A Second Day At Gaza

This morning, there was a demonstration by hundreds of people in Gaza at the border with Israel.  That's down significantly from the 30,000 who were there yesterday.  No one was killed today, but there were some injuries.  Yesterday, the Israelis opened fire on those who were trying to breach the border fence as well as those who were attacking the Israeli troops on the Israeli side of the border.  Seventeen people were killed, of whom 9 or 10 were members of the Hamas military forces.

Today, Israel warned Hamas that if these events continue, it will be forced to retaliate against Hamas inside Gaza and not just limit its response to those trying to breach the border.  Israel holds Hamas responsible for the actions of the people inside the Gaza strip.

It will be interesting to see how long these demonstrations go on.  Will Hamas back down?  Will the terrorists push to have more people from Gaza killed in the demonstrations?  Will there be some sort of agreement to end the fighting?

One thing is clear:  the Israelis are not backing down from the Hamas confrontation.

Sexual Harrassment Connecticut Style

Representative Elizabeth Esty, a Democrat from the 5th congressional district, supposedly was horrified to discover that her chief of staff was abusing women staffers in the DC office.  Here's Esty's statement issued yesterday:

Think about this.  Esty discovered the problem in "the spring of 2016" but she's only talking about it now.  When she hired a new chief of staff to replace the offender, she gave him a severance package and a letter of recommendation so that he could go out and find new employment where he could continue harassing women.  In other words, Esty covered up this entire matter.  Her goal was not to help the women on her staff who had been harassed but rather to protect herself and her chances of re-election from the negative publicity that would result from the story getting out.

 

Esty is not notable for any accomplishments achieved for the 5th district.  She's just another liberal Democrat with a non-descript record.  Of course, that was until now.  Esty has become a symbol of the refusal of Democrats to actually stand up for the women who are being harassed.  It's not just Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton.  Esty is just as guilty for covering this mess up as they are for doing it in the first place.

 

She needs to resign from Congress and to let someone new take over in the 5th.  Of course, she won't resign, but she surely ought to.

Is Hillary Colluding With Putin?

In the 2016 election, according to the mainstream media there was some sort of activity by Russia to try to get Donald Trump elected.  There's no evidence of that activity, but Trump beat Hillary Clinton, so it had to be the Russians' doing, right?  It's not possible that Hillary lost because she was a crappy candidate who was not trusted by even a third of the electorate and who made clear her disdain for the great mass of middle America.  So, with no evidence to show collusion, the media just states it as if it were a fact and goes from there.

Well now we are approaching the 2018 midterm election.  Normally, one would expect the Democrats to do well.  The average result in midterms during the first term of a president is for the opposition party to pick up more than 20 seats in the House.  Numbers like that would put the Democrats close to taking control of the House.  We would have Speaker Pelosi once again.

But it seems that the Russians may be getting involved once again.  This time, it seems as if Hillary Clinton is colluding with Putin to help the GOP.  The pattern is clear.

1.  Hillary goes around making speeches in all sorts of places.  She's supposedly on a book tour, but she's been to multiple continents, even in places where most people do not speak English.  It's hard to imagine that many people there would be interested in her book about the 2016 election, but there's Hillary on the stage.  Like the old ad character of Chicken Man, all that can be said of Hillary is "She's everywhere, she's everywhere!"

2.  Hillary is doing her best to push women and others away from the Democrat party.  In just the last month, Hillary has called those who did not vote for her "backward" and "uneducated".  Hillary has said that women who failed to vote for her did so under the oppressive control of their husbands, brothers, fathers, and FedEx delivery guys.  Hillary has had her surrogates announce that women who voted for Trump were just too ashamed that Hillary was so far above them, that they felt compelled to vote Trump.  The litany goes on, but Hillary and her people keep saying the most offensive (and ridiculous) things which seem designed to guarantee that the women who previously voted for Trump in 2016 will not return to the Democrats in 2018.  I blame Putin.

3.  We haven't seen any new data on contributors to the Clinton Slush Fund, er....excuse me, the Clinton Family Foundation.  My guess is that when that data is finally revealed, we will learn that the Kremlin has funneled hundreds of millions of rubles into the Clinton coffers.  After all, Hillary clearly loves power, but she really loves money even more.  That's how she and Bill spent their entire lives fighting to the poor and downtrodden, while they somehow amassed a fortune in excess of 100 million dollars even while spending full time fighting for social justice.  Clearly, Hillary is not the genius that she and her surrogates claim her to be.  Nevertheless, Hillary is not so stupid that she would think that her constant criticism and diminishment of the vast middle of American society will win any converts to the Democrat cause.  The only reasonable explanation is that Hillary is getting paid by Putin to try to throw the election once again to Trump and the GOP.

It may be time for there to be yet another special prosecutor to look into this.  There's no clear evidence of any crime, but that did not prevent the appointment of Mueller last year.  My suggestion is that Jeff Sessions appoint a new special prosecutor who will be able to get to the bottom of this mess.  I was going to suggest Roseanne, but she seems to be busy with her new show.  Since she will not likely be available, my next suggestion is Laura Ingraham.  She actually is an accomplished lawyer.  Even better, the special prosecutor's office does not sell ads, so there would be no way for David Hogg to organize a boycott.

 

A Major Escalation At Gaza

The terror group Hamas has orchestrated a major escalation of tension along the border between Gaza and Israel.  Gaza, you may recall, was occupied by Israel from 1967 until about 2006 when the Israelis voluntarily withdrew and turned the area over to the Palestinians as a sign of good will.  Within a short time, Hamas took control of Gaza and turned it into an armed camp which has twice attacked Israel in wars.  At the moment, Gaza is still under the control of Hamas, but the terror group has seen its tactics failing.  First, Egypt, which used to support Hamas, has become a strong ally of Israel in dealing with Hamas.  The smuggling routes that used to run from Egypt into Gaza have been shut down by the Egyptians.  For the most part, this is the result of Hamas' support for the Islamic terror groups operating inside Egypt in the Sinai region.  These Hamas supported groups have killed scores of Egyptian police and military personnel along with civilians in Sinai.  As a result, there is no longer any land route into Gaza through which military supplies can easily pass.  Second, the Hamas program of building and launching missiles at Israel has been thwarted by the Israeli Iron Dome system which shoots down missiles that might hit populated areas.  A major investment by Hamas has been neutralized.  Third, the Hamas construction of tunnels under the border to points inside Israel from which terrorists can launch attacks on the Israelis has also been neutralized.  Israel has developed countermeasures which have detected tunnels under construction and blocked their completion.  The tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that Hamas stole from humanitarian relief and used instead for the tunnels were all wasted.  That led to the latest development.

This morning, Hamas organized "protests" of ordinary residents of Gaza to come to the border fence and demand the right to return to "Palestine".  Hamas was testing to see the Israeli reaction to these protests.  Would Israeli troops enforce the zone next to the border which is an area for which entry is prohibited?  Would Israel back off and let the seemingly civilian crowd surge to and over the border fence?  The answer this morning was clear; Israel will enforce the border "no-go" zone.  As the crowds tried to surge to the border fence, the Israelis first used riot control measures to push them back.  When that failed to stop the crowds and they began to come very close to the border fence, the Israelis opened fire with rubber bullets.  Then, when the Israelis spotted some in the crowd attempting to plant explosives next to the fence, they opened fire with real bullets in a successful attempt to stop the attack to breach the fence.  Initial reports put the number of dead at seven.

This is a really awful move by Hamas.  It is using these civilians including women and children as human sacrifices on the altar of its military aims.  The truth is that Hamas figures that it wins no matter what happens.  If the border fence is breached and the crowd surges into Israel, then Hamas will claim a great victory.  Maybe those in the crowd can kill Israelis and destroy property in Israel.  On the other hand, if as is more likely the Israelis drive the crowd back, then Hamas will portray Israel as murderers of civilians.  Hamas hopes that this will gain it new supporters on the world stage.  At a minimum, Hamas hopes to make it more difficult for the Arab countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to cooperate with Israel (as has been happening more and more.)

I don't believe this will work.  The Israelis are not likely to back down and allow the crowds into Israel.  That probably means that many more will die at the border.  At some point, the fervor of the Gaza crowd will likely wane as the futility and consequences of these crowd attacks become clear.  It is even possible that some in Gaza will blame Hamas for foolhardy actions, although this is not very likely.  The Egyptians and the Saudis are way too concerned about Iran to let the deaths of Gaza civilians worry them.  In the last six years, something like 600,000 have died in Syria and most of them were civilians.  The number of dead in Yemen is now approaching 50,000 again heavy with civilians.  In Iraq, there were also huge numbers of dead just in the battle against ISIS.  Even a few hundred more dead in Gaza won't faze most Middle Eastern leaders.

It is far from certain, though, that my views are correct.  The Gaza border crowd war has commenced.  Like all wars, the outcome will not be certain until it is over.  Hopefully, this war will deal a death blow to the terrorists of Hamas.

