So, No Surprise on the Economy

Yesterday, we learned that the economy grew at a rate of 4.1% in the second quarter of this year.  I predicted that the left would quickly tell us why this was no big deal.  I was correct.  To be fair, my prediction hardly qualifies me as a prophet.  Anyone with even half a brain understands that if there is any good news about President Trump and the country, the media and the Democrats rush to do two things.  First they deny that the news is important, and second, they deny that Trump or the Republicans had anything to do with it.

In any event, here's the take of one of the bastions of Democrat/media groupthink, the Washington Post.  It reported that the 4.1% growth of GDP was no big deal.  After all, it was only one quarter, and what counts is "sustained" economic growth.  Somehow, the WaPo ignored the fact that in the last five quarters (the complete quarters since President Trump has been in office) the growth rate for the GDP has been about 3.0%.  That's higher than any year under Obama.  It's also the level that the Democrat/media chorus told us could never be attained.

Back to the WaPo.  They next told us that the GDP was up because of people rushing transactions to beat the tariffs of the "Trump trade war".  That also makes no sense.  In computing the GDP, exports are added to GDP while imports are subtracted from GDP.  Tariffs that were threatened or which were actually put in place are, at this point, reciprocal.  In other words, each time the USA put a tariff on Chinese goods, the Chinese also put a tariff on American goods.  The same thing happened with the EU and our other trading partners.  So the possibility of tariffs being put in place by the USA would encourage importers to rush to get their goods into the country before the taxes hit.  That reduces GDP.  On the other hand, the possibility of tariffs being put in place by our trading partners would encourage exporters to rush to get their goods out of the country before the taxes hit.  That increases GDP.  But here's the point:  America imports substantially more goods than it exports.  A big increase in exports and imports due to trade war fears would cause a DECREASE in the GDP not an increase.  In other words, without the trade war fears, the growth in GDP might have hit 4.5% or even 5%.

Next the WaPo tells us that while the Trump policies may have caused an increase in the growth rate of the US economy, over the long term those policies won't work.  Basically, the WaPo says that lower taxation will mean bigger deficits and that will raise interest rates and slow the economy.  This argument at least has some economic plausibility.  Of course, interest rates have been rising throughout the last few years.  It's the policy followed by the Federal Reserve (which operates independently from the White House.)  Since the tax cuts, however, the rates set by the market really haven't risen.  The debt markets focus on all the data regarding the creditworthiness of governments.  Somehow, however, the rates have not gone up as the WaPo predicts they will.  What is happening is that since US rates are higher than rates in Europe and Japan, money is coming here and that keeps our rates down.  There are also probably another 30 factors that are affecting American interest rates.  The WaPo analysis is just way too simplistic.

The actual truth is that the economy grew at 4.1% last quarter.  That's great news.  It's also great news that is primarily due to the change in American economic policy under Trump.  No matter what the WaPo says, that is the truth.

I Have To Confess

This morning, I went to Dunkin Donuts and got an iced coffee.  Then I had a major lapse of judgment.  I have to confess:  I used a plastic straw.  Oh, the horror!

I hope I won't get sent to a re-education camp.

Thank God, I'm not in California.

Is General Kelly Leaving his Post as Chief Of Staff to the President

I just read yet another article discussing whether or not General Kelly is about to leave as White House Chief of Staff.  This time, the reporters say that he may or may not be leaving.  That makes them correct no matter what happens.  For most of the last four months, however, the articles have all been about how Kelly was leaving "imminently".  Of course, that was wrong.  Kelly didn't leave.  All those discussions about how Trump was driving Kelly out were wrong.  The endless prattling by the reporters about chaos in the White House turned out once again to be wrong.

Why don't they just decide to wait until the day finally comes when Kelly decides to leave.  It will come eventually.  Being White House Chief of Staff is too taxing a job for anyone to hold it for too long a period.  At the point when Kelly leaves, the media can then write all about his departure.  Until then, maybe the better policy would be to just shut up with the silly speculations.

Dishonesty Moves On To Taxes

With the big rise in the growth rate for the economy announced today, the mainstream media is looking for something it can criticize about the Trump economy.  Today's choice seems to be taxes.  Here's the new line from the media:  "corporate taxes are falling while workers are paying more."

That's just a lie, and absolute lie.

Let's take a look at what the media talking point is.  Total collections of revenue by the federal government from corporations are expected to fall in 2018 compared to 2017.  Meanwhile, total collections from individuals are expected to rise in 2018 compared to 2017.  Let's be clear; that doesn't mean workers are paying more in taxes.  The opposite is true.  The same date cited by the media indicates that the average middle class American family will pay about $2500 less in taxes in 2018 than in 2017.  Of course, since there are expected to be about an additional three to four million people with jobs in 2018 than in 2017, the total tax collections will be increased by the taxes paid by the people holding those new jobs.  Even so, that would not be enough to raise tax receipts.  No, that increase in tax receipts come from the 6% or so of individual taxpayers whose taxes will go up.  This 6% is almost entirely composed of very wealthy individuals with large capital gains income.  The 15% rate on capital gains which prevailed in 2017 got raised to 20% for investment income in excess of $500,000.  I don't know about you, but where I come from most people with investment income over half a million dollars a year do not get called "workers".  They're called super-rich.  Someone with capital gains of ten million dollars will pay about an extra half million bucks in taxes under the new tax law.  That's where the bulk of the additional tax revenue from individuals will come from. 

It just wouldn't play well for the Democrats/media to announce that the tax cut legislation actually raised the taxes for the super-rich.  As a result, they just call them "workers".  The person paying the extra taxes is actually sitting by the pool where the maid brings out a dry martini, but the Democrats instead want you to picture some teenager flipping burgers at McDonalds paying those extra taxes instead.  It really is a pernicious lie.

That Was Some Correction!

All through 2016 and 2017, the Democrats and the media told us that when candidate and then President Trump spoke of returning economic growth of 3% per year or higher, he was promising the unattainable.  Because of "structural changes" in the economy, the best the USA could hope for would be 1-2% growth.  It was the "new normal".  Some pundits like Paul Krugman of the New York Times (who actually won the Nobel Prize in Economics), denounced Trump for lying to the American people with his promises of faster growth.  Various members of the Obama economic team told us both before and after President Trump took office that growth would never return.  And then today, we have a report that the growth rate in the second quarter was 4.1% and that means that the last year included growth in excess of that unattainable 3% figure. 

Since the pundits, media and Democrats were all so wrong in what they said, I figured that this afternoon's reports would be filled with corrections and apologies for putting out such nonsense on such a large scale for all that time.  Okay, I'm kidding.  Still, I thought that perhaps one of these bozos might admit to being wrong.  But no, not a single one came forward to do so.  They just move on to the next lie.

More on the Cohen "News"

The country had 4.1% GDP growth in the second quarter, the fastest growth for a quarter since four years ago and the fastest growth for a 12 month period since before Obama became president.  So what is the media focusing on?  First, as predicted, we're getting 101 million stories on the claim that Michael Cohen is going to testify that President Trump knew about the meeting in Trump Tower between his son and some others from the campaign and a Russian lawyer in 2016.  Second, the media is freaking out because Ronan Farrow is publishing an expose that accuses the head of CBS of sexual harassment.

Think about that.  The news that affects Americans is being buried under a parochial sex harassment story and a nothing burger.

Let's start with Moonves of CBS.  The idea that it's newsworthy that the head of CBS is accused of being a slimeball is surprising.  He's part of the old boys network.  Are we to be surprised if it turns out that he used his position to make sexual conquests.  Maybe someone should try to remember how long the cliché of the "casting couch" was a favorite in the entertainment industry.  These self-entitled people are nothing new.

Then there's the Cohen "story".  CNN is having a mental breakdown about the story and so is MSNBC.  But remember this:  we've known all about the meeting for over half a year.  It was attended by Trump's son, son-in-law and then campaign manager.  The consensus was that it did not show any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Trump denied to the media knowing about the meeting.  If it were to turn out that Trump did know, it still wouldn't be collusion.  It wouldn't be any evidence of collusion.  It would only mean Trump lied to the media.  And, of course, no other presidents have ever lied to the media.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" and so on.

I doubt that Cohen is telling the truth here.  If he is telling the truth, it would mean that something like eight other people are all consistently lying and all telling the same lie.  It doesn't work like that.  Cohen is simply trying to peddle a story that might get him off the hook for some of the things he did in connection with his taxi company problems.  Cohen's problem, however, is that even if he can convince the special prosecutor that he is telling the truth, it won't make any difference in the collusion investigation.

