016 election?  If you follow the news through the mainstream media, you must think that the Russians made a massive effort to have Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.  That's wrong; here are the facts:

1.  The Russians spent $46,000 on Facebook prior to the election according to Facebook itself.  That includes both the primary campaigns and the general election.  To put this in context, during just the general election campaign, the Clinton team and the Trump team spent a total of $81 million dollars on Facebook ads.  In other words, for each dollar the Russians spent, the candidates spent $1760.  On top of that, PACs and other political organizations spent millions on Facebook ads as well.  What the Russians did was insignificant.

2.  The main efforts by the Russians were not limited to having Trump beat Clinton.  Initially, the Russians' efforts were centered on helping Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton.  On the GOP side, their first efforts were to help Trump against Jeb Bush.  This is all part of the $46000 discussed above.  But the Russians did not end their efforts there.  After the election was complete, the Russians spent MORE than $46,000 in their efforts.  They ran ads that both promoted Trump and attacked him.  On the day after the election, the Russians ran a series of ads to promote something called the "Not My President" rally outside Trump Tower in New York.

It seems pretty clear that the goal of the Russians was to spread discord and upset across the USA.  That is something that they managed to do extremely well because they got the Democrats and the media to grab hold of their narrative and run with it.  Overall, however, the Russian effort was extremely minor and unimportant; it also did not focus mainly on helping Trump beat Clinton.

UPDATE:  the New York Times, of all place, is discussing today one of the big impact moves by the Russians in 2016.  They organized a rally to protest radical Islam.  Twelve people showed up.  They also organized a counter rally for the same time and place, but fewer people showed for that one.  It's all a big nothing.

Getting Closer To War?

Over the weekend, there was a terror attack against Israelis near the Gaza border and Israeli repraisals.  Since there is almost no coverage of these event in the mainstream media, here is what happened.  The Israelis who patrol the border with Gaza saw a strange flag put up on the border fence.  When they went to see what it was, a bomb was detonated remotely.  Two Israelis were seriously injured and two more were slightly hurt.  A quick investigation revealed that the flag was set in place to lure Israelis close at which time the bomb was detonated by those who were watching from inside Gaza.  The Israelis responded quickly with air strikes inside Gaza.  Fifteen targets were hit including those of an Iranian backed terror group as well as others of Hamas, the terrorists who control Gaza.

Some people look at these events and tell themselves that it is nothing out of the ordinary.  They are wrong.  The key reason is the Israeli reprisal against the Iranian backed group.  In these exchanges, the Israelis normally follow their standard procedure which is to hit Hamas targets.  Israel has told Hamas repeatedly that it will be held responsible for everything that happens in Gaza.  This time, though, Israel added the Iranian backed group.  That means that the Israelis must believe that the attack was carried out by that group.

Think about that.  Just over a week ago, Iran flew an armed drone from Syria into Israeli airspace only to see it shot down.  That was followed by Israeli air attacks on the base that launched the drone, the firing of a massive number of anti-aircraft missiles by the Syrians, the shooting down of one Israeli plane, and the Israeli destruction in further raids of roughly half of the Syrian air defenses in the region.  The Syrians and Iranians crowed about shooting down the Israeli plane, but the destruction of so much of the Syrian air defense system was a major blow to the Assad regime and Iran.  Could it be that the attack on the Gaza border was just Iran's way of striking back against the Israelis in a way that would still give them the ability to deny involvement?  That seems to be the case.

If this really was an Iranian drive event, there will soon be more.  Most likely, the next shots will come from Lebanon where Iranian terror proxy Hezbollah holds great power.  Recently, an Israeli minister said that it was unacceptable for the Iranians to cause all these problems while they sit far away in safety.  Was that an Israeli warning to Iran that if things did not quiet down there would be reprisal attacks inside Iran?  We don't know.  What we do know is that the tension levels in the Middle East are rising.  The region could easily be headed towards another war.  With both Russian and American troops on the ground there, such a war would risk drawing in both of those countries into the fighting as well.  It is a very, very dangerous situation.

Do They Hear Themselves?

I just walked past a TV playing Joy Reid on MSNBC interacting with a panel denouncing Laura Ingraham for disagreeing with some NBA players.  The substance of the disagreements is not important.  Nor is Laura Ingraham's response to it.  I just want to focus on what Reid had to say since that is what I just heard.  She said that President Trump denounces individuals, so players like Lebron James have to speak out against the President.  If Laura Ingraham responds with a strong statement, that's improper (according to Reid) since Laura works for a multi-billion dollar corporation and shouldn't attack other citizens.  (I'm condensing what Reid said a bit.)