Hard To Believe

The fascistic tendencies have revealed themselves in the newest darling of the left in the USA, David Hogg the Florida high school student who was instantly proclaimed a leader of the gun control movement when his school was the scene of that terrible shooting a few weeks ago.  It was one thing for Hogg to move to the front of the pack of the anti-gun crowd.  He was useful for the anti-gun groups because his presence kept alive the pain of the school shooting.  Now, however, Hogg has gone over the edge.

Here's what happened.  Like many high school seniors, David Hogg applied to college.  Apparently, he didn't get in to the University of California in San Diego and his other top choices.  In fact, it is unclear if Hogg got in anywhere (I'm not saying he didn't; I just don't know.)  Some internet site wrote an article about Hogg's failure to be accepted at UCSD and elsewhere.  Laura Ingraham tweeted that Hogg had been rejected and that he was whining about it.  That's it.  Hogg, who is now supposed to be a national leader of the movement against guns, didn't get into the college he wanted.  So what was Hogg's response to the tweet from Laura Ingraham?  Hogg started publicizing the companies that advertise on Ingraham's show and threatening to have his people boycott those companies.  That's right.  Hogg can call members of the NRA or politicians who had nothing to do with the Parkland shooting "murderers", but if you point out that he didn't get into college, you have to be punished for daring to mention it.  That's hardly free speech.  Indeed, what it actually is, is proof that Hogg can't stand criticism of any sort.

Someone better explain to Hogg that when you make yourself into a public figure, you get the attention that comes with that, both bad and good.  Trying to shut down any criticism is what a fascist or a communist would do.  It really doesn't look good and isn't very American. 

Fixing the VA

There is only one group of people in the USA who rely totally on government healthcare; those are the veterans who bravely served this country, a group to whom we all owe a major debt of gratitude.  So what sort of care do they get?  Under Obama, the care was pretty poor.  In some locations, vets were made to wait up to six months just to see a doctor.  Some vets actually died while waiting for care.  In the 2016 campaign, President Trump repeatedly called for this situation to be remedied.  He called for better and quicker care for the vets.  One idea that he pushed was to allow vets to see private doctors at the government's cost if the wait was too long at the local VA facility or if the vet lived in a place where there was no local VA facility.  Trump also pushed for getting rid of the VA personnel who created phony records in an attempt to hide the scandalous waiting periods that had been forced on the vets.

After Trump became President, he appointed as Secretary of Veterans' Affairs David Shulkin, a man who had held the post under Obama and who had been brought in by Obama to try to clean up the mess at the VA.  Congress passed a bill last year that allows the VA more easily to fire the dead wood at the agency, and some of those people are now gone.  The VA, however, did not act on allowing vets to see private doctors.  In fact, the VA Secretary, we now learn, opposes that plan.

President Trump fired the VA Secretary and is replacing him with a man with an impeccable record.  The new guy ought to, at a minimum, follow the President's policies with regard to fixing the VA.  As a result, the media is now out in full force attacking that idea.  Letting vets get care quickly by seeing private doctors is now, according to the NY Times, just a plan by Trump to enrich "his friends" without helping the vets.  That's beyond the pale.  Vets deserve good healthcare.  It's as simple as that.  It is unacceptable to fight a plan that would let the vets see doctors when they have the need rather than when the VA can fit them into the schedule.  Obviously, the Times cares more about making a phony political argument than about getting healthcare for the vets.

That Would Explain All Those Walkers Left Behind

According to the Washington Post, a survey of those who attended the March For Our Lives in DC last weekend had little to do with high school students.  Only about 10% of the marchers were teens.  The average age of the other 90% of the marchers was 49.  This was the result of a random sample of hundreds of people at the march.

Think about all those article, tweets, posts and other "news items" that discuss how the march was being led and pushed by high school students.  They were all wrong according to data assembled by one of the chief sources of the left, the WaPo. 

It's perfectly fine for elderly Americans to engage in a protest march.  It's their right as Americans.  The problem arises when the mainstream media feels it has to produce a phony narrative about this being a "children's crusade" in order to try to gain more support for the marchers.  There's nothing good that comes from a lie like that.  It just makes the marcher and the marchers look dishonest and disreputable.

I guess that after all the years of lying during the Obama regime and all the lies pushed by the media about Trump, the media just can't help itself.  It's lies, lies, lies all the time.

Are You A Citizen? Another Question That Will Be The End Of America

The Census in 2020 will include a question that has been asked in nearly every prior census since the founding of the USA over 200 years ago.  Census takers will ask the person being interviewed, "Are you an American citizen?"

Oh, the horror!
Oh, the depravity of it all!
It's time to fear for the future of the United States of America!

Those reactions pretty much sum up the response of the Democrats to the news that the citizenship question is back in the census after being out in 2010.  Some Democrats like Nancy Pelosi say the question violates the Constitution.  Think about that for a moment.  When you land in an airport on an international flight, the customs agent asks if you are a US citizen.  Does that violate the Constitution?  When you go to apply for government benefits, the clerk or the form you fill out asks if you are a US citizen.  Does that violate the Constitution?  If you want to register to vote, the registrar often will ask if you are a US citizen.  Does that violate the Constitution?  The answer to these three questions is a resounding NO, the Constitution has not been violated.  So why would asking someone on a census form about citizenship violate the Constitution?  Nancy Pelosi has no answer to that question.  Nancy just says it whether or not it is correct. 

Then there's the Attorney General of California who says that asking the question is illegal (although he doesn't claim it violates the Constitution.)  Of course, the AG doesn't bother to tell us how the question is illegal.  Here's a hint why he offers no details:  asking the question is not illegal.

The census is something that is required by the Constitution.  The questions that get asked have been left to the Census Bureau, and there's wide latitude granted with regard to which questions get included.  Some people get asked the more detailed questionnaire.  They have to answer far more intrusive questions than whether or not they are citizens.  No one seems to have any problem with that.  It's just the citizenship question that brings out the crazy in Democrats.

The truth is that the Democrats are concerned that illegal aliens will not respond to the census if they think it might lead to their deportation for being here illegally.  Every illegal who refuses to respond is one more person who won't be counted.  Since the majority of illegals are in blue states, the Democrats think that not counting illegals will deprive them of seats in Congress and electoral votes.  This is just a political upset from the Dems.

He Just Made Tim Kaine Look Good (And That's Not Easy)

In 2016, one of the people whose names were frequently mentioned as potential running mates for Hillary Clinton was ongressman Joaquin Castro and his brother Julian Castro.  Hillary chose Virginia senator Tim Kaine for the thankless task.  I keep waiting to hear Hillary blame Kaine for her loss; it's about the only thing she has yet to mention.  In any event, the point here is not Kaine, but Joaquin Castro.  This morning this fool said on MSNBC that he knows that President Trump is "determined" to go to war with North Korea, a move that will result in millions of deaths.  This comes from a congressman who is on the House Foreign Relations Committee, so he ought to know what he is talking about.  It is one thing to spend a year talking about a phony collusion story regarding the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, it is entirely another thing to charge that the President is actively trying to start a war with North Korea.  Indeed, this claim by Castro seems to me to be a signal of mental instability on his part.

Someone should tell Castro that if Trump wants to start a war with North Korea, all he has to do is give the order.  Until then, I congratulate Castro for being the first person to make Hillary's choice of Tim Kaine as her running mate look good.

Repeal The Second Amendment?

Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens said in an interview that the USA should repeal the Second Amendment.  That's direct and clear.  It's also something that is never going to happen.  Think about it.  Congress would have to pass such a repeal with a super majority.  This is the same Congress that according to gun control advocates won't even pass gun measures of any sort.  Where will the needed majority come from?  On top of that, most of the states would then have to approve of the amendment.  There simply aren't enough states that would agree to do away with the Second Amendment.

In short, the idea is a non-starter.

The Warmongering Lunatic

I happened to open Real Clear Politics this morning to see an article listed from leftist site The Nation which calls President Trump a "Warmongering Lunatic".  It really is amazing if you think about it.  Here's a site that spent over a year calling Trump a puppet of Putin of Russia.  Now, Trump has suddenly become a warmonger because he is confronting the Chinese on trade, the North Koreans on nukes, and the Russians on using nerve gas to kill former spies in the UK.  So the Russian puppet is confronting Russia and -- according to The Nation -- he loses either way.

That's bad enough, but I also think it is worth remembering what the response by those of the ilk of The Nation was to people who called Obama something like a "dithering fool".  That idea for the prince of indecision was something that was oft expressed during the Obama years in the White House.  According to The Nation, that assessment of Obama was nothing more than an expression of pure racism.  There was no need to look at what Obama did or did not do; it was enough to know that Obama was an African American and therefore any criticism had to be condemned as racist.

One thing is interesting:  in responding to both Obama and Trump, The Nation has displayed what one should charitably call a streak of mental illness.  First, they couldn't grasp the idea that Obama might do the wrong thing without those who point out his error being racist.  Then they couldn't grasp the idea that Trump can also do the correct thing at least some of the time.  I'm sure that those who agree with The Nation are already preparing to call this post an assault on the First Amendment.  Somehow, they never seem to see reality.

