An Inconvenient Truth

No, this is not about global warming.  It is, however, about how stories that are inconvenient or which conflict with the narrative just disappear from the mainstream media.

Here's a good example:  just a few days ago, we had another of those mass shootings that usually get so much coverage.  This one occurred at a gaming contest in Jacksonville Florida.  The shooter was David Katz, a 24 year old white guy from Maryland.  When the shooting went down, there was huge coverage.  When the details of just who the shooter was and how he got his guns were learned, the media just dropped the story.  First of all, Katz used hand guns, not assault rifles, so there was no angle to the story with regard to the supposed need for an assault weapons ban.  But it got worse.  Katz got all his guns legally in his home state of Maryland, and that state has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  That means that Katz had to pass background checks among other things.  But it got worse.  It turns out that Katz was troubled and sometimes violent.  The police were called to his home 26 times because of something he had done.  He was hospitalized twice for mental illness.  He was on strong anti-psychotic drugs.  But even with all that Katz passed the background check for each of his weapons.  It just destroys the gun control narrative about the need for background checks when you see someone like Katz passing that background check in a strict gun control state like Maryland.

Because Katz basically undermines nearly all the points made by the gun control crowd, the media decided to stop covering this story.  It's just gone from most news sites.  In a battle between the inconvenient truth and the liberal narrative, it seems that the narrative always wins.

More Reality Comes to the Middle East

The State Department announced this afternoon that American support for UNWRA has ended.  The USA gave the UN agency which supports people classified as Palestinian refugees about 60 million dollars earlier this year, but that will be all in 2018.  Last year, the USA gave about $350 million.  The State Department called UNWRA a "fatally flawed agency" as a reason for this announcement.

It's important to understand just who it is that UNWRA supports.  The refugees in question are from the first war between Israel and the Arabs in 1948-9.  At that time, the UN voted to partition Palestine between a Jewish and an Arab state.  Israel accepted the outcome of the vote, but the Arabs rejected it and five different Arab armies invaded Jewish regions of Palestine.  Amazingly, the 600,000 Jews in Israel at the time managed to fight off the Arab armies and even push them back a bit into territory that had been designated for the Arabs.  About half a million Arabs fled to avoid the fighting.  Some were told to leave by many Arab leaders to avoid getting in the way of the armies.  Others were pushed out by the Israeli advance.  When the fighting ended, the Arab nations expelled the Jews who lived in these countries.  Nearly one and one half million Jews fled to Israel where they were integrated into the population as new Israelis.  Meanwhile the Arab countries refused to accept the Palestinians who had fled.  They forced these people into refugee camps where they lived for decades.  UNWRA was formed to help support these refugees.  The states where the camps were located, however, refused to allow the Palestinians to be integrated into their citizenry.  They were made into perpetual refugees.

In the following 50 years, the refugees died off.  Their children and grandchildren, however, were given refugee status by UNWRA and continued to get support from the agency.  Think of that.  A young man who is 20 and lives in Lebanon in 2018 gets welfare payments from UNWRA today because 70 years ago his great-grandfather used to live in Jaffa, near Tel Aviv.  The truth is that the world does not owe support to people who choose to become permanent refugees in order to get that support.  These people can learn to support themselves. 

Consider this situation.  Poland suffered terribly at the hands of the Germans in World War II.  Should the world support the great grandchildren of people who suffered during that war in Poland today, some 75 years later?  Why would that be?

For decades, the Palestinians got this support, principally from the USA.  The dollar amount is not huge in the context of the US budget.  Still, since the payments kept rolling in, it allowed the Palestinians to think that they could go on refusing to accept peace and the world would just support them forever.  Well, the USA has just put an end to that foolishness.

In just this year, the Trump administration has made clear that Jerusalem is really the capital of Israel, that the so-called settlements which are really parts of Jerusalem and its suburbs are not going to be given to the Palestinians and certainly are not going to be rid of all the Jewish residents, that there is not going to be a return of millions of Arabs into Israel in order to turn that state into an Arab majority one, and that the Palestinians are no longer going to be supported by the world as they work to thwart any chance for peace.  For the first time in many decades, the Palestinians are being given a realistic choice:  they can work for and accept a peaceful solution and get help from the world, or they can continue to fight against any peaceful solution to the conflict with Israel, but they will have to do so without the support of the USA through UNWRA.

This doesn't guarantee peace, but at least it finally gives peace a chance.

The Purveyor of Hate and the President

Aretha Franklin's funeral was held today.  It was a tribute to this great singer.  There was, however, one thing seriously wrong with it.  Sitting on the dais in the front of the mourners was Louis Farrakhan, a man who lives by pushing hatred of whites and virulent anti-Semitism.  I don't know why the people who organized the funeral had Farrakhan there.  That is their business, though.  Two seats away on the dais, however, was Bill Clinton.  Why would the former president of the USA sit on a dais with a purveyor of hatred and race war like Farrakhan?  It's unthinkable.

Imagine for a moment what the reaction would be if President Trump sat on a dais with some guy who had a connection to the KKK.  It would be Armageddon.  Indeed, if Trump sat on a dais with Farrakhan, there would be hell to pay.  Bill Clinton should be no different.  He should not be sharing a small stage with someone like this.  He didn't miss Farrakhan's presence.  The guy was two seats away and there were only 7 seats on the entire stage.

This is a total outrage.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

There are two stories today about the Texas senate race between Ted Cruz and Beeto O'Rourke that are worth mentioning.

The first is a piece in Vanity Fair proclaiming the O'Rourke is reminiscent of Barack Obama.  He's a breath of fresh air in a stale political world according to the gushing reporter.  He could easily run for president in 2020, or so we are told.

The second article comes from the Houston Chronicle which obtained a copy of the arrest report for Beeto's run in with the law for driving under the influence of alcohol.  That O'Rourke had been arrested for DUI was already known.  What was new was the fact that according to witnesses, after O'Rourke carshed his expensive car into a tree, he tried to flee the scene but was cornered and arrested by cops who arrived quickly to the crash site.  Of course, O'Rourke's father, who was then a state judge in El Paso, arranged things so that Beeto was put in a program for DUI offenders.  Beeto had to admit that he had been DUI but then agreed to go through a rehab program and other training.  As a result, his record was expunged.  The fact that he was caught fleeing the scene of an accident after driving drunk, however, does not change.  And by the way, the fact that Beeto was arrested for trespass and burglary a few years earlier also does not change.

My question is this:  how can the reporter at Vanity Fair think that America would ignore O'Rourke's history of arrests?  Will voters actually approve of an accused burglar and drunk whose idea of taking responsibility for his actions includes fleeing the scene of an accident?

Two Different Universes

ABC/Washington Post are at it again.  They put out a poll today that shows President Trump's job approval rating at 38% favorable and 60% unfavorable.  That's not just a negative poll; it's way more unfavorable than others.  For example, yesterday, the Rasmussen poll on the same question found the difference between unfavorable and favorable to be 3% rather than the 22% found by the ABC/WaPo poll.  There's no way both could be correct.

It is worth noting that Rasmussen is a daily poll and over the last month, the results each day have varied between a tie on favorable/unfavorable to 6% unfavorable.  That makes yesterday's 3% right in the middle of 30 polls.  The ABC/WaPo poll seems to have polled people in a different universe.

