Iran -2

Israeli PM Netanyahu spoke not long ago and revealed that Israeli intelligence got about 100,000 documents regarding the Iranian nuclear program out of Iran.  The documents show that Iran has lied about its program and is ready to go back to full commitment to building nukes at a moment's notice.  The conclusion one draws from these documents is that when the JCPOA was negotiated Iran lied to the USA and the other nations and also that the Obama administration (especially John Kerry and President Obama) lied to the American people.

What a mess!  We all deserve better.  Thank God we no longer have a leader who thinks that a good photo op is more important than actual results.

And by the way, you have to wonder what the mullahs must be thinking right now.  Israel got the documents that detail the heart of the Iranian nuclear program.  What else has the Mossad gotten out of Teheran?

The Latest Rumor About Iran

Twitter is abuzz with news that Israel obtained a vast store of Iranian documents that show that Iran is not complying with the nuclear deal but rather is still going full speed ahead developing nuclear weapons and missiles.  There's no way of knowing if any of this is true.  In fact, it could just be a false trend started by someone as a hoax.  Supposedly, the Israeli PM is going to speak about these documents and what they show in a speech in a few hours.

If there really are actual Iranian government documents proving Iranian duplicity with regard to the JCPOA, it will be a game changer.  Remember, Barack Obama is no longer president, so the likely USA response is not just a weak statement that Iran is acting "on the wrong side of history".  We could actually see an all out strike on Iran's nuclear sites.  Indeed, this could be a very dangerous moment for the world.  Still, it is better to find out now about Iranian lies than to wait until after the mullahs have both nukes and a delivery system that could take those weapons to America.

Attack in Syria - 3

The mystery of yesterday's attack on Iranian bases in Syria continues to deepen.  Among the strangest of new is that in Iran, the media is not reporting the attack as hitting Iranians.  Also, they also call the main target a weapons depot.  Since the media in Iran is under total control of the government, one has to wonder why Iran is not admitting that its forces were hit.  Are the Iranians trying to avoid the need to strike back against Israel, the likely source of the attack?  Were the Iranian people told that Israeli missiles struck an Iranian base and killed over 30 soldiers, there would be great pressure for the mullahs to strike back and intensify the battle with the Israelis.  That's a confrontation that would likely not end well for the Iranians in Syria.  Other news sources have also laid the blame for the strike at the USA with missiles supposedly coming from a base in Jordan.  There is no way that America carried out that strike without announcing it afterwards or having the truth leak out. 

There's still no way of telling what will happen next, but Iran seems to steering this towards there being no response right now.

Attack In Syria -- 2

Last night, I wrote about the large attack in Syria on a base populated by Iranians.  This morning, more details have come out to indicate just how large an attack it was.  Here's the key:  according to European observers, whatever happened in Syria registered as an earthquake on seismometers at 2.8.  Normally, air/missile attacks would not do that.  The reports so far indicate that the target was an underground factory built by Iranians with North Korean help that produced precision targeted missiles as well as storage facilities for those missiles.  Most likely, Israel hit the facility with a bunker buster missile, i.e., one that penetrates deep into the ground before it explodes.  The "earthquake" would then be the result of the missiles and the factory exploding in response to the strike.  Even a bunker buster missile alone would not cause the sensors to register an earthquake.

According to reports from Syria, at least three sites were hit by missiles in the attack.  Unlike previous events, the Syrians, Russians and Iranians have not claimed that they shot down any of the incoming missiles.  There are reports, however, of up to 38 dead at the military bases with most of them being Iranians.  There is also a report that the Iranian general in charge of the factory project was included among the dead.

It's still hard to know what actually happened here.  Was this an Israeli strike that stopped focusing on shipments of weapons to Hezbollah and instead attacked a facility making them?  Was this strike aimed at preparations underway in Syria for a strike by Iran on Israel (one which Iran has been loudly promising)?  Was the USA aware of the strike before it occurred?  Remember, Secretary of State Pompeo was just in Jerusalem and met with the Israeli prime minister two days ago.  Is the strike a demonstration of the type of technology that could take out the Iranian nuclear sites in the event that Iran restarts its program?  Did Russia get a warning about the strike in advance?  That would not be surprising at all.  The last important question, of course, is what will the response be from Iran?

A Large Attack In Syria

There is news and even video footage out tonight about a large attack on a military base in Syria near the city of Hama.  The base is said to be home to a large contingent of Iranian forces.  The first supposition is that this is an Israeli attack, but there is no confirmation.  It might also be just an artillery attack by Syrian rebels taking out a huge cache of weapons and ammunition.  No matter who carried out the attack, however, it has been extremely successful judging from the video showing enormous explosions.

Every time that things seem like they could be heading for a quieter period in Syria, something like this comes along.

Maybe by Monday morning, the actual events in Syria will become clearer. 

"What Do You Have To Lose"

Remember the appeal by Donald Trump during the 2016 to America's black community?  Trump pointed out the poor conditions in many urban centers where a great many African Americans live and the generally poor employment and economic condition of much of the black community after 50 years or so of monolithic support by black of the Democrats.  Trump pledged to make things better and called on that community to vote for him.  As Trump put it, "What do you have to lose?"  After all, despite a great deal of oratory, the Democrats had done nothing much to improve the lot of the average black person in America.

When election day came, something like 90% of blacks voted for Hillary Clinton according to exit polling.  That was, surprisingly, an improvement over the 2012 election when president Obama beat Mitt Romney by about 95% to 5%.  In addition, black turnout in 2016 was lower than it had been in 2012.  Nevertheless, it was an overwhelming vote for Hillary and the Democrats.

Of course, Trump won the election and has been in office now for a year and a quarter.  During that time, black unemployment has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded by the federal government.  Black income levels have also risen.  It is, however, too early to say that Trump has truly delivered on his promise to help the black community.  Nevertheless, it seems as if Trump's message is actually getting through.  The Democrats' constant disparagement of Republicans and conservatives as racists and their claim to total allegiance from blacks may be showing some cracks.

Most important of all, black celebrities are actually saying nice things about Donald Trump.  The main example of that is, of course, Kanye West.  Here's a superstar with a huge following who says that he would vote for Trump and who tweets out a photo with him wearing a Make America Great Again hat.  The response from the left was both intense and insane.  Kanye was attacked in all manner of ways.  The left didn't just disagree with Kanye, instead, it began putting out statements questioning Kanye's sanity.  In other words, the liberals/Democrats reacted with their usual venom to try to destroy a black man who would dare say something nice about a Republican.  The problem that the left faces with Kanye West is that they don't have the ability to destroy him.  They can't denounce him as a racist, so their usual first attack is gone.  No one who knows much about Kanye West would call him an Uncle Tom, so there goes that line too.  That moved the talking points to saying that Kanye is having mental problems.  Normally, that sort of massive attack would drown out any response, but this is Kanye West we are discussing.  On Twitter alone, he has about 28 million followers.  His wife has 60 million followers on the same medium.  They can't be silenced.  In a few tweets, Kanye made clear that he refuses to be "put in a box".  The attack seems to have failed.

Then there's others, far less well known, like Chance the Rapper who tweeted that blacks don't have to be Democrats.  That may not sound like much, but it is a major statement of independence.  Candace Owens (who actually started this whole thing) also got into the mix.  With regard to the late night talk show hosts who were making fun of (attacking) Kanye, she said that the "plantation owners" were out in force because "they want their slaves back." 

We also can't forget Diamond and Silk, the two black women who support Donald Trump in a very vocal manner.  They testified before Congress this week and pretty much destroyed those who questioned them.

Is this the start of a move by the black community towards leaving the Democrat party?  I don't mean that the black community will suddenly vote only Republican.  I just mean that America's blacks would vote for candidates based upon the merit of their positions and not just their party.  Have blacks come to realize that fifty years of talking big but doing little by Democrats is no reason to give them loyal support.  Are blacks realizing that the big push by the Democrats to support open borders just means worse economic condition for them?

We don't know the answer to this yet.  The first test will be seen in November's midterm election. 

The Korean Meeting

The leaders of North and South Korea met this week and set a course towards peace and nuclear disarmament in the Korean peninsula.  At least it seems as if that is the course that has been set.  After all, with Kim Jung Un of North Korea, one never knows if he will keep his word.  Still, it is undeniable that this week has seen more progress in pacifying Korea than has happened at any time since the end of the Korean war in 1953.  It is also undeniable that none of this progress would have happened but for the efforts of President Trump and his administration.  In fact, there will soon be the next step in the peace process when President Trump meets with Kim in the next month or two.