 

The Democrat Running For Governor in Georgia is Submerged in Personal Debt

Stacey Abrams, the Democrat candidate for governor of Georgia, owes over $50,000 in back taxes to the IRS.  She owes about $70,000 in credit card debt.  She also owes about $100,000 in student loan debt.  That ignores the mortgage on her home and the loan on her car.  She calls herself "working poor", but that is not accurate.  She earned about $20,000 as a Georgia state legislator, at least $150,000 as an author, and at least another $200,000 as the head of a consulting firm.  That makes her total something like $350,000 for the year, hardly "working poor". 

How Abrams could fail to pay her taxes for the last two years is a question that she answers by saying that she put her family first.  If that were a valid excuse, we could all just stop paying taxes.  The better question, though, is how could the voters of Georgia pick her to run the entire state if she can't even manage to comply with the law and pay her own taxes.  On top of that, she has major credit card debt which seems to be a sign she can't manage money.

This is not something unknown to voters during the primary.  I don't understand how Georgia voters could pick someone this unqualified as a candidate for governor.

GDP up 4.1%

The flash report was just issued for the second quarter of 2018.  It shows growth of the gross domestic product at a rate of 4.1% during the quarter.  This is OUTSTANDING!

Remember when Obama and his people told us that 1 to 2% growth was all the country could manage.  It was the "new normal" (or so we were told.)  Candidate Trump told us that was wrong and that he wanted to get the economy growing again through a mix of tax cuts and regulation roll backs.  We now have the proof that Trump was correct and Obama (surprise, surprise) was wrong.  Indeed, while we have now just had a blowout quarter (the best in years), the key to remember is that since the second quarter of 2017 (the first full quarter under Trump), the economy has been growing at more than a 3% rate.  In the entire eight years under Obama, we never had a year that good or even close to that good.

No doubt, the media will either not cover this story in detail or it will somehow try to give credit for the growth to Obama (that's pretty funny).  The truth, however, is that no matter what else one thinks of President Trump, he knows what to do to get the economy moving.  There are literally millions of people with either a new job or higher pay because of that.

Here's the Inside Story of Trump's Success From the Mainstream Media

The mainstream media can't figure out how it is possible that President Trump's approval ratings keep rising.  There's a big analysis at Yahoo News to explain why that has happened.  The basic answer according to Yahoo is that Americans don't pay attention to what is going on, so they don't know all the bad things Trump is supposedly doing.  All they care about is the economy, and that's doing well.

Think about that.  The media is telling the average American that he or she is too lazy to pay attention or too stupid to understand what is actually happening.

That's right.  The media needs "experts" to tell it that Americans are too lazy to pay attention to the Fake News the media is pushing.  Imagine, there are actually people out there in flyover country who are more concerned by the economy and jobs than they are by what's on an audio tape that Michael Cohen made. 

Think How Big This Would Be

Last night I wrote about the ridiculous coverage of the press conference held by President Trump and the representative of the European Union.  That really missed the main point.  The truth is that we should focus instead on just what a big deal it would be if the trade deal with the EU is finalized.  Imagine there being no tariffs or trade barriers between the US and the EU for all products other than automotive goods.  If that let the level of trade grow strongly (which it would) it could add another 1% to the GDP growth.  One percent may not sound like much, but it's roughly 200 billion dollars worth of production.  Think how many additional jobs that means.  It would be a truly great thing for the USA.

The Facts Don't Matter

The President answered some questions today at the White House in a joint appearance with the representative of the European Union regarding trade.  There was some very good news on the trade front concerning Europe.  The EU is going to be buying much more liquid natural gas and soybeans from the USA.  There are now parameters set for the final agreement on trade between the two sides.  There may soon be a stop to the tariffs put on a few items traded between the two entities.  In economic terms, this was a very good development.

I happened to see Trump's announcement on MSNBC.  My wife was watching that network and it carried Trump's statement live.  When the statement of the EU representative began, MSNBC switched to commentary.  There's where it go very interesting.

Here is what MSNBC had to say about the trade issue with the EU:  The first reporter said that clearly President Trump only held the press briefing in order to change the subject from Russia and collusion regarding the 2016 election.  The next MSNBC correspondent said the same thing.  She added, "why else would you hold a press conference where you announce nothing?"  If anything, the coverage got worse from there.

I find it ironic that the MSNBC left wing crowd constantly criticize Fox News for "distorting" the news.  It's an amazing thing because MSNBC won't even cover the actual news.  Instead, MSNBC just goes with stories about events that are not happening but won't cover big news they don't like.

 

Sadly, It's a Lifetime Appointment

U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte of the District of Maryland issued a ruling today which denied dismissal of a silly lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of Maryland and a few others.  The plaintiffs contend that by having ownership interest in the Trump hotel in DC, the President is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (which bars the President receiving gifts from foreign countries or entities.)  The plaintiffs contend that if a foreigner stays in the hotel, it is a violation of this clause.  The same argument has already been rejected by a federal court in New York, and that decision is on appeal.  The Maryland case goes the other way.  It too will surely be appealed.

For more than two centuries, Presidents have had business interests, some more and some less.  All of those business interests were free to do business with foreigners and even foreign governments.  Suddenly now, the so called resistance is looking for bizarre ways to fight against Trump, so they come up with this loser of a theory. 

It's a disgrace that the judge actually ruled the way he did.  It is not, however a surprise.  Judge Messitte is a far left judicial activist who was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton.  In 2014, he was hearing a case between the Washington Redskins football team and another party and, without being asked, Judge Messitte banned the used of the word "Redskins" in his courtroom.  Think about that.  The name used by millions of people could not be said in Messitte's courtroom because he thought it was offensive.  That is anything but impartial justice.  Messitte is just another far left judge.

The good news is that these cases will eventually go up on appeal.  Most likely the Supreme Court will ultimately have to rule on this question.  It's too bad that a hack of a federal judge had to inject his personal politics into a rather clear case.  Had Messitte actually followed the law rather than his prejudices, a lost of wasted time and effort could have been saved.

Why Must The Government Be So Incompetent?

One of the principal differences between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats believe that the remedy to every problem is government action and Republicans favor private action in the main.  This is a difference in philosophy that has separated the parties for as long as I can remember.

This gives rise to the following question:  why do Democrats trust government when it has shown itself to be totally incompetent? 

I pondered this question for what seems like that 100th time this morning when I read about the fiasco in Seattle.  That city has purchased a fleet of new street cars so that it can expand its transit system.  The cost for the new cars alone is reported to be $52 million.  The expansion of the system and the purchase of the new cars was announced with a big show by Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan.

But there's a problem in Seattle.  The new street cars being built will not fit on the existing tracks and are too big to be serviced in the city's current maintenance facilities.  Apparently, the City overlooked these difficulties while ordering and buying the new fleet of street cars.

The estimate cost to deal with this problem will push the cost of the new cars higher by 50%.  That's the estimate from the city.  Translated into truth, that surely means that the ultimate cost will double or, more likely, triple.

It's easy to be astounded that Seattle could order new street cars without first making sure that the ones purchased could actually be used on the existing tracks and repair facilities.  No one could be that negligent, you would think.  Of course, that's because you don't think like the government.  The Seattle government, like so many others, focuses on what will provide good press for those in office and hardly at all on things like efficiency, accuracy and value for money spent.  If the street cars don't fit, it's no problem.  The city will just order some changes and the taxpayers will have to cough up the cash to pay for the remedy.

This is not an unusual event.  In New York City, for example, there have been the following cases:

1.  A new bridge over navigable water was built for the commuter rail system which left a channel for boats that was five feet narrower than required by federal law.  Somehow, despite the involvement of over 100 people in the design, no one noticed the problem until the middle of construction.  The result was that the cost of the bridge rose by about 50%.

2.  A new maintenance facility was built for commuter rail cars.  Contracts were signed that made the total cost of the facility roughly $150 million.  Because of the mismanagement by the government, there were all sorts of changes and disputes that made the ultimate cost close to $500 million.

3.  The biggest of them all came when a tunnel system was built to bring some commuter trains from Long Island into Grand Central Terminal.  Because of design and management problems with the construction, the project which was to be completed in 2008 is still underway.  The cost has gone up astronomically.  A $3 billion project will now cost well in excess of $20 billion.  If it is ever completed, the project will allow some people on Long Island to come into the East Side of Manhattan rather than going to Penn Station on the West Side.  Meanwhile, the cost of the project is so large that maintenance on the rest of the rail and subway systems is being starved of cash with the result that breakdowns are way up and the performance of the system is way down.