I know that Joy Reid is not the brightest star in the galaxy, but even she should realize how silly her comments are.  Laura Ingraham works for a multi-billion dollar corporation -- but so does Joy Reid.  Laura attacked someone for what they said -- but so did Reid.  In other words, Reid was doing just what she said Ingraham should not do.

The truth is that both Reid and Ingraham have the right to voice their opinions about what others say and do.  It's called free speech.  The endless attacks by Reid on others while she pretends to be holier than thou are getting old, really old.

Issues That Always Remain Issues

For at least the last decade or longer, there have been certain issues that get discussed often in Washington and in the media but which never seem to get resolved.  For many of these issues, no progress at all is made.  It's annoying and frustrating.  Here are just a few:

1.  Gun control -- For many decades, there have been debates about gun control.  On the one side we have the pro-gun-control crowd that rarely tells us what they really want.  They push for "common sense gun safety legislation" but stay silent about what that is.  They vilify the opposition as some sort of evil group that kowtows to the money of the NRA (even though the NRA gives very little to political candidates compared to other groups.)  They pop up every time there is an event in which a gun is used to hurt someone.  On the other side, we have people who oppose any measure designed to curtail gun violence.  They won't agree to any new restriction on gun ownership.  As a result of this divide, no sensible moves get made.  For example, 25 years ago a ban was passed on assault weapons.  It was in place for years, but it had no noticeable effect on the level of gun violence.  Those results don't matter, however.  The gun control crowd is still pushing to put the ban back in place.  Then there's bump stocks, the devices used by the shooter in Las Vegas to turn his rifle into automatic weapons.  A proposal was made to outlaw bump stocks, and the response from the gun control crowd was to push to add limitations on magazines and other gun components.  They pushed it too far, so the opposition grew and nothing got done. 

2.  Illegal Immigration -- in the 1980's, a bill was passed to grant amnesty to the illegals then in the country.  It was supposed to be accompanied by better border security and restrictions that would prevent an influx of new illegals.  Somehow, that security was never put in place, and we got the millions of illegals now here.  The current debate on the subject is between two groups that do not even seem to hear the other side.  For most Democrat politicians, talk of controlling illegal entry into the USA is denounced as racist.  That may be idiotic, but it still works to shut down any rational discourse on the subject.  On the other side, we have the people who oppose "amnesty".  Any allowance to permit any illegal to stay in the USA is unacceptable.  As a result, nothing gets done.  Just look at the failure of the Senate to pass any bill to deal with DACA.  Surely, there must be some proposal that would get the support of the American people.  We know from polls that the public wants to find a way to allow the DACA folks to stay here legally.  We also know from polls that the public disapproves of chain migration and the visa lottery.  The divide on the border wall is much closer, but the public supports enhanced border security by other measures.  One would think that senators would respect the views of the public enough to agree on some plan that achieves the public's view.  Nope!  We just get more fighting.  The issues just stay issues; we get no resolution.

There are many more of these endless issues.  Wouldn't it be nice if we had a few more pragmatists in DC.  Just imagine if things were done rather than just talked about.

Jeremy Corbyn -- Soviet Secret Agent?

The Daily Mail has unleashed a firestorm in the UK with an article detailing how the current leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, worked for the Statni Bezpecnost (the Czech Secret Police) during the 1980's.  The Czechs were Soviet satellites at the time and their secret police were just an extension of the Soviet KGB.  Corbyn was paid for his efforts by the Czechs according to the report.

Think what this means.  A man who could conceivably be the Prime Minister of the UK after the next election sold out his country to its enemies and committed treason during the 1980's.  It seems for Corbyn, the ideology was more important than his nation.

There's no surprise that Corbyn says the allegations are rubbish.  The Daily Mail, however, interviewed former Czech agents who verify that Corbyn worked for them.  The newspaper even produced documents which list Corbyn's name and detail meetings between Corbyn and the Czech agents. 

This is big stuff. 

It's As If They Can't Read

What was the uniform response by Democrats to today's indictment of Russian individuals and organizations for trying to interfere in the US elections in 2016?  I've now seen eleven different Democrats in the House or Senate tweet or state that it's more important than ever to protect the special prosecutor from interference by the White House.  Really, that's their response.

Think about how idiotic that response is.  There's no indication that the White House has interfered in any way with the special prosecutor's work.  Mueller comes out with this indictment which makes clear that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.  In essence, Mueller confirms what the President has said all along:  NO COLLUSION!  Trump points that out in response to the indictments.  The President and many around him compliment Mueller for his work on this indictment.  And the Democrats?  They're warning that we have to protect Mueller from non-existent threats and interference.  What is their worry; will Trump compliment Mueller too much?