I have grown so distrustful of the mainstream media, and especially the WaPo, that my first impression is that this latest poll is a fraud.  The campaign for November starts in earnest on Tuesday, so this poll allows the media to claim that Trump is a dead weight around the necks of the GOP (even if it is not true.)  It's a sad day for America when we have to assume that the mainstream media is lying.

More Senate Polling -- PA

There's a new senate poll out in the Pennsylvania senate race.  Democrat Bob Casey is ahead by 13 points over Republican Lou Barletta.  That should have the Dems overjoyed, right?  The problem, however, is that the size of Casey's lead keeps shrinking.  As each new poll comes out, the lead is 1 or 2 points less.  Now, Casey no longer has the support of more than 50% of the electorate.

It's still a pretty strong bet that Casey will win, but this seat which was once rated safe Democrat should now be moved to either likely Dem.  If the motion in the polls continues, it could switch to leans Dem.

The key here is that the voters in PA know Casey.  He has been in the senate for a long time.  Barletta, however, is a relative unknown except in the congressional district he has represented.  If voters like Barletta as they get to know him better (which seems to be happening), he could actually pull off a victory here.  This is just another state where the Republican candidate for senate is doing better than expected against the Democrat incumbent.

What Drives The Deep State?

I was just in my car and heard Rush Limbaugh explain that he thinks that the so called deep state is attacking Trump because they don't think that the American people ought to get to choose their own leaders.  "How dare those rubes pick someone who could disagree with us" is the basic question that drives the deep state.  They've really been pushing that since Trump came on the scene.

I disagree.  In my opinion, the motive behind the plan to get Trump is nothing more than basic self-preservation.  The leadership of the FBI, DOJ, and the intelligence agencies were seeking to protect themselves from the consequences should a Republican like Trump learn the details of all that they previously had done.  In this sense, you need to go back to about the beginning of the Obama years to understand what I am talking about.  Consider this:

1.  At the start of the Obama first term, the DOJ signed off on a crazy scheme to supply assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.  It was called "operation Fast and Furious" and it was approved by even the then attorney general Eric Holder.  Supposedly, this whole thing was done so that the feds could "follow" the guns and see how they got to Mexico and where they ended up.  That seems untrue.  After all, there were 2000 guns including assault weapons sent by the Obama DOJ to the cartels and we have never heard how the guns got to Mexico or where they ended up.  All we know is that they periodically turn up at crime scenes and that one was used to kill border agent Brian Terry.  If the purpose of the operation was as promised, we surely would have heard some results after eight years, but there's just nothing.  So what can this mean?  Most likely, the operation Fast and Furious was designed to get American assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that when they were used, the government could use the resulting outrage to put new gun control measures into place.  Instead, Fast and Furious (which was never supposed to be disclosed) was made public and the DOJ and ATF had to scramble to explain it away.

2.  Then there's the actions of DOJ and the intelligence agencies including the FBI to thwart the activities of the media.  Given the strong support for the Obama administration by the media, this is a funny one.  Remember, however, that early in the Obama years, the government ran massive spying operations on the media.  One target was Fox News; coming from Obama, that is not surprising.  You may recall that then Fox reporter James Rosen was targeted for surveillance and named as a criminal suspect so that warrants could be obtained to wiretap Rosen, his co-workers and even his family.  There was nothing to support calling Rosen a suspect, but the DOJ and FBI signed off on the warrant application anyway.  But that wasn't it.  These same agencies also did close surveillance of the AP office in DC.  Seriously, when was the last time (if ever) that the federal government conducted wiretapping of a press agency like the AP?  It hasn't happened before or since.  If one wanted to chill the communications between the press and potential sources, what better way than to wiretap the phones of the media?  This effort was surely a very bad act by the DOJ and FBI leadership.

3.  And what about the efforts of the IRS to prevent conservative and Christian charities from getting approved as charitable organizations?  This effort began in 2009 and hit a bunch of groups that opposed the Obama agenda.  It was a completely illegal effort to let conservatives and Christians have equal rights to free speech.  When it was first uncovered, the higher ups in the deep state told us that this was just the work of some "rogue agents" in Cincinnati.  Of course, that was a lie.  Think back to Obama's reaction to the whole thing.  At first, he said he knew nothing about it but what he read in the papers, but he promised to end the targeting of conservative groups.  By a year later, when many details about Louis Lerner and her cabal of people targeting these groups had been made public, Obama switched and said that there was "no corruption" there; in other words, Obama claimed nothing improper had happened.  What would happen if the new administration found evidence that the targeting by the IRS had been approved by the Attorney General and other high up members of the deep state?

4.  Then there's Benghazi.  On the anniversary of 9-11, the USA had taken no precautions to protect its diplomatic missions in the Arab world.  It also had done nothing to prepare a response to an attack should one occur on that very significant day.  Then the worst happened.  The Benghazi mission was attacked by terrorists and there was no response from Washington.  Obama to this day has never explained where he was during that attack.  We do know that he wasn't in the Situation Room coordinating the protection of our personnel.  The lack of preparedness by the government required that this be a surprise attack.  As a result, they hatched the story of the youtube video that inspired a riot in Benghazi.  The fact that the video had been seen by fewer than 300 people in the three months it was posted didn't matter to the deep state people who came up with this excuse.  They needed to cover their behinds.  They missed the terrorist preparations.  They failed to take precautions on the 9-11 anniversary.  So they made up the lie about the video and used Susan Rice to spread that lie to the nation.  What would happen if the Trump administration spent time finding out the truth of who had been involved with this cover up?

5.  Let's jump to Hillary's email system.  We know a few things of importance.  The existence of Hillary Clinton's unsecured private email system and its use for national security business was not a secret inside the government.  The president himself emailed Hillary to that address, so he surely knew.  There were also email to or from various people in the intelligence agencies.  That means Hillary used an illegal system for over four years and in all that time no one in the deep state stood up and said she had to stop.  The deep state deferred to Mrs. Clinton even though she was both violating the law and putting our national security at risk.  There was just silence from the DNI, the CIA, the FBI and all the other high ranking intelligence officials.

When Hillary's email system was brought to public attention in 2015, there must have been a major panic in the intel agencies.  How would they explain letting Mrs. Clinton put our security at risk in this way.  Remember, it was just reported that the Chinese have a complete copy of all of Hillary's emails.  Sure, we can blame Hillary for setting up the system, but to the deep state, the main fear was how to explain why they knowing let her do it.

When you put all this together, it's pretty clear why the deep state dreaded a victory by Donald Trump (or any other Republican for that matter.)  If Hillary won, she surely wouldn't be interested in uncovering scandals that would implicate herself along with the members of the deep state.  Trump was a different story.  His victory was a real threat to the leaders of the intel agencies and the Obama attorneys general.  That is the reason why the whole bogus effort to get rid of Trump was born.  Ultimately, this is a CYA move by the deep state.  After all, none of them want to go to prison.

