The Loony Dems Are Out Of Control

Here's a link to a video of the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his wife Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation being harassed by a crowd of loony leftists.

These people are truly out of control.  Morons like Democrat politicians Maxine Waters and Corey Booker are out there egging on the mob to do this.  It's just wrong.

Look people, no matter what our differences, we are all Americans.  We can disagree strongly one with the other, and that's fine.  We can't threaten mob violence or bully our political opponents, however.  People can say what they want.  They can't threaten violence.  And obviously, they can't use violence.

Do the Democrats really think that they will regain power by using mobs to threaten others?  Americans will never stand for it.  We want a government that can function not one that exists only to engender rage and mob rule.

This has to end.

Iran On The Brink?

There were continuing protests in Teheran and other Iranian cities yesterday.  These protests started months ago and have continued sporadically ever since then.  What is most interesting about the protests is that they seem to have moved strongly in an economic direction.  In other words, the protesters are complaining about dire economic conditions.  They carry signs denouncing the Iranian adventures in Syria, but more for the effect those costly adventures are having on Iran's economy than for any disagreement with the legality or morality of the Iranian actions.  And the Iranian economy is tanking to be sure.  Iranian currency is becoming worthless; the exchange rate on the black market is reported to be 90,000 rials to one US dollar.  That is less than half of what the rial was worth just a few months ago.

Think of what this means.  If the mullahs are under economic pressure from the populace, the last thing they need is to deal with renewed sanctions from the USA.  In other words, the Trump policy of hitting Iran with ever stronger sanctions as part of the nuclear issue could find a very fertile ground in which to grow to success.

Of course, this is Iran, so it is hard to predict that economics rather than religious ideology will prevail.  Still, since the creation of the Islamic Republic nearly 40 years ago, there has never been a sustained outbreak of protest.  There has also never been such a poor economy for such a long time.  Maybe, just maybe, this will be the beginning of the end for the Iranian theocracy.  Let's hope so.

Puting the Gerrymander Lie To Rest

In a new decision today, the Supreme Court pretty much put the lie to the endless claims of gerrymandering that the Democrats keep blaming for their losses in various legislatures.  In Abbott v. Perez, the Court repeated its prior rulings that someone seeking to overturn districts drawn by the state legislature has the burden of proof to show the wrongful intent of the legislature to draw the lines for racial purposes.  The lines drawn by the Texas legislature in 2013 had been challenged as racial gerrymandering, but the lower court had decided the case by requiring the state to show it had no intent to gerrymander.  That was wrong according to SCOTUS.  Similarly, the Court found that the plaintiffs had not proven (as required) any violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

This decision is a rather technical analysis of the whole concept of gerrymandering.  The key thing to realize, however, is that SCOTUS has made clear that anyone who challenges districts on this basis will have to prove that there really is a violation.  It is not enough to use claims of improper action; there has to be actual proof offered to show that wrongdoing.  This will have the effect of ending most of the endless gerrymandering cases brought by the Democrats.

It's worth noting that in the decades beginning in the 1930s until 2010, the state legislatures across the country were controlled by the Democrats for the most part.  These legislatures drew district lines to favor -- you guessed it -- the Democrats.  Then the Republicans took control in 2010.  When the lines were redrawn, they favored -- you guessed it -- the Republicans.  It was business as usual, but the Democrats just couldn't accept the idea that they had lost.  They instead began to blame gerrymandering.  After all, that was the only way that they could accept that a majority of the nation favored the Republicans.  It was like blaming non-existent collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign for Hillary's loss, just another excuse.  The sad thing, though, is that millions of dollars and countless hours have been wasted fighting about non-existent gerrymandering.

Hopefully, today's ruling by SCOTUS will put this lie to rest once and for all.

It's Good She Wasn't Relying On the Others

At a lunch meeting among some senate Democrats, Missouri senator Claire McCaskill started choking.  West Virginia senator Joe Manchin performed the Heimlich on McCaskill and saved her life.  McCaskill did suffer a broken rib as a result, however.  Kudos to Manchin for taking quick action.

It's also worth noting that it's a good thing that McCaskill wasn't lunching with senators like Connecticut's own senators Murphy and Blumenthal.  Those two would no doubt have thought it a good idea to discuss how to approach McCaskill's choking prior to taking action.  That would have led to an hour long debate during which McCaskill would have died.  After that, both Murphy and Blumenthal would, no doubt, have taken to Twitter to tell their constituents how they had fought for McCaskill's life.  These two are people who only know one thing:  talk.  They never actually achieve anything.

More From CBS Immigration Poll

Here's another tidbit from the poll that CBS released today: 51% of Americans think the border wall with Mexico is a good idea even if it can span the entire border.  Since the plan has never been to span the entire border due to rivers or mountains that provide natural barriers, the poll is saying that the majority want the wall built.

Just think the last time you heard favorable coverage in the media of the border wall.  Usually, it is mentioned in the context of calling Donald Trump a lunatic.  After all, no sane person (other than the majority of the American people) could favor such a wall, right?

In summary, the Democrats are blocking the wall, the media is denouncing the wall, and the American people are becoming convinced that the wall is necessary.

Free Speech Actually Means Free Speech

The refusal of a restaurant in Virginia to serve Sara Sanders and her family is a pretty scummy move.  It is one, however, that appears perfectly legal.  There is no law in Virginia that requires all customers to be served.  There are only certain categories of customers who have that protection.  Service cannot be declined on the basis of race, religion, national origin or gender.  To be clear, that means that in Virginia it's legal for a restaurant to do what the Red Hen did.

That being said, it's a rather idiotic business move by the restaurant.  The yelp page is now filled with political rants, both for and against the place.  Most likely, there will be protests against the conduct of the restaurant by a great many people.  There is even a move to run a sort of sit in against the place.  The recommendation is for people to go to the restaurant, buy only a small purchase like an iced tea and then to sit at the table and sip the tea for two or three hours to deny the restaurant the ability of using that space.  There will also surely be groups of supporters who go to the restaurant in the hopes of bolstering the resistance.  My guess, however, is that the Red Hen is going to suffer a major loss due to this whole episode.

It would be nice to think that the owner of the Red Hen thought about these consequences before she asked the Sanders family to leave.  More likely than not, however, she did not.  It's much like many other mistakes; it's something that would be nice to take back, but impossible to achieve.

 

What Do Americans Think?

With all the noise about events at the border, CBS conducted a poll of American voters to seek out their opinions about how to handle families that illegally cross the border.  The poll offered four choices how to deal with families caught entering illegally:  1. deport the whole group immediately; 2. arrest the parents and keep the kids in a separate facility; 3. arrest the parents and keep the entire family in detention until after their case is decided; or 4. schedule a hearing for the family and then release them on their promise to return for that hearing.  Which one of these alternatives do you think got the most support?  Remember choice 4 is the old Obama "catch and release" policy.  After the recent executive order, choice 3 is what the government is now doing.

The answer is that half of all respondents chose choice 1; they want the entire family deported immediately.  Only 1 in 5 chose the catch and release policy (choice 4).  That means a large majority chose the current government policy or something more drastic.

You have to wonder if the Democrats don't understand just how unpopular their immigration stand really is.  Americans do NOT favor illegal aliens over American citizens.  Every time the Democrats make clear that the party DOES favor illegal aliens over American citizens, they lose votes.

Personally, I hope the Dems keep this up until November.

Maybe Some Will Wake Up

Ever since the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1950s and 1960s, black Americans have supported the Democrats in overwhelming numbers.  Blacks are the key demographic in every winning coalition that the Dems have put together.  That's strange enough since the Democrats are the party that supported segregation, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws.  It's even stranger since essentially all the opposition to the civil rights laws came from Democrats.  Nevertheless, one the civil rights laws passed, the Democrats claimed to be the guardians of black America, and they got the votes as a result.  In many predominantly black cities, Democrats have ruled for many, many decades.

There's a problem, however.  In the fifty years since the civil rights laws were passed, there has not been much of anything done to reduce the economic gap between white and black America.  This is particularly true in those same cities where the Democrats are totally in control.  Every election year, the Democrats condemn the Republicans as racists, even though that is a false charge.  Every election year, the African American voters support the Democrats in overwhelming numbers.  All the rest of the time, the Democrats take the black vote for granted.

Even the few things that the Democrats have put in place have been detrimental to the black community.  Look at abortion, something that the Democrats support nearly in unison.  Black babies are aborted at more than three times the rate for whites.  Look at welfare structures that reward families where there is no father present.  How much is that structure to blame for the dissolution of the black family in the USA?  There's much more, but it's hard to find something the Democrats have done in the last 50 years that actually helped their black supporters.