My guess is that the talking point on what to say if Mueller puts out an indictment were released weeks ago.  Today's indictments should have led the Dems to change their statements, but no one seems to have distributed a new party line.  The ignorance is hysterical.

School Violence

Let's start with the necessary statement that we all think that the murder of all those children in Parkland Florida's high school was terrible and that we should strive to prevent anything similar from happening again.  That being said, there still need to be certain questions answered:

1.  The shooter got his guns legally.  Does that mean he passed a background check?  Was there anything in his background that would have prevented him from passing such a background check?  My understanding is that he had no criminal record and there was no reason to deny him the purchase of a weapon.  The guns were not bought at the last minute, so even a waiting period after the background check would not have stopped the massacre.  So, is there any reason to believe that more stringent background checks would have prevented this tragedy?  The answer seems to be not.

2.  The shooter used an AR-15 to commit his murder spree.  If that weapons were outlawed, would that have prevented this atrocity?  Here too, the answer seems "no".  The same kid with three hand guns could have killed just as many as he did with his semi-automatic rifle.  In fact, it would have been much easier to hid the hand guns than it was to conceal the rifle.

3.  The shooter is said to have been diagnosed as having mild autism.  We don't even know if this is true.  He was also expelled from school for behavior problems.  Is that a reason to have taken other steps to bar him from gun ownership?  Maybe.  But is there a realistic way to seek such a bar without trampling on the rights of a great many others?  I can't see it.  That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it surely isn't easily apparent.

4.  The FBI was warned that Nikolas Cruz posted on youtube that he was going to be a school shooter.  The FBI says that they just couldn't find Nikolas Cruz despite the unusual spelling of the name.  I don't believe that.  They had the screen name for the guy.  They could have asked Youtube for a physical location for that individual.  If Youtube refused to cooperate, the FBI could have obtained a subpoena to get the info.  You can be sure that if the FBI knew that the guy they were seeking was Nikolas Cruz in southeast Florida, they could have found the shooter.  They really didn't try very hard.  No gun law or lack of gun law caused this.

So we go back to the basic question:  how could this have been avoided?  The answer seems to be it would have been avoided if the FBI had found the shooter.  No law would have stopped this, however.  Each time this stuff happens we hear for days about gun control legislation.  It makes the people on the left feel good to show how virtuous they are to oppose gun ownership.  It wouldn't achieve the goal, however.

The End of Trump-Russia Collusion

Special Prosecutor Mueller released an indictment of 16 Russian individuals and organizations today for criminally interfering with the US elections in 2016.  The indictment should also be the end of accusations that there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  The indictment states that the Russians came to the USA, pretended to be Americans and then put out stories favorable to one candidate or the other and otherwise campaigned in the election.  Such activities by non-US citizens and entities is illegal.  But here's the key.  In paragraph 6 of the indictment, the following is stated:

"Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities." 

This is really important.  The Trump Campaign is said NOT to knowingly have associated with the Russians.  In fact, the Russians are said to have hidden their true identities and affiliations from the Trump Campaign personnel.  That's the opposite of collusion.

The indictment also says nothing to indicate that the Russians' activities affected the outcome of the election at all.

After more than a year of investigation, the Trump-Russia collusion effort should be declared dead.  The Special Prosecutor had all necessary resources, and he and his team found NOTHING WRONG from the Trump campaign.

I've seen five reports on this indictment so far in the mainstream media.  Not one has yet emphasized the key point of the indictment discussed above.  We will have to see if the media actually tries to hide this from the public.  I don't think that they will be able to do that.

Maybe It's The Olympic Connection

One thing that I've notice from the little bit of the Olympics that I've watched this week is that athletes, particularly ice skaters, no longer seem to come from the countries which they represent in the games.  The gold medal pairs skaters who won for Germany were born in Ukraine and France, for example.  There were many other similar examples.

I thought of this today when I saw that Mitt Romney is running for the senate seat in Utah.  Remember Mitt?  He grew up in Michigan where his father was a car company executive and then governor of the state.  He moved to Massachusetts and eventually became governor there.  Then he ran for president twice.  At that time, Mitt claimed to be from New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Now, he's running to represent Utah.  Utah?  Really?  I mean Mitt got involved with the Winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City in 2002.  He took over as head of the organizing committee and brought some order to the chaos that had been there.  But Mitt is not from Utah.  I'm not even sure if he lives there now or if he just has an address that he uses to meet the residency requirements for November's election.

It may be that because Mitt was involved with the Winter Olympics all those years ago, he thinks that he can represent another state like many of the athletes who choose to represent another country.  I wonder what the people of Utah will think.