Join the Club

Germany, France, Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Romania and Sweden all joined the USA in expelling Russian diplomats today as a result of the nerve gas attack in the UK.  It has been a long time since the Europeans acted together like this with the USA.  It's a good thing.  No doubt, it will get little or no attention in the media.

Almost As Bad As Parkland

Here we go again.  We learned today that Seddique Mateen, the father of the Pulse Nightclub terrorist Omar Mateen (who killed 49) was a confidential FBI informant for over a decade.  We also learned that the father was under FBI investigation for money transfers to suspicious recipients in Turkey and Afghanistan and that those transfers were discovered in the consensual search of the father's residence that took place right after the Pulse shootings.  That's the minor stuff.  The major item is that the FBI investigated the shooter Omar Mateen about two years prior to the attack and found that he had no ties to terrorism.  The FBI was considering adding Omar as a confidential informant at the time.  All this came out because the government attorney in the ongoing trial of Omar's wife had to disclose these facts to the defense.

There are issues whether or not the disclosure came too late and that therefore the wife's case has to be dismissed, but that's minor stuff.  What's important is that the FBI had done a detailed investigation of the shooter and missed all the signs that he was a terrorist, and that the shooter's father was an informant who never bothered to tell the FBI what his son was doing (if he knew).

Maybe I'm naïve, but I do believe that a review of Omar Mateen's life by the FBI not all that long before the attack ought to have at least raised a suspicion of his intentions.  This was not a casual conversation; it was an FBI background check.  It should have turned up the truth.

We do know that in the Parkland Florida school shooting the FBI was expressly warned twice and still failed to do anything.  The Mateen story is not that bad, but it comes close.  What the hell was the FBI doing in these cases?  It certainly doesn't add to a feeling of security.

A Thought Exercise

Imagine this:  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan makes a speech at a predominantly black Baptist church in Washington and says the following:

“I want you to know as a matter of full disclosure, I am a Catholic. Catholics basically believe the same teachings that Baptists believe.  We just do it without the rhythm. But we try. We are not as without rhythm as some of our Jewish brothers and sisters.”

Imagine the outcry.  "Racist!"  He's saying that African Americans "have rhythm" and Jews "don't have rhythm".  He has to resign!  The attack would be non-stop on cable.  CNN and MSNBC hosts would have breakdowns on air.  It would be overwhelming.

Of course, Paul Ryan did not say this.  No Republican said this.  It was actually said by NY governor Andrew Cuomo at a Baptist church in Harlem yesterday.  No, the New York Democrat actually said this.

So for symmetry, I feel compelled to point out that Cuomo's statement is racist and anti-Semitic all in one.  I'm waiting for the mainstream media storm which surely won't come.

What I do think will happen, though, is this.  Cuomo is in the beginning of a primary battle against Cythia Nixon in New York.  This idiotic statement is going to be used against him in both the black and Jewish communities.  It won't swing the election to Nixon, but is surely will help her.  What kind of a moron would say this anyway?

How Convenient

The Stormy Daniels interview on 60 Minutes has come and gone.  You would think it is big news.  When I tuned in my car radio this morning to get the final results of the NCAA quarter finals, there was no sports report.  There was only discussion of Stormy Daniels.  Ten minutes later when the business news should have aired, you guessed it, no business news -- just more Stormy.  But was this really big news?

Let's start with the point that I keep hearing from the mainstream media:  Stormy Daniels was threatened with harm if she were to go public with her story.  The obvious first issue is whether or not Stormy is telling the truth.  Let's see.  She's a stripper who says she took well over $100,000 in an agreement to keep quiet.  Then she broke the agreement.  She's a self-promoter who is milking this situation for all she can.  Those are not strong arguments for believing her.  After all, with the supposed threat against her, she goes from another woman who says she slept with Donald Trump years ago to a victim of physical threats.  That alone makes her story worth a whole lot more.  But this is far from the only reason not to believe her.  By her story, which is constantly repeated on the news, she was confronted in a parking lot in Las Vegas (where else?) when she was with her small daughter.  The man who confronted her did not identify himself, and she did not recognize him.  He supposedly threatened her with a cheesy line that sounds like something out of a Hollywood mafia movie.  Then he walked away, and she has never seen him again.  Except for his supposed threat, there was nothing to tie him to Donald Trump.  And Stormy, of course, did not report the threat to the police.  So after saying nothing for more than a decade, Stormy conveniently now is ready to come forward with her story on national TV in the middle of her nationwide tour.  We have no proof that anything happened, except for her word.  How convenient!

There's no way that any sentient being would believe this story.  It's just all too obviously contrived.  A mystery man with an unreported threat who came from central casting.  Really?

Look, I certainly could believe that Donald Trump slept with this woman.  We all know, or should know his past.  He's no JFK or even a Bill Clinton, but he's surely has had his share of affairs.  We all knew that before he got elected.  Just ask Billy Bush.  But threats and attacks on the women involved?  That's a Hillary Clinton move, not a Donald Trump move.  Particularly since Stormy has as her lawyer and former Democrat operative who worked for Rahm Emanuel, there's little that let's me see the "he threatened me" meme as anything other than a phony story to bash Trump and make a quick buck at the same time.

Let's Look At Gun Laws and Enforcement

It's worth considering the enforcement of the current gun laws by the federal government before we try to create new laws to add to the list of things required for a gun purchase.

Let's start with criminals.  It's not a hard choice:  the law says that a convicted criminal or a fugitive from justice cannot buy a gun.  That's federal law which gets enforced through the NICS database.  Someone seeking to buy a weapon has to undergo a background check (with a few minor exceptions).  The potential buyer's name is checked against the NICS database to see if they are one the list of people who are barred from purchasing a weapons.  There are a bunch of problems with this system, however.  Some states and localities don't put the names of the people convicted of crimes on the NICS system.  In certain places, the failure to place these names on the NICS system is due to a desire to protect illegal aliens from deportation.  If a sanctuary city lists an illegal alien as a felon on the NICS system, it provides a road map to ICE to seek out and deport that individual.  After all, it is the stated policy of the Trump administration to have ICE focus on deporting those illegals with criminal records.  That was also the stated policy during the Obama years, so the sanctuary cities have long failed to fully cooperate with the NICS system requirement. 

But there's more.  During the Obama years, the Department of Justice decided to reinterpret the meaning of "fugitive from justice".  When the law was passed that placed these people among the group that cannot buy guns, it said that anyone for whom there was an outstanding arrest warrant for a felony would be included.  That's not hard to understand.  If there's a warrant for Mr. X in Kansas for armed robbery, his name goes on the list.  The Obama Justice Department reinterpreted that language, however, to limit it to covering only those who were subject to an outstanding arrest warrant and who also were known to have crossed state lines in fleeing justice.  As a result, the Obama Department of Justice directed the FBI to remove about 500,000 names off of the NICS database.  That's 500,000 people who have outstanding arrest warrants for felonies who the Obama DOJ made able to buy guns. 

Then there's mental health issues.  Recent polls show that something like 85% of Americans agree that the mentally ill should not be allowed to buy guns.  That's easy enough.  In many places, though, the mentally ill are already banned from weapons purchases.  The problem is determining just who is mentally ill.  At Newtown, the shooter had mental health issues; he used the weapons that his mother obtained legally.  In Parkland the shooter also had mental issues.  The police knew all about them and also were warned that this kid might become a school shooter.  The Broward Sheriff's office did nothing.  There were mechanisms in Florida that would have allowed action, but nothing was done.  It won't make a difference to enact new laws if they, like the old ones, do not get enforced.

It seems as if all the focus on the need for new laws is happening with essentially no focus on the need to enforce current (and future) laws.  Those who are busy screaming about the need for new laws should not overlook the failure to enforce the laws we already have.

 

The No Win Media

According to news reports, President Trump will expel a group of Russian "diplomats" from the USA tomorrow in response to the attack on two Russian emigres in the UK a few weeks ago.  The attack was carried out with a nerve gas developed by the Soviet Union and manufactured only by the Russians.  The target was an anti-Putin double agent and his daughter.  Because of the use of nerve gas, others in the pub where the attack took place were affected as well.  After the attack, UK Prime Minister May expelled 23 Russian diplomats.  The USA will take this action in solidarity with the UK and alongside our main European allies who will take similar actions at the same time.