Lately, things have been looking up at least economically for blacks.  Black unemployment keeps hitting record low numbers.  And this is happening under President Trump and the Republicans.  One has to wonder if some of the black community will realize that the story that the Democrats have been pushing for the last 50 years just isn't true.  Remember, if only 20% of the black voters switch to the GOP, the Democrats won't win another national race for decades to come. 

Let's hope the voters wake up to reality.

Guaranteeing a Loss - 2

Earlier today, I wrote about the mob rule tactics being used by the Democrats/media complex against Republican women.  I predicted that these tactics will backfire big time on the left.  I also pointed out the silence of the leadership of the Democrats that makes them just as culpable as the mobs themselves.  Now, it's no longer silence.  Leading Dems are actually cheering on the mob action.

The usually moronic Maxine Waters is the culprit here.  On MSNBC, she actually applauded the "protests" by the mob and said that everyone working in the White House would soon be unable to eat in a restaurant, shop at the mall, buy gas or carry out other activities of daily living because of mob harassment. 

Now I know that Maxine Waters often acts as if she is totally brain dead.  Still, to hear a prominent Democrat, even one as moronic as Waters praising the mob tactics seeking to stamp out opposition views is an amazing thing.  We actually have Democrats who are applauding the use of un-American tactics.  We actually have Democrats supporting the idea that ours is a government of men and not laws.  If the law requires something to be done, the Dems don't care if they don't like that law.  They're not interested in trying to change the law; they're only interested in seeking to punish those who have the responsibility for enforcing that law (especially if the targets are women.)

Guaranteeing a Loss

Yesterday, the attorney general of Florida, Pam Bondi, was attacked by a mob of protesters who screamed at her as she left a movie after seeing a documentary about Fred Rogers.  Mr. Rogers was, of course, the host of a children's TV show on PBS in which he tried to teach the kids to be "neighbors" by treating everyone with dignity and respect.  The crowd confronting Pam Bondi did no such thing.  They screamed at her for supporting the Trump policies on healthcare and immigration.  It was quite a contrast.

The night before that, a restaurant owner in Virginia asked White House Press Spokesman Sara Sanders to leave rather than be served.  The restaurant owner called the move a "moral decision".  Basically, the restaurant owner refused to serve Sanders because she works for Trump.  It was a classless move.

The day before that, the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristjen Nielsen was confronted by a crowd of screaming protesters at a restaurant in DC as well as at her home.  It was much the same scene as the one that confronted Bondi in Florida.

Three prominent Republican women are attacked by left wing mobs for doing their jobs.  Do we hear any of the usual feminists denouncing this display of sexism?   Of course not.  Do we hear any prominent Democrats calling on the protesters to stop attacking individuals?  Chuck?  Nancy?  They're silent. 

So will this tactic work?  The most likely answer is a resounding NO.  Americans don't like to see tactics like this.  The average American voter knows that the Attorney General in Florida doesn't set national policy on immigration, healthcare or anything else.  So why is she attacked?  The average American voter also knows that the woman who speaks to the press at the White House doesn't set policy either.  She just informs people what that policy is.  So again, why attack her?

My guess is that the left has, as usual, gone too far.  The ordinary American voter looks at the attacks and sees people being persecuted for their political views.  These folks will not see enforcing the law as an out-of-bounds position.  Remember, Sanders, Bondi, and Nielsen just support enforcing the law as written.  That's a position that plays well to most Americans.  Using mob intimidation tactics is not something that those who are not extremists will applaud or even accept.

This move by the mobs and the lack of any condemnation by the Democrat establishment has done more to undermine their position on the whole immigration imbroglio than almost anything else to date.  We already know that the polls show people blame the parents who illegally bring their kids to the USA for the family separations, not the government.  Throwing mob intimidation and lack of respect for the law into the mix just further undermines support for the minority position.  It's not a wise move.

It is also important to remember that this is not only a bad move politically; it is also a dangerous move.  There are too many crazies out there who get influenced by these events.  It's not a big move from a crowd confronting the Secretary of Homeland Security to a crazy leftist actually attacking her.  Remember, it was a crazy Bernie supporter who shot congressman Scalise a year ago in a similar situation.  The left has to take violence and threats of violence out of its rhetoric and actions. 

Abbas Is Getting Nervous

A spokesman for the Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas made a statement today slamming US efforts to bring peace in the region.  In particular Saeb Erekat said that America was trying to separate Gaza from the West Bank and to bring down the PA.  According to Erekat, this effort is the intention of American requests to its Arab allies to fund infrastructure projects in Gaza and to provide help to resettle Palestinian refugees outside of the UNWRA group through which the UN pays monthly stipends to the descendants of the refugees from 1948 fighting.  What this actually means is that Abbas is finally getting nervous that he and his people will be shoved aside in a move towards peace.

Let's look at this a bit more closely.

1.  During the Obama years, the USA never did anything that might upset the Palestinian Authority or Abbas.  Obama considered Abbas the medium through which peace would be achieved so the president leaned on the Israelis to accommodate Abbas' desires.  As a result, Obama put the USA firmly in opposition to Israeli homes being built on any land that was held by the Arabs prior to 1967.  Obama also treated the Israeli leadership with disdain and interfered in the Israeli elections trying to defeat prime minister Netanyahu.  (Maybe that's were the Russians got the idea to try to interfere in the US elections in 2016).

2.  After Trump took office, American policy changed.  The USA stopped following the fictions put forward by Abbas and began dealing with the realities on the ground.  Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem.  Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since 1948, but now America stopped pretending that wasn't the case.  The President also ended the oppressive opposition by the USA to Israeli "settlements" even if those supposed settlements were in places like the historic "Jewish Quarter" of the old city of Jerusalem.  The USA still opposes major expansion of new settlements, but those that exist already can build new homes for the natural population increase.  President Trump also stopped giving American money to the UN agency UNWRA which morphed from a refugee relief group to one designed to provide monthly payments to the Arab refugees of 1948 and their descendants forever.  It's time for those refugees to be integrated into the societies of the countries where they live.  In each case, the desires of Abbas and his group to maintain the fictions that guided the world for decades were ignored.  The actual reality won out.  The US is also cutting off payments to the PA for so long as that group continues to pay pensions to those who commit terrorist acts and their families.

3.  Trump also sided with Israel when the Hamas terrorists organized attacks against the border fence around Gaza but called it a "protest".  In fact, nearly the entire world sided with Israel on that issue as they followed the US lead on the response.

4.  As a result of US action, Abbas lost all his power to control events in the region.  He could no longer determine the capital of Israel, the pension payments to "refugees", or the construction of so called settlements. 

5.  Then the US applied the coup de grace.  American envoys came to the region to discuss peace and, after Abbas said he wouldn't meet with them, continued to discuss a peace plan with the other principal parties.  Jared Kushner and the US special negotiator have met with the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, among others.  Serious discussions about how to bring about peace are ongoing.  Abbas is frozen out and no one seems to care.

None of this means that Abbas is no longer of any importance.  That would not be a correct view.  it does mean, however, that Abbas now understands that he has lost the power that the rest of the world had given him as the "partner" for peace.  The world is working towards peace with or without Abbas.  Abbas now has a choice:  he can become irrelevant and fade away or he can actually participate in a meaningful fashion in peace efforts.

There is, of course, a third alternative.  Abbas could launch another uprising against Israel and gin up a major new wave of terrorism.  Israel has gotten pretty adept at stopping the terrorist attacks, but there still could be a great many with many casualties.  My guess, however, is that were Abbas to launch that sort of uprising, he would quickly be met by a strong counter response directly against Abbas himself.  I doubt Abbas would chance that.  He no longer has any champion to protect him from that response.

Only time will tell if there is any serious path to peace that can be achieved.  For the first time in years, however, there is a real chance that this is possible.

This Tells You A Lot About The Media

Last year, three people who worked at CNN were forced to resign after CNN published a phony story about supposed Russia Trump collusion that the network had to retract.  That story was based upon a single anonymous source of questionable validity and it turned out to be completely wrong.  Indeed, many of the people about whom the story spoke weren't even contacted by CNN before the phony story was published for their side of the matter.  It was a complete and embarrassing journalistic failure.  (And given that it happened at CNN, you can gauge that it would have to be terrible for the reporters to be forced out.)

The point today is not, however, that CNN published clearly Fake News.  It is, rather, that CBS just hired one of the three who were fired by CNN as the new head of its online division.  The guy got a promotion following the debacle at CNN.