 

Another Hint Of Things To Come In the Middle East

Here's a news item of great importance that no one is covering.  Egypt has closed its border with Gaza to diesel fuel exports.  This cuts off the flow of fuel used in Gaza to power the electricity grid.  As of now, the residents in Gaza get electric power only three hours per day.  This lack of electric power has been an ongoing problem for a few years in Gaza, but the move by Egypt makes the situation much worse.

What does this mean?  It increases the misery of the people in Gaza who live under the rule of the terrorist organization Hamas.  That misery, however, is nothing new.  Hamas has done next to nothing to improve the lives of the residents of Gaza.  In the last few years, Hamas has gotten aid of close to half a billion dollars to improve the infrastructure in Gaza.  It used the cash and materials to pay for missiles and to build tunnels into Israel that could be used in military attacks.  The Israelis have discovered and destroyed many of those tunnels, so the money used was wasted.  Meanwhile, things just got worse for the Gazans.

One possible result of the terrible conditions in Gaza might be for the people there to overthrow Hamas.  That's not very likely.  Hamas has weapons while the average Gazan does not.  An uprising might well be suicidal for the participants.

Another possible result is the collapse of Gaza into something akin to a death camp.  That might require Israel or Egypt to occupy Gaza to bring order and provide necessary food and services.  That is something that neither country wants to do.  Such a move would also, no doubt, be met by ongoing resistance from Hamas.

The most likely result is that things will continue without change.  The alternative is that the suffering in Gaza will become the spark for the next war in the region.

The Senate Does Nothing on DACA

The Senate voted today on the competing DACA bills.  The senators were consistent; they voted against every suggested solution.  They rejected a bill which outlined the plan proposed by President Trump.  They voted against a bill that granted amnesty to the DACA crew and provided a fig leaf of other moves that would not have increased border security or improved the immigration law.  They voted against a bill that would have required sanctuary cities to cooperate with the feds or else lose federal funding.  The list goes on, but everything was defeated.

Where does that leave the DACA people who the senators supposedly want to help?  Well, there's no rush as of this moment because the DACA program has been ordered to remain in place by a federal court.  That order may soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court, however, so it is possible that the DACA program could be erased with hardly a moment's notice.  At that point, the DACA people who the Democrats pretend to want to help would be at the mercy of deportation by ICE.  It may take that sort of imminent action against the DACA people to finally get the Democrats to come to a final deal.

What A Difference A Day Makes

Yesterday, the shooter in Florida, Nikolas Cruz was an Hispanic orphan who had just lost his mother.  He lived with a family (Hispanic) that took him in.  They said they had seen no hint that the attack was coming.  Today, ABC is reporting that Cruz is a white supremacist affiliated with a group called the Republic of Florida.  It does seem strange that the white supremacists took him in given that he is Hispanic.  The source for this latest news is the ADL which was told about Cruz's affiliation by some other students.  The head of the Republic of Florida group confirmed that Cruz was a member, but that could be nothing more than a move to try to get publicity, much like when ISIS or some other terrorist group claims credit for an attack with which they had no connection.

Here's the real question though.  If Cruz really was affiliated with this group of crazies, then it's another reason why he should have been on the radar of the FBI.  You can be sure that the FBI has an ongoing investigation into the Republic of Florida.  The bureau would know of Cruz (assuming he actually was involved with that group.)  When the FBI was warned of Cruz' threat made on youtube to be a school shooter, the name Nikolas Cruz would have popped out of their suspect data base in something under a second.  So the question is once again, WHAT THE HELL WAS THE FBI DOIN?  Alternatively, why is the ADL and ABC pushing a false story about Cruz' affiliations?

An Inflation Update

Yesterday, the markets were in an early uproar because of the inflation news for January; the one month figure was 0.1% higher than had been expected.  This morning I looked at the oil, gasoline and natural gas futures.  Since the end of January, each of these futures are down about 10%.  This will mean lower prices for consumers.  It will also mean lower prices for businesses and will translate into lower prices for all sorts of goods.  While energy costs fluctuate to a much greater extent that most other prices, this drop in the futures indicate that the increase in February's CPI may be lower than the one for January (when energy costs were much higher.)  It's just another reason why a one month change in the CPI is essentially meaningless when it comes to predicting where the economy or even the Federal Reserve is going for the rest of the year.

Let's Hear The Plan

I was just watching coverage of the shooting in the high school in Parkland, Florida.  It now seems that 17 were killed with many others wounded.  The suspect has been caught.  He is Nikolaus Cruz, a former student at the high school who was expelled for disciplinary reasons.  Despite non-stop coverage, that's pretty much all that is known.