So what is the media reaction?  A typical one comes from Bloomberg News.  Ever since the attack, media outlets like Bloomberg have been writing reports denouncing the President's failure to take action against the Russians as both the result of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 (which of course did not happen) and the failure of the USA to support its allies.  Now Trump is acting in concert with the allies to take action.  Bloomberg reporters say that the delay in acting by Trump may have been the result of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.  It's amazing.  The President waited until all the facts were in and a response was coordinated with our allies, but all the anti-Trump media sees is a delay due to collusion in 2016 (which, of course, never happened).  The media barked about a failure to support allies, but when the allies work together, they ignore it.  But that's not the end of it.  Bloomberg actually reports that Trump recently announced the replacement of H.R.McMaster as National Security Adviser with John Bolton, and amazingly says that McMaster favored a tougher stance towards Moscow.  Somehow, Bloomberg fails to mention that Bolton also favors a tougher stance against Moscow.  Indeed, based upon his previous public statements, Bolton is more of a hawk regarding Moscow than McMaster.  That's hard to miss.  But Bloomberg goes further.  The reporters also state that Trump replaced Rex Tillerson at State with Mike Pompeo (now CIA Director) and again state that Tillerson favored a stronger position against the Russians.  Again, the Bloomberg reporters fail to mention that Pompeo advocates an even stronger position against the Russians.  So the Bloomberg reporters twice slant their report as if Trump is somehow going soft on the Russians with these new replacements when exactly the opposite is true.

The truth is that for a mainstream media outlet like Bloomberg (and many others) itdoes not really matter what Trump does.  No matter what he does, it's wrong, weak and designed to placate the Russians because of the imaginary collusion of the 2016 campaign.  When, if ever, will the BS end? 

A Legal Analysis of Age Limits on Gun Ownership

Since we have a mass emotional outburst today with the march for gun control, I thought it would be worthwhile considering if a ban on the ownership of guns or of some sorts of guns for people under the age of 21 would be constitutional.

Here's the simple issue:  one of the new gun control measures being pushed in various legislatures around the country is a ban on ownership or purchase of assault weapons by those who are not yet 21 years of age.  Is such a ban legal?

Here's the answer (which is not so simple):  This is an issue which will likely ultimately get decided by the Supreme Court.  At that point, the Court ought to find that such a ban is not constitutional. 

1.  Rights given by the Constitution are not limited by age with the exception of the right to vote.  That right is guaranteed to those over the age of 18.  Rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches, etc. are not limited by age.  Similarly, the right to have arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited by age.

2.  Just because the Constitution grants a right, it does not make that right absolute; it can be limited under certain types of circumstances.  Free speech does not allow someone to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is the classical statement of one such limitation.  Freedom of religion does not mean that human sacrifices to pagan gods are protected by the Constitution.  There can be limits placed on Second Amendment rights as well.

3.  In order to limit a constitutional right, there has to be a compelling state interest.  If a speaker calls a public official a moron, a degenerate or some similar insult, there is no compelling state interest in shutting the speaker up.  On the other hand, if the speaker starts inciting his audience to armed insurrection to overthrow the US government, then there is a compelling interest which allows such speech to be stopped.  There are a myriad of cases which set the definition of "compelling state interest" with regard to all sorts of constitutional rights.

4.  For a ban on gun ownership by 18-21 year olds, the compelling state interest cannot be just a reduction of gun violence.  Such an excuse might be used to limit purchase or ownership by all Americans of so called assault weapons.  It does not provide a compelling reason to keep weapons out of the hands of a certain age group.  The proponents of these limitations will need to have a specific reason tied to just this age group.

5.  Limits on sales of alcohol to those under 21 cannot be used as a basis for the limitation of gun sales.  Alcohol has a special status under the US Constitution which gives states special rights to regulate its sale.  Also, there is no constitutional right to consume alcohol.

6.  It will be very difficult to come up with a compelling state interest to justify a ban on gun ownership by 18 - 21 year olds.  Clearly, these people can properly use guns.  A major chunk of the US military is in this age group, and they all get weapons training without problems.  There is no special characteristics of the age group to bar them from weapons; otherwise, they should be barred from the military as well.

Were I the judge deciding this issue, I would find that a ban on gun ownership limited to 18 to 21 year olds is unconstitutional.

The Time Is Now To Start Planning

Okay, the Omnibus monstrosity funding the government through the end of September has passed.  It's a mess that does many things that are good but also many that are bad.  It's past, but it also should be a warning.  Congress cannot continue to operate in this haphazard fashion; it has to get back to actually reviewing government spending.

Let me explain:
1.  There are committees in Congress that cover each segment of federal expenditures.  They are supposed to review what the government spends our money on and increase the good items while decreasing the ones that don't work.  For the longest time, we have had only the increases -- at least in any meaningful fashion.  No one is minding the store, so to speak.
2.  The individual committees ought to be working diligently on the spending levels and coming forward with recommendations as to which items should receive funds.  It is a time consuming and painstaking process.  It can't be done in a week or two.  It certainly can't be done when the spending for the entire government is put forward with a yes/no vote set in less than a day later.
3.  Think of the good that could be done were the committees to actually do their jobs.  For example, I've written many times about the fact that the federal government has about 104 separate job training programs.  Each program has a director, staff and overhead costs.  But there's no need for 104 directors, etc.  Were the Labor committee to propose legislation that combined these programs into three or four (each with a different focus), a major chunk of the costs of these programs could be eliminated.  The savings could then be used to train additional workers or just to lower the federal deficit.  It's a small move in the context of the federal government, but if it were repeated 100 times, it could truly make a difference.
4.  If the spending bills were brought to the floor individually and in a timely fashion, we could see how each member of Congress voted on these items.  For example, will representatives and senators really vote against the reorganization of training programs?  Will they really want to explain why they favor waste rather than efficiency?  I doubt it.
5.  We will have to see how the November elections come out.  If the Dems take back either house, then we will surely be stuck with the ever increasing spending that comes along with the use of continuing resolutions to fund everything.  On the other hand, if the GOP maintains control, then it is incumbent upon the Republicans to bring back the proper method for approving spending and to abandon the craziness that is the present system.
The GOP needs to start NOW getting next year's spending bills ready to go.  There's no excuse for waiting.  Waiting is just another name for surrender. 

March For Our Lives -- Nope, Not Going

Today is the March For Our Lives.  I'm not going, but I did walk the dog this morning.  Does that count?  It should; it will have about the same effect as the march in DC.

Look, since the Parkland shooting, we have seen the gun control forces go crazy.  I don't mean they have gotten excited; I mean they have gone crazy.  Here's an example:  the face of the Parkland shooting has been David Hogg, at least in much of the media.  He has gone from being an angry high school student to becoming a liberal icon.  He knows the motivation of every member of the NRA, or at least he claims to know it.  He opines at length on the legislation before the Florida legislature (and not just on guns).  He moved on to angry profanity-laced rants to the point where he seems on a path to maybe be the next high school shooter.  But now comes the funniest part.  Parkland High School imposed a new rule on back packs.  They have to be transparent so that security can see if a student is carrying a weapon.  Hogg should be in Hogg Heaven.  He's not, however.  He says the rules is a violation of his constitutional rights.  Get it?  He's fine taking away people's rights under the Second Amendment, but if he has to carry a clear backpack where other things would be visible, it's an outrage.

Last week there was a school shooting in Maryland in which there was a kid who started shooting and who was almost immediately taken out by an armed school security guard.  Have you heard much about that?  Nope.  They won't mention it today in DC either.  It doesn't fit the narrative.  Armed guards in schools or trained teachers with weapons -- they can't have it.  It would be an immediate way to improve school security that wouldn't require any new gun laws.  It would be helpful, but it would be a victory over the NRA; it would only save lives.

My suggestion for today:  it's better to walk the dog than to march in the DC extravaganza.  Just ignore it.

The Top Headlines Today

The mainstream media is back at it today.  I listened to a radio newscast while in my car this morning.  The top story from CBS News was the appointment of a "super hawk" as National Security Adviser.  The story made it sound as if Bolton thinks military action is the answer to every problem.  The second story was a long piece about the former Playboy bunny who claims she had an affair with Donald Trump many years ago.  Really?  There's a major ongoing terrorist attack in France, but the Playboy bunny is more important?  There's all sorts of other important stories, but the Playboy bunny is more important?  Are they kidding?

Let's put it this way:  After the Access Hollywood tape during the campaign, there shouldn't be anyone in America who is surprised to find out that Donald Trump had affairs in the past.  There's also no one who is saying that this conduct is continuing, so Trump does not sink to the level of Bill Clinton or John Kennedy on that score.  But there is surely no surprise to hear of some former affair.  At least, there ought to be no surprise.  So why is this such big news?

There's a new poll out today about American's attitudes towards the Iraq War.  It's been 15 years since the start of that conflict.  The amazing thing is that fewer than a fifth of those polled knew when or why the Iraq War began.  A large majority didn't know how the war progressed either.  Maybe the reason for this lack of knowledge is that there were too many news reports about unimportant things like the Playboy bunny and too little information disseminated by the media about things that truly matter.

Bolton In, McMaster Out

The White House announced tonight that John Bolton will be replacing H R McMaster as National Security Adviser starting at the end of the first week in April.  This switch has been rumored for many months.  It is something that should have some major impact at the Trump White House.  When you also add the departure of Rex Tillerson at the State Department, there should be some truly major impacts on American foreign policy.