It's obvious that CBS doesn't care about journalistic standards.  Still, this is a pretty egregious example of just how poor the quality of the mainstream media truly is.

They Can't Even List Things Fairly

Real Clear Politics is supposed to be a site that amalgamates politically themed articles from both sides of each argument.  It just can't stay out of swinging the argument to one side, however.

Here's a good example:  This afternoon, RCP lists a Mollie Hemingway article in the Federalist under the title "Trump's Immigration Policies Are Surprisingly Popular".  I read that article, but when I went to it, I was surprised to find that the actual headline is "Trump’s Immigration Policies Are Actually Pretty Popular".  Note the difference.  Hemingway's article is an explanation of how American voters favor President Trump's policies on immigration; she found nothing surprising about that.  The RCP headline, however, throw the concept into her article that the feelings of the people are "surprising".  In other words, RCP makes it seem that Mrs. Hemingway is somewhat shocked by the views of the people (when she isn't).

This happens over and over again.  Articles with a conservative slant are converted into headlines that seem to go the other way.

A Massive Fail By The Left

There's a poll out today that puts the recent uproar over separation of some families at the border into proper perspective, and it's not a good look for the Democrat/media complex that has been pushing the story.  By about a 20% margin, Americans blame the illegal aliens for the crisis rather than the government.  Indeed, only about a third of voters blame the Trump administration as the principal cause of the problem.  Imagine that!  After endless discussions of how Trump is a Nazi using Nazi tactics to send poor immigrants and children to concentration camps, the American people blame the illegals and not the Trump administration.  Remember, there are about a third of the voters who would blame Trump for any ill in the world, and I mean ANY ill in the world.  That means that the big onslaught by the media and the Dems on this point hasn't convinced any of the non-core anti-Trumpers that it is the President's fault.

So what have the been the effects of this mess?  For one thing, the Democrats have made clear that they care more about the illegal immigrants than the rest of America.  Democrats don't do anything or even try to do anything for children inside the USA who are separated from their parent when he or she is incarcerated; that concern only applies for the illegal immigrants.  Democrats don't do anything or even try to do anything for homeless veterans or other homeless people on the streets of our cities, particularly ones like Chicago, Philadelphia or Baltimore which have been run by the Democrats for nearly a century.  They do run to shelters to check on the rather fine conditions in which the illegals are being held.

Another effect is that the media manufactured "crisis" has taken attention away from nearly everything else.  We haven't really heard much of anything about how things are going with North Korea following the Singapore summit.  We don't know what Congress is doing with regard to pending appropriations bills.  Even the economic news has receded into the mist.  It has been non-stop border news about children.  America, however, does know that the Democrats say that the problem could be solved by President Trump and that they refused to vote for any bill to fix the situation.  Then when Trump acted, the same Democrats said that he didn't have the authority to take action, but they still refuse to vote for any solution.  They are blocking action to protect the very illegals who most Americans blame for the crisis.  It sounds good in the DC bubble, but the poll says it won't play very well across the country.

This is just one poll, so maybe it's wrong.  Still, if this poll is even remotely correct, we are witnessing a massive fail by the left.

CFPB held Unconstitutional

The Consumer Finance Protection Board or CFPB was set up by the Dodd Frank law.  The Democrats who passed that law structured the Board so that it would not be answerable to Congress or the President.  The CFPB is not funded by Congress; it gets its money from the Federal Reserve.  The head of the CFPB cannot be removed by the President at will; he or she may only be removed for cause.  There are other special wrinkles in the law setting up the CFPB, but the two listed make it unique among federal agencies.  They also make it unconstitutional according to a decision today in the Southern District of New York.  Judge Prenska dismissed the CFPB as a party in a pending action as a result of her finding that the Board was unconstitutional.

The decision will no doubt be appealed by the CFPB.  After all, the DC circuit court of appeals previously held to the contrary.  At some point, the issue will end up in front of the Supreme Court. 

Right now, however, the future of this agency is in question. 

Sales Tax On The Internet

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can have businesses collect sales tax on purchases even if that business has no physical presence in the state.  This changes a rule that has been in place for decades. 

Let's be clear what this means.  Until now, a company that sold items on the internet but which has all its offices and warehouses in Connecticut was only required to collect sales tax from residents of that state.  Now, that same company will have to collect taxes from nearly every other state.

The first effect of this ruling is that companies like Wayfair (the defendant in this case) can no sell at lower prices than other companies because they are using the internet and can avoid sales taxes.  This will mean more taxes collected for the states, higher prices for consumers and fairer competition between competitors.  Of course, a company like Wayfair will now have to collect fifty different state sales taxes and literally thousands of different local taxes.  It will be a nightmare.  Surely, there will have to be companies that develop computer programs that impose the correct sales tax on a transaction.  This will cost money and will just add another level of expense onto the price of internet goods.

A friend of mine suggested today a possible fix.  He suggests that Congress pass a law setting a sales tax on internet interstate sales at 5% (or something similar).  The revenue received would than be distributed to each state proportionately with population.  State sales taxes on interstate sales would otherwise be banned.  This would mean that all internet sales would be hit with the same tax level.  Millions or billions in extra costs could be avoided.  States could avoid the expense of collecting the tax.  The feds could even keep a piece of the collection sufficient to cover the cost of collection.  It's a great solution.

Investigating the Investigators

The latest news in the Russia Trump hoax investigation is that according to Congressman Mark Meadows, some of the FBI agents involved with that matter are being investigated for altering evidence pertaining to the FBI interview with General Flynn.  Remember, General Flynn was then the National Security Adviser and he was asked about his contacts with Russia and Russians.  According to reports, the FBI agents who spoke with Flynn reported that they saw no evidence that he told them anything other than the truth.  Flynn was never told of this conclusion by the agents involved.  Then came the Mueller investigation and not long after that, Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI in that interview.  The evidence which may have been tampered with by the FBI are the reports filed by the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn.  These reports are FBI 302 statements which record what transpired when a witness was interviewed.

If Meadows is correct and there really is an investigation of tampering with the 302 statements, then that means that not only did the FBI withhold from Flynn the conclusion that he had told the truth, but the reports filed by the agents involved were also altered so as to make them fit better with a charge of lying to the FBI.  It's the ultimate in police state tactics.

If there is any truth to the charges that the FBI's 302 statements were altered to help in the prosecution of Flynn by Mueller, then anyone involved should go to prison.  And I mean DIRECTLY TO JAIL.  They shouldn't pass GO or collect $200.  This is heinous.

 

Back to The Law

It's amazing to watch the flip flop on immigration law that took place in Washington in the last 24 hours.  Prior to yesterday afternoon, the media and the Democrats were in unison announcing that President Trump had the power alone to fix the separation of children from their parents after those parents were arrested for illegally crossing the border into the USA.  Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer put the Democrat position best on Tuesday afternoon:  "Mr. President, you alone can fix it."  Schumer was not alone in expressing that view; nearly every Democrat who spoke to the issue and nearly every pundit in the mainstream media told the country that President Trump could fix this mess all by himself.  Then everything changed.  Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order that ended the separation of families on a temporary basis.  The order also directed the Justice Department to ask a federal court in California to allow children to stay with their parents after twenty days.  You see, there is an old court decree that requires the federal government not to hold children after twenty days.  That means that children of parents who are arrested for violating the immigration law cannot be held with their parents after 20 days.  Of course, that means family separation.

After this executive order was issued, there was a complete reversal by the Democrats and the media.  "The President can't do that on his own" is the new battle cry.  Suddenly, President Trump who they assured us could act by himself can't do that anymore now that he has taken action.  It's sad to see this happen, but it does reveal a basic truth about the Democrats and the media:  they really don't care all that much about the children; they only want to be able to make Trump look bad.  The goal is election of Democrats, not helping of immigrant families.

The Most Alarming Thing I've Heard About The Obamacrats

Yesterday, there was a hearing in the Senate that contained the most alarming information about president Obama and his administration I've ever come across.  The Obamacrats knew as early as December of 2015 that the Russians were hacking the Democrat National Committee and trying to interfere in the 2016 elections.  The cyber command developed counter measures and other ways to thwart the Russians but in 2016, they were given an order to "stand down".  That's right a conscious decision was made by Obama that there would be no retaliation or other response to the Russian meddling in our election.  All that happened was that Obama told Putin to "cut it out" at a meeting in the fall of 2016.

This is not a new claim, but it has been dismissed in the past by some Democrats and much of the media as untrue.  Yesterday, however, the chief cyber official under Obama testified in an open hearing and confirmed that it is in fact the truth.  Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant Secretary of State also confirmed the validity of this information in testimony yesterday.