The country and the entire world owes a hearty congratulations and thank you to the President.  He has managed in a little over a year of effort to accomplish something that no other American president managed to do for over 60 years.

It has been very hard for the Democrats and mainstream media to come up with a narrative to use to criticize the President for his Korean efforts.  Sure, in the beginning when Trump started building up forces near Korea, the Democrats said he was a warmonger and could start World War III.  They and the "experts" who appear as pundits in the media criticized Trump for his unschooled methods of international relations.  We were repeatedly told that Trump would only make things with Korea worse than they already were.  Then Trump started hurling insults at "Little Rocket Man" and telling the NK leader that the US nuclear button was a lot larger than the one in North Korea and that the American button actually works.  The media, pundits and Democrats went crazy in their criticism.  Trump was a wild man who had no idea how to act towards a foreign leader, or so we were told.  Trump would surely get us into a war, or so we were told.  People like Madeline Albright (who as Secretary of State was fooled by the North Koreans into a very bad deal) denounced the President as an amateur.  (I do wonder what she is saying now.)  Even after word first came that the North Korean leader wanted to meet with President Trump, these same pundits and Democrats denounced Trump's every move.  They told us that there was no way that the USA could ever get ready in time for such a summit.  It would take more than three or four months of preparation.  Also, they told us that Trump was falling into Kim's trap.  The USA would make concessions while the NK's would not.  Of course, since those warnings, Kim has halted nuclear and missile testing and shut the main nuclear test site in North Korea.  The USA has kept its sanctions and pressure campaign in place.  In other words, the pundits and the Democrats were wrong once again.

It's high time for the Democrats and the media to acknowledge the truth:  President Trump has pulled off something that they all assured us could not be done.  Trump has demonstrated a mastery of how best to "negotiate" with the North Koreans in ways that the "experts" were sure would not work.

I don't expect much acknowledgement of the great accomplishment by Trump; they "experts" and Democrats all hate Trump after all.  Nevertheless, it certainly would be appropriate for these people to admit, just this once, that they were wrong and the President was correct.

A Picture That Says it All

These pictures of a Palestinian refugee camp show something very important to keep in mind:

These pictures show the Yarmouk refugee camp for Palestinians after it was bombarded by artillery for most of the last week.  What is key here, however, is not the nearly total destruction of the refugee camp.  No, it is the location of the camp and the identity of the attacker.  The Yarmouk camp is just outside Damascus in Syria.  The artillery barrage came from the guns of the Syrian forces loyal to Bashir al-Assad.  In other words, the same Syrian forces that used chemical weapons on their own people have been shelling this refugee camp for Palestinians.  And what have you heard about this in the media?  NOTHING.  We don't even know yet how many hundreds or thousands of Palestinians were killed in the attack, but there is essentially no coverage in the American media. 

 

Now just consider what you would be seeing on your TVs or computer screens if the attack was by Israelis.  We would hear this denounced as war crimes or worse.  But the Israelis don't do this; the Syrian butcher and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies do.

There Is No Joy In Truthville

Joy Reid has struck out.  When word first leaked out that a decade ago Reid had posted a long series of posts on her blog filled with anti-gay slurs, Reid's response was to claim she had been hacked.  NBC, which owns the network on which her show appears (MSNBC), backed her up and even arranged for the FBI to investigate the supposed hacking.  That was a crazy defense, to put it mildly.  At the time Reid was supposedly hacked, she was an unknown with a blog.  There would be no reason for someone to hack her site back then.  The killer for her "defense" came when the Reid blog posts turned up in the Library of Congress clocked in during 2006.  That means that either someone back in 2006 or earlier hacked her (extremely unlikely) or her defense was total BS.  It's not much of a choice, so even Reid is now admitting that her site wasn't hacked.  She said that on her show this morning.  Still, undaunted, Reid claimed that she doesn't really know who wrote the anti-gay posts; she just doesn't believe it was her.

This has to be the weakest defense to obvious guilt since O.J. Simpson.  Of course, O.J. got off when the jury acquitted him.  Maybe Reid's audience will forgive her obvious duplicity and homophobia.  Maybe they will forgive her praise of Donald Trump while she dumped on Rosie O'Donnell.  Maybe, but given the nature of Reid's audience, doubtful.

I do suggest to Reid, if she survives this mess, that she remember these events.  When a situation arises like this she should be more forgiving.  For example, in 2002 while running for the State Legislature in Louisiana, Steve Scalise spoke to a group that turned out to have ties to white supremacists.  Scalise says he didn't really know who they were.  He hasn't done anything like that since, but Reid always talks about him as an avowed white supremacist and cites this speech.  By her standards, her blog posts which could hardly be inadvertent make her homophobic and hateful.  She should be banned from the air under her logic.  Maybe she could keep that in mind.

Oh, who am I kidding.  Joy Reid will never be fair to any conservative or Republican. 

Using The Truth To Make Lemonade

The old expression is "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade."  President Trump did just that when he tweeted about the Ronny Jackson mess.  Admiral Jackson is the well respected White House doctor who was nominated by the President to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  Jackson withdrew from consideration two days ago after a torrent of accusations of misdeed were put forth by Democrats and the media.  These included claims such as Jackson had gotten drunk and totaled a government car while DUI; Jackson had gotten drunk on the job and abusive to staff; Jackson had handed out prescription drugs like candy and was called the "candyman" by White House staff, and the like.  It was all accusation and no evidence, a trend which the Democrats seem to truly like.  (Think the Russia - Trump investigation for which no evidence has ever been put forth.)

So how did Trump make lemonade?  He tweeted a response to senator Tester of Montana.  Tester is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee considering the Jackson nomination.  He made public charges that Jackson had been drunk on the job, handed out pills like candy, and many others.  The President pointed out that not only did Jackson deny these charges, but also the FBI which had done four different background checks on Jackson said that they are not true.  As a result of Tester's charges, however, Jackson's previously stellar reputation had been blackened, he and his family embarrassed, and serious damage had been done to a man who devoted his life to service to the nation.  Trump called on Tester to resign (he won't).  More important, Trump said that the people of Montana won't take kindly to this baseless attack on a man like Jackson by this senator.

Here's the key.  Tester is running for re-election in November from Montana which strongly supported President Trump in 2016.  He was already in danger of losing, but with his move against Jackson, Tester has moved himself further into dangerous territory.  Trump is correct that Montanans won't take kindly to baseless political character assassination by Tester against a good man.

Hopefully, we will see a trade off:  Jackson's nomination goes down, but so does Tester's career in the Senate. 

This Is Incredible! A Democrat staffer for Senator Feinstein Hired Fusion GPS AFTER the Election

There's a report in The Federalist that just blew me away.  A guy named Daniel Jones who was a staffer for Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein hired Fusion GPS after the 2016 election to keep them (and Christopher Steele) working on the Trump dossier and other Russia - Trump items regarding the election.  Jones raised about fifty million dollars from wealthy donors in NY and CA to fund that work.  Then Jones shared all of the "findings" with the FBI. 

Think about that for a moment.  A former Democrat staffer for senator Feinstein -- wait, let's stop there.  Feinstein is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which just happens to be investigating Fusion GPS.  Normally, one would expect Feinstein to withdraw from the investigation because of her links to Fusion through Jones.  At a minimum, Feinstein would normally at least reveal that relationship with Fusion GPS.  Feinstein, of course, didn't reveal anything or withdraw from the investigation.  She just ignored the entire problem.

So Jones raised enormous amounts of money so that the bogus partisan attack on Trump by the Democrats could continue.  Fusion GPS which produced the phony Trump dossier at the expense of the DNC and the Clinton campaign was KEPT ON THE PAYROLL of the Democrats to keep pumping out garbage to feed the phony Russia-Trump collusion narrative.  Then they fed this stuff to the FBI.  If the stuff they gave the FBI was false, isn't that obstruction of justice or lying to the FBI?  Is it any less a lie to tell the FBI a false story or to have it written in a dossier and hand it to the FBI?

This story has to be verified, but if it all turns out to be true, then there ought to be major repercussions.  And I mean indictments of people like Jones and Fusion GPS. 

Tom Brokaw???