A Bizarre Start To The CT Governor's Race

The governor's race in Connecticut this year features Democrat Ned Lamont against Republican newcomer Bob Stefanowski.  The primary was just a few weeks ago, and the general election race has started in a rather bizarre way.  Let me give you an example:  in the last few days, Lamont has been lambasting Stefanowski on social media as someone who wants to raise property taxes while he (Lamont) would cut them.  It's unusual enough to have a Democrat accuse the GOP candidate of wanting to raise taxes while claiming the mantle of tax-cutter for himself.  In this race, however, the attempt is truly bizarre.  During the primary, Stefanowski based his entire campaign on promises to cut the state's high income tax, and even to phase it out if possible.  Stefanowski also called for reductions in corporate taxes in order to reinvigorate the state's stagnant economy which has still not recovered from the 2008 crash.  Stefanowski also called for cutting wasteful state spending.  Meanwhile, during the Democrat primary Lamont called for raising the income tax and even putting tolls back on state highways.  And to top it all off, property tax rates are set by towns and cities across the state, not by the governor.  That means that avowed tax-raiser Lamont wants to label avowed tax-cutter Stefanowski as a high tax guy based upon supposed positions on the property tax rates that the governor can't change.  Bizarre!

Lamont has a history of faltering in general election races.  He has run statewide many times in the past, but he has never won even in very blue Connecticut.  He seems to be starting early trying to throw away the race.  He and his advisers must assume that state residents did not pay any attention to the primary races.  Still, it was hard to live in CT during the last three months and not hear Bob Stefanowski touting his plan to cut taxes.  People will remember that and will understand how lame Lamont's new position really is.

For what it's worth, the polls in the race are also closing.  Right as of the primary, Lamont was showing as ahead by 17% in the polls.  That lead has shrunk in just a few weeks to 9% in the most recent match up.  At this point, however, the polls are meaningless.  Still, if Lamont keeps this up, he may manage to lose by 20%.

A Comedy Tonight

I decided to watch the NY Democrat primary debate between governor Andrew Cuomo and challenger Cynthia Nixon, so I tuned in about 7:15.  I missed the first fifteen minutes.  It was hysterical, a proverbial race to the bottom.  Andrew Cuomo seemed incredibly idiotic.  The first thing I heard him say was about the rampant corruption in his administration and in Albany.  He actually said that "everyone agrees that [he] has nothing to do with that corruption."  Really?  For the last three years, Cuomo has been at the center of investigations by both state and federal officials.  His aides have been convicted of corruption.  Leaders of the state legislature have also been convicted.  Cuomo's name has been dragged through trial after trial about corruption.  Still, he has the nerve to say that everyone AGREES that he has nothing to do with corruption.  During that incredible answer, Nixon interrupted Cuomo explaining why had couldn't get rid of corruption in Albany.  When Cuomo admonished her for lying, Nixon said, "I'll stop interrupting when you stop lying."

After that, Cuomo went on to accuse Nixon, as a "corporate campaign donor", of asking the mayor of New York City for favors.  Nixon again interrupted to say that she isn't a corporation.  Cuomo insisted that she is a corporation and donated as such.  Nixon looked quizzically at Cuomo and said that she was a person not a corporation.  She also said that she had called the mayor's office to ask that helicopter flights be stopped over Central Park during performances of Shakespeare in the Park.  That's a free public performance of Shakespeare given outdoors in Central Park in the summer.  Cuomo said she was asking a favor as a corporate donor for her friends.  Nixon said that she was asking for the public who go to these performances, not friends and reminded Cuomo that she was not a corporation.  The governor then made some cryptic reference to another favor Nixon supposedly requested and she said she had no idea what he was talking about.  Cuomo told her to "read the papers".  Cynthia responded that she would do that.  It was laughable how dumb Cuomo seemed.

Then things moved on.  Nixon was asked about her stance in favor of legalized pot.  What would she say to the parents of teens who they are trying to discourage from using drugs.  Nixon went off on her standard answer on pot.  Legalization is essential, she says, because it is needed for racial justice.  I'm not kidding.  Cynthia Nixon believes that having marijuana not be legal is racist.  That's ridiculous and was bad enough, but then it got worse.  The moderator asked Nixon a follow up.  It was the same question.  What would you say to the parents of teens who they are trying to discourage from using drugs?  Nixon stuttered and had nothing to say.  She had already given her prepared answer and she was at a loss for words.  As an actress, she had delivered the prepared lines well.  However, as an actress, she didn't know what to say when no one had written lines for her.

I gave up.  It was a total moron debating and actress with a prepared script.  There was no point to watching.  It took only a few minutes to figure that out.
 

Things That Are Hard To Believe

Just think of what has happened in the last few days that seem impossible to believe.

1. Today, a judge in New Mexico dismissed the charges against the three people who were running an Islamic terror indoctrination and training center for children in disgusting conditions in that state.  The kids were being trained how to be school shooters.  One of them died when he got sick and never got medical care.  Supposedly, the prosecutors "missed" the ten day period to hold a probable cause hearing.  What experienced prosecutor would "miss" that deadline?  Something is really wrong here.

2.  Today, the new Republican nominee for governor of Florida told an interviewer that the voters should risk the state's prosperity by monkeying it up and choosing socialism.  Within hours, the full Democrat/media machine went into action to claim that this was a racist slap at the Democrat candidate who happens to be black.  That's ridiculous.  Meanwhile, it turns out that the Democrat is under investigation by the FBI for corruption in Tallahassee (where he is mayor).  Shades of Hillary Clinton!  This fact has been buried by the media.

3.  It has been disclosed that all of the email on Hillary Clinton's unsecured and illegal computer server was hacked and obtained by the Chinese government.  That means that the Chinese have all those missing emails.  This story is going by as if it never happened.  Hillary definitely threatened our national security by conducting classified business on her unsecured and illegal computer system.  For the media, however, there's just nothing worth reporting in that story.

4.  John McCain was a naval aviator, a prisoner of war, a senator for a long time and the GOP presidential candidate in 2008 (when he was regularly called a racist by the media.)  His funeral is being covered as if it is the most important funeral ever held.  Just imagine what would happen were Bob Dole to pass away.  He was an army office, got the purple heart for terrible wounds that left him without the use of one of his arms, a senator for a long time, Senate leader for the GOP and the GOP presidential candidate in 1996 (when no one called him a racist.)  His funeral would hardly be noticed.  So what's the difference?  The answer is simple; McCain did not get along well with President Trump, so the media can use the funeral to keep hitting the President.

5.  The Arizona primary was held yesterday.  The turnout among Republican voters was much higher than it was among Democrats even though both sides had primaries.  This bodes ill for the blue wave theory that the media and the Dems push at every possible moment.  How did they handle it?  Simple:  there is essentially no mention of these numbers.

6.  Before we leave this subject, I have to add one last item.  Sarah Palin was not invited to attend the McCain funeral.  He picked her in life as his running mate for vice president.  In death, he directed that she wasn't good enough to come to mourn.  What does that say about McCain?  I hope that  the stories are wrong and that the decision to keep her out was made by others rather than the late senator.

There is so much her that one could find appalling or surprising.  Sadly, much of it seems predictable.

The Hill Goes All In For Gillum With Lies

The primary results in Florida came in about 15 hours ago.  The mainstream media got to work immediately trying to support Democrat Gillum in his bid for the governorship.  I've previously written about this.  Now, the Hill has started trying to call Republican DeSantis a racist.  DeSantis said that Gillum was embracing a socialist agenda for Florida.  That's accurate.  Gillum wants medicare for all, abolishing ICE, and a guaranteed income for everyone.  That's a pretty good summary of the current socialist program.  While being interviewed on a TV show, DeSantis said this,

“Let’s build off the success we’ve had on Gov. Scott. The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases bankrupting the state. That is not going to work."