So why would anyone think that the government can do anything right.  Sure, there are tasks that only the government can do.  Running the military, for example, requires the government.  But doing something like building transit systems should be farmed out to private contractors.

The Kiss Of Death?

The runoff primary was held in Georgia yesterday.  It chose the Republican candidate for governor and was necessary since no candidate got a majority of the vote in the regular primary earlier this year. 

The outcome was quite interesting.  The winner Kemp easily beat his opponent Cagle.  That's a switch from the earlier primary where Kemp was about 15% behind Cagle.  The difference in the race seems to be the endorsement of Kemp by President Trump a few days ago.  It seems that Georgia Republicans were very much swayed by the President's views.

If you watch the mainstream media, you would think that an endorsement by Trump would be the kiss of death for a candidate.  After all, they make Trump out to be the most hated person in America.  These results show they are wrong.

I wonder how surprised they will all be in November.

Is Warren Kidding? or Does Anger Form The Basis For All Liberal Thought?

John Harwood of CNBC interviewed senator Elizabeth Warren the other day.  It was quite a sight.  You had a reporter who clearly hates President Trump and Republicans interviewing a left wing Democrat senator who also clearly hates Trump and the GOP.  They are entitled to their views, but it nevertheless surprised me just how blatantly Warren attacked Trump's policies.

The big issue was taxes.  Warren says that if the Democrats take back control of Congress in November, they will substantially raise tax rates.  Harwood actually tried to pin Warren down as to how high the rates would go, and Warren stated that a 50% marginal tax rate would be fine.  She alluded favorably to the years during and following World War II when a 90% tax rate was used.  Then Warren spoke of the need to raise the tax rate on corporations and other businesses.  She didn't give any detailed rates, but she made it clear that she is in favor of there being higher rates than those that were in place BEFORE the tax cuts passed last December.

Warren also said repeated the Democrat talking point that the tax cuts were only for the rich with the rest of America only getting "crumbs".  She said it as if it were true (which it isn't.)  Warren said that it wasn't a question of money, but rather of "values".  She made clear that she doesn't want there to be any rich people in America.

I know that Warren may actually believe what she is saying, although I have to wonder why she has amassed a small fortune over the years if being rich is such a bad thing.  Nevertheless, I strongly doubt if the average American thinks that the tax law ought to prevent anyone from being or at least becoming rich. The family that starts a small business doesn't want to hear that they will never get wealthy from that business.  The worker who hopes to advance and get to the point where he or she can provide for the family to live in some luxury doesn't want to hear from rich Liz and the Democrats that it's wrong for that family to accumulate wealth.  There are just too many Americans who aspire to success and the wealth that it brings for Liz's message of high taxes and wide spread poverty to be accepted by a majority.

So the message is likely to fail, but the reason for the message is even stranger.  Warren makes clear that it is just wrong for there to be rich people.  She's angry at the possibility that Americans will be well off.  She wants everyone to be equal, but equally poor.  The rich, you see, are evil.  That's why Warren can believe that aside from the rich, the average American got only "crumbs" from the tax cut bill.  In truth, the overwhelming majority of the benefits from the tax bill did NOT go to the wealthy, but this fact is one that Warren and the left ignore.

It makes me wonder why so much of the left is motivated by anger and jealousy.  They're angry at the rich, so rather than bringing others to wealth, they want to tear down those with money.  They're angry at what they perceive as racial injustice.  Rather than trying to raise minorities, however, their focus is on destroying "white privilege" so that future generations of whites will suffer.  They're angry at President Trump for beating Hillary Clinton.  That makes the oppose whatever he does.  If he's tough on North Korea, they tell us he's leading us to war.  If he's not tough on North Korea, they tell us that he's weak.  If he asks NATO countries to pay their fair share, they tell us he's destroying the alliance.  If he ignores the decline of the military in the Western world, he's a puppet of Putin leading us to our doom.  It's actually just an expression of anger, non-stop anger.

Think of the people from NARAL.  They don't argue why abortion is proper.  They attack those who oppose abortion.

Think of the people who promote fighting climate change.  They don't reason with those who don't agree.  Instead, they just angrily denounce them a "deniers", like holocaust deniers.

Think of the people who want to protect the border.  The left doesn't tell us why open borders would be a good thing.  No, they denounce anyone who wants the border enforced as a racist.  They tell us that all who oppose open borders are anti-immigrant (which is clearly not true.)

Almost every issue where the left takes a stand, the opponents are derided as horrible, awful people.  It was no accident that Hillary called the Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables".  She was angry, like most of her supporters.  They aren't even sure what the source of that anger is.  It's just that they're angry and they want retribution.

If the GOP wins in November and (gasp!) if Trump is re-elected in 2020, the left is likely to lose it completely.  The really angry ones will find it hard to contain themselves.  You know, this may be a good time to invest in companies that make anti-depressant medications. 

Intentionally Rude

After his nomination to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh has met with nearly a third of the senators (who will vote on his confirmation).  This is traditional; senators and the nominee have "meet and greet" sessions where the senators can get to know the nominee in a private and informal format.  But there's a problem.  So far, Kavanaugh has been able to meet only with Republicans.  Not a single Democrat has found time to meet with the judge.  The excuse offered by the Democrats is that they don't want to meet until they have received all of the documents authored by Kavanaugh as well as all the documents he handled when he was on staff at the Bush White House.  It's an incredibly rude ruse.

First of all, meetings with the nominee have never taken place only after all documents have been delivered.  This is just a ploy to delay the confirmation.  Indeed, this is especially true since more than half of the Democrats have already announced that they will vote against Kavanaugh.  They know enough supposedly to decide how to vote but not enough to meet with the guy.

Second, the documents being demanded by the Democrats are literally millions of pages that Kavanaugh only distributed to others; he didn't write them or have any input into what they say.  It's another attempt to delay confirmation.

For his part, Mitch McConnell is playing hardball on the subject.  He has announced that the senate will stay in session right up to the November election if need be in order to vote on Kavanaugh.  There are a great many Democrats who are in close re-election battles who will have urgent need to get home to campaign.  Keeping the senate in session will hold their feet to the fire.

I would have no problem if the Democrats were to announce that they saw no reason to meet Kavanaugh because they have already decided not to vote for him.  It would be a silly position, but at least it would not be as rude as their current lie.  No matter how you feel about the confirmation of Kavanaugh, you cannot believe that he should be treated so rudely by the Democrats.  He is an honorable man and an honorable Judge who deserves better.

They Don't Even Realize -- Or So It Seems

I happened to go to Yahoo News just now and the featured article had the headline:  The Trump Doctrine -- Tough Guy Tweets, Modest Results.  I doubt that Yahoo understands just how silly this headline is.  The article talks about Trump's tough tweets towards the North Koreans and how the summit with Kim Jung Un brought no real results.  The very next article, just under the one I am discussing, however, had the headline North Korea Really Dismantling Missile Facility.

Think about that.  The editors at Yahoo are so anti-Trump that they put the first article smashing him right above a second article that disproves the first. 

Of course, the Trump Doctrine article is silly.  The first effort in foreign policy by Trump was to destroy ISIS.  That has been done.  Obama fumbled the ball and let ISIS develop; he took steps to fight it, but in two years he made only partial headway against the terrorists.  Trump came in and in a few months, ISIS was history.

The second effort by Trump was North Korea.  Here too he used his "tough guy tweets".  The end result was that the US hostages were released, the remains of US servicemen from the Korean war were brought home (with more to follow), Kim Jung Un stopped all nuclear testing and missile testing (hardly a modest result), the NK's blew up their nuclear test site, the missile facility is being dismantled and this shows clearly on satellite pictures, and there has been a line of communication set up directly with Kim.  That's not too shabby.

Then there's NATO.  The Democrats and media say Trump has undermined it with his rhetoric.  That's wrong.  Trump has managed to get the bulk of the NATO countries to agree to fund their military to the level required by the NATO treaty.  Sure, some of these countries may not like being told that they actually have to do what they promised to do in the treaty, but Trump did it anyway.  He's not at all like Obama who was so concerned with diplomatic niceties that he never got anything done.  For Obama, world leaders were fragile children who needed safe spaces and trigger warnings.  For Trump, world leaders are adults who he treats honestly like adults.  Again, the results have been way beyond modest.

I wonder if the fools at Yahoo News even realize this or if they are so consumed by their hatred of Trump that they choose to live in their delusions.