So the news says that Tom Brokaw of NBC News (where else?) is being accused of making unwanted sexual advances against his subordinates during the 1990s when he anchored the NBC Nightly News.  One accusation from Linda Vester who worked on that news show at the time is extremely detailed and sounds real enough.  There is no way to tell as of yet if it is true, though.  There apparently are other women who have come forward as well with claims of misconduct by Brokaw.  Given everything else that the NBC News division has seen happen in the recent past, it would not be surprising to find out that the Brokaw stories are true. 

Since NBC News is the home of so much "holier than thou" coverage, it is amazing to hear all these stories.

GDP -- Real or Just The First Quarter?

The flash GDP numbers were released this morning for January through March of 2018.  According to government figures, the economy grew at the pace of 2.3% during that time.  This is the first estimate, and refinements will be issued twice in the next two months, and again after a year.  The figure could change by a lot before we get the final number.  Still, looking at today's figure, we have to wonder if the economy is actually growing more slowly in the first quarter or if it is just the government statistics that make it seem that way.  For the last five years, the first quarter GDP reports have all been lower than those for the other quarters.  In 2016, the first quarter growth was a paltry 0.6%.  In 2017, the figure was 1.2%.  Today's figure for 2018 was 2.3%.  That's a big jump from the numbers during the Obama years, but it is still significantly less than the average of more than 3% that has marked the Trump years. 

There has been much speculation in recent years that there is something wrong with the model that the government uses to "adjust" the GDP figures.  This adjustment is seasonal.  For example, there aren't nearly as many farm workers in the winter as there are in the summer, but that doesn't mean that the US GDP has contracted.  It's just a normal seasonal variance.  So the question remains, do government statisticians somehow overly adjust the first quarter down?

By July, we will have a better read on the first quarter's growth.  We won't know, however, if there is a bias in the statistics though.  The feds really ought to look into this.

Finally

The Senate Democrats finally threw in the towel and stopped blocking approval of the new US ambassador to Germany, Rick Grenell.  This appointment has been held up for nearly a year even though there is nothing controversial about it.  The problem, you see, is a political one.  Grenell is gay.  His appointment as ambassador to Germany flies in the face of the non-stop criticism of President Trump as homophobic.  As a result, the Democrats under Chuck Schumer just pushed a lie.  They stopped the Grenell appointment for all this time, but then they complained that there were no high ranking gays in the administration.  Such hypocrisy.

Bill Cosby Found Guilty

The next step in the Bill Cosby saga came today.  A jury in suburban Philadelphia found Cosby guilty of all charges.  From the breathless media coverage, one would think something major had happened.  Cosby got convicted by the jury; that's all.  Next will come motions to set aside the verdict which will most likely lose.  Then there will be a sentencing.  That will be followed by appeals.  If Cosby ever goes to jail, it probably won't be for at least another year and a half.  Of course, he's over 80 and sick, so he may never make it to jail.

Yawn.

Something Connecticut Already Knew

In the last seven years, Connecticut's economy has been stagnant.  Governor Malloy and the Democrats who control Hartford raised taxes on individuals and businesses.  People fled the state for lower tax locations.  Regulations on businesses exploded.  Businesses, both large and small, fled the state.  As a result personal income in the state grew at a slower rate than all but one other state during that time.  It's so bad that the Wall Street Journal today wrote a lengthy story about Connecticut's sad state of affairs.  The Journal focuses also on Malloy's deals with the state employee unions under which those unions are the biggest beneficiaries of state government.  Indeed, the Journal doesn't mention it, but the average income of state workers far exceeds the income of other households in the state.

In November there will be a new governor elected.  No matter who wins, that person will be faced with the task of trying to restart the engine of growth in Connecticut.  We've seen that happen in DC over the last year and a half.  President Trump may not be popular in Connecticut, but no one can deny that he has managed to get the US economy growing by more than 50% faster than was the case under Obama.  Picking someone who can accomplish the same thing in CT should be the first task of voters in November.

Ronny Jackson Leaves The Stage

Admiral Ronny Jackson withdrew his name from consideration as the next Secretary of Veterans' Affairs.  That's sad.  It's not sad because Jackson was uniquely qualified to be the VA Secretary or because he had great ideas for improving the VA.  We don't know that.  No, it's sad because Jackson was the victim of a major and evidenceless attack by the mainstream media and the Democrats.  It didn't matter what claim was made, the media touted it without any evidence in support.

Think about it.  The media and the congressional Democrats told us that Jackson is accused of having destroyed a federal vehicle he drove while drunk.  Is that true?  Jackson says it isn't, but that didn't stop the media/Democrats from screaming about it.  Remember, Jackson has been vetted by an FBI background check on four different occasions.  That happened once in the Bush presidency, twice under Obama and once under Trump.  These were not partisan reviews by the FBI since the job was to be the White House doctor, not a political post.  So we are now supposed to believe that Dr. Jackson destroyed a vehicle while drunk driving but the FBI never picked that up.  It's very hard to cover up a DUI from the FBI.  That would be true even with someone like Jim Comey as the director.  If the story were true, the FBI and the White House would know.

Then there's the "candy man" story.  During international trips aboard Air Force One, Jackson supposedly gave White House staff and reporters on board sleeping pills so that they could actually sleep on the trip and be ready to work once they got to their destination.  That is not, however, some doctor giving out opioids or other drugs of that sort.  It is a White House doctor doing what the White House doctors have done for decades.  It's not a reason why Jackson should be attacked.  My suggestion, by the way, is that in the future the White House doctor should NOT give any drugs to reporters.  Let them figure out a way to sleep themselves if they are going to use the events to attack the White House doctor. 

Then there's an IG report from 2012.  At the time, the IG criticized Jackson and another head of the White House medical staff due to conflicts between them which affected the staff performance.  The other guy was dumped and everything went back to operating fine.  President Obama wrote personal fitness reports for Dr. Jackson after that and praised him highly.  It seems the problem was with the other guy and not Jackson.  That doesn't matter; the media is telling us how bad it was.

So we are left with a nominee who gets hit with charges but no evidence.  It's much like the Russia-Trump investigation.  There are plenty of charges of collusion, but there is no evidence at all.  Jackson dropped out.  We will never know if he would have done a good job.  What we do know, however, is that in the future no one will easily accept a nomination knowing what lies ahead from the media/Democrat creeps. 

The Arizona Special Election

In an Arizona special election for Congress yesterday, the GOP candidate won by 53 to 47%.  It's a heavily Republican district, so that result is not a surprise.  It's also an election without an incumbent so the closeness is also not surprising.  Finally, it's a special election, so the turnout is lower than normal, even in a midterm election. In addition, groups from outside the district poured money into ads and campaigning on both sides, so the normal dynamic of the district was distorted.  In the end, however, things turned out pretty much as expected.

Now that the election has passed, I am somewhat surprised by the things I've heard said about it.  I've seen a pundit, a supposed political expert, at CNN say that the results were a bad sign for the GOP because they were much closer than those of the last election in the district for Congress.  That sounds fine on the surface until you realize that the Democrats did not run a candidate in the district in 2016.  Congressman Franks won re-election with 100% of the vote.  No matter what the results were yesterday, the results would have been much closer than in 2016.  CNN is broadcasting a pundit who has no idea what she is talking about.

Much of the coverage has been of this sort.  Most of the mainstream media types are busy declaring this result a "win" for the Democrats even though they lost.  If this trend continues, the GOP could pick up seats in 2018 and the pundits would talk about the Democrats' great victory.  To say the least, it's bizarre.

Some Crazy Correction

Here is a correction from today's New York Times:

"An article on Sunday about Campbell Brown’s role as Facebook’s head of news partnerships erroneously included a reference to Palestinian actions as an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy stories that have plagued Facebook. In fact, Palestinian officials have acknowledged providing payments to the families of Palestinians killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis or convicted of terrorist acts and imprisoned in Israel; that is not a conspiracy theory."

This correction tells us a great deal about the Times.  Simply put, the reporter and the editors do not pay much attention to current events, the very news about which the Times supposedly reports.  On March 23, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Taylor Force Act.  That law requires the cessation of certain US foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority until such time as that authority stops making payments to terrorists who attack Israelis as well as pensions to the terrorists' families.  Taylor Force was an American serviceman who was killed by terrorists while he was a tourist in Israel.  Before the passage of the law, there were many articles, TV debates and the like about the effect such law would have and the efficacy of its passage.  The idea that both the reporter and the editors involved in the original article had never heard that the Palestinians reward terrorists and their families is astounding.