So how did the Hill describe this?  They said that DeSantis said that the last thing Florida needs is "to monkey this up by" voting for Gillum.  Gillum is, of course, a black man, so the Hill wants to portray DeSantis as equating a black man and a monkey.  The problem, of course, is that this is a total lie.  It's just another of those left wing media lies that will then get spread all over the internet.  Another Republican Racist!!!!!  As of now, even Drudge picked up this story.  It's a lie.

 

Noticing the Next Florida Meme

Yesterday Gillum won the Democrat primary in Florida for governor.  It's amazing to see how fast the media started campaigning for him to win the general election.  This morning, as I write this, one of the items trending on Twitter is "Trump-backed DeSantis".  Ron DeSantis is, of course, the candidate who won the GOP primary.  He was indeed endorsed by President Trump.  Still, news articles about the primary results talk of "Democrat Gillum and Trump-backed DeSantis."  Why is that?  Why is it so important that every story tie DeSantis to Trump?  After all, DeSantis is an experienced Florida congressman with a record of his own.  DeSantis won the primary with 56% of the vote over about eight other candidates.  Why is the most notable thing about his victory that he is "Trump-backed"?

The funny thing is that I doubt this Trump-backed line will actually make a difference.  Remember, Florida voted for Trump in 2016.  Since then, newly registered voters in Florida have moved the registration numbers towards the GOP.  For the most part, the people who hate Trump are already going to vote for the Democrat.  Nevertheless, the media hates the President so vehemently that they think connecting DeSantis with Trump will hurt Desantis' chances for victory.  It's a triumph of delusion over reality.

 

What Does Gillum's Victory Mean?

Mayor Gillum won the Democrat primary for governor in Florida today.  What does this mean?

1.  The polls were all wrong.  The Gillum victory is more of an upset for the pollsters than President Trump's win in 2016.  There were many polls of this race over the last month.  Not a single poll put Gillum above fourth place in the race.  He was an also ran, not a factor in the race at all if the polls were to be believed.  Now, he's won.

2.  He's far left, much more so than the other candidates who ran in today's primary.  Gillum is the Bernie Sanders' candidate in the primary.  With the positions he's already taken, he will be very far left in the general election in November.

3.  Gillum got only about a third of the votes, so he has major work just to get all the Democrats behind him.  Gillum is African American and ran strong in black neighborhoods.  Will he be able to put together a coalition to win in November?

4.  The media is already pushing him.  I had to laugh at the article in Vox that announced both that Gillum had won and that the experts say that the fall race will be a toss up.  These are the same experts who said that Gillum had no chance to win today.  There aren't even any polls running Gillum against the GOP winner DeSantis.  That means when Vox says that "experts" say the race will be a toss up, Vox is just making it all up.

5.  Gillum's victory today actually makes it much more likely that the GOP will win in November.  There is a sizeable chunk of the Democrat base that will vote for a far left candidate.  Once the independents and Republican voters get added to the mix, the far left segment is much too small to win many elections.  In fact, the likelihood is that Gillum will lead the top of the Florida Democrat ticket in such a weak manner that other Democrat candidates for offices like the Senate and Congress will be hurt.

Bogus Numbers From the Government On School Shootings?

In the school year of 2015 to 2016, there were over 250 school shootings in the USA.  Those are the figures that the Obama Department of Education released two years ago.  It's a horrifying number that ought to supply a big push towards some sort of gun legislation aimed at schools.  There's a problem, however:  the number is bogus.  A detailed bit of research was done by NPR reporters who reached out to every district for which the feds claimed there was a gun related incident.  NPR is a very far left media outlet that normally supports gun control 150%.  What the NPR reporters found was that only 11 out of more than 250 incidents were confirmed by the districts in question.  In nearly all cases, the districts said nothing had happened.

It's hard to believe that the Obama administration would lie so blatantly about these statistics, but it certainly seems that they did.  Sure, there could be some mistakes included, but these statistics were more than 90% wrong.  That has to be intentional.

How could we have a government that was prepared to put out phony stats just to support Obama's views?

By the way, whether you think there needs to be strong gun controls or not, I suggest you read the NPR story at the above link.  It's a real eye-opener.

Don't Ask the #Resistance to Mess with Labor Day Weekend

The senate has stayed in session this month rather than going on their usual six week vacation.  During these days, some appropriations were passed, but mostly the senate focused on confirming nominees whose appointments had been delayed for months by the Democrats.  The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell was threatening to keep the senate in session right through Friday and resume on Tuesday.  That would mean that the senators would have to miss most of their Labor Day Weekend holiday.  It was too much for the Democrats.  They finally threw in the towel.  Late this afternoon, the Dems agreed to "fast track" 15 nominations -- including those of 11 judges -- in exchange for a longer adjournment for Labor Day.  As the Senate's Democrat leader Chuck Schumer said to his fellow Democrats this afternoon (according to unnamed sources), "Nominees come and go, but vacations are too important to miss."

I just wonder what the anti-Trump crazies of the #Resistance are going to think when they hear that the Dem senators sold them out for more time on the beach.

So Is It Yes Ohr Is It No? Shall We Stay or Shall We Go?

Bruce Ohr from the Justice Department is meeting behind closed doors today with a congressional committee.  The Republican congressmen are there, but no Democrats showed up themselves.  The Dems only sent staff to observe.

Remember who Bruce Ohr is.  He was the number 4 person in the DOJ under Obama.  His wife Nellie works for Fusion GPS and that connection was used to get information created by Fusion's contractor Steele to the FBI and DOJ.  That's how much of the phony Trump Dossier made its way through the government.  Fusion, of course, was the contractor hired by the Clinton campaign to come up with a phony smear against Trump.  Midway through the smear effort, the FBI fired Steele as a source for misconduct on his part.  At that point, Ohr started funneling phony info from Steele and Fusion directly to the FBI.  In other words, Bruce Ohr was a high government official who used back door channels to get phony information paid for by Hillary Clinton to the FBI and CIA.

Given all that Ohr did in 2016, how can it be that the Democrats don't care enough to even show up to hear his testimony?  The only answer has to be that the Democrats on the committee understand that there never was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  There was only an attempt by the DNC and Hillary to create the appearance of a supposed link between the two.  Why show up to hear bad news.  It's easier to keep going with the lie if you haven't heard the truth directly.

 

US Cuts $200 Million in Aid to Palestinians

The USA is going to cut its foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority (in the West Bank) and to Hamas (in Gaza) by $200 million.  My first reaction to this news is to ask how it is possible that the USA gave any aid that was funneled through Hamas.  After all, Hamas is a terrorist organization which is extremely anti-American.  There is no conceivable valid reason to give our cash to them.  But that's the simple and immediate response.  The bigger question is whether or not it makes sense to reduce aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The answer is certainly yes.  President Abbas of the PA has consistently denounced the USA since we moved our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  He has condemned the American plan for peace between Israel and the Arabs; that's a pretty amazing move since there is, as of yet, no such peace plan.  In essence, Abbas says that no peace plan that comes from America could possibly be acceptable.  Abbas has also refused to meet with some American envoys in the last six months.  So why should we support him and his regime.