Daily News Shrinks

The New York Daily News has never been a great newspaper, but it used to be an adequate one.  In recent years, it has fallen on hard times.  Its circulation has shrunk, the size of the paper has shrunk, and the staff has been shrinking for years.  Today, the paper laid off half of its remaining editorial staff.  That means that the Daily Snooze (as the other NY tabloid, the Post calls it) will have less than 50 employee to write and edit the entire paper.  That will give it enough staff to cover some things poorly and some things not at all.  You have to wonder why the owner is even bothering to try to make it with a tiny staff that will never produce a great newspaper.  The News will close sometime in the near future; that is my prediction.

A few decades ago, the NY Post almost went under as well.  It ended up under the ownership of some rather strange people and things just got worse and worse.  Then News Corp. bought it and it became a favorite of the chairman, Rupert Murdoch.  He devoted substantial resources to bringing back the paper and restoring its quality.  Of course, the "quality" of the NY Post is of a very different type than that of the NY Times.  The Post is a paper that promotes gossip, sports and pithy news.  The Times drones on in long left-wing think pieces.

I guess the Daily News could keep going, but it will take an owner who really doesn't care about making money in the short term.  I don't think they are going to find such an entity.

Oh No! Ron DeSantis Uses the Dreaded G-word

Congressman Ron DeSantis is running for governor of Florida as a Republican.  At a campaign event, he was asked about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, the 29 year old Socialist who won the Democrat primary for Congress in an upset in a seat in New York City.  In answering the question, DeSantis referred to her as "this girl".  Oh, the horror!  How could DeSantis be so insensitive.  In the politically correct world of the left, no one can call one of them a "girl".

Think about it.  It's okay for countless Democrats and media people to call the President a "Nazi" or "Hitler" or a "fascist".  It's fine for them to call Vice president Pence "mentally ill" or "deranged" or a "pedophile".  It's okay for them to call for the execution or other killing of Trump and many other Republicans.  It's no problem for Whoopi Goldberg to call a Republican woman a "bitch".  It's fine for various leftists to call the First Lady a "c--t".  And nearly every Republican has been called a "racist" or a "sexist" or a "homophobe" or an "anti-Semite".  But DeSantis called Ocasio-Cortes a "girl".  How could he be so insensitive!

Basically what DeSantis actually said is that Ocasio Cortes doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.  In the last two weeks, she's talked about working to flip seats "red".  (Of course that means taking Democrat seats and making the Republican, something that she really is NOT trying to do.)  She's also been forced to admit that she doesn't understand how the unemployment rate is computed.  She also admitted that she doesn't know enough about the Middle East to speak accurately regarding the Arab-Israeli dispute.  There's more, but there's no question with just these few that Ocasio Cortes is either poorly educated or a total moron.  I assume it's ok to call her an ignoramus so long as I don't call her a girl.

So, readers, do you have a view why "girl" is so offensive that the media is horrified (or pretends to be so?) 

Trevor Noah -- Is He The Next To Go?

In the seemingly endless attack on comedians regarding non-politically correct things that they have said, it appears that the next to be under attack is Trevor Noah.  Noah is the guy who replaced John Stuart on the Daily Show some years ago.  He has nowhere near the success with the show that Stuart had, however.  In the last two weeks, Noah was attacked for a racial remark he made about the French team that won the World Cup.  That seemed to blow over, but now video has emerged of an entire routine that Noah did about Aboriginal women in Australia and how ugly they are.  It's a rather disgusting routine, but it's just from a few years ago.  One has to wonder if Viacom (which owns Comedy Central) will use the Roseanne penalty and fire Noah.  To be fair, Viacom ought to dump Noah.  Either there is no tolerance for racial humor, or there is.  It can't be a halfway issue.

Updating the Mueller Talking Points

Did you know that there have been over 30 people indicted by the special counsel Robert Mueller?  This is the new talking point from the left to explain why Mueller's investigation has not been either a witch hunt or a waste of resources.  There must really have been collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia if 30 plus people got indicted, right?

WRONG.  It doesn't take much time to realize that nearly all of the indictments have been issued against Russian individuals who will never, NEVER, be arrested, tried or convicted.  Mueller had only to issue the indictments with the expectation that he could have a nice public relations talking point.  He didn't have to PROVE anything, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.  Indeed, two of the Russians indicted were corporations.  One didn't even exist at the time when it supposedly was involved with hacking the DNC.  It was formed many months after those events.  A second corporation really threw Mueller's team a curve; it sent a lawyer into American court to contest the propriety of the indictments.  Instead of going ahead with that indictment, Mueller sought a postponement from the court.  When the judge refused, Mueller was faced with the prospect of having to come forward with actual evidence that the company had been involved with wrongdoing.  The indictment died.  The reality is that all of the indictments of Russians by Mueller are meaningless; they certainly don't indicate collusion with the Trump campaign.  These indictments don't even mention such collusion.

But what about Paul Manafort?  He's been indicted three times by Mueller.  Of course, the key here is that the allegations against Manafort have nothing to do with the 2016 election.  In other words, Mueller dredged up old charges against Manafort in order to pressure him.  These three indictments show nothing about collusion with Russia.

But how about the guilty plea by General Flynn?  Again, this is a plea for allegedly lying to the FBI.  Flynn has said that he pled guilty in order to stop the enormous cost of defending himself.  Now it turns out that Mueller's team didn't even meet their obligations to turn over all exculpatory evidence to Flynn's lawyer.  The FBI agent who conducted the interview in question said in his report that there was "no indication" that Flynn had lied in his interview.  So Flynn may withdraw his guilty plea at some point and seek dismissal of the indictment for clear misconduct by the special counsel's office.

That leaves only two indictments.  The first is of Rick Gates who functioned as Manafort's assistant.  His indictment also has nothing to do with the 2016 election.  It's a rehash of the same stuff for which Manafort is being accused.  The second is of Maria Buttina, a Russian who is accused of not registering as an agent of Russia.  That may sound like she didn't register as a spy, but it actually means that she was working for Russian entities in dealing with the government but that she allegedly had failed to file the registration papers required for such representation.  It's hardly a major crime, and once again, it has nothing to do with any collusion regarding the 2016 election.  Most of her dealings were with the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve Bank.  One has to wonder why, if this is such a big deal, the Obama Justice Department didn't indict her.

So there you have it.  There have been no indictments regarding collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.  There have been a series of show indictments issued for public relations purposes against various Russians.  There still is, however, no proof of any sort of collusion.

The left needs a new talking point.

More Of The Same

Nearly 500 rescue workers were taken out of Syria by the Israelis over the weekend.  The rescue workers belong to the "White Helmets".  That group provided basic necessities for civilians in areas where the civil war made normal life difficult.  Because the group provided medical services and food to residents in rebel controlled areas as well as areas controlled by the Assad regime, Assad labeled them a "terrorist" group.  As the Assad forces make substantial progress in southwestern Syria (near the Israeli border), the White Helmets were singled out for execution by the regime.

A group of western countries including the UK and the USA asked Israel if it could send forces into Syria to rescue the White Helmets from attack by the Assad forces.  Over the weekend, that rescue took place.  Some of the White Helmets refused to leave and instead stayed to help those civilians who remain targets of the Assad regime.  More than half, however, left with the Israelis.  They were taken to Jordan where they will remain for a few weeks until they get resettled in the UK and two other nations.

The rescue of the White Helmets is a good example of international cooperation aimed at helping civilians inside Syria.  The Assad regime, however, has issued a statement calling the rescue a "criminal act".  Of course, this may be nothing more than another meaningless statement by Assad.  Remember, the Assad forces took no steps to confront the Israeli troops that brought the White Helmets back over the border to safety.  Still, for Assad to express anger regarding the rescue of humanitarian workers really says all that one needs to know about just who Assad truly is.

An Appropriate Response

Yesterday, the Iranian president Rouhani threatened the USA with the "mother of all wars" in any confrontation between America and Iran.  I wrote about Rouhani's poor choice of words which harkened back to Saddam Hussein right before he was easily defeated by the USA.  Last night, we got President Trump's response to the threat from Iran.  Trump tweeted the following:

"NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”

I haven't yet read the comments of the "experts" on Trump's response.  No doubt, much of the media and the Democrats will tell us that Trump was too strong or too weak or shouldn't have used all caps or shouldn't have withdrawn from the JCPOA.  But the media and the Democrats will be wrong.  President Trump is making clear to Iran that it is no longer facing president Obama.  The USA will no longer dither for months deciding on the best course of action.  The USA will no longer offer pallets of cash in exchange for empty promises.  The USA will no longer tolerate Iran's doing things like capturing US Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf.  The USA will no longer tolerate Iran's games.  In fact, the games are over.