The correction also tells us that the reporter and the editors are prepared to see Palestinians only as the victims of oppression and any criticism of them as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.  Remember, the original article did not just dispute the accuracy of the actual fact of Palestinians rewarding terrorists, it called the very idea of such payments a "far=right conspiracy story".  In other words, the idea was something that only a far-right crazy person would put forward in the view of the reporters and editors.  Nevertheless, it was the truth and the fools at the Times couldn't even conceive of that possibility.


 

Media Idiocy -- The Latest Chapter

There is discussion that President Trump may issue a pardon to Jack Johnson.  For those who don't know, Johnson is a former champion heavy weight fighter who was convicted of criminal acts long ago.  Many believe that his conviction was the result of Johnson's violating the norms of his day by being a black man dating white women.  The move to pardon Johnson began in 2004 and was pushed mainly by senators McCain and Reid.  They argued that the pardon would erase a historical misdeed.

Here's why that is all relevant.  Don Lemon, the most idiotic host on CNN, actually ran a segment on his show discussing whether a pardon of Johnson would be a signal by President Trump to Michael Cohen and others not to "flip".  The panel discussed this for about five minutes.

Think about that.  Lemon is considering if a posthumous pardon (yeah, Johnson died many decades ago) to an historical figure being pushed by a bipartisan coalition is actually just a "signal" in the ongoing Russia-Trump investigation.  How dumb is that?  Imagine Michael Cohen sitting at home thinking "I better not flip.  President Trump will pardon me fifty years after I'm dead." 

Lemon, of course, is the host who four years ago wondered if the missing Malaysian airliner was sucked into a black hole.  That question demonstrated that Lemon didn't understand physics or even know what a black hole actually is.  He hasn't learned much since.

The Democrats Buckle on Pompeo

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted this evening to send the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State to the Senate floor with a recommendation for approval.  The vote was 10 to 9 with senator Coons of Delaware voting "present".  There's much more to the story than just the numbers, however.

First, the Democrats decided a while ago to kowtow to their rabidly anti-Trump base and to oppose the Pompeo nomination.  That was silly since Pompeo was approved as Director of the CIA last year by the same senators with a vote of about 65 to 35.  The general consensus is that Pompeo has done an outstanding job as head of the CIA.  That meant that a whole host of Democrats had to come up with reasons why the supported Pompeo for CIA director but now would vote against him being Secretary of State.  Some of the excuses were lame, to put it mildly.  For instance, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire said she would not vote for Pompeo this time because of his pro-life positions.  Huh?  Pompeo held the same positions last year when Shaheen not only voted for him but praised him as an outstanding choice.  It was all posturing for the base, however.  The Democrats were sure Pompeo would be approved and they could just oppose him without affecting his confirmation.

Second, Pompeo is in the middle of negotiations with Kim Jung Un of North Korea about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.  This is perhaps the biggest foreign policy issue currently facing the USA and the Democrats' games with the Pompeo nomination could have weakened the US negotiating team and hurt the American people.  The Democrats all thought that Pompeo would be confirmed anyway, though.

Third, when the vote came in the Foreign Relations Committee, senator Wicker of Georgia was not present.  He was in Atlanta attending a funeral.  That meant that there were equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats present for the meeting.  The first vote taken was ten to ten, a tie.  A tie is not en endorsement, so Pompeo could have been sent to the Senate floor without a recommendation in his favor.  Such a result might have made the Democrat base happy, but it would have hurt the US position with North Korea and it would have annoyed all those independent voters who would have seen it as the Democrats playing political games rather than advancing the cause of the USA.

The result was that senator Coons agreed to change his vote to "present".  That meant that the Democrats did not have to undergo scrutiny for their obstructive behavior.  They can tell their base that they did all that they could (which is not true), but Pompeo would still get approved.

The obstruction by the Democrats of all the nominations made by President Trump is unprecedented.  It has harmed the federal government's ability to respond to problems.  That actually seems to make the Democrats happy.  They would rather have the federal government fail to accomplish some goal than to help achieve something positive for the American people. 

Terror Traumatizes Toronto

A white van sped down a street in Toronto this afternoon.  The driver aimed for pedestrians walking on the sidewalk or standing at the corner and hit many of them.  Initial reports say that about 15 people were hit, although these are very preliminary.  After hitting the pedestrians, the van sped off.  It has not yet been found nor the driver caught.

So is this a terror attack in Toronto?  It certainly seems like it although it could still turn out to be something else.

Toronto is a large peaceful city in a large peaceful country.  It's very sad to think of terrorism hitting there.  Let's pray for the victims of these events.

Obstruction of Justice?

The concept of obstruction of justice has been much in the news this last year.  For the media and the Democrats, nearly everything that President Trump has done with regard to the Russia-Trump campaign investigation has been called obstruction.  If Trump met Bob Mueller at a dinner and said hello, there would be twenty stories the next day screaming "OBSTRUCTION!!!!"  Now, however, Andrew McCarthy has written a column which details a very different type of obstruction.  McCarthy's focus is on the conversation between Andrew McCabe and the deputy attorney general about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation in 2016.  The Obama Justice Department called the FBI deputy director and made clear that he was to shut down any investigation into the Clinton Foundation.  The call devolved into an angry mess since the FBI investigation was being done quietly with no public knowledge as was required by the FBI's internal rules.  There was no basis to stop that investigation other than the Obama desire not to allow such an investigation to torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign.  This was the phone call about which McCabe leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and because of which he is now the subject of a criminal investigation and likely indictment for lying to the FBI and perjury.

Think about it.  When President Trump made a remark about General Flynn to Jim Comey saying that he hoped Comey could let the matter go after Flynn was fired by the White House, the media and the Democrats went crazy.  It was obstruction according to them even though Comey said that he did not feel ordered to drop the investigation of Flynn and did not do so.  When Obama sent word that the investigation of the Clinton Foundation had to be dropped, McCabe did stop that probe right away.  The media has ignored this as obstruction and hasn't even talked about the subject.  That can't be.  If what Trump did is obstruction, then what Obama did with McCabe is ten times worse.

What Now People?

Over the weekend, a man in Tennessee shot and killed four people with an AR-15 in a Waffle House restaurant.  The points covered by the media are first that the shooter was naked except for a jacket and second that a patron inside the Waffle House rushed the shooter and wrestled his weapon from him after which the shooter fled.  The reports usually say that the shooter was "known" to the police.  But here's what few reports mention:  the shooter was mentally ill.  In the past, he claimed that Taylor Swift was stalking him and hacking his various devices; he showed up at the White House and entered a restricted area and refused to leave; etc.  As a result of all this, a court ordered that all of the shooters weapons be taken from the man.  The court acted under one of the laws the supposedly prevents the mentally ill from getting weapons.  The police took the guy's guns.  So the Waffle House murders were a good example of just how the gun control legislation that has been discussed much of late is not an answer for ending all gun crimes.  The shooter got an AR-15 anyway and used it to kill four people.

This outcome is neither an argument for or against the legislation in question.  It is, however, a clear answer to those who think that simplistic marches for what they call "common sense gun safety legislation" is an answer.  It isn't.  This is a much more complex problem that deserves serious discussion, not marches and boycotts.

Suit? What Suit?

Lawsuits seem to be the threat of the day.  The Democrats actually sued for damages in a civil lawsuit based upon the supposed collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016.  That suit relies on news reports which are based upon Democrat talking points which are based upon leaks from unnamed 'sources" regarding an investigation started in response to a phony dossier that the Democrats themselves paid for.  That's a long way of saying there's no evidence after over a year and a half of looking of any collusion.  Not to be outdone, former FBI assistant director Andrew McCabe is threatening to sue President Trump for defamation and wrongful termination.  That suit would be weaker even than the one by the Democrats, and that's something hard to do.

Let's start with a claim for defamation.  What has Trump said about McCabe.  Basically, Trump has said that McCabe lied to the FBI and lied under oath.  That's true according to the non-partisan Inspector General of the Department of Justice (who was appointed by Obama) after a detailed and lengthy investigation.  So if it's true, that's a total legal defense.  Trump also said that McCabe should have recused himself from the Hillary email investigation because his wife got around three quarters of a million dollars from Clintonistas in her political race shortly before the investigation began.  That too is true.  Remember that McCabe recused himself from that investigation after it was essentially over.  It can't be slanderous to say he should have acted sooner.