It's important to remember just who Abbas and the PA are.  Abbas took office when Yasser Arafat died.  He was elected to a four year term.  That was something like 14 years ago.  Since then, elections have been "delayed".  Abbas has ruled as a dictator and has used the years to amass a huge personal fortune in accounts in Switzerland.  One has to assume that a big chunk of that fortune came from US foreign aid.  So he's a kleptocratic dictator.  During the Obama administration, Abbas took no steps towards peace, but since Obama was so anti-Israel it did not make a difference.  There is no reason to support him.

What is actually happening these days is that the USA is changing the rules of the peace negotiations.  For a long time, those rules required everyone to agree to a fiction.  The Palestinians were a separate entity that was looking for peace.  Long established facts weren't really facts.  Now, however, the actual facts are being recognized.  Jerusalem was and is the capital of Israel.  The Palestinians will never be able to destroy Israel by getting the right to have many millions of their people move there.  The millions of Palestinians in countries around the world are not "refugees" of the 1948 war.  It makes no sense to encourage them to believe otherwise.  And now, most important, the actions of the Palestinians and their leadership are things for which they will be held accountable like any other nation.  If they denounce America and reject it and anything it proposes, they will not be supported with out tax dollars.

This will be a hard lesson for Abbas and the PA to learn.  It is, though, the clearest path to peace.  Lasting peace can only come from a recognition of reality.

Media Creating a False Narrative

I was listening to CBS News in my car this morning and was somewhat surprised to hear a report in the business news of a recent Quinnipiac poll that showed (according to the CBS reporter) that two-thirds of Americans thought that there personal financial situation was the same or worse compared to two years ago.  Given the strength of the American economy, particularly since President Trump took office 19 months ago, it seemed counter-intuitive that there would be such low numbers for personal economic situations.  I decided to check it out.

Here's the actual answer:  the poll asked this question: "Compared to 2 years ago, do you think your financial situation has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?" 

The results were these:

Better           36%
The same     45%
Worse          17%
Don't Know 1%

81% thought they were either better off or the same as two years ago.  Sixty two percent thought the same or worse.  So, it's all in how you state the results.  (Sure 62 is not the 67% needed for two thirds, so CBS did exaggerate the numbers too.)  More important though is the fact that by a margin of 21 (that's 36 to 17) more Americans thought they were better off than worse off.  CBS didn't mention that.

That was bad enough for the CBS report but I looked still further.  Quinnipiac also asked the same people what they thought of the nation's economy.  Fully 45% thought it is getting better while only 21% said getting worse.  When Trump took office, it was only 37% who said it was getting better.  In other words, not only do many more people say their own financial situation is better rather than worse now than two years ago, but there's been a big increase in people who think the national economy is getting better now too.

Despite the positive findings in the poll, CBS reported it as a negative.  They are trying to create the impression that there is trouble in the economy, something which is a false narrative.  I expect that this effort will continue right through election day.  Once again, we are seeing the media/Democrat alliance at work.

Another Close Senate Poll With Good GOP Results

There's a poll in Montana's senate race today that shows the GOP challenger leading incumbent Democrat senator Tester by 2%.  That's hardly an insurmountable lead, but it makes clear that the seat is fully in play.  It puts Montana, Missouri, Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Florida and New Jersey as states currently represented by Democrats in the senate where the polls show either a GOP lead or a very close race.  After nearly a year of hearing about the "blue wave", we are looking at the possibility of a pick up by the Republicans of eight seats in the senate.  It could all go the other way, but things keep looking better for the GOP (at least in the senate.)

So Who Decides When to Use The Force?

French president Macron is supposedly pushing hard for the establishment of an integrated European defense force.  To say the least, this is a problematic idea.

Think about it.  There would be a common defense force, but the countries would not be united into one entity.  Were a country to withdraw (as with Brexit), it would no longer have its own military to protect it.Ten years from now, an independent Poland would be left defenseless were it to leave the EU.  In 18th century America, we have a national army, but we were a united single country.  There would need to be major political changes in Europe for such a system to develop there.

Another problem arises as well.  If there's a European force, who gets to decide when to use it?  What if one member country is attacked.  Let's say that Iraq attacks Turkey; does the defense force protect the Turks?  Must French and German soldiers die to defend Turkey?  And if the EU as a whole decides not to step in, what do the Turks do.

The simple answer seems to be that you can't have a united military absent a united national identity.  Maybe some day Macron will understand this simple truth.

Oh, Give It A Rest

The mainstream media is now making a big deal about the White House's response to the death of John McCain.  For the record, President Trump sent his sympathy to the McCain family.  Then he ordered the flag flown at half staff in accordance to the regulations that govern the funeral of a senator.  For its part, the McCain family almost immediately let it be known that President Trump was not invited to the senator's funeral.  Trump said nothing about that and nothing more about McCain.

So to the mainstream media that's an outrage?  Really?  What do they want, a Wellstone memorial?  For those who cannot recall, senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota died in October 2012 right in the middle of a presidential election.  A memorial was held for the senator in Minneapolis and the Dems turned it into a Republican-bashing campaign event.  It blew up in their faces as many people were revolted by turning a funeral/memorial into a political event.

The simple truth is that Trump and McCain did not like each other.  That's pretty clear.  The President, however, gave McCain the honors to which he was entitled.  That's as it should be.  Indeed, the only reason that the mainstream media is so "upset" at the treatment of McCain is that it gives them a chance to bash Trump.  Trump did not bash McCain and treated him and his family with respect.  The Dems and the media need to give it a rest.

UPDATE:  President Trump just issued a statement announcing that the flag will stay at half staff until McCain's funeral and some other details.  I bet that we will now get articles denouncing Trump for taking so long and stating that the delay made the gestures meaningless.  It doesn't matter what Trump does; for the media/Dems, it's always wrong.

Goodbye to The Jacksonville Story -- Shooter Is In The #Resistance

Yesterday's big media story (other than the canonization of John McCain) was the mass shooting in Jacksonville at a gaming tourney.  The shooter, a guy named David Katz, turned out to be using hand guns that were legally obtained after a background check.  That didn't stop the media and Democrats like my state's goofy senator Chris Murphy from claiming that inaction by Congress led to the shooting.  Apparently, it doesn't matter that none of the gun proposals (aside from the unconstitutional confiscation of all weapons) would have made any difference in stopping this attack.  It's still the fault of the GOP controlled Congress for the Dems and the media.

Now, however, there's additional news which will likely end coverage of the story more quickly than the time between Chuck Schumer seeing a TV camera crew and his running over to give an interview.  It turns out that David Katz is a member of the anti-Trump #Resistance movement.  There's no way the media will talk about someone on their side who shot up a place with a legal handgun.  It just ruins the narrative.  Hey, Katz isn't even an illegal alien, so they can't tell us all that he matters more than the victims (like they did with the poor woman who was murdered in Iowa.)

 

But How Can That Be? -- A Good Deal With Mexico on Trade????

According to many reports, the US and Mexico have resolved all bilateral issues between the two countries.  That will allow Canada to rejoin the talks to see if the final three way NAFTA revision can be signed while Mexican president Nieto remains in office.  The final sticking point was a compromise on the importation into the USA of cars assembled in Mexico that do not meet the place of manufacture content limitations.  Existing plants will be grandfathered, but any new plants will have to meet the strict limitations.  It also seems (although this has not be confirmed) that any enlargement of existing plants will be treated as a new plant.