Think about this for a moment.  For two years we have heard endlessly about how the Trump campaign is being investigated for colluding with the Russians.  There has never been any confirmation or other proof of any collusion, but the story goes on and on.  Now we learn that long before the public knew of the hack of the DNC, the Obama administration was aware of it and decided to do nothing about it.  Obama decided to do nothing as John Podesta's emails were hacked.  It's important to remember that the Obamacrats knew what the Russians were doing in December of 2015 according to Nuland and that the hack of Podesta concluded four months later.  That means that an action by Obama might have stopped that hack, but he did nothing.

Even more alarming than the inaction is the reason given for it.  Supposedly, Susan Rice, the dishonest National Security Adviser, told everyone to stand down in order not to limit the options available to president Obama.  The chief national security adviser actually thought that doing nothing while the problem continued was the best option for moving forward, so she stopped the development of counter-measures.  We know that doing nothing was ultimately the go-to position of the Obamacrats.  Just think of the red-line in Syria set by Obama and then ignored or the response to the rise of ISIS which Obama just derided as the jay-vee at a point where they could easily have been wiped away.  Still, the idea that Obama and/or Rice thought that the best move was to do nothing really puts into perspective the whole Russia-Trump investigation.

How Many Are There

There media melt down over the Trump administration holding illegal alien children in various facilities continues.  It's worth noting that there are now over 10,000 such children.  It's also worth noting that, as reported in Newsweek, there were roughly 25,000 children held at one time in 2013 by the Obama administration.  Why is it such a big deal now when the same people who are going crazy at the moment didn't even mention the subject in 2013?

A Good Illustration of a Polling Truth

Heidi Heitkamp is a Democrat senator from North Dakota.  She is also a Democrat running for re-election in a state in which Donald Trump destroyed Hillary Clinton in 2016.  There's a poll out today showing that Heitkamp is losing to her Republican opponent Kevin Cramer by 48% to 44%.  It's a very bad omen for Heitkamp even though we still have almost five months left until election day.

The poll, however, is also a very good illustration of a basic truth of polling in races involving incumbents.  If the polls show an incumbent with less than 45% of the vote, that candidate is in trouble.  Remember, the voters already know the incumbent well and have formed an impression of that person.  The voters who like the incumbent already know that.  Similarly, the voters who do not like the incumbent have pretty much fixed that opinion as well.  Four months ago, there was another poll in the Heitkamp/Cramer race that showed Heitkamp ahead by 43 to 40%.  While Heitkamp was ahead, she was under 45%.  Since then, her numbers are essentially unchanged while Cramer has gone up by 8% with voters moving from undecided to Cramer. 

Obviously, things could change by election day.  Nevertheless, if you use this rule of thumb about the 45% for the incumbent, there is also a clear indication of trouble for Democrat Claire McCaskill in Missouri (who leads her GOP opponent by 45 to 43.5%).  The same is true in Indiana where the GOP candidate leads in the only polling.  In Nevada, Republican incumbent Dean Heller leads his opponent by just 1% at 40 to 39%, an indication of trouble for the incumbent there too.

 

The Obvious Alarm At The Times

Every day for the last ten years, there have been cyber attacks mounted against American targets.  Some of the attacks are by hackers or thieves here in the USA.  Many of the largest and most sophisticated attacks, however, come from abroad with the bulk of those coming from foreign state actors.  In other words, governments like China, Russia and Iran have large organizations of hackers who are going after American targets.  These state-run attacks have two principal purposes:  1) theft of American property and secrets, and 2) probing for weaknesses in US cyber defenses so that chaos could be unleashed in the future.  A good example of the first type is the theft of designs for the F-35 aircraft by the Chinese.  A good example of the second type is the repeated intrusion into the American electric grid so that in any future conflict, Russia or China could literally turn off the power across the country.

This is a very dangerous situation.  Every day, the USA becomes more and more dependent on the internet and devices and the like controlled across the web.  If America is vulnerable to cyber attack, that vulnerability is getting worse.  Our very existence as a nation could be placed at risk as a result.

The Pentagon has a Cyber Command that is tasked with handling the internet.  It has been around for more than a decade.  Normally, that unit has operated purely in a defensive mode.  Lately, however, according to a report in the NY Times, Cyber Command has gone from pure defense to a combination of offense and defense.  In other words, the US Cyber Command has launched operations to take out foreign computer networks used to hack American targets.  It has also retaliated against foreign nations that attack US targets.

This move makes sense.  If someone attacks you day after day for years, it is not enough to just defend yourself from these attacks.  At some point, you need to try to get the attackers to stop by increasing the cost paid by the attackers for their actions.  Strong retaliation should make those mounting the attacks think twice about continuing.  It is a basic strategy that has been used in conflicts since the beginning of time.

That's the basic story.  Then the Times adds its twist.  It can't bring itself to report about these events without trying to criticize the Trump administration.  As a result, we hear from the Times that this new policy was debated at the highest levels of the White House.  President Trump (gasp!) gave the Pentagon the ability to make tactical changes of this sort without the need for a White House decision.  Oh, the horror!  The Times, you see, is still living under the delusions of the Obama years.  At that time, the Pentagon could not be trusted.  They were just a bunch of warmongers who wanted nothing more than to enlarge the chances for nuclear destruction.  They had to be tightly controlled by the White House.  That's why all targets in Iraq and Syria where ISIS fighters might be had to be approved by the White House before they could be hit.  A convoy of twenty ISIS vehicles which could be taken out by US air power with quick action could not be touched because the two day turnaround for White House approval slowed down the American response. 

The reality is that President Trump understands that the American military can and has properly operated within guidelines set by Washington for more than two centuries.  The ridiculous strictures place on our forces by the Obamacrats accomplished nothing more than to prevent the USA from using its full power to achieve our goals.  It's a good thing that policy has changed, even if it horrifies the NY Times.

Another Day, Another Fraud

The spokesperson for the First Lady said this earlier today:

"Mrs. Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform. She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart."

So what does that mean?  When Melania Trump says she hates to see children separated from their families, she is repeating what President Trump has said.  When she says that both parties have to come together and achieve successful immigration reform, she is again repeating what President Trump has said.  When she says that the USA needs to be a country that follows the law but governs with heart, it is once more what Trump has said.

Now for the coverage.  The Hill tweeted the following about Mrs. Trump's statement: 

"JUST IN: Melania Trump blasts Trump policy"

One might validly wonder just how Melania "blasted" the president's policy if she agreed with everything he said.

The BBC tweeted:  "US child migrants: Melania calls for end to Trump's separation policy."

There's a lot more, but this should give you a good flavor of how the mainstream media is distorting what the First Lady had to say. 

Asylum - or - Insane Asylum

In the days before political correctness, mental hospitals (loosely speaking) were often called insane asylums.  They were places where society put those who were mentally ill.  There was essentially no treatment provided because there was essentially no known treatment that worked.  The people put there were just warehoused.  People went in, but almost no one ever came out by any means other than death.

I got to thinking about insane asylums this morning when I read the fifteenth tweet from some Democrat or pundit lamenting that people coming to the USA to seek "asylum" were being held in detention and their children separated from them.  It's such nonsense.

Years ago, Congress passed a law specifying the rules under which a foreigner can seek "asylum" in the USA.  In order to qualify for asylum, a person must prove that he or she is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”  In other words, it is not enough to say that you want to seek asylum, the asylum seeker must actually show past persecution or a well grounded fear of future persecution in one's home country.

This rule is important because it makes clear that bad conditions in one's home country does not qualify a potential immigrant for asylum.  Economic conditions may be bad in El Salvador, and there may be drug wars in Honduras, but that is not proper grounds for the granting of asylum.

In the past, the hundreds of thousands of people who came to this country illegally from Central America were told that all they had to do was to "seek asylum".  Under the Obama era policy of "catch and release", these folks were given a date for an asylum hearing and then let go into the USA.  Less than 1% came back for their hearings.

Catch and release, however, was a perversion of the requirements of the immigration laws.  Under clear US law, an asylum seeker is to be given a preliminary interview by an immigration officer who specializes in these matters.  If the immigration officer finds no reasonable basis for the granting of asylum, then the person is deported.  These hearings normally find no basis for asylum.  Fewer than 10% of the requests get past this stage.  Someone who loses at this point can appeal, however.  The key though is that someone who loses on his or her request for asylum has entered the country illegally and is guilty of a crime.  They are to be arrested and held for deportation or jail pending the determination of the asylum appeal.

It's a crazy view that by enforcing the law as written, Trump is creating a policy of separating families, one from the other.  Trump is just doing what he swore to do in his oath of office.  He is defending and upholding the laws of the USA.  Obama violated his oath of office by ignoring the law.