It seems clear that President Trump is replacing the people who have not really agreed with his plans carried out over the last year.  It will be interesting to watch the impact that the new team will have on the upcoming meeting with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.  My guess is that it will be more likely that President Trump will take a very strong position with Kim.  I think the chances that the USA will go along with some new endless negotiation with the NKs have declined dramatically with these personnel changes.  I also think that the chances of a stronger confrontation of Russia over events like the Russian use of chemical weapons to poison a Russian émigré in the UK have increased greatly.  In the Middle East, we should see a stronger policy against Iran.  We should also see much less willingness to go along with Palestinian intransigence in negotiations with Israel.  All things considered, the changes ought to lead to a more coherent and responsible American foreign policy.  That's a very good thing.

What A Victory In Wisconsin

In the "you won't believe this one" category, Democrats in Wisconsin are celebrating because a judge in Dane Country ordered Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to call a special election to fill two vacant state legislative seats, one in the state senate and one in the house.  Walker had said that he would let the seats be filled in the November elections in order to save money for the state.  The judge decided that there had to be an election because not to hold one would deprive the voters in two districts of representation.  But here's the kicker:  the Wisconsin legislature just adjourned its regular session for the year.  There won't be any more votes until 2019 unless a special session is called.  Think about that.  The judge ruled that there had to be elections to fill a seat in the legislature that is done meeting for the year.  The new state senator and representative will do nothing except draw a salary for the next six months.  The special election will cost a few million dollars to run.  And this is the decision that the Democrats are calling a big victory.  Have they lost their minds?

In any event, there will be an appeal of the court's decision, and maybe a further appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  By the time there's a final decision, it will probably be too late to hold the special election anyway.

Big congrats to the Democrats on this "major" victory.

Tariffs on China

The news of the moment is that President Trump is going to levy a $50 billion tariff on Chinese goods in response to the Chinese theft of American intellectual property.  The Chinese government supports efforts to break into the computer systems of American companies and steal their designs, trade secrets, an other important data so that the Chinese can get it without paying for it.  China has also been pressuring American companies to have their tech products made in China so that the designs, etc. will be known in China and can then be used by the Chinese.

This is a process that has been going on for at least ten years if not more.  During the Obama years, the US government did nothing about it.  As a result, a great deal of tech and other US manufacturing moved to China.  Trump's move is telling the Chinese to knock it off; there will be a steep price if the practice continues.  This is a good thing.  China is a world economic power.  It has to act like a responsible member of the world community, not a pirate, if it wants to stay a part of that community. 

The Chinese are threatening to respond with countermeasures of their own.  Supposedly, these measures will target the groups who voted for Trump.  We will see soon enough how the Chinese react.  The key, however, is that the USA not give in to these Chinese threats.  In the near term, the pain inflicted on China of possibly losing the US market is a lot worse than the pain the US would suffer at the hands of the Chinese.  President Xi of China will not want to have his nation's economy take a serious hit in a trade war with the USA.  China claims that its GDP is growing by more than 6% per year, but many economists think that the real growth rate at the moment is something like 1.5%.  A hit in a trade war could lead to a recession in China, something that the Chinese haven't seen in a long, long time. 

 

Is It A Surprise?

The Austin bombing suspect is dead.  Authorities haven't identified him as of yet; we only know he is a white 24 year old male.  I decided to look on Twitter to see how the news is being received.  There, I read that this guy was an "obvious white supremacist".  I also read that the police caught up with him only after he attacked in a white neighborhood; before that, I was told, no real effort was made to catch him.  These may be random idiots writing anonymously on Twitter, but still, it is sad that we have people who believe this garbage.

The truth is that we need to wait to learn who this terrorist really is.  Why did he do this?  Is he just mentally ill?  Does he have a cause he is supporting?  Is there a group involved or did he act alone?

We should save the judgments for later.

 

Life in the Bubble

The average American doesn't really care that much about supposed collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016; he or she cares about being able to care for the family, earn a good living, having adequate security both national and personal and also enjoying life.  Nevertheless, since the election in 2016, the mainstream media and most of the Democrats have been talking about almost nothing else than Russia, Russia, Russia.  After all this time, however, there is no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

The Trump-Russia bubble replaced the old Obama racism bubble at the time of the election, although there have been many attempts to bring back the old bubble.  During Obama's term, everything that happened where someone opposed Obama was labeled "racist".  It started almost from day one of the first Obama term.  It continued on for eight years.  Of course, it soon got to the point where since everything was "racist", nothing was really "racist".  Once President Trump took office, most things he did were labeled racist as well.  After all, the inhabitants of this bubble think Trump is an unrepentant white supremacist who wants to get rid of all non-whites in America.  There may be no facts to back up this view, but it doesn't stop these people from spouting that view anyway.  Just think of an idiot like Joy Ann Reid on MSNBC for whom every event is proof of racism in the USA and with President Trump in particular.  Her views are silly, but she has a loyal following nevertheless. 

But back to the current bubble.  Can it really be that absent any proof, millions of people still think there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?  Just think of the reaction to the firing of Rex Tillerson.  When Tillerson was named Secretary of State, the bubblers told us that President Trump picked Tillerson as a favor to Vladimir Putin.  Trump was paying back Putin for his help in the election.  That was silly enough, but these same people told us that when Trump fired Tillerson, it was as a favor to Vladimir Putin.  Trump was paying back Putin for his help in the election.  The observer with any common sense would understand that it cannot be both ways; either Tillerson was a favorite of Putin's or Putin wanted him gone, not both.  Of course, there were some who when faced with this logic came up with yet another solution:  Putin had Trump fire Tillerson in order to make it look like Putin had no control over Trump.

This last argument is getting to the point where even people living in the bubble ought to understand how ridiculous it is.  In many ways, it's like the Washington DC city councilman who told the world last week that the recent spate of snowstorms to hit DC were caused by the Rothschild family and other Jews.  There's no indication that the councilman was drunk or high when he wrote that, but he backed off quickly enough as the response to his idiocy rolled in.

 

The Maryland School Shooting

A guy shot two people in a Maryland high school today.  The shooter was then shot and killed by the armed school security officer.  The boy and the girl who were shot are at the hospital.  There is no final word on their condition,

Think about that for a moment.  After the Florida shooting when President Trump said he wanted to arm teachers or security officers in schools, the media and the Democrats derided his idea as "deranged and dangerous."  Now, a situation that could have been so much worse has been stopped by an armed security officer.  Will the left now tell us that they were wrong?  Of course not!   But they were wrong.

It would be better if armed guards were not needed in schools.  Still, it's worth remembering that neutralizing the shooter by means of an armed teacher/guard is something that's surely worth including in any plan to deal with school shootings.

Bombs in Texas

We've now seen bomb number 5 in Texas.  A package exploded at a FedEx facility in San Antonio; it was destined for Austin where the other four bombs exploded.  This bomb included shrapnel in order to inflict maximum damage.  Fortunately, no one was seriously injured by the blast, although one FedEx employee may have suffered a concussion.  There is very little that the public knows about these blasts.  The media speculated at first that the bombs might be aimed at minorities, but that has proven wrong.  They now seem to be placed at random.

So how does this all play out?  Will we hear from the usual sources that the USA needs common sense bomb regulations?  Will there be condemnations of the National Bomb Association for its work to keep bombs in the hands of private citizens.  Will the Union of Concerned Terrorists condemn these bombs for damaging the reputation of well intentioned terrorists across the land?

Seriously, these bombs indicate that not everything can be controlled by laws.  Obviously, making and detonating bombs is illegal everywhere in the USA.  It hasn't stopped the crazy or crazies who are placing these bombs.  We have no idea why they are doing this.  The point so far just seems to kill or maim people at random.

Anyone with the least bit of information ought to get it to the FBI.  Hopefully, law enforcement will be able to put this all together and find the culprit(s), the sooner the better.

Gathering Facebook Information

The big story for the last few days is that Cambridge Analytical is supposed to have gathered Facebook information in 2016 and used that info to help the Trump campaign.  Facebook itself just suspended CA from using the site.  Now today, the director of media analytics for the Obama 2012 campaign says the Obama's group did the same thing and that Facebook knew.  In fact, Carol Davidsen tweeted even more; she said the following about Facebook,

They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.

So we have the Obama director of media analytics making clear that Facebook is only concerned about people using their data if they disagree with those people politically.

This really calls for regulation of Facebook. Either everyone ought to be able to used this data, or it should be protected and no one should be able to use it.  Nothing else makes sense.  It just cannot be that Facebook management gets to decide which political party to help.  That becomes an illegal in-kind contribution worth tens of millions of dollars.

You Have To Wonder

Over the weekend, I discovered that someone had stolen my credit card number and run up about $4000 in fraudulent charges.  This is not the first time my card number has been misused, so I knew the drill; I called my credit card company and reported the fraud.  The took the info and in about five minutes the charges were removed.  I'm not sure who is out the $4000.  The bulk of the charges were for Venmo for which the thief created a fraudulent account.  Most of the rest were for supposed restaurant deliveries through Square/Caviar in California.  I have to wonder how these services and the bank itself did not pick up the fraud.  After all, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that I wasn't getting food delivered to Connecticut from a restaurant in San Francisco.  Still, someone gets hit with that loss.  For the bank, I guess it is just another cost of doing business.