Think about what that compromise will do.  It will protect Mexico's present jobs in car assembly plants, but it will also mean that foreign car companies will not be able to avoid US import rules by doing final assembly in Mexico of parts made in Germany, Japan, Korea or China.  This will protect jobs currently in the USA.  That seems both like a win for the US and a reasonable compromise with Mexico.

How can it be that the USA negotiated a fair deal with Mexico that is much better for American workers than the old NAFTA treaty that Clinton put in place in the 1990's?  After all, Trump is President, and the media keeps telling us that he doesn't understand trade or business or foreign policy.  Of course, the media is just wrong, but will they admit it when the deal is finalized?  I doubt it.  Most likely, no matter what the final deal says, Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi will tell us that that it favors the wealthy over the American worker.  Truth won't matter.  Most likely, the mainstream media will repeat the charge that the deal is bad for the USA no matter what the actual truth is.

My guess, however, is that the average American will see through the media/Democrat BS and approve of the deal as the win that it is.

Why Can't The Media Do Its Job?

I was struck again today by just how little research reporters do in the mainstream media.  Journalists supposedly spend hours or days making sure that their stories are correct and then editors do fact checks, etc.  None of that is true, it appears. 

Here's a good example:  The Washington Post (supposedly one of the premier mainstream media outlets) ran a story this morning headlined "John McCain's Seat Will Likely Stay Republican".  The story reports that because the governor is Republican, he will likely appoint a Republican.  It then speculates that there will probably be a special election to fill the rest of McCain's term in 2020, but that it could be sooner.

This is a nonsensical story.  There is no doubt about what will happen.  A registered Republican will be appointed to fill McCain's seat.  The appointed senator's term will run until the general election in 2020.  At that point there will be a special election for the two years remaining in McCain's term.

How can I be so certain?  The answer is simple.  Arizona law (section 16-222) sets the rules for a vacancy in a US Senate seat.  The law REQUIRES that the replacement appointed by the governor be from the same party as the senator who vacated the seat.  That means the GOP certainly will hold this seat when the replacement is nominated.  The law REQUIRES that if the vacancy occurs less than 150 days before the next regularly scheduled primary election (which this one does), then there will be a special election held one the date of the second general election following the appointment.  That's November of 2020.

So what does this mean?  Simply put, the WaPo didn't bother to look to see what Arizona law requires in this situation.  It literally took me less than a minute to find the correct section of the law.  Couldn't one of the reports or editors or fact checkers at the WaPo spend a minute looking for this?

There's a reason why the name #FakeNews sticks to the mainstream media.  Even if the reporters aren't making things up, they still seem too lazy to do their jobs, and the editors and publishers just don't seem to care.

Putting Reality Back In Foreign Policy

There are reports this morning in Israeli media that the USA is going to announce this week that the so called "right of return" for Palestinians is off the table as far as America is concerned.  The "right of return" says that in a peace deal, any Palestinian refugee who wants to can return to live in Israel.  The Palestinians say that is about five million people.  Of course, such a "return" would end the status of Israel as a Jewish state.

Supposedly, according to the same reports, the Trump administration will also announce that it sees Palestinian refugees as only including at most one million people.  It is unclear what the US would use as the definition of refugee.

Both of these moves would put American foreign policy closer on the Middle East closer to reality.  There is no way the USA can support a "peace" deal that would end the existence of Israel in its current form.  That would be like seeking a trade deal with China in which the Chinese agree not to export anything to the rest of the world.  It's unrealistic. 

As for the so called refugees, even at one million, the number is way too high.  Remember, these are refugees from 1948, some 70 years ago.   A few hundred thousand Palestinians fled the country at that point.  The UN set up a special agency UNWRA to help support those people.  Over the years, nearly every Palestinian around the world sought help from UNWRA.  The numbers of people on the rolls grew and grew and grew.  UNWRA now supports refugees from 1948, their descendants, and millions of other imaginary people who are used to funnel money to crooks who defraud UNWRA.  Right now, for example, it is commonly accepted that there are more refugees in Gaza getting aid from UNWRA than there are residents of that region.  And remember, people who live in Gaza now and whose grandparents also lived there (the majority of Gaza residents) are not refugees under anyone's definition.

If the moves by the USA reported today are accurate, it would be President Trump's way of telling the Palestinian Authority that reality has to return to peace talks.  There will be no peace that ends with the agreed destruction of Israel.  Nor will there be any peace that continues UN support for phony refugees.

The sooner the Palestinians return to reality, the sooner there will be any possibility that we could actually see a peace deal.

John McCain

Senator McCain died yesterday of brain cancer.  We knew it was coming; his family announced the day before that he had stopped treatment, usually a sign of the end.  McCain was someone with whom I often disagreed.  Nevertheless, he was a man who deserves the honor and respect of his country.  No one could question his devotion to America and to his duty as he saw it.  This is a time to remember him for a life well spent and to send our thoughts and prayers to his family.

It bothers me how there are some who can't seem to get past the political at this moment.  This morning, I began my day by seeing an article from Yahoo News that was focused on the poor relationship between President Trump and senator McCain.  Really?  McCain passes away and Yahoo News sees it as an opportunity to attack Trump?  Why?  Can't the mainstream media just show respect for McCain on the event of his death.

There's no monopoly for bad behavior in this regard by the left.  On Twitter, there were those who said that they were glad McCain was gone.  I find that abhorrent.  It was a small group, but many were supposedly from the right.  I do wonder, though, if that is true.  After all, this sounds like the perfect way for the Russian bots the left keeps talking about to sow discord in the USA. 

Real Issues -- Syrian Chemical Weapons

In the midst of all the nonsense news that fills the airwaves on the mainstream media, there is some rather important stuff that doesn't get mentioned.  One such subject is the usage of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria.  During the Obama years, the president said that even movement of chemical weapons across the country would be a redline for the USA.  Then, the Assad forces used sarin gas over and over.  Obama just ignored it.  Then after 17 documented usages of the chemical weapons, the people who were attacked managed to take video of the aftermath of the attack and get it out to the West.  It was quickly on TV screens across Europe and North America.  Obama was forced to acknowledge the attack, but he still did not retaliate.  Instead he made a deal under which Assad promised never to use chemicals again and also promised to destroy all weapons he had of this sort.  Then, after about a year, the chemical attacks began once again.  So much for Obama's vaunted agreement.

Once Trump took office, there were further attacks.  After the President had been in office less than two months, the Assad forces launched a major chemical attack.  In response, President Trump condemned the attack and launched a punitive counterstrike that destroyed the airbase from which the attack was launched and also destroyed 20% of the Syrian Air Force.  The attacks stopped.  Then, about a year later, the Assad forces started a new round of chemical attacks.  Once again, President Trump responded with a major attack on Syrian targets and the attacks stopped.

That brings us to today.  The Assad forces are about to launch an attack on one of the last rebel stronghold in Idlib.  America has warned Assad that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.  This time, however, the Russians (who are Assad's main backers) have responded with a different tactic.  Russia announced yesterday that by the end of next week they expect a phony chemical attack by a group consisting of UK special forces and the local al Qaeda terrorists.  The aim will be to get the US airforces to hit the Assad forces very hard in a countermeasure.