And make no mistake about it.  The laws Trump is enforcing were passed by Democrats.  They can't ignore that inconvenient fact just by screaming "nevermind" at the top of their lungs.

The misuse of asylum requests is no longer going to be tolerated by the USA.  That's a good thing.  If Democrats don't want this to continue, then they ought to stop stalling any movement towards immigration reform and start working with Republicans to pass new legislation.  

Watching New York Commit Suicide

The lower house of the New York legislature just passed a single payer universal health plan again for the fourth year in a row.  The plan lets people sign up for medical coverage that has no network restrictions, no co-pays and no deductibles.  It's the kind of plan that New York's liberals think is great.  Of course, were it to be passed by the State Senate, it would be the end of the road for New York.

Imagine what would happen.  Companies across New York would drop providing health care coverage for their employees.  There's no need to give coverage if it is available under the single payer state plan.  Individuals who get coverage through the Obamacare exchange would also drop their plans.  After all, the policies sold by Obamacare in New York are expensive, come with huge deductibles and have restrictive networks that exclude the better hospitals and no coverage for out of network care.  The wealthy would, no doubt, pay for their own care at one of the many doctors and facilities that don't take insurance or most insurance.  Still, this would surely lead to a reduction in the amounts paid to hospitals, doctors, and other facilities for care.  Instead of crazy high prices with the hospitals getting only 25 or 30% approved by insurance, the prices overall would come down.  That would be a boon to the wealthy.  A two part problem, however, would then develop.  First, all those cutting edge teaching hospitals in New York would probably go under.  Surely, the state plan won't pay enough for people to get their cancer care at Memorial/Sloan Kettering, the premiere cancer hospital in the region and, likely, the country.  That hospital would fail as would the many other high quality facilities that dot New York.  Second, nurses, doctors and technicians would have to see a big decline in their incomes.  The old days of nurses working long hours for very low pay would be back again.  On the whole, the quality of care would surely decline.  It would be time for care to be reduced in many ways to giving grandma the pain pill (as president Obama once described it).

Think of the British example.  In the UK, they've had the national health service for some 60 plus years.  It takes a long time to get a great many types of procedures.  If you need a knee replacement, you may have to wait for a year or longer, for example.  The wealthy don't use the system, and they get first class care while the average person gets third rate care.

Then there's an even bigger problem for New York.  The level of taxation that would be needed to fund this system is extraordinary.  New Yorkers already pay some of the highest taxes in the country.  Would anyone actually move to New York if the income tax level were 20% (on top of the federal taxes due?)  I don't think so.  I also don't think many companies would move their plants or offices to a state with a massive corporate income tax either.  People would flee.  Companies would flee.  Jobs would flee.  But hey, New Yorkers could tell each other that they had universal single payer healthcare.  It could be a big topic of conversation among the millions who would eventually leave the state.

It's Tariff Time

I just watched another "expert" explain on TV why the new Chinese tariffs on certain agricultural products from the USA will really hurt American agriculture.  That's just nonsense.

Let's use soybeans as an example.  Right now, there are fields across the Northern Hemisphere which are planted with soy.  It's too late in the season for new fields to be added to production.  The soybean plants already in the ground will grow and produce a crop of beans.  The weather could change the amount produced, but the price of soybeans won't make a difference.  That means that the supply of soybeans on the world market will consist for the next nine months or so of existing stockpiles and the growth harvested later this year.  Tariffs by China won't change this one bit.  Supply is one half of the market equation.  The other half is demand.  If China puts tariffs on soybeans from the USA, it might raise prices in China if they can't get adequate supplies of soy from Brazil or Canada or some other producing country.  The price rise might reduce usage a bit in China, but that's really unlikely given the centrality of soybean products in the Chinese diet.

So what will Chinese tariffs on soybean actually do?  The answer is simple.  Chinese tariffs on US soy products will make American soybeans more expensive than Brazilian or Australian soybeans.  Chinese buyers will be more likely to purchase from non-American sources.  Remember, however, that if the Chinese buy more of these products from Brazil, the Brazilians will sell less to their usual customers.  Those customers, in turn, will need to find a new source of supply.  The sellers with extra product will be American agriculture.  So the tariffs by China on soy may result in more Brazilian sales to China and more American sales to Japan.  It should not greatly damage the American agricultural sector.

Now if the tariffs stay in place until the next planting season, there may eventually be some effect, but that is a long way off and unlikely to happen.

I don't know why the so called "experts" on TV don't get this reality.  It's not complicated.  Most of them do seem to be about as far away from farmers as a person can get.  Maybe they're just confused.

Mergers And Reality

I just read a column by leftist and perennial NY Democrat primary candidate Zephyr Teachout in which she says that mergers like the one between AT&T and Time Warner are "crushing American democracy".  Never one to take a reasoned view of any economic development when an apocalyptic one is available, Teachout says this merger, among other things, made the telecom industry much more concentrated.  It is also, according to Teachout, just the latest exemplar of evil corporate titans and their shareholders raping American consumers for ever higher profits.  She's wrong.

Look, some mergers are anti-competitive; that cannot be doubted.  Teachout's jeremiad, however, truly misses the point and isn't even close to being correct.

Let's start with the idea that this merger results in the telecom industry being much more concentrated.  There are a few different parts to the telecom industry.  First we have cell phones.  Time Warner doesn't provide those services, so that part of the business cannot become more concentrated as a result of the merger.  Second, we have the old land line business.  These services come either over the internet with VOIP or through the old land lines themselves.  Again, Time Warner was not in that business, so again there's no increase in concentration.  Third, there is internet access services provided by cable and fiber optic companies for the most part.  It shouldn't come as a surprise, but Time Warner isn't in that business either.  In other words, Teachout doesn't know what she is talking about.  Time Warner used to be in those business, but it spun Time Warner Cable off with all those businesses years ago.  Indeed, Teachout mentions dealing with Spectrum in her column, probably not understanding that Spectrum (which used to be Time Warner Cable) is unrelated to the merger with AT&T.

Time Warner is in the content business.  It has a movie studio.  AT&T doesn't.  Time Warner has cable news channels; again AT&T doesn't.  There's much more, but the point is that with very minor exceptions, the two companies are in different businesses.  That is why it is billed as a vertical merger and why it passed muster with the court. 

Some people, like Teachout, claim that the new content obtained by AT&T in the merger will be given some sort of priority over the content from competitors.  There are regulatory structures that would prevent that, though.  There are also antitrust laws that would do the same.  The fact that a company could act illegally in violation of the antitrust laws do not mean, however, that the company cannot exist.  That's roughly the equivalent of saying that a man with known violent tendencies should be put to death because he has a propensity towards committing murder.  To use an old favorite of the left, that's no who we are.

There needs to be vigorous enforcement of the anti-Trust laws.  It's interesting that this latest case was brought by the Trump Administration.  Do you remember how many times the Obama administration went to court to block a merger?  You don't because it was not something that happened.  Hopefully, the Obama days of talking about things but never doing anything have ended on the antitrust enforcement front.  Vigorous enforcement should not include crazy complaints or dissemination of misinformation though.  Teachout is just wrong.

The End of The One Way Street

It has become clear that the one-way street in Washington is officially over.  I'm not talking about traffic patterns in the District of Columbia.  Rather, I'm talking about the ability of the media to criticize and attack people endlessly and without any real basis without there being any real push back.  Think about it.  When Bill Clinton was president, he beat the Monica Lewinski mess and impeachment by having the press attack Ken Starr and his staff endlessly and without merit.  Starr never fought back.  Then, during the presidency of George W. Bush, the media (and the Democrats) accused Bush of lying to America and all manner of misconduct.  Bush decided that it would demean the presidency to fight back so he did not.  Neither did other Republicans.  Then came Obama.  At that point, anyone who disagreed with Obama's policies was labeled a racist.  If you wanted lower taxes, it was actually because of racism.  If you wanted to name the third week of August National Potato Week and Obama didn't, you were a racist.  If you didn't slavishly agree with Obama, you were a racist.  It was ridiculous.