The bigger point, however, is what this says about cyber security in general.  Our whole country depends on cyber transactions.  If a thief can steal 4000 dollars so easily, couldn't a foreign country shut down critical systems or otherwise create chaos just as easily?  Have we put ourselves and our society at risk of disaster?  It's a tough question, but it is one which we need to ponder ever more intensively.  It's a hell of a lot more important than Stormy Daniels or the other craziness of the moment, but not for the media.

Why? I'll Tell You Why

The media is filled today with stories wondering why McCabe was investigated in the first place by the IG.  Trump must have demanded it, is the conclusion of many, but that is just wrong.  The reality is that the IG investigation began with a review of how the FBI handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation.  That review was demanded by congressional Democrats to make sure that the FBI wasn't kowtowing to some sort of GOP pressure.  Among those who announced that the investigation was a good idea were Andrew McCabe's lawyer.  The investigation was run by an IG who was appointed by president Obama but who is officially non-partisan.  In other words, the Democrats demanded, applauded and staffed this investigation.  Now that McCabe has been found to have lied under oath, the Democrats somehow want to blame the whole thing on Trump.  Morons like Democrat senator Richard Blumenthal of my own state (who is more commonly known as #LyingDick) are even claiming that the firing of McCabe is obstruction of justice by Trump.  Amazing!  What's next?  Will Blumenthal shoot someone in the Senate and then seek to have Trump arrested for murder?  I wouldn't put it past him. 

What Does This Mean?

Israel announced that it has destroyed two tunnels running from Gaza into Israel.  One was new and another was a tunnel that Hamas was attempting to rebuild after it was severely damaged by the Israelis in 2014.  Israeli planes bombed the Gaza end of one of the tunnels and destroyed it.  The other was destroyed when the Israelis drilled into it (inside Israeli territory) and pumped it full of a material that "rendered the tunnel useless."  Hamas said in response to these events that it wasn't actually using the tunnels, but this is, no doubt, spin from the terror group.

The question of the moment, however, is what sort of material would make the tunnels unusable?  It's a mystery.  I'm curious to hear what material was used.  No doubt, we will learn the facts in time.

The Predictable Spin Won't Work

Ezra Klein of Vox has weighed in on the firing of Andrew McCabe.  He says (surprise!) that Trump fired McCabe in a tawdry and improper manner.  Now let's consider the truth facts.

1.  McCabe lied to investigators under oath.  There's no two ways about this.  We don't know the details, but they will soon be coming when the Inspector General releases his report.  So how does Klein characterize this?  Here's what Ezra has to say:

McCabe is not innocent of wrongdoing. He made a questionable call (at best) about allowing a leak to the press during the 2016 campaign and then he appears to have lied about it, though he says it was an honest mistake.

So perjury is now an honest mistake.  Or, as Jim Comey might say, "McCabe may have lied but he lacked the requisite intent."  Nevertheless, even Ezra Klein has to admit that McCabe appears to have committed perjury, a felony.

2.  McCabe was fired after three non-partisan and independent agencies determined that his conduct required that he be fired.  They recommended that course of action to the Attorney General last Wednesday, and he accepted those recommendations.

Klein ignores the non-partisan, independent chorus calling for McCabe to be fired.  For Klein, this was President Trump firing McCabe.  That's total BS.  Now there's no question that the President is happy at this outcome.  Remember, we know from the Strzok texts to his mistress Page that McCabe was part of a cabal in the FBI that in the fall of 2016 was looking for an "insurance policy" should Trump pull of the impossible and actually beat Clinton.  Trump knows well that McCabe is an enemy who used the resources of the FBI to try to hurt Trump, indeed to spy on his campaign.  Don't forget, McCabe is also one of the FBI leaders who knowingly signed off on giving the bogus Trump Dossier to the FISA court as the basis for surveillance on the Trump campaign.

Klein's spin is laughable.  Nevertheless, it is accepted by many on the left.  They don't care about the facts or the requirements of the law.  Consider this:  three Democrat congressman have already offered jobs to McCabe so that he can still get his federal pension.  THREE DEMOCRATS WANT TO REWARD CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR BECAUSE IT IS ANTI-TRUMP.  This is disgusting. 

This Is News?

The AP has a big article out today in which Andrew McCabe is quoted as saying that his firing by the Attorney General is part of President Trump's "war on the FBI".

Think about that.  Three non-partisan agencies (the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the FBI) find that McCabe improperly leaked confidential information to the media and also lied under oath on multiple occasions.  All three of these independent non-partisan agencies recommend that McCabe be fired.  The Attorney General accepts those recommendations and fires McCabe.  (In fact, McCabe is lucky he has yet to be indicted.)  Nevertheless, now that he has been caught, McCabe says his firing is part of Trump's war on the FBI and the media plays it up big.  Anyone, and I mean anyone with a brain would understand that unless McCabe wants to admit criminal behavior, he has to say something like the nonsense he is tossing out now.  It's not news; it's just a phony excuse by McCabe cause he got caught.

Of course, publishing phony news that criticizes Trump is always something that the mainstream media likes to do.  Still, the is #FakeNews at its worst.

A Great Day For Democracy

President Trump called the firing of Andrew McCabe a "great day for democracy."  Meanwhile, the left wing echo chamber of the mainstream media is condemning the firing for "chipping away at the independence of the DOJ".  So which is it?  When the non-partisan Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility of each of the FBI and DOJ all conclude that McCabe concealed certain facts when asked about them, lied under oath and ought to be fired, does the DOJ lose its independence when the Attorney General follows that non-partisan recommendation and fires McCabe?  Only in the anti-Trump world would anyone even say such a thing with a straight face.  The anti-Trumpers find confronting Trump in all things more important than the rule of law, more important than the honesty of the FBI, in fact, more important than anything else.

The truth is that McCabe's firing was the right thing to do.  The American people ought not have to support him for the rest of his life after he so totally and illegally ignored his responsibilities at the FBI.  Lying to the FBI is a crime.  Lying by the FBI ought to have serious consequences as well.  There's no two ways about it.

CNN, At It Again

CNN has a column by Julian Zelizer today.  Zelizer is a Princeton history professor and a frequent guest on CNN.  His thesis today is that President Trump is constructing a "dangerous echo chamber" around himself by getting rid of those in the cabinet and among his advisers who disagree with him.  Zelizer says this is dangerous because the President is so "lacking in experience" and "unstable".  Why does CNN publish this garbage?

Let's take a closer look at what Zelizer has to say.

1.  Trump got rid of Rex Tillerson and put in Mike Pompeo (now head of CIA) to replace him.  Trump also replaced economic advisor Gary Cohn with Larry Kudlow.  Trump is rumored to be about to replace national security adviser H.R.McMaster as well.  These are the three big moves which concern Zelizer.  But think about those moves for a moment.  One (McMaster) hasn't happened, and the White House says it is not about to occur.  Cohn was the chief White House point person on the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, something on which he was fully in agreement with the President.  Only after that was achieved did Cohn decide to leave.  The media portrayed the departure as a disagreement over tariffs, but that is denied by both Trump and Cohn.  All we have is the media which has lied so often about the Trump White House, that there is no reason to believe it.  But take it further; the new guy Kudlow is an avowed free trader.  His voice will be no less against tariffs and trade wars than Cohn's was.  That leaves Tillerson.  Tillerson is said to have opposed the strong methods used against North Korea which seem to have led to a possible breakthrough (we still don't know).  Trump was right; Tillerson was wrong.  Tillerson also opposed many of the US moves in the Middle East; with ISIS defeated it is hard to want to keep Tillerson around for his insight.  In other words, Tillerson has not proven to be correct all that often.  If Trump wants someone else, he ought to have the person he wants.  And Pompeo has quite the record.  He is extremely smart.  Obama tried stupid at State with John Kerry and we had disaster after disaster as a result.  Pompeo is fully versed on the military and intelligence aspects which related to foreign policy, something that Tillerson didn't have.  All other things being equal, changing Tillerson for Pompeo at State seems to be a big step up for the USA.

2.  We hear once again the Trump is inexperienced.  The reality, however, is that President Trump has as much experience in foreign affairs after a year and a few months in office as Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had after a similar time in office.  In fact, Trump probably has more because he had to deal with many other countries in his life in business prior to running for president.  The BS charge about experience is one that is tired and untrue.

In other words, CNN is publishing a column that is based upon FakeNews.  So what else is new?

McCabe Fired as Recommended by FBI OPR

Andrew McCabe, who used to be the head of the FBI after Jim Comey was fired, was himself fired tonight.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions accepted the recommendation of the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility that McCabe be terminated because he lied both to Congress and under oath.  In Washington-speak, the OPR said McCabe was "not candid" in his testimony.  This is important.  The anti-Trump forces on the left will try to make this into an attack by Sessions on the special prosecutor, although it clearly is not that.  The truth doesn't matter to those folks, however.  The key here is that the non-partisan Inspector General and the non-partisan FBI OPR both recommended that McCabe be fired for his actions.  Sessions really had no choice but to fire McCabe.