I have to say that I find it extremely annoying to hear various people on TV solemnly stating that we have to "come together" and "stop" these events.  I just heard Bill Nelson, one of Florida's senators say essentially that.  That is also the sound bite from numerous pundits.  We don't even know yet why this attack took place, how the shooter got his weapons, if there were others involved, and if the shooter is mentally ill.  There's no way to know what, if anything, would have prevented this attack.

That's just part of the problem, however.  We get these people who tell us we need "common sense gun safety legislation".  What is that exactly?  They never say.  Short of banning gun sales and confiscating all guns in the country -- something that would need a constitutional amendment and would never pass-- there is no way to limit the chances of an event like this meaningfully.  Could someone get a gun illegally?  Sure.  Could someone with mental problems be overlooked?  Sure.  Could someone who legally owns a gun snap?  Sure.  So what stops that?  They don't tell us.

I think it's pretty clear that if there were a reasonable suggestion about what to do to stop these events from happening, the majority of the country would support them.  The problem is that all we get is slogans or condemnations of "inaction".  Let's hear the plan.  Just once; let's hear the plan.

Those Pesky Price Increases

The government issued its monthly report this morning on inflation.  Prices rose at a slightly faster rate than expected.  The core number went up by 0.3% for the month rather than 0.2%.  (The core omits things like energy which gyrate up and down and distort the overall number.)  As a result, the stock market futures plummeted.  The Dow futures were up about 135 points just before the news was released.  Ten minutes later they were down about 350 point, a move of almost 500 points.  Stocks have recovered a bit in the few minutes after that plunge, but the fear in the market is clear.  Some people worry that these price numbers will push the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates more quickly, and that could hurt corporate profits or slow the economy.

Today's reaction to the inflation figures shows a silly side to the markets.  We have a one-month report that is slightly higher than what the "experts" predicted.  It's just one month.  More important, it's just a tenth of a percent; that could be less or more due to rounding.  It also could be something that will be adjusted in next month's report as more data comes in.  The idea that a slight difference in one report from what some people expected should move the stock market demonstrates that too many investors simply cannot take a long view.  Indeed, they seem unable to even take a short term view; they are stuck with an instantaneous view.  If price rises continue at the latest levels for four or six months, then there's a trend.  Otherwise, they are meaningless in the real world, but not to the stock traders.

The Next Step in Syria?

After three days of news about a confrontation of  Israeli vs Syria/Iran/Hezbollah forces, the news today is that US planes destroyed a Russian tank that was approaching the position of American allies and American special forces in Syria.  The American planes returned to base safely but the Russian tank was destroyed.  There is no word yet on what was the nationality of the soldiers operating the tank.

The confrontation took place near the area where Assad forces began an attack on American supported forces and or own special operators about ten days ago.  In that attack, the special forces called in US air power which took our the attackers.  The latest word is that about 100 Assad forces were killed and something like 200 Russian mercenaries were also killed by the plane.  One would have hoped that the Assad forces would realize the futility of attacking the US special operators, but that lesson does not seem to have been learned.

Are we about to see a massive increase in hostilities against US forces in Syria?  If that happens, will President Trump strike back at the Assad regime and its allies or will he withdraw American forces from harm's way now that ISIS has been annihilated?  How many soldiers will Assad and his Iranian masters be willing to lose in order to try to give the US a bloody nose?

These are not only important questions, but they are scary.  The last thing the world, the Middle East or the USA needs is another war.

What Was The Result in Syria

After the Iranian incursion into Israeli airspace and the Israeli response last weekend, it is worth taking a closer look at the result of all that action:

1.  The Israelis inflicted serious damage on the Syrian air defense system.  I've heard it reported on TV that Israel actually destroyed about 50% of Syrian air defenses in the southwestern quadrant of that country.  That seems like a very high figure, and it is not confirmed elsewhere.  Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Syria fired over 50 anti-aircraft missiles and had at least six missile batteries in the region destroyed (together with the missiles stored there).  That well might be half of the Syrian air defense assets in the region.

2.  The Israelis lost a jet fighter.  In any normal battle, that would not be much of a loss, but this was Syria and Iran against the Israeli Air Force.  Israel has not lost a plane in conflict since 1982.  The result shows that the new Russian air defense missiles that the Syrians fired at least have the ability to hit Israeli jets.  From a propaganda standpoint, the Syrians are thrilled that they finally downed a jet.

3.  The basic cause of the fighting, the Iranian incursion into Israeli airspace, has not changed.  We do not know if Iran will soon try to send another armed drone into Israel or if the heavy losses inflicted on Syrian and some Iranian forces will dissuade the Iranians from acting again.