Now we are in the age of Trump.  From the night of the election forward, the media has gone all out to push the phony Russia-Trump collusion narrative.  We got to a special prosecutor who spends time trying to get Trump rather than trying to learn the truth.  The media went after Trump much in the same way that it had done for decades in attacking Republicans.  For the first time in a long time, however, there was push back from some.  The President started with hit attacks on Fake News.  Indeed, given some of the garbage that the media published, they made it easy for Trump to label them as Fake News.  Then some of the leakers were caught.  News that had been covered up to make things look worse for Trump got uncovered.  Remember how long we waited until we learned that the Trump Dossier was just a phony pile of garbage that Hillary and the DNC had paid people to compile.  Now reporters at the NY Times are being disclosed as sleeping with their sources.  Others at other media sites are being challenged daily on their biggest bits of Fake News.  The old days when the mainstream media controlled the flow of information to the American people are officially over.  Just think how much it must kill the media elites to see polling which shows that almost two thirds of voters don't trust the special prosecutor Robert Mueller.  Imagine how bad the media must feel as their lie that the tax cut would actually raise taxes is debunked daily.  They're truly lost control

This morning, President Trump went out on the White House lawn at an event and sat down at the booth of Fox and Friends.  All the other media types surrounded the President on his way out to see his favorites at Fox and Friends.  If you've seen the video of Trump's walk to that tent, the media looks more like barking seals than anything else.  All that was missing was a few reporters who were balancing beach balls on their noses.

The media should know now that it can't just lie anymore.  There's going to be push back, and the media will look like a bunch of idiots when they lie.

It's about time.

Separating Families of Illegal Aliens Caught At The Border

There's an ongoing argument about the separation of children from parents of illegal aliens apprehended coming over the border.  The Trump administration blames long existing law for this happening.  The Democrats and their media allies say it is all just a horrible new policy put in place by the Trump administration.  Who is right?  It's worth knowing.

There are two relevant statutes:

Section 275(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 USC 1325(a)) states:

(a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or b oth, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.       

Let's stop here for a moment.  An alien who enters the US other than at the time or place set by the immigration officers is guilty of a criminal offense punishable by at least a fine or six months in prison.  The law doesn't say that the government can decide whether or not to prosecute; it says the illegal alien is guilty of a crime.  Often, the government decides not to prosecute a possible criminal, but that is normally because the evidence is not strong enough to get a conviction.  If a person commits murder, theft or arson, the government doesn't normally decide not to prosecute unless it cannot prove the guilt of the accused.  It's not normally an optional matter.

Under president Obama, the government generally did not prosecute those who entered the country illegally.  In other words, the Obama administration ignored the law.  Some months back, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that moving forward, the government would follow the legal requirements and would prosecute those who enter the country illegally.

For what it's worth, this statute was first passed by a Democrat Congress and signed into law by Harry Truman about 70 years ago.

The second statute is the long-standing requirement that children cannot be kept with parents who are arrested and put in prison.  That's a pretty obvious rule.  If a person gets arrested, it would be crazy to put his or her son or daughter in prison so that the family could stay together.  In fact, putting the kids into the prison with the parents would be unconstitutional; the government has no right to incarcerate someone (like a child) who has not been accused of a crime. 

This means that a long standing law (which Obama ignored) requires that the illegals be arrested.  It also means that the children have to be placed elsewhere.

If the Democrats and their media allies don't want this to happen, all they have to do is stop blocking immigration reform and change the law.  Of course, that won't happen because the Democrats want a political issue.  They are not interested in actually changing the law.  They would rather complain than fix the problem.

Are Things Breaking Down In Syria?

There's a bad sign regarding Syria.  The US State Department issued a statement yesterday saying that America would take firm and appropriate measures in response to Syrian government violations in the de-escalation zone in the southwest of the country.  The de-escalation zone was established by the USA and Russia in a corner of Syria so that refugees would have a safe place to go.  Since then, over a million people have made their way to this region and now live there with the original inhabitants.  There has been relative calm in the region.  Now, the Assad government is starting to launch attacks against the rebels in the area.

The real question is whether or not Assad would do this without a blessing from Russia.  It seems doubtful that would happen, but one never knows with Assad.  He may feel that he has to get rid of all the rebels now that he has them on the run.  If American military forces retaliate against the Assad forces, however, it would be an incredibly stupid move by the Assad regime to try to move in the de-escalation zone.  And knowing how President Trump operates in these sorts of situations, it seems likely that the State Department statement signals that there will be such a response if Assad continues.  Gone are the days of Obama when all that ever happened were the statements with no action to follow.
 

So What Did They Cover?

The Inspector General of the Department of Justice issued the long awaited report today on how the FBI and the DOJ conducted the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email system.  Also today, the New York Attorney General brought a civil suit against the Trump Foundation for allegedly letting political and personal considerations color which charities got grants from the foundation.  Also today, for the fourth month, the administration is enforcing the immigration law as written with regard to children brought illegally into the country by their parents.  So which of these stories did the media cover?

The answer should not surprise you.  On Fox News, nearly all the coverage was about the Inspector General's report and the many improprieties it uncovered.  I also checked CNN all night, and the main focus there was on immigration policy and children.  I saw three stories on the suit by the NY Attorney General and two about the Inspector General's report.  The focus of the CNN coverage of the IG report, however, was that it found no evidence of political bias in the Clinton investigation.  At MSNBC, the coverage was much like that on CNN. 

There were a series of mistakes on CNN and MSNBC.  For example, both networks called the move by the NY Attorney General a "criminal case" when that's wrong.  The suit in New York is a civil suit. 

So which of these three stories is the most important?  Clearly, it is not the fourth month of a policy of following the law with regard to those apprehended at the border.  That's old news, but it got more coverage on CNN and MSNBC than any other story.  How can that be?

FBI Bias?

So was the FBI biased in its investigation of Hillary's emails?  The Inspector General says not really.  Still, here's an exchange between two FBI employees who were part of the Hillary investigation:

 

Judge for yourself.  It's hard to imagine a more biased group.

How Best to Cover Up the IG Report -- I Know -- Sue the Trump Foundation

In a truly "surprising" coincidence, the new New York Attorney General sued the Trump Foundation today because, among other things, it allegedly let Trump Organization staff decide who got charitable donations and it also didn't follow all the requirements for a charity set forth by the state.  Could it be that the ultra-partisan New York AG has brought this suit because today is the release date for the report of the Justice Department Inspector General, you know, the report on how Comey, McCabe and all the others at the FBI and Justice Department ran (or botched) the Clinton email investigation?

Let's start with a basic fact:  According even to the lawsuit brought by NY's Attorney General, the payments made by the Trump Foundation went only to charitable organizations.  The AG claims that some of the charities got gifts because the Trumps wanted to please one or another of the people with whom they dealt at the time (all prior to Trump running for office).  In other words, some person with whom the Trumps were doing a deal was raising money for a favorite charity and asked the Trumps to contribute.  They had the foundation give the gift.  That's hardly wrongdoing.  Indeed, even hyper-partisan former Attorney General Schneiderman didn't bring a suit after an investigation because he had nothing mush to allege.  Now that Schneiderman was outed as an alleged serial abuser of women and was forced to resign, the new AG is looking to get news coverage for the fall campaign and also to distract attention from the IG report on the Hillary email mess.  In New York, there's no better way to get press coverage than to attack Donald Trump.

It's really disgusting that someone who is supposed to work for the people (like the NY AG) is using her position in this way.

Remember This Old Chestnut?

Think back all those days to the 2016 campaign.  One big issue was Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email system and what it said about her judgment.  There was a non-stop debate about whether or not Hillary's actions damaged national security.  The Democrats and their Clintonista allies in the media kept telling us that there was no indication that any foreign intelligence service gained access to her email server.  The Republicans and many others said that it was only logical to assume that many foreign agencies including at least the Russians and the Chinese had been through her emails.  No one said definitively, however, one way or the other.

Now we have proof that foreign intelligence agencies were in her email system and saw at least some secret documents.  Indeed, not only did these foreign spies get secret information in this way, but the FBI was warned at the time of indications that this had happened.  It turns out, however, that the FBI agent who got the warning was none other than super-Hillary-supporter and Trump-hater Peter Strzok.  He did nothing after getting that warning.

So Hillary's secret personal email system did lead to the loss of classified info to foreign spies.  The FBI agent who got wind of this chose for whatever reason not to embarrass Hillary, and did nothing to stop this.  Unbelievable!!!!

 

More Than Just Crazy

The Singapore summit meeting between President Trump and Kim Jung Un is over.  It seems as if the road to the denuclearization of Korea is open and that we have made a good start toward that goal.  That's a good thing for the USA.  That's a good thing for Korea and Japan.  That's a good thing for the world.  One could question or nitpick the tactics or the language used by President Trump, but it's hard to question the outcome.  So what is the loony left saying?  Here's the headline in the Washington Post in a column by E.J.Dionne:  "There's No Defending Trump's N. Korea Performance".  According to one of the WaPo's house leftists, Trump's actions were so bad that it's beyond debate; no one can even defend them.