It's not often that bellicose words ought to be uttered by the President of the USA.  This, however, is one of those times where nothing less would do.

 

Just The News -- No Bias At All

I saw the following headline at Al Jazeera just now:

Hundreds of Israeli settlers storm Al-Aqsa compound

Needless to say, I thought something terrible was going on.  The al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem is a very holy site in Islam which sits on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism.  Fighting there would set the stage for much more violence elsewhere. 

I read the article under the headline.  It had nothing much to do with the headline.  Today is a Jewish holiday that commemorates the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.  About 1000 Israeli Jews went to the Temple Mount to pray as a result of the holiday.  The "storming" of the compound consisted of these Jews coming to the area (which is their right) and praying.  Al Jazeera described this as "illegal activity" even though it did mention that the congregation was praying with an Israeli police contingent guarding them in order to make sure that there was no violence.

So you tell me:  how many people around the world think that some group of Israeli settlers actually stormed a Moslem holy site due to this sort of dishonest reporting. 

Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

In Teheran, president Rouhani of Iran warned the USA and President Trump that a war between the USA and Iran would be "the mother of all wars."  Seriously, that what Rouhani said.  One has to wonder if Rouhani somehow missed it when Saddam Hussein, then the dictator in Iraq, warned president Bush that a war between the USA and Iraq would be the "mother of all battles".  That didn't end too well for Saddam Hussein.  He goaded the US into war by refusing to admit that he did not have weapons of mass destruction (nukes in that case).  His army collapsed in a few weeks.  Saddam Hussein ended up hiding for a while, only to then be captured and executed by the new Iraqi government.

So the Iranian president is predicting the mother of all wars.  Let's see, how would that go?

1.  American air power would erase all Iranian anti-aircraft defenses.  That would not take very long assuming that the Russians would not actively side with Iran.  Even with Russian help, the Iranian air defenses would be quickly destroyed by American air power.

2.  Once the air defenses are gone, the Iranian nuclear sites will be subjected to round the clock attack until they are completely destroyed.  There could also be operations by special forces to attack these sites on the ground. 

3.  American forces would then take out essentially all of the anti-ship capabilities of the Iranian forces.  This would free up the Persian Gulf for the passage of oil-related products.  There would be a disruption in world oil flows until the waterway was safe, but it shouldn't be for too long a period.

4.  At this point, if the Iranian people had not overthrown the government themselves, American troops would be required to enter Iran on the ground.  Iran has strong ground forces, but there is a real question just how long those forces could last if hit with a sustained air attack.

Nothing is certain in a war.  A victory for American forces over the Iranians, however, is about as close to that as one can come.

The Iranian forces would try to attack the USA.  Most likely that would come in the form of cyber warfare or sabotage.  Iran might also launch attacks on Israel or on the oil fields in Saudi Arabia or Iraq just to try to increase pressure for a cease fire.  It's doubtful that would work.

The truth is that from Iran's perspective, Rouhani should have described such a war as an Iranian suicide mission.  (or at least the mother-in-law of all wars.)

Another Harbinger Of What?

Oregon is a reliably Democrat state.  It has a Democrat governor, two Democrat senators and four out of five Democrat congressmen.  It voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.  With the "blue wave" coming, you would think that the projections for November would be a Democrat blow out, but that seems not to be the case if the polls can be believed.  The latest poll in the governor's race shows a tie between the Democrat incumbent Kate Brown and the Republican challenger Knute Buehler.  They are each at 45%.  To put that in proper context, lets add that six months ago, the same matchup showed Democrat Brown ahead by 17% at 46 to 29.

Think about that.  Six months pass and Brown gets essentially what she got in January.  Buehler, however, moves up 16 points as he becomes better known.  That's a very dangerous trajectory for the Democrats.

If there really is a close race in Oregon, it will take all the "experts" by surprise.  The Cook political report rates Oregon a likely Democrat victory.  Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball also rates Oregon a likely Democrat victory.

From a national perspective, it is not very important which party controls the governor's seat in Oregon.  Nevertheless, this may be another harbinger that the much vaunted blue wave has evaporated.

The FISA Applications

The application for the FISA warrant for Carter Page and the three applications for renewal were released by DOJ tonight.  This is big stuff.  These applications show that the Obama DOJ and FBI relied on the Trump Dossier for the most part in seeking permission to spy on Carter Page.  The FBI even says that it believes the information provided by Christopher Steele, namely the Trump Dossier.  And the FBI/DOJ never tell the FISA court that the Trump Dossier was a bunch of phony items put together by Steele at the expense of the Clinton campaign and the DNC to try to discredit Donald Trump.  The FBI/DOJ also mention that there is speculation in the media that the Trump campaign is colluding with the Russians to affect the election.  This media speculation, however, is an article based on the Trump Dossier.  That means that all the FBI could produce to support collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians was the phony Trump Dossier which was put together by the Clinton camp in the hopes of embarrassing Trump.  Think about that.  It means that there NEVER was any real basis for investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  NONE.  NADA!

To be clear, that is not the same as saying that it was someone other than the Russians who hacked the DNC.  It only means that there was no evidence of any involvement of any sort by the Trump campaign.

This is the final nail in the coffin of the Mueller probe.  Mueller is investigating non-existent collusion.  He should never have been appointed.

So you would think that there would be an avalanche of news coverage of the release of the FISA warrants.  But it isn't there.  Maybe by tomorrow that will change.  But for now, there is only silence.
  The mainstream media is truly a joke.

Wow -- The Climate Change Game Is Over

There's a Gallup poll out that asked voters what they thought was the most important problem facing the country.  The respondents were not given choices; they had to come up with their own answer.  Thirty-six different answers were offered.  Big issues included the economy, immigration, and dislike of the government.  In all of the 36 reasons, however, climate change and global warming were never mentioned.  In fact, the environment was never mentioned.  That's an astounding defeat for the global warming hysteria crowd. 

At the start of the 21st century, Al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists told us that by 2012, we would be facing much higher temperatures, constantly flooding coastal cities and numerous major storms that would pound the world each month.  Instead, six years after that deadline, we got none of that.  Temperatures are pretty steady with where they were in 2000 according to precise measurements taken by satellites launched to measure atmospheric temperature just because of the global warming hysteria.  In 2017, we had a string of major storms, but that was the first time in over a decade that such a thing had happened and we were overdue for such an event.  Sea levels have not risen due to melting ice.  In fact, measurements taken from space by satellite have shown that there is a substantial increase in ice levels in Antarctica while ice levels have fallen in Greenland.  The net effect, however, is that there is more ice not less.  Most important, none of the temperature rises predicted by the computer models on which global warming theory is based have come to pass.  The actual data has proven that all these computer models are incorrect.

It seems that despite the non-stop preaching by the left of the dangers of global warming, the truth about climate change has gotten out.  The crazies can attack people a climate change deniers, but the average person has realized that these so-called deniers are correct.  Imagine, not even 1% of the public thinks that climate change is the major issue facing our world.

Now here's the next questions:  what has the world spent combatting climate change in the last 20 years?  If there's really no man made climate change happening, how much should have been spent?  Why would we ever listen again to the leftists who screamed about climate change and then wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to fight against something that wasn't even happening?

The Silliest Arguments Get A Large Amount of Coverage

The Hill put out an article explaining why it was likely that the Democrats would pickup seats in the Senate in November.  The article was based solely upon a statistical analysis of what has happened in the last ten mid term elections.  It's a joke.  The historical record certainly provides a sort of background analysis for the upcoming elections, but it hardly is predictive of what will happen.  For example, are there voters in New Jersey who will say "I don't like Bob Menendez because he's a crook, but I'm going to vote for him anyway because in the last ten elections other voters chose the party that doesn't hold the White House."

I know that overstates the point, but not by much.  The elections in November will be decided by voters who will choose based upon the candidates actually running.  Sure, there will be some effect from voters' perceptions of President Trump, but there's no way to know yet how that will cut.

Another silly argument of the day comes from the Democrats in Congress who talk and talk and talk.  Senators like Blumenthal and Murphy from my own state say things like "president Trump's recent trip was the worst by any president in modern times."  (I'm not making that up.)  The Democrats (and their media allies) ignore reality and the actual facts and just lie and lie and lie.  We're not getting rational argument from them.  Instead they spew all hate all the time.  It's sort of funny that they constantly accuse Trump of hating this group or that when the only real hatred towards a group that is currently being manifested in our politics is the hatred by the left of anyone who actually supports the GOP or conservatism. 