We're back at a wait and see mode.  One thing is certain though:  this could be a step towards a much larger war.  Let's hope not.

Creating a "Record"

Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter to former National Security Advisor Susan Rice to ask her about an email she sent to herself on the last day of the Obama administration.  It's quite an amazing email.  Rice relates TO HERSELF that she was at a meeting a few weeks earlier with president Obama, the head of the FBI and senior Justice Department officials to discuss how the investigation into Trump-Russia should proceed.

Let's just stop here for a moment.  In January of 2017, when this email was sent, Rice clearly knew the rules about sending classified information to a private email account.  After all, the country had just spent a year learning all about those rules when Hillary Clinton broke them with her private email server.  A discussion with the president, NSA, FBI director and DOJ leadership about an investigation of this sort is obviously classified.  Indeed, the Grassley letter -- which quotes much of the email -- redacts a section which it says remains classified.  How could Rice possibly send this classified information to her private email account?  But let's get back to the main story.

Rice's email recounts a meeting at which Obama kept telling the FBI and DOJ just to do their jobs under their normal procedures.  Indeed, from Rice's recounting of the meeting, there seems to be no reason for it to be held.  Obama knew that the FBI would do its job.  He also knew that the DOJ would do its job.  There was no need to tell them again.

So why would Rice send this email?  The simple answer is that Rice is creating a record.  She wants a written document that she can point to so as to "prove" what Obama told the FBI and DOJ about Trump-Russia.  Remember, Rice is a repeat offender when it comes to telling major lies.  She's the one who went on five shows the Sunday after Benghazi to blame the attack there on a youtube video when she knew that it was really a terror attack.  Rice also went on network TV to deny ever having "unmasked" Americans connected with the Trump campaign.  Unmasking, of course, is having the intelligence agencies identify the names of Americans who are caught up in surveillance of other people.  After saying she never did it, Rice later admitted that she did, in fact, unmask people, but claimed next that she had done nothing wrong.  Simply put, Rice's word is meaningless; she's a liar.  So Rice needed something to document her probably phony version of the Obama/FBI/DOJ meeting.  It's the kind of meeting that the Democrats in Congress would call obstruction of justice if it had been president Trump rather than Obama involved. 

This is just another manifestation of the improper involvement by Obama and his people in the investigation.  Senator Grassley deserves kudos for following up on this.  The FBI and DOJ certainly aren't doing that.  It's also another reason why we need a second special prosecutor to investigate the Obama administration, FBI and DOJ conduct of the investigation into the Trump campaign.

Congratulations to the #Resistance

Well the crazies of the resistance have struck another blow for their cause.  This morning the wife of Donald Trump, Jr. opened a letter addressed to her and it was filled with a white powder that spilled into the air.  Mrs. Trump said she felt dizzy and nauseous after the powder was dispersed.  She was taken to NY Presbyterian Hospital as a precaution.  The police say that the powder does not seem to be harmful, although it is still being subject to further tests.

What kind of people do this?  How can the crazies on the left hate the President so much that they would attack and terrorize his daughter-in-law who has nothing to do with the government?  These are truly disgusting people.  Of course, it's the same group of people who decided to shoot Republican congressmen at a baseball field last Spring.  You remember; the guy nearly killed representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

Now imagine if the powder-filled envelope had been sent to Chelsea Clinton.  (To be clear, I'm not advocating for such a thing; just pointing out what the reaction would be.)  The media would go to non-stop coverage and we would see constant commentary on how the conservatives were all fascists and sick people.  Care to be how many times the mainstream media blames all progressives and other leftists for this sick attack on Mrs. Trump.  The over/under is 1, and the only winning bet is under.

Blatant hatred like this is not going to win any friends or converts for the left.  I just hope that America realizes what sort of dystopia the liberals really want.

Why Is Anyone Surprised?

There's a stir being caused by a recent article in the Wall Street Journal that repeated the story of a dinner held in about 4 years ago by the president of Iran when he came to New York for a UN meeting.  Those in attendance at the small dinner party included Louis Farrakhan, Keith Ellison and Gregory Meeks.  For those who don't know, Farrakhan is the racist and anti-Semitic head of the Nation of Islam (aka the Black Muslims).  Ellison is a congressman from Minnesota and also the deputy chairman of the Democrat National Committee.  Meeks is another Democrat congressman and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The key here is Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress.  Prior to his election, Ellison was a supporter of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.  When he ran for Congress, however, Ellison said that he had severed ties with the Black Muslims long ago.  That, of course, seems not to be true.  More important than the ties between the second in command at the DNC and an avowed racist and anti-Semite, however, is the fact that Ellison was meeting privately with the head of the Iranian government.  President Rouhani of Iran is someone who often leads chants of "death to America", but the Democrat leader seems to have no problem holding private meetings with him.  Just imagine if a Republican had held a meeting of this sort with Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia.  It would be at least a month of non-stop coverage on CNN and MSNBC about what they would call obvious proof of collusion between Trump and Russia.  But, of course, there were no such meetings with Putin.  There was, however, that sort of meeting between these Democrats and the president of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism which is still developing nuclear weapons.