I wonder if the Democrats and the media elites who live in the DC bubble realize just how crazy articles like this make them look.  Americans understand the basic facts:  there was a real chance of nuclear war with North Korea prior to the summit and the diplomacy that led up to it; that chance of war has now been greatly reduced.  It's truly hard to call that a "failure".  In fact, the very idea that the left tries to paint this summit as a failure demonstrates only that they hate President Trump so much that they can't accept something great that happens for the USA if Trump gets any credit for it.

These are not people that a sane person wants running the country.

Is There a Writer Somewhere Scripting This?

This may sound silly, but it actually could be incredibly important.  Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri is running scared in her battle for re-election this year.  Right now, she is perhaps the most endangered Democrat out there as she fights the GOP candidate.  For the first five years of her current term, McCaskill was a loyal foot soldier for the Democrats and their agenda of supporting the various elites in Washington over the well being of ordinary Americans across the country (like those in Missouri).  This being an election year, McCaskill has gone into her usual election year stance of being just one of the regular people.  To that end, she just conducted a tour of the state in an RV.  She got exposure and it was as just another family going from place to place in a recreational vehicle.  She claimed to be staying overnight in the RV as well.

Now comes the news that McCaskill was actually flying from stop to stop in a luxurious private plane while someone from her staff drove the RV to the next stop.  Apparently, she didn't stay in the RV overnight either.  When McCaskill was confronted with proof that she had been flying from place to place and lying about travelling by RV, she said that she had been really "annoyed" by a broken drawer inside the RV and had to get away.  Imaging that!  A broken drawer in this RV was just too much for the aristocratic senator to take.  It's a wonderful indicator of just what a phony McCaskill really is.

This is the kind of thing that one might see on a TV series and then think it was just too unbelievable to be possible.  Nevertheless, this revelation of McCaskill as the ultimate phony may be the final nail in the coffin of her campaign for re-election.

 

Wolf, You Really Don't Understand

On CNN earlier today, Wolf Blitzer said that the media "loves" the American people.  It was the response by Blitzer to President Trump's tweet in which he called Fake News put out by fools the "enemy" of the American people.  It was interesting to see that Trump is living rent free in Blitzer's head as well as that of other TV news reporters.

For example, David Gregory felt compelled to criticize the President for his "lack of originality" is what he said about the media.  That's hysterical.  Gregory didn't deny what Trump said; he just complained that many others had said the same thing.  In other words, Gregory thinks it a defense to this charge that there is a chorus of people complaining about Fake News in the media.  Isn't that backwards?  If so many people have the same complaint, doesn't that give added heft to the validity of the charge?  One would think so, but that didn't seem to occur to Gregory.

For his part, Blitzer also seemed oblivious to the main point that the President was making.  Trump's complaint is that so much false news is put out by CNN and MSNBC and the like that many Americans don't learn what is actually happening.  They are stuck dealing with propaganda only.  That's not a criticism of the patriotism of Blitzer and his CNN comrades; it is, rather, a slap at their competence (or their lack of competence to be more precise.)

There are so many stories every day that CNN pushes which happen to be false that it is amazing.  Just look at the news today.  The mainstream media announced early this morning that Michael Cohen was about to be indicted and was going to flip on President Trump.  This was surmised from the actual fact which is that Cohen is changing attorneys.  This afternoon, the news is that Cohen is not about to be indicted.  The story of Cohen being about to flip has also been abandoned, although no corrections to this morning's stories were issued on this point.  If this were a one-time event, you could write it off as a mistake or confusion by the reporters.  But it's not.  This is just the latest in the daily "mistakes" that the Fake News puts out for people to read.  The confusion this generates is not good for the country.  In this, President Trump is totally correct.

Someone should clue Blitzer in.  He could probably understand the point if it were explained slowly and using short words.

A Correction

Yesterday, I wrote that when President Trump suspended the military "war games" with South Korea, it was not much of a concession since there were no more such exercises scheduled for 11 months.  That was wrong.  Each year there are two sets of such military exercises; a big one in the spring and a small one in the fall.  I was referring only to the big war games in the spring.  The next ones scheduled at the moment are actually the small ones which were to happen in five months.  It doesn't change the fact that this suspension is a minor item that could easily be put back in place should the NKs failed to honor their pledges.  Nevertheless, I wanted the record to be correct.

Changing The Dynamic In South Carolina

The headlines regarding the South Carolina primary yesterday read that Arrington beat Sanford.  What actually happened is that Trump beat the never Trumpers.  Mark Sanford used to be governor of South Carolina until he resigned after a bizarre scandal.  He later ran for and won a seat in Congress.  Perhaps his most notable victory came when he defeated the sister of Steven Colbert a few years ago.  In Congress, however, Sanford was a consistent critic of President Trump.  Yesterday, as the primary was underway, Trump tweeted to voters in the district that they should vote for Sanford's opponent.  It worked.  Sanford lost by just 2500 votes.  It seems like a pretty sure conclusion that Trump's tweet brought him down.

Robert DeNiro

I've waited a while to comment on Robert DeNiro and his outburst at the Tony Awards.  If you don't know what happened, it was this.  DeNiro came out to introduce some non-entity or another but before he did that he announced, "F... Trump!"  The show biz audience then gave him a standing ovation.  It was extraordinary, and it give rise to just two comments on my part.

1.  DeNiro really must not be that bright.  He's a great actor, but when someone isn't giving him lines to speak, he was reduced to this, the lowest of the low.  And then the Broadway crowd cheered him.  For what?  It certainly wasn't for his wit or his insight.  It seems as if they cheered him for his anger.  It was strange.  At an event giving awards for excellence on stage, the crowd cheered an expletive.  Maybe next year, they could run a show on Broadway called "Vulgarity!"  Actors and even members of the audience could come on stage, go to the microphone and scream curse words at the audience.  It ought to be a major hit if DeNiro's work is any indicator.

2.  Imagine if you will what would happen if some second tier Republican got up at a major event in 2016 and screamed "F.... Hillary Clinton."  Think of the reaction from the media and the Democrats.  And if you think that an actor like DeNiro is in a different place than a politician, then imagine that someone like David Koch or the head of the NRA had done that.  Again, think of the reaction and compare it to the non-reaction about DeNiro.

It is unacceptable to have this type of discourse no matter on which side of the political divide one sits.  We have to be able to have rational and civil discussion or the whole basis for our democracy is destroyed.

Amazing What A Bit Of Effort Accomplishes

The SNAP program or "foodstamps" as the program used to be known has been growing and growing for much of the last decade.  There was a big jump in participation at the start of the Obama years, but that coincided with the major recession that hit the USA.  Then, under Obama, the numbers in the program continued to grow even though the recession ended and we got very slow economic growth instead.  At that point, a funny thing happened:  Obama left office and Trump was elected President.  Everything changed.

President Trump and his people made an effort to end fraud and abuse of the food stamp program.  A specific group was appointed to try to prevent fraud with regard to food stamps.  The requirements for eligibility were not altered, but as the economy improved under Trump, the number of people on food stamps has fallen rapidly.  Some people no longer needed the food stamps.  Others, who were getting the benefit improperly, were removed from the rolls as well.

Right now, the number of food stamp recipients has fallen to less than twenty million for the first time in a decade.  That's a savings of billions of dollars in costs to the federal government. 

On top of the improving economy and the enforcement of the legal requirements to get food stamps, the Trump administration has wanted Congress to put a work requirement into the statute.  That would mean that those who get food stamps either must work, look for work, or otherwise seek to earn a living if they are able-bodied and not required at home to care for children or family members.  Those who cannot find work can alternatively get training for future jobs.  The Democrats blocked this requirement so far, but it could get passed in the next Congress.

No one has been hurt by this reduction in the numbers receiving food stamps other than some who were getting help to which they were not legally entitled.


 

More Nonsense From the Usual Sources

I just read the statement made by Nancy Pelosi on yesterday's meeting between President Trump and Kim Jung Un.  Here's the first paragraph:

Nuclear nonproliferation is a pillar of America’s national security. We respect any serious and real diplomatic efforts to achieve that goal on the Korean peninsula. Apparently, the President just handed Kim Jong-un concessions in exchange for vague promises that do not approach a clear and comprehensive pathway to denuclearization and non-proliferation.

Sometimes, I find it hard to believe that the Democrats keep Pelosi as their leader in the House.  She says that the President "apparently" made concessions?  What concessions; she doesn't say.  The joint statement says nothing about concessions.  Was Pelosi briefed in the short time between the end of the meetings and the issuance of her statement?  I doubt it.  She's just prattling on with her pre-prepared talking points. 