Then we have Stormy Daniels' loud-mouth attorney saying that his client is going to sue the president.  For what?  If we believe Stormy, she once had consensual sex with Trump and ended up with $130,000.  How was she hurt?  Surely her reputation (she's a stripper and a porn actress) wasn't damaged.  It's just another empty threat.  Oh, Daniels does say that about twelve years ago, she was threatened by an unknown man to stay quiet.  There's no way to tie the guy, if he actually exists, to the President.  The event was also too long ago to be the basis for a lawsuit.  In other words, the lawsuit is just another empty threat.

Believe it or not, lawsuits can serve a valid function in our society.  That function, however, does not include becoming a stunt in a political dispute. 

The Lack Of Historical Knowledge Is Dangerous

Is the air and water badly polluted in the USA?  Is there rampant racism across the country?  These are just two of the many questions that get different answers than they should from many Americans because they don't understand history.

Let me explain.  Fifty years ago, the level of air pollution in the USA was much worse than today.  The same was true of water pollution.  In New York City, the sky often looked green on a hot summer day because of the extraordinary pollution levels.  From an office in a tower over Manhattan, you could see a brown cloud of pollution grow as rush hour traffic brought millions of people to work.  There were days when people were told to stay indoors because of the levels of pollution.  Then all sorts of changes were made.  During the Nixon administration, there was a big push to cut pollution.  The EPA was established, emission standards for automobiles and trucks were set, factories and power plants were made to cut particulate emissions, and many other steps were put in place as well.  Over the next 20 years, the level of pollution from many sources was cut by over 90%.  Despite this, there are still a great many Americans who just don't know the history.  They will tell you about the terrible air pollution without realizing how much has been done.

Another example is water pollution.  Fifty years ago, raw sewage was often dumped into rivers and other waterways.  Using New York as an example again, you find that in 1970, nothing lived in the Hudson River.  Literally one third of Manhattan bathrooms sent their sewage directly into the river without any form of treatment.  This was replicated across America.  Then in the early 70's the federal government began financing water treatment and sewage treatment plants across the country.  Americans no long dump their sewage into the rivers, etc.  Fish and other marine life have reappeared in the rivers and streams.  Nevertheless, if you ask the average American about water pollution in the USA, many will tell you it is a big problem.

Then there is racism.  Sixty-five years ago, it was a different world.  There were segregated schools.  Hotels and restaurants refused service to people on the basis of their race.  Neighborhoods were kept segregated by legal restrictions in deeds that prevented future generations from selling to minorities.  In many places, minorities could not vote.  On television, there were no blacks except for servants or stories set in Africa.  All manner of jobs were restricted.  Then in the 1960s and 1970s laws were passed and enforced which ended all that.  It is a different world.  It doesn't mean that there are no people left with racist thoughts, but institutional racism is gone.  Still, if you ask the average American about racism, many will tell you how it is a major problem that is getting worse, not better.

Look, none of this is to say that pollution or racism should be ignored because they used to be worse.  Rather, the idea is that people need to know the actual facts about the past because all of these problems need to viewed in actual context, not in some construct that is divorced from reality.  If America is to make good decisions about where we go from here, we need to know the truth about the past.  The cliché right now would be to quote something like those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.  It's not just a cliché, however; it's the truth.

This Is Beyond Belief

This afternoon, the North Koreans announced that they would suspend all testing of nuclear weapons and missiles and would also shut down the nuclear test site facilities.  It was a sign of good faith in preparation for the upcoming likely meeting between President Trump and Kim Jung Un, the North Korean dictator.  It is news that could only be described as outstandingly good.  If the North Koreans are being honest, this could mean the real start of a move to get all nuclear weapons out of the Korean peninsula.  It would be a wonderful move towards peace in a region that until now has been one of the main places where World War III could begin.  It is a major victory for the USA and for the foreign policy of President Trump.

So what is the mainstream media covering tonight?  I've checked in three times with MSNBC.  On each occasion, that network had people discussing the idiotic lawsuit that the Democrats brought today to politicize the Mueller investigation and the supposed Russia - Trump collusion in 2016.  I heard no mention of North Korea.  I also checked in with CNN three times.  On that so-called network, there was no mention of North Korea either.  I did not see the national network news on ABC, CBS or NBC tonight, so I can't report if these networks even bothered to report the astounding North Korea news.  (I hope that they did, but I doubt it.)

The real question is whether or not MSNBC and CNN are so devoted to broadcasting only news that is bad for President Trump that they are ignoring some truly great news for the USA because it makes Trump look good.  Sadly, that seems to be the case.

Truly Strange

I just read an article in Salon about the criminal referral of Andrew McCabe by the Inspector General of the Justice Department to the US Attorney.  It was fun to see how the author tried to make the whole thing look bizarre.  It was (we were told) a move due to pressure by the White House for a referral of a crime that no one had ever heard of:  "lack of candor".

The truth is that lack of candor in this case is just legalese by the IG for "lying to the FBI", a very common crime in Washington.  Indeed, it's the same crime to which General Flynn pled guilty last year.  Somehow, Salon thought it was fine and appropriate when the target was Flynn, but it became and exotic and unknown crime when it was done by McCabe.

Second, the referral came from the Inspector General, a non-partisan official in the Justice Department who was last appointed to that position by one Barack Obama.  So we have either a non-partisan or an Obama loyalist (take your pick) who is supposedly following the wrongful wishes of President Trump.  I don't think so.

The reality is that McCabe is on very thin ice.  If the US Attorney indicts him, he's going to be convicted.

Oh, and while we are at it, we also learned today that Jim Comey is being investigated by the DOJ for leaking classified materials, namely his memoranda of meetings with the President that he gave to that Columbia law professor to give to the New York Times.  The only question here is why did it take a year for that investigation.  It was clear a year ago that Comey had intentionally leaked classified information.  Indeed, if you go back and look, you will see that I wrote about just that subject more than once roughly a year ago. 

The Trouble With Media Narratives

About a month ago, President Trump began talking about tariffs on Chinese goods as part of trade negotiations with Beijing.  The Chinese threatened counter-measures.  Specifically, we were told that US agricultural products would be hit.  It led to a frenzy of mainstream media stories about how  badly the dispute would damage American farmers especially in the soybean and pork producing part of the industry.  The stories were silly since both soybeans and pork are major international markets that would simply shift supplies, suppliers and buyers from one region to another, but that did not stop the mainstream media.  They had their story:  President Trump was threatening the destruction of American farms and farmers.

Now it's a month later.  It's worth taking a look at the soybean and pork markets to see how they have been affected by the tariff disputes.  If the US farmers were losing markets, the price for these two products on the American market would have fallen.  There would be less demand due to the loss of Chinese markets but the same supply; that means lower prices.  So what do we find?  Soybeans futures are priced just slightly higher than they were when the tariff disputes first erupted.  Pork futures are about 5% higher than they were when the disputes appeared.  In other words, there has not been any damage to the markets for these products or to the farmers who produce them as of now.  The media and their "experts" were wrong.

Will we soon hear from the media itself of its mistake?  Nope.  The media never admits it is wrong; it just moves on to the next target and forgets the past.

Did The Democrats Just Lose It? Sure Looks Like It.

In an amazingly stupid move, the Democrat National Committee just started a civil action against Russia, Wikileaks, and various Republicans involved with the Trump campaign.  The Dems allege that there was a conspiracy to disrupt their 2016 presidential campaign by hacking into their computer systems and all the rest of the nonsense that has been part of the supposed Trump-Russia collusion story.  The case has been filed in federal court in New York.

This was something that the Democrats clearly did not think through.

1.  The FBI and the special prosecutor have been looking into this mess of allegations for a year and a half and found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  I realize that the DNC wants to play to its base, but all it seems to be doing is to show that it has nothing to say other than the already discredited Trump-Russia stuff.

2.  The DNC has now opened itself up to discovery.  Were I the counsel for the various Republicans, I would immediately ask the court to order the DNC to grant access to its computer systems so that experts who I retained could come in and look at the system to see who actually hacked them.  Remember the FBI under Obama never actually saw the DNC computer systems.  They just took the word of a computer firm hired by the DNC about the hack.  If the DNC refuses to give access or if it changed the computer system since the election, the court should just dismiss the case due to destruction of evidence by the Dems.  On the other hand, if the Dems grant access, then for the very first time, there will be an computer expert who is not beholden to the Dems who will get to see that computer system.  Just imagine if it turns out that it wasn't the Russians. 