The Gaza Ceasefire

The latest confrontation between Israel and the Hamas terrorists has ended for now in a ceasefire.  On Friday, Hamas tried to reinvigorate the weekly Friday "protests" at the border since almost no civilians were showing up to them anymore.  Hamas used snipers to try to pick off an Israeli soldier on the other side of the border, and the result was the first Israeli soldier at that location since the 2014 war there.  The Israeli response was to launch a major attack by air and artillery on various Hamas facilities, principally military headquarters and storage depots.  Some 60 plus targets were hit, and three main military headquarters were leveled.  As a result, Hamas sought a ceasefire.

The terms of the ceasefire include some rather important items.  Hamas has agreed to stop the use of incendiary kites and balloons against the Israelis.  If Hamas adheres to the terms, the Israeli farmers who live near Gaza will no longer need to fear that Hamas will be setting their fields on fire.  Hamas also agreed to stop launching missiles from Gaza towards Israel.  Nearly all missiles have been shot down by the Israeli Iron Dome system, but one did get through and landed in a kindergarten in a nearby town.  Fortunately, it did not explode on impact.

These terms are not just niceties.  The Israelis have made clear that if Hamas does not conform to the agreement, the Israeli response will be even stronger than the onslaught that caused the Hamas terrorists to sue for peace in the first place.

It would be nice to see this ceasefire hold.  My prediction, sadly, is that it won't.

The House should Censure Adam Schiff

Adam Schiff has really gone too far.  For the last year and a half, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence committee has allegedly made a career of leaking information presented to that committee in closed session if anything could make the President or the administration look bad.  Schiff also used his position to get on TV more than almost any other Democrat in DC.

The Russia investigation, however, has fallen apart.  There still is no hint of evidence of collusion and it seems that Mueller has given up trying to find any.  That has pushed Schiff from leaking to lying.  Here's the start of a report about what Schiff said today:

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee called President Trump the “gravest threat to American democracy” he’s ever seen after a Helsinki summit at which, he said, the president showed that he was “prepared to essentially betray the national security interests of the United States.”

Here's the problem.  Schiff wasn't in Helsinki.  He wasn't in the room with Trump and Putin.  He doesn't know what was said.  Nevertheless, without having any information, Schiff says that the President is prepared to betray our national security.  Schiff never explains how this betrayal is taking place.  He just levels the charge.

I think that the House should censure Schiff for this conduct.  He ought not be charging the President with what constitutes treason with not even any basis for his statements. 

Major Fighting Follows Sniper Fire From Gaza That Kills Israeli Soldier

Today is Friday, so there was a "demonstration" at the border between Gaza and Israel.  Once again, Hamas organized a group to rush the border fence to try to breach it.  Once again, the effort failed.  There were only about 2% as many people who turned out today compared to the early efforts by Hamas, but there was a major difference.  Today, Hamas put snipers high up in buildings close to the border so that they could shoot down at Israeli troops on the other side.  At least one Israeli was hit and killed. 

A few hours later, the Israeli Air Force launched counter measures.  The IAF hit a series of Hamas installations inside Gaza and destroyed them.  These were the largest raids by the IAF on Gaza in quite a while, perhaps since the 2014 war.  There is even talk that Israel may launch a ground offensive into Gaza to find and disarm Hamas of its weapons.

This may well be a response by Hamas to the informal offer by the Trump Administration to have Hamas give up terrorism in exchange for help in improving the living conditions inside the Gaza Strip.  What better way for Hamas to say NO than for it to ratchet up its confrontation with the Israelis on the border.

One has to wonder what the end game is for Hamas.  The terrorists cannot win in a confrontation with the Israeli military.  All that will happen is that there will be more fighting, more death, more suffering and then, for Hamas, ultimate defeat.  What's the point of this?

For Israel, there could be the chance to end the problem of having Hamas as a thorn in its side.  Were the Israelis to retake Gaza, the Israelis could root out most of the Hamas terrorists.  Israel could also remove the chance that there will be massive missile launches from Gaza that could hit the southern part of the country.  The press would, no doubt, be bad as the far left supporters of Hamas would call any move by Israel genocide, even if no one gets killed (which won't be the case.)  Still, Hamas may be pushing the situation to the point where that alternative is the one that the Israeli government selects.

There is one big difference now from 2014 when the Israelis last fought Hamas in Gaza.  At that time, president Obama made clear to Israel that it should not retake Gaza if it wanted US support.  With President Trump in the White House, however, the Israelis are unlikely to be held back by the USA.  Another big difference is the stance of Russia.  In 2014, it is unlikely that Putin wanted to see Hamas neutralized.  Now that Hamas has become so dependent on the Iranians, Putin most likely wouldn't mind seeing Israel get rid of the terrorists.  The final big difference from 2014 is that the other Sunni Arab nations like Egypt, Jordan, and the Saudis are unlikely to give Hamas any support other than possible verbal statements.  Hamas is already on the outs with the Egyptians.  Hamas has also thrown its lot in with the Iranians, the mortal enemy of Jordan and the Saudis.  These Sunni nations would shed no tears to see this Iranian ally removed from the map.

We may be seeing the prelude to a war that the terrorists of Hamas have brought on themselves.  I hope not, but I fear yes is the likely answer.

Dying For Montenegro

The question floating around the media lately is "should American soldiers die for Montenegro?"  It's a variation on a much older question that the republic has pondered since we won the Revolutionary War and gained our independence from Britain, namely "should American form alliances with foreign nations?"

Today, this sounds like a silly question, but in the 18th century, it was a big deal.  George Washington left sincere and sound advice that the United States should avoid foreign alliances.Washington did not want the USA brought into the seemingly endless wars that the European powers fought.  He wanted America's focus to be here at home.  He did not want us to waste our men or our wealth on foreign adventures.

Washington's view was held by the USA for a long time.  As the nation got bigger, we expanded our presence in the world.  We fought wars with other countries (and within ourself), but we didn't enter into foreign alliances for over a century.  When World War I began in Europe (mainly due to the existence of alliances that dragged the major powers into the conflict), America stayed out.  One of the biggest arguments against our entry into the war was that we should avoid foreign alliances.  When that war ended, we stayed out of the League of Nations (which was the idea of our then president Woodrow Wilson) because the senators would not approve an international alliance, even for peace.

World War II changed that.  The USA was in an alliance and that never ended.  The reticence to engage in such alliances was broken.  After the war, there was NATO, SEATO, CENTO and a bunch of other defense pacts.  The USA changed from isolationism to internationalism.  We fought the Cold War on the basis of our alliances.

The question of Montenegro, however, is different.  The issue is not whether or not we should engage in alliances.  That has been pretty much settled.  The question with Montenegro is the proper extent of those alliances.  Remember, Montenegro is a country that used to be part of the old Yugoslavia.  Does having America agree to treat an attack on Montenegro as one on the USA really help American security?  Why should we give a guarantee to this tiny country.  What is the national interest that is served by that treaty?  (To be clear, Montenegro would become part of NATO; it is not entering into a separate treaty with the USA.) 

 

Insanity and Lies -- It Seems To Be Everywhere

In the NY Post this morning, there's an article under a headline that says that the Secretary of Homeland Security refused to "denounce" the white supremacist involved in the Charlottesville murder last year.  That murder, of course, took place when a guy in a car ran down one of the counter-protesters who showed up to oppose the tiny white supremacist rally being held in that town.  There were other violent confrontations between the two sides, particularly between the Antifa group and the core white supremacist group.

I had thought that this story was over, so I read the article to see what the Secretary had said.  Here's what I found.  Secretary Nielsen told a crowd in Aspen that it wasn't that one side was right and one was wrong.  Rather, she said, it was that we have to work to stop any group advocating violence.

Isn't that exactly correct?  If Nazis or white supremacists or fascists or Antifa come to town and start bashing people in the head for whatever reason, shouldn't we work to stop that?  Shouldn't violent protests or political statements of any sort be prohibited?  I certainly think so.  We can't have the mob censoring speech no matter what that speech is.   That's called the American way.  We have free speech here.

So Secretary Nielsen actually condemned both sides in Charlottesville.  They both engaged in violence.  It's insane to write an article with a dishonest headline like the one in the Post.

Oh Come On!

There was a rather small group of people who assembled outside the Los Angeles office of congresswoman Maxine Waters that stomped on and then burned an American flag.  These were supporters of Waters.  So how did the AP portray this news?  The AP actually blamed a group called the Oathkeepers.  This is a "right wing" group according to the AP that had supposedly said it was going to come to Water's office in LA to protest, but then never showed up.  That's right, the AP blamed the flag burning on a group that wasn't there.  Indeed, the AP blamed the flag burning on a group that was NEVER there.