And while we're at it, what vague promises from North Korea is she talking about.  We have commitments and agreement to continue to talk.  Those aren't vague promises; they are just the first steps down the road to actual clear and enforceable promises.

It would be fun to see Pelosi interviewed by someone who would ask her what concessions and what promises she is talking about.  Actually, it might be more cruel than funny.   

NOTE:  After leaving the meeting, President Trump "froze" further major exercises held by the US armed forces and those of the South Korean nation.  That's hardly a "concession".  These exercises are not scheduled to be repeated for another eleven months.  Training by the US and Korean forces will continue in the interim.  Trump didn't give anything up.

The Trump Kim Meeting and The Reaction

I just read a tweet from my senator Chris Murphy telling us that the Trump Kim meeting was a fiasco.  It's so predictable.  Earlier, I heard "expert" Gordon Chang saying on CBS Radio News that the USA had given up too much and the North Koreans would have no need anymore to negotiate with us.  That too is predictable.  I'm sure that all day long, we will see predictable reactions.  Indeed, most of the reactions were probably written prior to the summit meeting itself, or they could have been.

But let's look at what actually happened.  The heads of the USA and North Korea met.  There was a document signed that basically says the countries will continue to meet with the goal being complete denuclearization of Korea with the North Koreans promised security.  In other words, the goal is peace and the removal of weapons of mass destruction.  It's a good first step towards peace, but the road to peace remains long.  Only time will tell if success is possible.  One thing is certain, however.  You can't travel down the road to peace if you don't start down that road.  The Singapore meeting was that start.  All the critics will have their say.  Some will blast the President for giving too much away (although he doesn't seem to have given away anything.)  Some will blast the President for not going further.  Many will predict disaster in the future.  The truth is, though, that the critics have no idea what actually was discussed in Singapore; nor do they know what way the talks are going.

I don't know either the details of the discussions.  I do know, however, that I am glad that the talks occurred.  Maybe there's a chance for peace, and that's a good thing no matter what the "experts" and the Democrats and the media say.

The Latest Lies On Voter Suppression

The Supreme Court issued an opinion today that upheld the procedures that Ohio uses to remove a voter from the rolls after long term failure to vote.  Under Ohio law, a voter who fails to vote for two years is sent a preaddressed, postage paid card which lets the voter in question confirm that he or she still lives at the address included in the voter registration.  If the card is returned, the voter is maintained on the voter rolls.  If the card is not returned and if the voter then fails to vote for the following four years, he or she is removed from the rolls.  This procedure follows to the letter the rules set forth in federal statutes for removal of non-voting individuals from the voting rolls.  It's surprising to me that the case even made it to the Supreme Court.

Those who sought to overturn the law claim that it is designed to suppress the votes of minorities, veterans, people with disabilities and women.  I'm not kidding; that's actually what they argued to the Supreme Court.  Of course, nothing indicates that those who fail to vote fall disproportionately into those categories.  First, there are voters who die.  They don't vote (or at least they are not supposed to be able to vote after death.  Strangely, many do in places like Chicago.)  Surely, removing those who pass away cannot prejudice the rights of minorities, women etc.  Second, there are those who move to a new address.  These people are supposed to reregister to vote at the new address.  This has nothing to do with race, sex or status as a veteran, etc.  The left still claims that the rules for removing non-voters suppress the votes of minorities, etc.  Then there are those people who just don't vote after they register.  These people get multiple opportunities to continue to vote in Ohio.  They could return the postcard sent by the State.  Or, they could vote once in six years.  If they don't, the state can purge them from the rolls as mandated by federal law.

If you see someone arguing that today's decision is part of a voter suppression effort, remember, Ohio is following the requirements of the law passed by the Democrats in the Senate and then signed by president Obama in 2012.  Maybe you can ask them if they think Obama was trying to suppress minority voting.  Then watch their heads explode.

Singapore From the Leftist Point of View

The meetings between President Trump and Kim Jung Un are about to begin.  There is a possibility that something truly good for the USA, North and South Korea and the world could come from this.  We will have to wait and see.  Still, I find it interesting to see some of the commentary from the left about what is happening.

One particular article of interest was written by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic.  Beinart says that Trump is an ignorant boor, but that he may have lucked into a good situation.  The "experts", you see, are divided between those who want constant pressure to wear down the North Koreans (like under Obama -- at least according to Beinart) and those who see the North Korean nukes as so threatening that they want maximum pressure.  Trump (again according to Beinart) is looking for a plan that leads to maximum personal glory; he wants to meet with Kim in order to get the praise of the world.  He's not (supposedly) that interested or even that knowledgeable about the North Korean nuclear program or its dismantling.  Beinart then compares Trump to Ronald Reagan who lucked into progress with the Soviet Union in the late 80's despite Reagan's ignorance of the details of nuclear disarmament and other matters of importance between the US and the USSR.  Beinart finishes by telling Progressives that they must work to support Trump on Korea (even if it is Trump) so that he will continue on his present course.

Beinart's take is hysterically funny.  He just cannot bring himself to say that Trump's policies have moved us closer to the possibility of peace with North Korea than we have been in 70 years.  He also has to elevate Obama's ignoring the problem of North Korea to some sort of "strategy".  And Beinart makes everything that is happening into the result of sheer dumb luck.  Even so, Beinart does recognize that the USA and the world are indeed presented with the possibility of a new peace in Northeast Asia.  He wants to support that without having to admit that Trump knowingly and intelligently brought this about. 

The reality is that we do need to support the President in his moves towards peace with North Korea.  For the first time in my lifetime, the prospects for peace in Korea are real.  They are just possibilities to be sure, but they are REAL possibilities.  Everyone needs to support a move towards peace and away from war.  That means everyone, including Progressives.  If Beinart has to spend pages calling Trump names before he can get to the point of telling his fellow Progressives to support Trump, I'm okay with that.  The key here is that the best outcome for the country and for peace be achieved.

A Change in Narrative: Chaos Out, Burnout In

Ever since Donald Trump appeared on the scene as the likely GOP candidate for president in 2016, the mainstream media has run periodic campaigns to describe one or another thing with which Trump is involved as filled with chaos.  We were told that Trump's preparations for the GOP convention were chaotic; then the convention went fine.  We next heard how the fall campaign was in total chaos; then Trump won, and he did so while spending something like 25% of what Hillary and the Democrats did.  Next came the transition team of the President Elect.  There were multiple stories about how the team was in chaos; there would never be an administration in place when Trump was sworn in.  Of course, after the inauguration, Trump began fulfilling his campaign promises quickly.  There were missteps, as is the case with any new administration, but there was certainly no chaos.  Not according to the media, however; they saw chaos all the time.  The White House was chaos, chaos and more chaos, or so we were told repeatedly.  Somehow, though, Trump managed to get a major tax cut, get rid of an enormous numbers of harmful regulations, remake the Consumer Protection bureau, appoint a new Supreme Court justice and about an eighth of all the federal appeals court judges, move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, defeat ISIS, bring North Korea to the negotiating table, and more.  It's hardly been chaos, except in the endless media stories which usually come from undisclosed "sources".

Well now things are changing.  Today, the New York Times is rolling out its new narrative.  Chaos has failed.  The Times and its hit squad of reporters are moving on to "burnout".  Here's how one reporter put it today:

But back home [after leaving for Singapore], [Trump} left behind a West Wing where burned-out aides are eyeing the exits, as the mood in the White House is one of numbness and resignation that the president is growing only more emboldened to act on instinct alone.

That's right.  According to supposed "sources", the people who work in the White House just can't keep up with the demands of working for President Trump and they are looking to leave in the near future.  No longer is the White House disorganized in this narrative.  Now, it is just too demanding, and the people are getting burned out.

It's worth noting that the Times does say that the President is not burned out.  No, the Times reporters describe him as energized by what is happening.  These reporters still try to paint Trump as some sort of moron, but they should know by now that the effort in that regard will fail.  Obama was supposed to be the smartest person in any room he entered.  Under his leadership, America had a stagnant economy, sagging incomes, and a string of international failures.  So far, Trump has brought all sorts of successes for the USA from a soaring economy to major breakthroughs in foreign relations.  There's just no way that the Times and these reporters can convince Americans that Trump is dumb while Obama was smart no matter what they write.  People have caught on to that lie.

My guess is that this new burnout line will not last long.  Unless there are mass resignations from the White House in the next month (which there won't be), the reporters will realize that they look silly with these articles.  No doubt, at that point the story line will return to "chaos" the old favorite.