3.  I truly believe that the American people are tired of hearing about this stuff.  I don't think that this will move forward the Democrat narrative for the 2018 midterms.  There's no way that this move will help.

If It's Friday...........

It's Friday once again.  That means it's time for the weekly riot by the Palestinians along the Gaza border with Israel.  The news reports so far say that "hundreds" of Palestinians showed up.  That's down from 40,000 or so who came to the first event.  The numbers have been declining rapidly since then, but it's too early to know if the reports of only hundreds are correct or just too early to see the mass of people who show up later.  Sadly, two people have already been shot; two men in their 20's tried to damage the border fence and throw Molotov cocktails at the Israeli troops on the other side.  No doubt we will hear from the Palestinians that these were martyrs rather than either fools or terrorists.  It doesn't matter, however; they are still dead.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about these weekly events is just how little notice is given to them by the rest of the world.  The focus in the Middle East has been on Syria and Assad's chemical weapons attack along with the allied response.  It's terrible that Hamas has managed to get so many of its people killed over the last month.  That those deaths have had no impact on public opinion even in the Arab countries, however, must be really frustrating for the terrorists of Hamas.

The Comey Memoranda

The memoranda that Jim Comey wrote of his conversations with the President were released tonight in redacted form.  The majority of these documents had been classified, but they were declassified today except for the redactions.  The most amazing thing about the documents is that they don't really say much new.  There's no smoking gun.  There's nothing that President Trump said to Comey (according to the memoranda) that would be the basis for any claims of misconduct by Trump.  It's a nothing burger to use the term of the year.

There is some humor in these documents, though, and perhaps some important news regarding the Trump Dossier.  Let's start with the latter.  The President told Comey twice that in 2013 when the Miss Universe pageant was held in Moscow, he did not stay overnight in Russia.  He flew in early in the morning, spent the day and evening on the pageant, and flew out that night.  He was only at the hotel for a short time to change and to retrieve his belongings after the pageant.  This is important, because it was on this trip that the Trump Dossier says Trump hired hookers to urinate on the bed because it had previously been occupied by Obama.  If what Trump was saying was correct, then there would have been no time for any of that to have happened.  Remember for the last year we keep hearing that the Trump Dossier is "unverified".  That's the FBI saying they can't prove that anything the dossier says is true.  But President Trump told Comey on two occasions according to Comey's own memoranda facts that would DISPROVE the claim of the Trump Dossier.  Did the FBI check that out?  To date, there has been no indication that the FBI took any steps to check that out.  Someone is going to have to explain this.

As for humor, there are repeated references in the memoranda of Comey telling President Trump that Andrew McCabe is an honorable man who puts politics aside in doing his FBI work.  That's pretty funny to read on the same day when a criminal referral was sent on McCabe to the US Attorney regarding McCabe getting mixed up in political leaking and then lying to cover it up, including lying under oath.  Some honorable man McCabe is!

 

It's About Time

The non-partisan Inspector General of the Justice Department sent a criminal referral to the US attorney regarding former deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe.  Take a moment to understand what this means.  A referral by the IG to the US attorney almost always results in an indictment.  It is, in essence, a report by the IG to the US attorney that the IG believes that a crime was likely committed by the subject of the referral.  My prediction is that we will see in the near future an federal indictment of McCabe either for perjury or for lying to the FBI (or both).  This will be the first time that I can recall that someone who led the FBI (temporarily after Comey was fired) has actually been indicted.

The spin is already starting from the left that this is a very political move and means little.  That is not even close to the truth.  The IG is non-partisan.  The current IG was appointed under Obama and is NOT a Republican or beholden to President Trump.  The IG's report on the lying and perjury by McCabe was detailed and impossible to refute.  This will be an indictment of McCabe for federal crimes which ought to be rather easy to prove.

It's great that McCabe's indictment will show that even those at the top of the FBI are not above the law.  The real question, however, is whether or not McCabe will be used to flip on Comey, Lynch and maybe others in the Obama White House who participated in wrongdoing.  They all should be sweating today's news big time.

I Know They Lie, But This Is Ridiculous

Missouri Democrat senator Claire McCaskill has just done something that tells me she can't win in November.  She announced that she supports the Trump tax cuts.  The senator couched that support by saying that she supports most of the tax cuts, but the meaning is unmistakable.  Remember, this is the same senator who voted against and spoke against the tax cuts just a few months ago.  After the law was passed, McCaskill was asked about the billions of dollars of bonuses that were being given to workers as a result of the tax cuts; she called those bonuses "scraps".  The comment didn't play well in Missouri.  Recent polling has put McCaskill 1% ahead of her likely Republican challenger, but the senator got about 42% of the vote.  For an incumbent, anything less than 48% is a sign of maximum danger.  So now good old Claire is busy trying to lie her way into getting people to forget that she opposed the tax cuts.  That's a really important thing for the senator since the Democrats have already announced that if they regain control of Congress they want to RAISE taxes and end the Trump tax cuts.  The people of Missouri are supposed to believe that after fighting against the tax cuts and voting against the tax cuts, McCaskill will reverse course and fight to keep them.

How dumb does she think the people of Missouri are?

A Major Blunder By Hogg

David Hogg was in the Parkland High School during the school shooting.  Since then, he rushed to become the face of the anti-gun movement around the country.  Unfortunately for that movement, Hogg has tried to stay at the forefront.  First, he told the country that he didn't get into his colleges of choice.  Then he got upset and organized a boycott when people commented on that fact.  His target was Laura Ingraham, and he panicked some of her advertisers to leave the show.  Still, Ingraham is on every night and the advertisers are returning.  So much for the boycott.  Then Hogg announced that he would lead a boycott of two large investment managers whose index funds include investments in gun manufacturers.  Apparently no one explained to Hogg what an index fund is.  I doubt that boycott will go anywhere but in the trash.  Today, however, Hogg is at it again.  This time he has made another blunder.  He has announced that he will be publishing a book discussing his "movement".  The title announced by Hogg is "Never Again". 

The use of this title is a demonstration of just how little Hogg knows.  He's a high school senior and should have some awareness of history, at least enough to know the meaning of "Never Again".  That phrase has been used for many decades by those who try to keep alive the memory of the holocaust.  The Nazis murdered a great many people including six million Jews and at least an equal number of gypsies, gays, slavs, the handicapped and others simply for the reason of who they were.  It was the greatest genocide in the history of the world.  Now this kid is trying to usurp the phrase for his own political movement.  It's highly offensive.  In the words of the people who back Hogg, his book title will, no doubt, trigger a great many people by reminding them of both the pain of the holocaust and the failure of American education to teach students about the true horror of what happened. 

It has been clear for a while that David Hogg's 15 minutes of fame were over.  Now he seems to be trying to make sure that we never hear from him again by destroying his value to the left as a symbol.

They Don't Miss A Beat

During the Obama years, the USA followed a policy of doing nothing with regard to North Korea.  The Obamacrats called it "strategic patience" but that was just putting a fancy name on avoiding making any decisions how to deal with the NKs.  The media accepted this policy as fine; after all, it came from Obama.  Then came the Trump administration. 

First, President Trump said that a North Korean ICBM with nuclear weapons would never be accepted by the USA.  Suddenly, the media started paying attention.  We were treated to story after story and column after column that dutifully reported that the USA had no good options for dealing with the NKs.  The President, they told us, was foolish to make a big deal out of North Korea because his efforts were doomed to fail.  It was just proof of how poorly Trump would do with foreign policy. 

Next, the President started upping pressure on the NKs.  He met with China's president Xi and sought his help in exerting maximum stress on Kim and the NKs.  The media told us that while China might talk a good game, it would never actually do anything to help.  After all, it never did previously.  Trump was once again showing his ineptitude in foreign policy.  China, however, did move towards pressurizing the situation for the NKs.

President Trump then put maximum military pressure on the NKs.  There were fly by missions by stealth bombers which greatly alarmed the NKs because they didn't detect the US planes.  There were fleets filled with aircraft carriers operating off the shores of North Korea.  The media immediately got on the stick and called Trump a warmonger or, at least, someone who was likely to set off a military confrontation with the NKs that would kill millions. Trump was not only inept, he was dangerous, or so they told us.  There was no war, however.