There's very little reaction in the mainstream media to this story.  That's not a surprise since the mainstream media avoids stories that might damage Democrats.  Still, it ought not be ignored.  It says a lot about who is running the Democrat party.

Menwhile, We Shouldn't Miss This

Like many, I have been focused on the Iranian incursion into Israeli airspace and the strong Israeli response in Syria.  There was, however, another big development last Friday that should not go unnoticed.  The Secretary of Defense warned the Syrians that they had better not use chemical weapons again.  Secretary Mattis pointed out what happened the last time the Assad forces used those weapons, a reference to the cruise missile attack that destroyed 20% of Syria's air force last March.  Mattis also said that there were reports that the Assad forces had started using sarin gas again in the fighting in Syria, but that the USA did not have proof YET of that use.

Of all the statements on the subject of chemical weapons one could get from an American Secretary of Defense, this was a an extremely strong one.  The key word for Assad is "yet".  It means that if the USA gets proof that Assad used sarin gas, there still may be major consequences for him and his regime.  Now, I'm sure that Assad is not sitting in Damascus shaking with fear.  After all, he lives in a region where governments and leaders regularly make threats which they never carry out.  They also lie with regularity.  Just look at the statement from the Assad regime that its air defenses now give it back control of the skies over Syria; the claim is based on the fact that Israel lost a fighter jet to air defense missiles on Saturday, the first Israeli jet shot down since 1982.  The Syrians, however, launched over 50 missiles at the waves of Israeli jets that struck Syrian and Iranian targets on that day.  The loss of one plane hardly qualifies as Syria taking back control of the skies.  Indeed, one wonders how many anti-aircraft missiles the Syrians even possess.  They can't often shoot 50 without running out quickly.

But back to the chemical weapons.  If as is quite possible, Assad decides that the Russians will protect him and continues to use chemical weapons, he will be making a major mistake.  President Trump has already demonstrated that the USA will not sit by as Assad (or anyone else) uses nerve gas to attack civilians.  It would not take much for America to strike at Syrian bases and inflict major damage on the Assad forces.  Russia will not go to war with the USA to protect the use of chemical weapons by its ally.

Time For A Real Russia - Trump Issue

For more than the last year America has been subjected to constant media/Democrat stories about supposed collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.  To date, there is no evidence of any such collusion.  Nevertheless, Trump/Russia is a favorite topic on CNN and MSNBC as well as in the bulk of the mainstream media.  Well now there is an actual Trump/Russia issue and there seems to be very little coverage of it.  That issue is how Russia and the USA will react to the latest confrontation in Syria between Israeli aircraft and Syrian and Iranian ground and air defense forces. 

I wrote yesterday about the Iranians sending a drone into northern Israel only to see it shot down by Israeli defense personnel.  That was followed by an Israeli air raid to destroy the base from which the drone was launched.  The Syrians and Iranians launched over 20 anti-aircraft missiles at the six Israeli planes.  When one of the pilots recognized that a missile had locked onto his craft, he and his co-pilot ejected before the plane was hit.  Israel then enlarged its force in another attack.  This time four Iranian and even more Syrian military positions were hit.  Almost all were anti-aircraft missile batteries which were destroyed.  All Israeli planes returned to base safely despite the Syrians again launching droves of anti-aircraft missiles.

So why is this a Trump-Russia issue?  First, Russia is the principal supporter of Syrian dictator Assad.  Russia has both naval and air forces in Syria at bases along the Mediterranean coast.  While the Syrian air force is a joke and the Iranians have no meaningful air assets in Syria, the Russian planes could present a danger to Israeli air forces.  More important, there is no way that Israel would want to have a confrontation with Russian forces.  Such a battle would be costly and would also be one that the Israelis would be unlikely to win in the long run.  Russia used to be a superpower, and its military remains one of the strongest in the world.  Second, the USA has significant forces in Syria and the region as well.  President Trump surely would not want to see the Iranians get an even stronger foothold in Syria.  That would bode ill for the future of American interests in the region.