Here's a bit of Sessions' statement on firing McCabe:

"After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility.  The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions."

It's good to see that the political corruption of the FBI will not be tolerated. 

The Most Amazing Poll In A While

Robert Menendez is the Democrat senator from New Jersey.  He was indicted for taking "gifts" from a "friend", a doctor who himself was convicted of a massive Medicare fraud.  The allegation was that Menendez traded influence to help the doctor for the "gifts".  Menendez was indicted by the Obama justice department, so there was no political slant to the charges; it was Democrats indicting a fellow Democrat.  The trial went on for months, but it ended with a hung jury.  So what you have is an indicted and almost convicted allegedly corrupt senator with a lackluster record.  Given that, one would think that Menendez would not even try to run for re-election, but that if he did he could never survive the primary or the general election.  That, however, would be wrong according to the polls.

In a recent poll, Menendez is running 17% ahead of his likely Republican challenger.  There are no serious opponents within the Democrat party.  In other words, the people of New Jersey don't seem to care if Menedez is corrupt.  That's astounding to me.  I guess the spirit of Tony Soprano lives on in the Garden State.

How To Run In November

The media is filled with stories about PA - 18 and the apparent victory by Democrat Lamb.  Depending on which column you read, the election on Tuesday was either the most consequential moment in the history of the USA or no big deal.  Both views are wrong.  The reality is something else.

Tuesday, the electorate chose a local winner, not a national winner.  They chose a Democrat who campaigned as pro-life, pro-gun and anti-Nancy Pelosi.  There aren't too many Democrat candidates who can carry off that message.  Nevertheless, that message won in PA - 18 among steel workers, coal miners and a suburban/rural crowd that is hardly sympathetic to the national Democrat stance on most issues.

So let's put aside all the nonsense that the pundits are pumping out and consider how the GOP ought to run in November to prevent more such losses.  Here's my view:  it's time to nationalize the races across the country.  GOP congressional candidates should run on a few national issues.  Here are some examples:

1.  The GOP ought to run as the party of economic growth while painting the Democrats as the party of economic stagnation.  There's a real record for doing this.  Under Obama, the economy averaged under 2% growth during eight years.  Under Trump, we have seen a number of quarters where growth exceeded 3%.  The tax cuts ought to keep that faster pace of growth coming.  Republican candidates ought to hammer home the fact that the Democrats voted in unison against the tax cuts and now are calling for massive tax increases.  Those are moves that will stop any economic growth and push us back into stagnation.  This is a simple but extremely powerful point.

2.  The GOP ought to run as the party that can stop terrorism.  Under Obama, America pulled back from Iraq and made the terrible Iran nuclear deal.  The result was the creation of ISIS (which filled the vacuum left by the American withdrawal).  The world had to endure and fight another terror group because Obama couldn't assert American authority for good, but rather cut and ran.  Trump presided over the destruction of ISIS.  The GOP ought to run as the party that will keep America involved to the extent needed to prevent the reappearance of more terrorists.  The Democrats are the ones who want to flee from any confrontation and to let the nascent terror movements develop into future major threats.

3.  The GOP ought to run as the party of energy self-sufficiency.  So far, Trump has released the oil, gas and coal industries from the restrictions that the Obamacrats needlessly placed on them in order to hamper production.  As a result, US oil, gas and coal production is soaring, jobs in those industries are also soaring and the USA is no longer dependent on oil suppliers in countries that are very hostile to the USA.  We are freer to act since we are no longer slaves to the need for oil imports from anti-American regimes.  Paint the Democrats as the ones who want us to be slaves on the plantations run by the big Middle Eastern oil producers.

4.  The GOP should run as the party that wants to stop illegal immigration and to focus on helping Americans rather than those here illegally.  Let the Democrats be the party of sanctuary cities.  Let the Democrats push to give illegals all manner of benefits.  In debates, ask the Democrat whether or not he or she wants to give welfare, free college tuition, etc. to those here illegally.  There is a constituency for helping illegals, but it is small compared to those who want to help Americans first.

5.The GOP should run as the party which wants to get the federal bureaucracy under control.  The GOP should push for a law that allows the executive to fire federal workers much more easily for incompetence.  Let the Democrats stand up for their buddies in the bureaucracy.  Let the Democrats explain why government workers who do terrible things never seem to get fired.  That's a losing position.

There may be other points, but the examples above should make clear what the GOP needs to do.  The candidates of the GOP should tie Democrat candidates to the positions held by the national Democrat party.  If they can successfully do this, there's just no way the Democrats can win.

Oh Come On!

The new controversy today is that a Lebanese businessman with whom some people in the Trump transition team met in December of 2016 was convicted 15 years earlier of pedophilia in Czechoslovakia around 2000.  At one of the two meetings that Mueller is looking into, there was also a Russian banker present.  OMG!

These are meetings by staff people after the election.  The Lebanese banker was a representative of the head of the UAE.  The meetings had nothing to do with the election in 2016.  So what's the reason for all the articles today about these meetings?

Give up?  The answer is that there aren't many other stories today to slant against Trump, so the media is going here.

In other news, the mainstream media is going overboard on stories about members of the Cabinet who may have traveled in private jets during the Trump administration.  Of course, that leads to the following question:  In 2016 when Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch was sitting in her PRIVATE JET on the tarmac at an Arizona airport, Bill Clinton dropped by to discuss the ongoing investigation of Hillary regarding her emails.  Forget for the moment about the total impropriety of that meeting.  Think instead about all the articles written in the mainstream media concerning how terrible it was that AG Lynch was in a private jet paid for by the taxpayers.  THERE WERE'NT ANY ARTICLES.  The press didn't care.  The press didn't even mention this.

I'm not saying that Cabinet officials need private jets.  I am saying, however, that the hypocrisy of the mainstream media is overwhelming.

The UK - Russia Dispute

British Prime Minister may announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats this morning in retaliation for the apparent assassination attempt in Britain targeting a Russian expatriate and his daughter using a highly potent nerve agent developed in Russia.  The target is a clear opponent of Russian president Putin.  This is something like the fifteenth Putin opponent to be killed or attacked in Britain since Putin came to power.

The idea that the Russian security services feel able to launch attacks at will on Russian expats in the UK speaks volumes about the attitude held by Putin towards the Brits and the rest of the West.  Putin obviously believes that Russia will pay no price for these actions.  The expulsion of diplomats hardly raises the cost to the Russians.

What is needed now is a method of raising the costs for the Russians of their actions in this matter.  The costs could be military.  For example, NATO could station troops near the Russian border in Estonia or the other Baltic states.  Missile defenses could be upgraded in Eastern Europe.  Much stronger weaponry could be sold to Ukraine for possible use against the Russian forces that invaded that country.  Actions could be taken in Syria to increase the cost to the Russians of maintaining their bases there.  These are all possibilities.  Each would tell Putin that he had gone too far and would now pay a price.

The costs could also be economic.  NATO could launch a coordinated effort to provide for importation of natural gas from the USA.  Each BTU of energy from American natural gas used in Europe is one fewer BTU of Russian gas sold by Putin's empire to the West.  It's a direct hit on the Russian economy.  Europe could also cut off certain exports to the Russians.  I'm sure there are materials that Russia needs and can get only from the Europeans.

The costs could be cyber.  Surely the Brits have the ability to launch cyber attacks on Russian internet sites.  One or two well placed blows would tell Putin to stop.

The costs could also be personal.  Without a doubt, there are embarrassing things that the Brits know about Putin that could be made public.  Where does he have secret bank accounts, for example?  Surely, he does.  Putin would not want that made public in Russia.

The point is that there is a range of moves that can be taken against Putin that might actually deter further moves by the Russian.  Throwing out a few diplomats is not one of them.  Stronger action is needed.

PA 18 Update

For those of you who are watching the special election in PA today, it's worth reporting that there has been scattered snow showers in the district all day long.  Local observers say that weather of this sort tends to keep some people from the polls and to skew those who show up towards the people who have to leave home anyway to go to work.  The net result is to raise the percentage of voters who are men and reduce the percentage who are women.  That bodes well for the GOP candidate.

Some Things They Just Don't Get

There's a big article in Politico today about how President Trump is planning to impose major tariffs on Chinese products in response to Chinese theft of US intellectual property, among other things.  Politico makes the point that such tariffs could be disastrous for American farmers if China retaliates against American agricultural products like soybeans, corn and wheat.  That's just ignorant.