Then the President got more sanctions from the UN Security Council on the NKs.  The media told us that while this wouldn't hurt, it wouldn't help either because China would just ignore those resolutions.  Trump was naïve, they told us.  But the Chinese didn't follow the expected plan.  They did take some steps to comply.

Then came the Olympics with the NKs fielding a team.  The media focused on Kim's sister and told us how she outclassed vice president Pence who was at the games.  According to the media, Kim had outfoxed President Trump by gaining a sympathetic center stage without ever making any concession to the USA.  The media told us that the President North Korea policy was collapsing.

Now we have the latest.  There is going to be a summit between Kim and President Trump next months to discuss, among other things, the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.  That is extraordinary news which could actually lead to a settlement with the NKs if all goes well.  Admittedly, that is a big IF, but it still is a ray of sunshine in the fog of relations with North Korea.  And how has the media reacted?  Predictably, the main response was to criticize President Trump for not preparing adequately for this summit.  Pundits with foreign policy credentials under Obama (I know, an oxymoron) told us that no president could get ready for a summit like this in three months.  Trump would not do the preparation, so the summit was doomed to fail.  Trump had to have diplomatic preparations for the meeting, and he wasn't doing that.  Of course, we then learned that CIA director Mike Pompeo had gone to Pyongyang and met with Kim in preparation for the summit.  In other words, the President was getting ready for a meeting with Kim and doing just what the pundits assured us he would never do.

That brings us to the latest media storyline.  This morning, I read four articles telling readers that President Trump would likely make a bad deal with Kim at the summit.  After all, President Trump would be under pressure to bring home a deal and Kim could use that to get much without really giving up anything.  The funny thing is that these articles all deal with President Trump as if he were Obama.  It was Obama who felt the importance of appearances over reality.  Trump, on the other hand, has had no problem with doing things that the media perceived as bad or dangerous if he thought such action was best for the American people. 

The truth is that Trump's handling of the North Korean situation has been amazingly good.  It's not over yet, and things could easily fall apart even now.  We are, after all, dealing with a somewhat demented dictator who acts unpredictably.  Kim, however, knows that his leadership and his life are on the line.  I'm betting that when it comes to finalizing the deal, Trump comes away with what the USA needs.  We will see soon.  One thing is certain, however:  no matter what happens, it will confound the pundits and the media, and they will find some reason why it was a failure by the president.  Just for once, it would be nice if they would just shut up and wait to see the actual facts before they comment on them.   

Pompeo and Circumstances

Mike Pompeo is the director of the CIA.  As such, he was confirmed by the Senate last year in an easy victory.  Now, President Trump has nominated Pompeo to be Secretary of State.  The same senators who voted to confirm him less than a year ago are now threatening to stop his confirmation.  Okay, let's be clear; the senators who are trying to derail the Pompeo nomination are the Democrats in the Senate who seem hell bent on opposing whatever President Trump wants to do no matter what effect this will have on the USA.

Think about this.  Mike Pompeo went last week to North Korea to meet with Kim Jung Un.  Discussions were held about setting up a meeting between President Trump and the North Korean leader.  This is perhaps the most important diplomatic effort currently underway by the USA.  It may be the most important diplomacy of the last 20 years.  If it goes well, the USA may finally avoid the threat of a nuclear North Korea.  And what are the Democrats doing?  Rather than confirming Pompeo, they are trying to sabotage President Trump even if it means no deal with North Korea and possibly war in East Asia.  What kind of people are these?

A good example of the Democrats conduct comes from senator Shaheen of New Hampshire.  Last year she voted to confirm Pompeo as CIA Director.  Now, she has released a statement announcing that she will not vote to confirm him at the State Department because he holds pro-life views.  Seriously, the New Hampshire Democrat is willing to risk the failure of negotiations with North Korea on the basis of Pompeo's position on abortion.  There's no way that is the true reason.  After all, if Shaheen cared about Pompeo's position on abortion, she wouldn't have voted for him in 2017.

People need to call their senators and demand support for Pompeo.  The upcoming negotiations with North Korea are just too important to allow the clowns in the Democrat party to put political games ahead of the good of the country.

Hogg Wild Again

Today, David Hogg let his followers know his newest target for an anti-gun boycott.  He wants them to boycott money managers Blackrock and Vanguard.  Why, you may ask should these firms be the subject of a boycott?  Hogg says that they "invest" in gun manufacturers.

This is a new low for Hogg.  He was in the building in Florida during the shooting in Parkland.  He has parlayed that into becoming a national anti-gun figure.  He criticizes and screams non-stop.  No one is allowed, however, to criticize him because he is just a teenager and he was there during the shooting.  But let's look at the latest boycott threat.  Blackrock and Vanguard do, indeed, run mutual funds that invest in some gun manufacturers.  The main ones are S&P index funds.  That sort of fund invests in every stock included in the S&P 500 index.  The mutual fund is meant to mirror the movement of the S&P index, so it has to include everything in the index and that means some gun manufacturers are in the mix.  To be clear, Blackrock and Vanguard to not choose gun manufacturers for investment; they choose all companies that S&P includes in its index.  Clearly, Hogg doesn't understand what he is saying.

I wonder what is coming next.  Will Hogg want to boycott all companies that use the letters g, u, n, or s in their names?  Will he want to boycott all media companies that cover shootings?  Maybe he will just pick names at random and boycott them? 

Last month, the big story on Hogg was that he didn't get into the colleges he wanted.  He decided to take a year off to focus on activism.  Seeing his latest move, maybe he should reconsider.  He could take a course in critical thinking.

Attorney Client Privilege

In the last day, I've heard a number of analyses of attorney client privilege and how it is impacted in the case of Michael Cohen (President Trump's attorney).  To say the least, most of the people on TV talking about attorney-client privilege have no idea what they are saying.  Much of the coverage is a joke.

Here's a simple rule:  if a person consults an attorney seeking legal advice that communication is privileged.  No one, including the government, can obtain those communications unless the person consents.  If that person provides information to the attorney so that he or she can formulate the legal advice, those communications are also privileged.  The only meaningful exceptions to the rule are that a communication is not privileged if the subject is in furtherance of future or ongoing criminal activity.  Also, if the attorney is not acting as an attorney, his or her status will not cloak the communication with privilege.

What does this mean?  If a client tells his attorney that he robbed a bank last week, that is privileged.  If he tells his attorney that he plans to rob a bank next week, that is not privileged.  If the attorney enters into a business deal with a client to buy a building, those business discussions are not privileged.  If the attorney is part of a group carrying out illegal activities then the discussions are not privileged.

It's important to remember, however, that the attorney client privilege is not lost for all communications just because one or more fall outside of the privilege.  If a person tells his lawyer that last week he robbed a bank and then in the next conversation he tells the lawyer that he plans to rob another bank next week, only the second conversation loses its privileged status.

So what does this mean in the case of Michael Cohen? 
1.  The FBI seized his records including much material that was communications with his clients.  Normally, these would be privileged and the FBI action would be improper. 
2.  There are allegations that Cohen may have engaged in illegal activity.  Even were it proven that these allegations are true, the communications between Cohen and his clients would still be privileged unless those communications were part of the commission of a crime.  In other words, if Cohen was engaged in criminal activity involving taxi medallions in New York City, Cohen's communications with President Trump remain privileged unless Trump was also part of the taxi mess and engaged with Cohen in criminal activity.  That means that all those reporters who keep talking about how privilege disappears if the attorney engages in criminal activity don't understand what they are saying.
3.  The privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney.  That means in effect that before the government can get documents that appear to be attorney client communications, it has to show that the client was involved in criminal activity.  The lawyer's conduct won't deprive the client of the protection of the privilege.  To date, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump, so there is no way that this privilege was lost.
4.  The identification of Sean Hannity as a client of Cohen is just so much more nonsense.  There is no basis under which records of communications between Hannity and Cohen can be revealed. 

 

What Going On With Those Sharks? Here's the Answer

Over the last two days, there have been a series of articles reporting that up to 1400 basking sharks have been seen in a group in the waters between Long Island and Nova Scotia.  It is highly unusual for sharks of this type to swim in packs at all, so a gathering this large is extraordinary.  Marine biologists have been at a total loss to explain the phenomenon.  Today, however, comes words about the likely cause.  It seems that Hillary Clinton is going to speak to the gathering on Thursday.  The sharks are waiting patiently for this speech by one of their own.