Let's go back to the original question:  how will Russia and the USA react?  So far, the Russians have called for "restraint" on both side.  The USA has reaffirmed the right of Israel to defend itself against incursions into its territory and called for calm.  Neither of these responses is very surprising.  Will the Russians stand back while Assad and the Iranians get pounded?  It very well may do so although one would expect Putin to back Assad.  Will the USA indicate to the Russians that any involvement by their forces against Israel would be considered a grave threat to American security?  That too is possible, although one would expect that the Trump administration would not want to go down the road towards a possible confrontation with the Russians.  My prediction is that American and Russian diplomats will soon speak (if they haven't done so already) and conclude that neither side will get involved for the moment.  This is not either one abandoning an ally.  The Russians want Assad dependent on them; getting Iran out of Syria helps accomplish that.  Having the Israelis weaken the Iranian position helps with that effort.  For the USA, there is great hesitancy to move towards further military involvement in the region; we have enough on our plate.  Israel is clearly handling the situation for now.  America can stay on the sidelines.

At the moment, Syria has moved into a close second to North Korea as the most dangerous place in the world with regard to starting a major war.  Let's hope calm prevails.

Time For Them To Go

Since old allegations of spousal abuse are the rage in Washington these days, it's important to focus on all the men who have faced these things.

Obviously, Rob Porter, the staff secretary in the White House is number one on the hit parade.  (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.)  His two ex-wives claim he abused them physically or verbally during their marriages.  Porter resigned his position and the media is busy calling for the firing of Chief of Staff John Kelly because he said some nice things about Porter when the allegations first surfaced.

Number two on the list, however, is not in the White House.  It's Delaware Democrat senator Tom Carper who has admitted to slapping his wife.  Carper used to deny this, but he admitted assaulting his wife some years back.  Carper is not resigning and there seem to be no calls for him to go.  I guess the difference is that Porter denies the allegations but works in the White House while Carper admits the attack but is a Democrat.

Number three on the list is Ohio Democrat senator Sherrod Brown.  In his divorce proceedings, Brown's wife claimed that he consistently abused her over a three year period.  Like Porter, Brown denies the charges.  Brown is still in the Senate, and he is contemplating a run for president in 2020.  Of course, as a Democrat, Brown thinks he has immunity.  Maybe he does.

Big News In Syria

In the last day, there have been big events in Syria.  The Iranians sent a drone from a base in Syria and flew it into Israeli territory.  Israel forced it down and recovered the drone.  The Israelis then struck back at the base from which the drone was launched; the Israeli Air Force hit that Iranian/Hezbollah base and inflicted major damage.  On the way back to Israel, the Israeli planes faced major anti-aircraft and missile fire.  The pilots of one Israeli jet were forced to eject and the plane crashed in a field in northern Israel.  There's no confirmation whether the plane was hit by an anti-aircraft missile or suffered a malfunction.  It seems likely that it was a malfunction since a plane hit by a missile would normally explode or at least be unable to fly further.  In any event, Israel launched attacks on numerous sites in Syria in response to the anti-aircraft fire.  The sites were destroyed and all planes returned safely to Israel despite the Syrians and Iranians again launching many salvos of anti-aircraft missiles. 

This is a significant escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran/Hezbollah/Syria for a number of reasons.

First, these are the biggest air raids the Israelis have launched in Syria many years.  The main targets were Iranian bases.  Iran suffered serious casualties, although for propaganda purposes the Iranians can't admit that fact.  If Iran continues to send drones into Israel, there will be more such strong responses.  It could be the start of continuing escalation leading to war.

Second, if the Syrians actually shot down an Israeli jet, it would be the first Israeli jet lost in combat since 1982 during the Lebanon war.  The Syrians have already announced that this loss proves that Israel no longer has air superiority in the region.  That's just silly, but it provides the Assad regime with an excuse for continuing firing back at the Israeli jets.  That too means more fighting is likely.

Third, if the Iranians back down now, they will look weak in the eyes of their friends and enemies alike in the region.  The Iranian regime has shown repeatedly that it is willing to accept major casualties to reach its goals.  Iran could easily continue to push towards war with Israel on the Syrian front, especially since most of those who will die will be Syrian or Lebanese (Hezbollah) rather than Iranians.

The demise of ISIS as a regional force has freed up the Iranian, Hezbollah and Assad forces for other adventures in the region.  Israel has said that it will not tolerate Iranian forces on its border.  Hopefully, there will not be a major clash on the ground, but it is looking more and more like one is coming.  We must remember that both the USA and Russia also have forces in Syria which could be drawn into fighting.  Just two days ago, Iranian led forces moved in to attack American allies in a location where US forces are located.  The Americans called in the Air Force and the Iranian advance was wiped out from the skies.  It would be terrible if the USA were drawn into yet another war in the Middle East.