Think about that.  Russia is actually accusing the Brits of coordinating phony attacks with al Qaeda in order to fool the USA to take action against Assad.  Anyone who understands the region knows that this is nothing but a conspiracy theory and an idiotic one at that.  Still, the indication is that the Russians will do what they can to protect Assad even if he used chemical weapons.  Even worse, by putting this false story out there, Russia is indicating that it expects Assad to hit the rebels with the forbidden chemical weapons very soon.  If that happens, the USA will respond with force.  Will the Russians oppose that attack.  Will the opposition just be verbal or could we see a confrontation between US and Russian forces?

The most likely outcome is that there will be no confrontation.  Indeed, Assad may yet back down.  Still, there is real risk of confrontation here.  Everything considered it is many times more important than the BS in the news in the USA.

Let's Not Forget Kavanaugh

The hearings for judge Kavanaugh are rapidly approaching.  There was a rather bizarre and laughable request by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to delay the hearings because Michael Cohen pleaded guilty the other day.  What's next?  Will they seek delay due to global warming?  Big foot sightings?  Alien mind control?

It's pretty clear that Senator Susan Collins is going to vote to confirm Kavanaugh after her meeting with the judge the other day.  It's also appearing more likely that Democrats from ND, WV and IN are likely to support confirmation as well.  The three are in close re-election battles and don't want to buck their constituents.

Most likely, Justice Kavanaugh will be sitting on the Supreme Court by some time in October.  Maybe he'll be there for the start of the next term.

Beeto Busted

Beeto O'Rourke is the Democrat running against Ted Cruz for the senate in Texas.  As happens every election cycle, the media is trying to paint O'Rourke as the Democrat who will finally break the Republican's hold on the Lone Star state.  When the primary was over, there were a few polls that put O'Rourke within 2% of Cruz.  That lead for Ted Cruz has widened now to about 6-8% in most polls.

Now, however, there has been a development that should end any chance O'Rourke has for success.  It's been disclosed that Beeto was arrested in the past for burglary and also for DUI.  He has a story of a "youthful indiscretion" while in college that supposedly "explains" the burglary charge.  The DUI, however, was resolved by O'Rourke going through a special program for DUI offenders under which they went to school and had the offense expunged from their record.  It's the DUI erasure program for those who have the means to get into the program.

One arrest could be overlooked.  Two arrests are likely to sink Beeto's campaign.  His was always a long shot attempt, but he probably no longer has any chance to win.

Ending Support For Terrorism and Promoting Peace

The White House announced this afternoon that the USA would be cutting some $200 million in annual aid given to the Palestinian Authority.  It's a very good move.

Think about it.  The PA has been fighting against an American plan for peace with Israel.  The president Mahmoud Abbas has already announced that the Palestinians oppose the American peace proposal.  That's rather amazing since no American proposal has yet been put forward.  In other words, the Palestinians treat an American proposal for peace much like the Democrats treated the President's latest nominee for the Supreme Court.  It's an incredible bit of bad faith to oppose something when you don't yet know what it is.

On top of this, the PA continues to pay pensions and death benefits to Palestinian terrorists who attacked Israelis as well as to their families.  American law requires that aid be cut off to entities that support terrorism.  That means that this cut of $200 million is required by this law.

No doubt, the Democrats will tell us and the media will repeat that following American law as well as asking the Palestinians to keep an open mind about peace proposals is an unreasonable position put forward by the President.  Of course, no matter what Trump said or did, the Dems and media would tell us it is unreasonable.

Still, it is important to recognize today's move as a proper and necessary part of American foreign policy.

Now Some Real News About North Korea

There's some actual news this afternoon.  The President told Secretary of State Pompeo to delay his trip to North Korea because there is too little progress in the denuclearization discussions as of now.  Trump blamed some of the slow down on China which he says is hoping to affect US/China trade talks by not helping much on the NK deal.  Trump did, however, send his regards to Chairman Kim of the NK's.

I can't say any of this is surprising.  There has been progress with North Korea.  We got our hostages back.  The NK's returned the remains of many Korean war dead.  North Korea blew up its nuclear test site.  North Korea dismantled one of its missile production/test facilities.  For its part, the USA has cancelled an upcoming joint military exercise with the South Koreans although it could quickly reinstate those exercises if things were to change.  Nothing else has been altered; the sanctions remain in effect. 

The real question now is whether or not China will respond to this event.  Trump is basically telling the Chinese that they will not get a better trade deal by holding the North Korean deal hostage.  It's a rather straight confrontation of Chinese leader Xi.  We will have to see whether the recent difficulties with the Chinese economy will pressure Xi to reach a deal with the USA or if those difficulties will strengthen Xi's resolve not to make any deal at all.

For what it is worth, I bet China blinks soon.

What Do You Think Of This?

What do you think of someone who pays others either not to say bad things about him or, at least, to keep silent about those bad things?  Should someone pay others to keep his good name from being besmirched?

These days, most people reading that paragraph would think about President Trump paying women for silence about alleged affairs with him.  I wasn't referring to Trump however.  I was talking about the owner of the Washington Post and Amazon, Jeff Bezos.  It's been discovered that Bezos has Amazon paying employees who work in Amazon's warehouses to post favorable items on social media about what it is like to work in those places.  Employees who find the working conditions poor and the compensation inadequate are being paid to sing the praises on line of Amazon as a place to work.

Why does the WaPo condemn Trump's payments to Stormy Daniels as inappropriate while remaining totally silent on Jeff Bezos doing basically something worse.  Daniels was just supposed to keep quiet.  Bezos paid for employees to tell lies on line. 

How About Something Really Great!

It's about time to post something really great.  Here's a music video from youtube that was posted by my niece.  It's worth taking some time from your day to watch something highly enjoyable.  Lila has real talent.

 

The Next NY Socialist?

Julia Salazar is a Democrat running in the upcoming NY primary for a state senate seat in Brooklyn.  She presents herself as a Socialist like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She also presents herself as an anti-Zionist Jew who is an immigrant from Jewish family from Colombia.  There's an article in Tablet Magazine, however, about Salazar that should not be missed.  It seems that Salazar was born in the USA, is not Jewish, was the head of an anti-abortion group in college (just a few years ago) and was until recently a strongly Zionist evangelical Christian.  She also has other phony statements in her background but these should be enough to give you the picture.  She seems to be a complete phony, to the extent that she may be suffering from the same sort of delusions that was the case with the white woman who pretended to be black so that she could head the local branch of the NAACP.

I recommend that you read the Tablet article.  It's one of the most amazing stories I've read in a long time. 

The Assault Continues

The mainstream media is still in all out assault mode on the President.  Much of it comes from the words of Michael Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis.  Davis, of course, is a long time Clinton crony who is reveling in the attention.  He claims, without offering any proof, that Cohen knows something about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  That claim comes despite Cohen testifying under oath that he had seen nothing that would lead anyone to believe that there was any such collusion.  Davis says that the senators who were questioning Cohen "didn't ask the right questions".

Let's back up for a moment.  If Cohen said that there was nothing there, and he said it under oath, then the question generally doesn't matter.  Cohen perjured himself, or he would be lying now if he said something different.  The only way around this would be if the question limited the time or the scope of the question.  But, of course, it didn't.

I understand that the Democrats are trying to do everything possible to bring down the President.  I just think that it's disgusting that a lawyer like Davis feels it's acceptable for him to lie on umpteen TV shows as part of that effort.