There is no question that the Chinese will retaliate should the USA put tariffs on Chinese exports to the USA.  The problem won't be for America's farmers, however.  If China puts tariffs on American grains and beans, it will make food more expensive for the average Chinese family.  It might also reduce the amount of American ag products sold in China.  The one thing it won't do is actually hurt American farmers, however.  The price of soybeans and grains are set by the world market.  If China uses taxes to make Australian grains or Brazilian soybeans more appealing in China than American products, it could even attract those products to China at the expense of American products.  The problem for the Chinese, however, would be that as Brazilian soybeans are pulled into China, that will leave a void in other markets which will be filled by US soybeans.  A company that makes margarine in Italy from soy oil will not care if the soybeans used are Brazilian or American.  If the Brazilian company that now supplies this Italian mill pulls out in order to sell into the Chinese market, there will surely be an American supplier waiting to pick up the business.  The production of soybeans does not change quickly with the price; this year's crop will be the same with or without the supposed Chinese tariffs.  That means that unlike with manufactured goods, tariffs on agricultural products will just shift sales around but will not actually reduce sales.  All those American farmers will sell to Europe or Asia outside China.  They will not get hurt.

Articles like this show the ignorance of many who report on economic issues.  Political reports are particularly ignorant when it comes to economics, and it shows (often).   

Pelosi Tootin the Putin Horn

If you want to understand who the Democrats really are, it's important to take a look at the statements made by Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi regarding Rex Tillerson.

In 2016, when Trump nominated Tillerson as Secretary of State, Pelosi issued a statement which said, in part, the following:

"Choosing an oil executive friendly with Vladimir Putin as Secretary of State sends a disturbing signal about President-elect Trump's priorities.  Rex Tillerson's cozy relationship with the Kremlin is especially alarming in light of his attitude towards sanctions over Russia's aggressive behavior in Europe, while at the same time the President-elect continues to side with Russia over the judgment of the US intelligence community."

Today, when Trump fired Tillerson, Pelosi said this:

"Secretary Tillerson's firing sets a profoundly disturbing precedent in which standing up for our allies against Russian aggression is grounds for a humiliating dismissal.  President Trump's actions show that every official in his Administration is at the mercy of his personal whims and his worship of Putin."

Think about that.  When Tillerson is nominated, Pelosi says he is a Russian pawn, a tool of Vladimir Putin.  15 months later, when Tillerson is fired, Pelosi does a complete about-face and says that Tillerson stood up against Putin and that's why he was fired.  Of course, Pelosi makes no attempt to square the two statements.  Tillerson is either a Russian stooge or a valiant public servant standing up to the Russians.  For Pelosi and the Democrats, the truth doesn't matter; they just want something with which to bash President Trump.  They also want to keep spreading the lie that there is any sort of tie between Trump and Putin.

It's disgusting.

Ex Rex

Rex Tillerson is out at the State Department.  Mike Pompeo will be nominated to be his replacement.  The new head of the CIA will be the current deputy director of that agency and the first woman to head the CIA:  Gina Haspel.  This is a good move by President Trump.  It has been clear for a long time that Trump and Tillerson were not on the same page regarding a host of policy issues.  Pompeo reportedly has done a great job at the CIA, and he will be more likely to change the atmosphere at State where change has always been a dirty word.

The big question to me is whether or not the Senate Democrats will try to stall the nominations so that Pompeo won't be in place in time for the meeting with Kim Jong Un.  I think that under the Vacancies Act, Trump can appoint Pompeo as Acting Secretary of State, but that hopefully will not be necessary so long as the Senate Democrats behave in a responsible manner.  Politics should not interfere with a possible deal with the North Koreans.

Hey! This Is Actual News!

About six hours ago, a motorcade carrying the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority was attacked in Gaza by an IED.  The bomb missed its target, but it damaged two of the vehicles in the motorcade.  The Palestinian Authority announced that it holds Hamas responsible for the attack.

This is big news, so you would think that CBS and NBC and the other mainstream media would cover it, right?  If you thought that, however, you would be wrong.  As of 8:45 this morning, neither or those networks had any mention of the attack on their websites.  Neither did many other media outlets.  I only found mention of it on the ABC News site among all the mainstream media outlets I checked.

Think about that.  Not long ago, Egypt brokered a deal under which the Palestinian Authority (which controls the Palestinian areas of the West Bank) made peace with Hamas (which controls the Gaza Strip).  These two had been fighting for the last ten years.  Now, the Palestinian Prime Minister gets attacked in Gaza and the PA, not surprisingly, holds Hamas responsible.  If the two go back to fighting, the already small chances for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians disappear.  One would think that this deserves at least a mention in the mainstream media other than ABC.  But not, the mainstream media is too involved with "issues" like whether there will be protests during President Trump's visit to San Diego today (hint:  there will be some, even if CNN has to manufacture them) or whether or not the end of the House Intelligence Committee investigation (which found no Trump - Russia collusion) was premature even though the committee looked at something like 300,000 documents and questioned something like 80 witnesses.  It's sad.

How Does This Guy Get To Be Called an "Expert"?

Fareed Zakaria is, according to CNN, a foreign policy "expert".  Okay, I know it is CNN, but they still promote him as an expert and publicize his views.  Just in the last day, we learned what this fool -- excuse me, "expert" -- thinks about the planned meeting between President Trump and the North Korean dictator.  Zakaria thinks it is a bad move by the USA.  It supposedly gives Kim Jong Un something that he has wanted for years, a meeting with the president of the USA as an equal.  Zakaria says that American presidents have always refused to meet with the North Korean leader, but President Trump has changed that.  Here's the essence of what Zakaria has to say:

"So what changed this week? It's not clear. The charitable interpretation would be that the South Korean government received assurances that the North was serious about talks to eliminate its arsenal. Let's be clear that North Korea has announced no concessions, no reversal of its arsenal, no denuclearization."

That's Zakaria's "expert" view; now let's consider the actual facts.  North Korea has suspended it's nuclear testing.  North Korea has suspended its missile testing.  North Korea has agreed to stop complaints about joint US - South Korea military exercises.  Each of these three are a major concession.  Indeed, the first two of these concessions are the very ones that President Trump made conditions that North Korea had to satisfy before there could be talks of any sort.  That's another way of say that Zakaria is totally wrong when he says that the NK's announced no concessions.

Now it is true that the North Koreans did not announce that they would denuclearize.  That's the subject for discussion in the talks.  What Zakaria is claiming ought to have happened is the equivalent of a union negotiation with management in which the management agrees to speak to the union representatives only after they first concede that the union will accept whatever the management offers.  That's not how talks are supposed to work.

The truth is that President Trump got major concessions from the North Koreans.  Zakaria on CNN cannot concede that success by Trump, sohe resorts to misstating the facts.  Most people would just call it lying, but that might offend Zakaria, so I'll call it prevarication.  He's no expert; he's just a political hack who is spinning wildly and untruthfully to try to have something negative to say about the President.

Cherokee Liz Says No To DNA

This morning on Fox News Sunday, host John Roberts asked senator Elizabeth Warren if she would take a DNA test to put to rest questions about her heritage.  Warren still claims she is part Native American despite there being no proof of that other than her "high cheekbones".  Warren responded with an answer that lasts a minute and a half but says "NO!"  Warren says she knows who she is and is not going to give that up.

Think about that.  With one test, Warren could establish that she truly is part Native American, could shut up Donald Trump from ever calling her Pocahontas again, could shame all those (like me) who make fun of her for what seems clearly to be a phony claim to minority status, and could establish herself as a true straight shooter.  It would take less than ten seconds to achieve all that, but Warren says no.  The only rational excuse for her conduct is that Warren already knows that she has no Native American ancestry.  She can't take the chance of being exposed as the liar she certainly seems to be.

Advice From Hillary Clinton

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton warned against the danger of improvising at the upcoming meeting between President Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.  According to Hillary, there aren't enough experienced diplomats to enable the President to have a successful negotiation with Kim.

Think about that.  Obama was president for eight years, and Hillary was Secretary of State for more than half of that time.  In all that time, there was no progress towards stopping the North Korean nuclear weapons and missile programs.  Kim Jong Un and his father before just had a cadre of scientists who built nuclear weapons and designed and built ICBMs all during the Obama/Clinton years.  And during all that time, no doubt Hillary would tell us that there were certainly enough experienced diplomats at the State Department.  Somehow, however, all those experienced diplomats did nothing.

Now we have had President Trump for a little over a year.  He has confronted the North Koreans in ways that would have horrified Obama and Clinton.  For example, President Trump taunted Kim by calling him "little rocket man" and by saying that the US nuclear button was much bigger than the North Korean one.  More important, Trump pressured the Chinese to help confront the NK's; he loaded the area with American military power, and he continually talked about the fact that the US would handle the North Koreans "one way or the other."  It seems to be working, and he did it without all those experienced diplomats whose absence Hillary denounces.

Basically, Hillary Clinton is showing again why it is a good thing that she is not president.  She is upset and concerned because President Trump has approached the North Korean problem in a different way from how it was done for the last 20 years.  We know that the old way was a failure, but that seems not to matter in the least to Hillary.  Even worse, Hillary seems not to care that Trump's new way could possibly be working.  She's still against it.