Now I know that in the world of Fake News, there are a lot of tenuous links that get emphasized by the mainstream media to make things appear to be other than they actually are.  Still, it is an all-timer for the Fake News writers at the AP to blame a group that was never there for a demonstration.

I know very little about the Oathkeepers.  Supposedly, they are former police and military who hold far right wing views.  I'm not sure if that is even remotely accurate.  Blaming this group for something that happened when they WERE NOT present, however, is a new low in media honesty.

Here's Some Real News

So did the Russians hack the DNC in 2016?  Did President Trump accept that view of the intelligence agencies?  Did Trump change his mind?  Did he tell Putin to stop the hacking?  Did he ignore the subject in Helsinki?  Does anyone other than the media really care about this?  I mean will it change the life of even one American if Trump said something to Putin on the subject that has not been accurately reported?  Or is this just the latest installment of the media game "Let's Attack Trump"?

The truth is that there really were things accomplished in Helsinki by Trump and Putin, but none of them get any coverage.  One area of agreement was in Syria.  The USA and Russia agreed in Helsinki that in southwest Syria, there should be a return to the rules that governed under the 1974 cease-fire accord (which went into place after the 1973 war between Syria and Israel.  This means that the region will be under the control of the Syrian government but there will be no foreign troops deployed in the area at all.  It may not sound like much, but it may have averted some serious fighting that could have led to an even bigger war in the area.

Let me explain.  For the last year or so, as the Assad regime has been winning the civil war, Iran has been trying to install its forces along the Israeli border.  For its part, Israel has been making clear that it will not accept the deployment of Iranian forces near its border.  Israel does not want another hostile military force along that border, particularly not one from Iran.  The Iranians have been moving troops into the area, and the Israelis have responded with attacks on Iranian installations in the entire western half of Syria.  The USA has supported the moves against Iran and the Russians have remained silent about them.  In Helsinki, however, the USA and Russia blessed the idea that there will be no Iranians in the region.  Iran has a sizeable force in Syria, but it would not take a position there directly contrary to the wishes of both the USA and Russia.

This morning in Syria, a surrender agreement was announced under which the Sunni rebels in the area are ceding control of the region to the Assad regime.  Meanwhile it seems as if the Iranians are going to be limited to getting no closer to the border than Damascus (which is about 40 miles away.) 

This should end the Iranian efforts designed to install substantial forces along the border and it should also end the Israeli attacks designed to keep those forces from the border.  In a bigger sense, it also means that the likelihood of a major Iranian - Israeli confrontation in Syria has just been drastically reduced.  That's some very good news.  But hey, unless it deals with what Trump did or didn't say about something that happened years ago which won't change anything, the media doesn't care. 

Blooming Idiot

Senator Blumenthal said on TV today that we are in a 9-11 style attack at the moment by Russia because of the way President Trump handled the Helsinki summit meeting.  Bloomie said that it is a national emergency.

Someone ought to explain to the senator what it means to be under attack.  Clearly he doesn't get it.  He did claim to have served in the military in Vietnam years ago, but that turned out to be just another lie, so Blumenthal has never actually experienced an attack.

The funny thing about all this is that nothing has changed due to Helsinki.  No one has died or been injured.  No property has been damaged.  No options available to the USA were taken away because of Helsinki.  All that happened is that President Trump met with the leader of the world's other pre-eminent nuclear power and the meeting was cordial.  Oh, the horror of it all!

I don't mind if Blumenthal wants to criticize Trump's position on something or other related to our relationship with Russia.  It's just bizarre for the senator to try to turn this into a national emergency.  It's not. 

 

An Amazing Difference in Perspective

E.J.Dionne is an uber-lefty.  No matter what happens, he always sees the Democrats as correct and the Republicans as wrong.  He makes it plain that he hates President Trump.  Nevertheless, he writes often in the mainstream media and people take him seriously.  Today, for example, he's out with a column predicting that the "blue wave" for Democrats in November is going to start in New Jersey.  Dionne is predicting big things for the Democrats in the garden state.

That's odd to me.  Dionne is predicting a big sweep in Jersey just days after recent polling shows that the supposedly safe Democrat candidate for the senate, Bob Menendez is running only 2% ahead of his little known GOP opponent.  That's terrible news for Menendez and the Democrats.  And since there's no election for governor, it will be the senate race that will be at the top of the ticket.  A GOP win in the senate race could easily swing House races to the GOP as well.  Dionne just ignores all this and predicts a big Democrat win.

I never know how much of what someone like Dionne says is just lying and how much is a true difference in perspective.  We all let our biases affect our expectations somewhat; it's human nature.  Still, it seems hard to believe that reasonable people could come to the conclusions that Dionne is spouting. 

I guess it's not too long until November.  We will find out soon enough who is correct.

In What World Are They Living?

Yahoo News is running a story at the moment reporting that the members of President Trump's cabinet are all distressed by serving in the administration but none of them are at the point yet of resigning.  Get it?  This is the latest installment of "chaos" in everything Trump.  If you recall, the mainstream media told us that the Trump campaign for the Republican nomination was in chaos and that he could not possibly get the nomination.  Then the mainstream media reported that the GOP convention in 2016 was going to be chaotic and it would be a colossal failure.  Then the Trump campaign against Hillary Clinton was in chaos according to the media.  They told us that Trump could never beat Hillary and the campaign was so chaotic that the question was whether many Republicans could hold on to their seats in Congress.  Of course, Trump won and the Republicans took both houses of Congress.  Then came the transition.  There were literally hundreds of stories about how the transition was in chaos and that Trump would be lucky if he could just pick a few members of his cabinet.  That didn't pan out, but it didn't stop the media.  Once Trump took office, the mainstream media told us that the White House was in chaos.  It was a constant mess and nothing would ever get done.  After a year and a half of a great many achievements, nothing matters to the media.  They are still telling us that the Trump White House is in chaos.  Today's target is the cabinet.  They are all disgusted and ready to quit according to the media.  More chaos on the way.

Sometimes I wonder in what world the members of the media live.  It can't be the real world.  I mean think back over the last decade.  We never got reports of chaos in the Obama administration, but, of course, nothing was ever accomplished by Obama after his first year in office.  Trump has gotten more done in a year and a half than Obama did in eight years.  Maybe the media is so used to nothing happening other than people talking that they confuse action for chaos.  That's probably giving the media too much credit.  I doubt the media is confused; I think that they are, rather, lying.  They understand that there is no chaos, but it doesn't matter.  Someone somewhere decided years ago that everything Trump did would be called chaotic.  That would be the story that would get sold over and over in the hopes that it would finally stick.  That may sound ridiculous, but remember, the media and the Democrats working together actually convinced a majority of Americans that tax cuts were actually tax increases.  Anything is possible if you use the big lie technique currently being employed by the media.

The Star Blows Up

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Socialist who won the Democrat primary in a New York congressional seat a few weeks back.  She became an instant media celebrity, in particular because of her full throated support for abolishing ICE.  That was the far left mantra of the moment, so it got repeated in a way that only a mantra can.  What made Ocasio-Cortez a star was that she beat a member of the Democrat House leadership in the primary.  Now a few weeks later Ocasio-Cortez is imploding.

First, she's shown herself to be not ready for the campaign trail.  She told Margaret Hoover on PBS that unemployment was down only because people were working two jobs.  That is, of course, wrong; people with two jobs are still counted only once.  Ocasio-Cortez says she has a degree in economics, so it seems strange that she doesn't know basic facts like that.  Then she gave an interview in which she called Israel "occupied Palestine".  When asked to explain the comment, she couldn't and eventually said that geo-politics really isn't her strong suit.  One has to wonder if she doesn't understand foreign policy or economics, why would she want to be in Congress.

Second, she's attacked the Democrat leadership in Washington.  As a Democrat, you expect her to attack Republicans, but it's a surprise that she is so vehement in condemning Washington Democrats as well.

Third, she's drawn some interesting opposition.  Former senator Joe Lieberman came out today in support of the congressman Ocasio-Cortez defeated in the primary.  He is still on the Working Families ticket on the November ballot.  We don't know yet if he will still run, but if he does he might yet win.  The primary had a meager turnout, so a full election day turnout could put him back in Congress.