Nothing Normal About That

Think back into the far reaches of history, all the way back to 2016.  Remember that year?  It's when we last had a presidential election.  During the campaign, there was an ongoing debate. No, I don't mean the one about who is slimy or a liar or a philanderer or deplorable or a Nazi.  I mean the debate about trying to restore growth to the American economy.  On the one side were Donald Trump and the Republicans who argued that the USA needed to jump start its economy to get it growing by at least 3% per year.  Three percent may not sound like much, but in the context of the US economy, three percent growth means about six hundred billion dollars more production across the country.  On the other side were Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and the mainstream media and many of the so-called economics experts.  Their message was that because of structural shifts in the US economy, the most we could hope for in terms of growth was something just under 2%.  Two percent, we were told by the Democrats, was the "new normal".  These Democrats/media/pundits mocked the idea that America could grow again at anything like a 3% rate.  Even though the average growth rate had been higher for the fifty years prior to the Obama presidency, the Democrats and their supporters told us we would never see such growth again.

Well now let's come back to the present.  We have just completed 14 months with President Trump in office.  For all that time, most attention in the media has been on nonsense like the Russia - Trump conspiracy hoax or important national issues like Stormy Daniels.  Nevertheless, Trump and the GOP have put in place their policies to try to restore better growth to the American economy.  And guess what?  The plan is working.  For the last year, the economy has been growing at about 3% and, most likely, the effect of the new tax cuts will increase that 3% to 4% or higher.  It seems the Democrats' new normal was only normal for times when a Democrat is in office.  The extra hundreds of billions of dollars in production since Trump took over means huge numbers of new jobs and an increase in salaries/wages for US workers.  More than anything else, it is the best reason for keeping control of DC in the hands of the GOP.  We don't want to go back to an economy where there is no opportunity for people other than those who are already wealthy. 

The Fog Of No War

The Syrians and their allies are nothing if not consistent liars.  After the air strike by the USA, UK and France on chemical weapons facilities, the Syrians announced that they had shot down 13 missiles launched by the allied forces.  The Russians announced that 71 had been shot down.  In actual fact, NONE were shot down.  Then last night, Syria announced that Israeli planes had fired missiles at two Syrian air bases where Iranian and Hezbollah troops are located.  The Syrians announced that they had shot down eight of the incoming missiles and foiled the attack.  This morning, the Syrians let it be known that a false alarm had set off their anti-missile defenses.  Syria shot down no missiles because none had been fired at them.

What's left?  Will Assad name Baghdad Bob as the new Minister of (False) Information?

Are The Clintonistas Getting Nervous?

You have to wonder what is going on.  James Comey, the former head of the FBI, is out with his book and his interviews.  Comey calls President Trump all sorts of names, speculates without any evidence about potential wrongdoing by Trump or blackmail of Trump by the Russians, and generally denounces Trump as unfit to be hold the office of president.  Many on the left are eating this stuff up, but the old Clinton crew has been busy denouncing Comey.  The Clintonistas have criticize Comey for what he says about Loretta Lynch, for not telling the whole truth, for injecting politics into the FBI, and many other things.  How can it be that Democrats in Washington are generally reveling in the Comey statements, no matter how lame they may be, while the Clinton crew is still hitting Comey with a hammer?

There are two possible explanations:

1.  The Clintonistas blame Comey for Hillary's loss to Trump and are glad to pound him in revenge.  Normally, that would make sense except that by pounding Comey, they are helping President Trump.  And remember, the Clintonistas hate Trump more than anyone else on the planet.  That pretty much rules out this explanation.

2.  The Clinton campaign had more involvement with the FBI than we already know, and the Clintonistas are worried that Comey may actually start to talk about that.  As a result, they are trying to destroy Comey's credibility now so that if he eventually discloses the FBI-Clinton connection, it will be disbelieved as just another Comey story.  That one sounds like a more likely scenario. 

I realize that the second possibility places me into the conspiracy theorist camp.  I don't have any such theory, but I have spent years watching the behavior of the Clintons and their staff.  A pre-emptive strike to destroy a potential adversary who could hurt them is a common tactic that they use. 

My guess is that there's a lot more here than we know.  Comey clearly was a leaker and is a perjurer.  Nevertheless, I bet he knows a lot more about just how it was that Hillary avoided indictment in connection with mishandling classified information, much of which would not serve the Clintons or their people very well were it to become public. 

Wow -- Thomas Friedman Gets It Mostly Correct

In the New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman writes about the brewing direct confrontation in Syria between Iranian and Israeli forces.  I don't often say this about anything in the Times, but this column gets the story mostly correct.  There really is a strong possibility of a direct armed clash between the Israelis and the Iranian in Syria.

The big problem is that Iran is trying to establish forward bases in Syria from which to threaten directly with Iranian weapons and manpower.  Israel has made clear that it will not allow the Iranians or their proxy force Hezbollah to establish Syria as another frontier on which Israel faces these implacable enemies. 

The result of the confrontation has been a steadily rising level of tension and a series of fights that have gotten larger and more dangerous as time has passed.  The Iranians began by trying just to use Syria as a corridor through which to ship weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  That led to periodic Israeli strikes on convoys carrying the weapons.  As the Assad regime regained the upper hand in Syria, the Iranians used their influence in Syria to gain the ability to build actual bases in that country.  It was from one of these bases that the Iranians launched an armed drone to carry out attacks in Israel.  The drone was shot down when it crossed into Israeli airspace, but a new level of confrontation was reached.  Israel struck back at the base from which the drone was launched.  There were major air attacks with Syria's ground forces taking on the Israeli Air Force.  One Israeli plane was shot down, but something like half of the Syrian defenses in the Damascus region were taken out by the Israelis.  Just a week ago, Israel attacked an Iranian base directly with missiles.  All of this was mostly lost in the hubbub surrounding the use of chemical weapons by the Assad forces and the retaliation for that use by the USA, UK and France.  It should not be overlooked, however, as it is a much more dangerous situation.

A direct confrontation between Israel and Iran in Syria will almost surely draw in the forces of the other powers active in the region.  That means the forces of the USA, Russia, Turkey, and all the factions in Syria will be embroiled in the fighting.  If Iran is getting hit hard, it will most likely also have Hezbollah in Lebanon launching missile attacks into Israel.  Even though Hamas is not allied with Iran, it may also take the occasion to launch attacks into Israel from Gaza.  Such a move might bring the Egyptians into battle on the side of the Israelis against Hamas; that seems incredible, but it is not unlikely.

For years, we keep reading how Syria could launch a new world war.  That did not happen.  It is possible, however, that events in Syria that do not even feature Syrian forces could do just that.

It's Possible.......The Comey Two Step

I didn't watch the interview of James Comey by a former Clinton staffer on ABC last night.  What was the point.  Comey has already leaked everything he know about the Russia-Trump stuff, so there was little chance of real news.  The morning newscasts bore out that fact.  On CBS, the headline was that Comey said that it was "possible" that the Russians have information on President Trump that they could use to blackmail him.  It was also "possible" that the portion of the phony Trump dossier that says that Trump hired prostitutes to pee on a bed that Obama once occupied in Moscow is true.  CBS left out from its report that it almost anything is "possible".  Comey's use of the word is the clearest indication that he has no evidence and no reason to believe that any of this stuff is true.

What has come from the interview, however, is a surprising truth:  when Comey first told then President-elect Trump about the Trump Dossier in January of 2017, Comey already knew that the document had been compiled at the behest of and at the cost of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  He also knew that the author, Christopher Steele had been fired by the FBI as an informant because he leaked things to the media and lied about it.  Comey knew these things, but had didn't tell Trump about them.  Here's a man who was supposedly briefing the President-elect but who left out the most salient fact: the dossier was a hit-job bit of opposition research put together by the Democrats to try to get Trump.  Oh, and Comey didn't mention that the phony dossier was given to the FISA court under Comey's signature even though it was known to be questionable at best and completely unverified.  In other words, Comey was setting up Trump in that "briefing" which Comey himself requested.  It was surely no surprise to Comey that the dossier and the details of the briefing were leaked to the media within a day or two of the event happening.  Since only Comey and Trump were at the briefing, and since it's pretty clear that Trump didn't leak the details, we have a reasonably good basis to know that Comey gave the briefing and then leaked the details, just to get that phony Trump dossier materials into the press.

I would say it is possible that Comey is political scum, but it is actually more than possible.  Comey proved his own true identity with the words that came out of his own mouth.