Fourth, Ocasio-Cortez is courting controversy.  Yesterday, she called for people to occupy all the airports in the USA (as well as some other locations) to show just how seriously they view the separation of children from the parents at the border.  Think about that.  She wants people across the country to have their trips disrupted or prevented because she's angry about a policy that is already stopped.  That won't pull undecided voters to her cause.

The truth is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is showing herself to be unready for a serious run for Congress.  Given that she's the official Democrat nominee in a district where only Democrats win, she's still likely to end up in Washington.  Her days as a star, however, are over except for the lunatic fringe of the Democrat party.

This Makes Things Look Good For My Wife

According to a poll released today, Democrat registered voters want a "fresh face" for their 2020 presidential candidate rather than someone who has run in the past.  The split was 73% to 16%.  That's an overwhelming margin.  It is also very bad news for Biden, Clinton, Sanders and the other oldsters who have been around forever.

It may be good news for someone like Kamala Harris of California or Corey Booker of NJ.  Somehow, though, I doubt that.  I've seen both of these people under pressure and they have the unique ability to screw things up and say the wrong thing.

Personally, I think the poll clears the field for my wife to run.  She's a Democrat.  She's never run for office in the past.  She would be the perfect candidate for the Democrats.  After all, if she ran and won, I could get to live in the White House.  I'm going to vote for her, that I can tell you.  Now all I have to do is convince her to run.

Unbelievable Gibberish From the AG's

The Attorneys General of a few states in the northeast (NY, NJ, CT etc.) have filed a suit in federal court seeking to overturn the tax cut act as unconstitutional because the new law changed the deduction for state and local taxation.  According to these legal geniuses, the limitation on this deduction discriminates against high tax states, something that Congress cannot do.

I've had a chance now to read the complaint.  To be fair, I've read a lot of complaints over the last 40 years of practicing law.  Here's my first reaction:

ha
ha
ha
ha
HA
HA
HA

The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to levy the tax in the way it did.  Here is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:

 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Taxes levied "without apportionment among the several states" means that Congress could pass a tax that hits only some states and leaves others untouched.  The only requirement is that Congress have a rational reason to do this.  In fact, if there is a problem with treating states in different ways, then it would be the old law that allowed taxpayers in high tax states to deduct all their state taxes while denying the same deduction to taxpayers in low tax states a deduction that would be unconstitutional.  Of course, that was not the case.

I know it is an election year.  I also know that there are some judges out there across the country who are prepared to issue decisions for political purposes even if those decisions are not in accordance with the law.  Still, the idea that some moronic Democrat Attorneys General have brought a completely baseless suit to try to disrupt the tax cuts enacted last year is a disgrace.  These people should be run out of office.  They are using public funds to force the waste of even more public funds.

What Difference Would It Make - 2 Energy Production

In my continuing series discussing the differences between the policies of Republicans and those of Democrats for 2018, we have arrived at the subject of the production of energy.  Simply put, are heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and electricity more likely to be less expensive across the country if there's a Democrat majority or a Republican majority in Congress?

This is a key question.  Our country and our economy run on energy.  As the price of that energy gets higher, the availability of energy to power the country gets lower.  Energy gets priced out of the market and the amount used drops dramatically.

Since the 2016 election, the Republicans and President Trump have taken a series of steps to promote the production of more and more energy from American sources.  That tax cut bill includes the opening of a very small portion of the Arctic wildlife reserve for oil drilling.  Estimates are that there is close to twenty billions barrels of oil in that tiny area; the whole area is just a few square miles large.  The Democrats have pledged to shut down any drilling in the area.  Remember, the wildlife refuge is something like half a million square miles, but the area now opened for drilling is less than 5 square miles.  The refuge is preserved by the oil will get produced.  Then there's off shore drilling.  The GOP/Trump have opened up the areas under the oceans off our shores to drilling.  The Democrats want these areas shut off from drilling.  Once again, the GOP plan would increase production and decrease prices while the Democrats want to decrease production and increase prices.  Then there's natural gas drilling and fracking.  Fracking is the process which has made the USA once again the world's larges producer of natural gas.  It has been supported by Republicans.  Democrats have been trying to stop the use of fracking based upon their claim that it causes pollution.  That claim, however, remains unsupported by actual evidence.

There's a lot more on this subject, but the short version is this:  Republicans want to maximize energy production and minimize the price.  Democrats want to minimize production and maximize the price we pay for energy.  This is as good a reason as any to vote Republican. 

What Difference Would It Make? Part One

Today, I'm starting a series of posts discussing the main issues for November's elections.  Obviously, these are not national races, so local issues matter in both congressional and senatorial contests.  There remain over-arching issues that should swing the vote nevertheless.

The first issue in the series is taxation.  There's a marked difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this matter.  In short, the Republicans gave us a major tax cut in late 2017.  They want to keep that cut in place.  The Democrats, however, are on record committing to raise taxes on both businesses and individuals.  They seek a major jump in corporate taxes and a restoration of most of the taxes cut on individuals.  With the economy booming as a result of the tax cuts, it seems strange that the Democrats want to choke off that growth by pushing taxes back up, but they do.

The last time there was this clear of a difference between the parties on taxes in an election was in 1984.  Ronald Reagan ran for re-election seeking further tax cuts (which he later got).  Walter Mondale ran for the Democrats promising that he would raise taxes.  Reagan won 49 out of 50 states.

 

A Perplexing Question For Some

Suppose that a major corporation selling milk was putting contaminated products into supermarkets.  One would want that stopped, right?  Suppose that the corporation had connections with the local authorities, so that no action was taken to get the contaminated milk off the shelf.  One would still want the contaminated milk removed from the market, right?  Now suppose that the North Korean government learned about the contaminated milk and released proof of the contamination and the involvement of the corporation in intentionally selling bad milk.  North Korea is our enemy, but would we ignore the selling of bad milk because we got the information about it from the NK's?  I don't think so.

What the Russians are alleged to have done in 2016, is very much like what the North Koreans did in the example above.  The Democrats rigged their primaries to favor Hillary Clinton and to block Bernie Sanders.  That is disgusting and anti-democratic behavior that should be condemned, right?  The White House knew what was going on at the DNC, but it took no steps to stop the rigging of the primaries.  The only reason that the American people know that the Dems and Hillary Clinton rigged the primaries is that someone, most likely the Russians, got the proof in emails and released them to the public.  So if that is the case, should we concern ourselves with Russian interference in the US election or would it be better to focus on the dishonest (and perhaps illegal) conduct by the Democrats in rigging their own primaries?  Does the fact that the Russians are not our close friends -- to put it mildly -- mean that when they uncover wrongdoing by Americans and release the details of that wrongdoing, we are to ignore what was done because of the source of the information?  I don't think so.

Let's put it this way.  When the police get information from a confidential informant (a snitch) who also happens to be a thief, should they ignore that information because the source is unsavory?  No way!

I mention all this because at yesterday's press conference with President Trump, the Russian president Vladimir Putin seemed to claim credit for disclosing some bad stuff about which Americans ought to know.  No one is paying much attention to that today, but they should be.  The real key here is not how the information was made public.  Rather, it is that some truly bad things were done by the Democrats and the truth about them was made public.

I'm Going To Stop Counting

When Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, we were told by the media and the Democrats that it was the end of the world.  When the net neutrality regulations were repealed, we were told by the media and the Democrats that it was the end of the world.  When Donald Trump called Kim Jung Un "little Rocket Man" and told the North Koreans that they would be destroyed if they ever took action against the USA, we were told by the media and the Democrats that it was the end of the world.  When the President moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in Israel, we were told that it was the end of the world.  When Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris climate accords, you guessed it, it was the end of the world.  When the President refused to certify Iranian compliance with the JCPOA, the Iranian nuke agreement, it was again the end of the world.  Of course, when President Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA, it was even more than the end of the world (if that is possible.)  Then there's the tax cut legislation; once again the media and the Democrats told us that this was actually a tax increase (a lie) but that it was nevertheless the end of the world.  When Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court -- end of the world.  When Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh to the same court -- again, the end of the world.  Now that Trump had a news conference at which he said that the intelligence agencies told him that it was likely the Russians who hacked the DNC in 2016 but that Putin had said it wasn't Russia and he wasn't sure who to believe, it seems to be the end of the world, in spades. 

There are so many more times in the last year and a half that we've been warned it was the end of the world, that I'm going to stop counting.  How many times can the same people tell us that "people will die; it's the end of the world"?  I've come to realize that when the media and the Democrats say that people will die or that it's the end of the world, what they really mean is this:  "We don't like this, but we really have nothing much rational to say on the subject so we'll just go with the end of the world nonsense."

They really need to find a new line.  This one has really gotten old.