The Lowest of the Low

There's a go fund me page now to raise bail money for the illegal alien who murdered Mollie Tibbetts.  I didn't say "allegedly" murdered, because the guy has confessed to killing her.  He was indicted and the judge set bail for this violent murderer at five million dollars.  Normally, that sort of bail (which is rather common for this type of terrible crime) results in the murderer staying in prison pending trial.  But this guy is an illegal alien, so the far left Democrats are now out contributing cash to help him raise bail.  In just a few hours, they raised close to $200,000.  At that rate, it won't take long for this confessed murderer to be back out on the streets.  And why is that?  Just because he's an illegal alien and for some strange reason the Democrats think that illegals should not pay any price for being here illegally but rather should all get special privileges. 

I have a hard time deciding who is sicker:  the guy who killed Mollie Tibbetts or the people who contributed money for bail to put him back on the streets.

Another Light Bulb Bites The Dust -- In Europe

Some years back, the USA and Europe each got rid of incandescent light bulbs.  They used too much energy we were told.  Everyone was to switch to fluorescent bulbs to save energy and lower emissions.  Of course, fluorescent cost more but lasted longer.  In a room with many lights, it looked weird to have some fluorescent and some incandescent.  Some people switched to halogen lights instead of fluorescent; the light is much more natural looking and there is also a significant energy savings.

Now, Europe has decided that it is going to ban halogen lights.  People are also supposed to give up the fluorescent ones.  Everything is going to be LED.  This will reduce energy usage and emissions, or so we are told.  The problem is that LED lights are much more expensive than the others.  And once again, if there are multiple lights in a room, the LED and others cannot be mixed.  That means that average homeowners will soon be faced with high bills for bulbs as the switch to LED goes ahead.  The good news is that many of these LED bulbs will last for 50 years or more.  The bad news is that very few of the homeowners will last for 50 years or more.

It's ridiculous that the EU is deciding to mandate LED lighting.  Over time, the market would surely lead most commercial spaces to switch over to LED.  It seems unfair to force people to incur heavy expenses for the switch however. 

The Trappes Murders

Three people were stabbed to death in Trappes in France.  ISIS immediately claimed responsibility, but who knows.  It turned out that the three dead were relatives of the knife wielding attacker who police "neutralized".  The guy with the knife was a Muslim, but that doesn't make him a terrorist.  It sounds more like the ISIS people have realized just how marginalized they have become so they are now trying to take credit for anything they can.

Time For The Bizarre In The Anti-Trump World

We've reached a new low in the media war on President Trump.  This time the subject is South Africa.  In the last year, there have been persistent reports of white farmers in that country being thrown off their land by black government officials or black mobs.  There have also been many reports of white farmers being murdered in order to get them off their land.  Fights over land ownership is one thing, but murders of farmers is a completely different subject.  President Trump tweeted in the last day that he has asked the State Department to look into these alleged murders.  That's all; the President wants the State Department to get more information about what's happening in South Africa in this regard.  It sounds like a prudent and appropriate step for the federal government to take.  America needs full information before it decides if any policy step is appropriate.

Of course, getting the facts before acting is only prudent and appropriate if you are someone other than President Trump, at least that's what the mainstream media thinks.  The President is being criticized for stoking racial tensions in South Africa and for inserting the USA in a purely domestic South African situation.  Really?  Are they kidding?  Learning the truth isn't stoking racial tensions.  Finding out if a country to whom we give aid is murdering one group of its citizens is hardly just a domestic question for South Africa.  But, if you are the media, the only rule is this:  "No matter what Trump does, it's bad and wrong."

Personally, I'm tired of all the media nonsense.

Another Surprising Senate Poll -- Wisconsin

I wrote earlier about the polls in the senate races in Florida and New Jersey and the bad news they had for Democrats.  Since then another poll was released.  This one is in Wisconsin and is by Marquette University which is usually a middle of the road pollster.  It shows incumbent Democrat Baldwin ahead of challenger Republican Vukmir by only 2%.  The numbers are 49 to 47%.

It's worth noting that all the rating people, like Larry Sabato and Cook's Political Report, have the seat rated as likely Democrat or better.  The idea that a poll shows the race within the margin of error on the poll is a shocker.

For a long time last spring, Wisconsin was on the radar with Tammy Baldwin being considered a prime target for a GOP gain.  Then as the primary approached Baldwin's lead grew and grew.  Now it seems that all that really happened is that some Republicans who were engaged in a primary battle couldn't bring themselves to vote for the primary candidate they opposed, so the GOP vote was suppressed. 

It's also worth noting that 48% of poll respondents had no opinion of Vukmir.  That means that if Vukmir can come across well in the campaign, it could lead to an easy victory.

If Wisconsin turns into another senate battleground, that will make it ever more likely that the GOP will make some nice gains in November.

There is, of course, a long time until then.  Things can, and surely will, change.

Two Very Interesting Senate Polls

There are two very interesting polls in senate races that ought to be giving Democrats heartburn at the moment.

The first is in Florida and was taken by Florida Atlantic University.  It shows Scott (R) beating the incumbent Nelson (D) by 6%.  The numbers are 45 to 39%.  It's still early in the election campaign, but a margin this large against the incumbent is a very bad sign for Nelson.

The second poll is in New Jersey.  That poll was taken by Quinnipiac, so it should be skewed toward the Democrats.  It shows the Democrat incumbent Menendez at 43% and his Republican challenger Bob Hugin at 37%.  In New Jersey, unlike in Florida, the Republican is essentially an unknown.  (Scott is the current governor of Florida.)  That means that the poll is basically a referendum on Menendez.  If he's only getting 43% is a Democrat skewed poll, he is in big trouble.  Sure, Hugin can run a campaign that manages to disqualify himself as a valid candidate, but that seems unlikely.  If Hugin can come across as a reasonable choice, then the bulk of the 20% who have no preferred candidate are likely to break for Hugin by a big margin.  That puts Menendez at great jeopardy of losing.

For the longest time, the media has been talking about Democrats who are threatened in this upcoming election because of strong support for Trump in their states.  Neither of the two discussed above have been on these lists.  It's a bad sign for the Democrats in the senate.

The Cohen Plea Is Less Than It Seems

So Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a list of crimes.  For him and his family, the key crimes are bank fraud and tax evasion.  For the media, the key crimes are campaign finance related.  Cohen pleaded guilty to being involved with the one woman being paid off by the National Enquirer for it to acquire the rights to her story.  The second plea is that he arranged the payment to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet.  Both are said to be done at the direction of Donald Trump in order to influence the election.

There are a few important points to keep in mind when considering the impact of this guilty plea.

1.  This is no more than Cohen agreeing to throw the President under the bus in order to get a better deal for himself.  It is not a decision by a court after a trial at which the facts were presented.  It has no binding effect of any sort on anyone other than Cohen himself.

2.  There seems to be no actual campaign finance violations despite Cohen agreeing to say that there is.  The money at issue here is not campaign funds.  Trump repaid Cohen for the cash he fronted, and since this was done at Trump's direction, that was always the plan.  That means that at most Trump used his own cash to pay off these women.  That's not campaign funds.  It's not covered by the campaign finance law.  It may be sleazy, but it's perfectly legal.

3.  The deal for the plea is a set up by the Democrats.  Cohen's lawyer is Lanny Davis, a long time Clinton ally and fixer.  Clearly, Davis had no problem pushing a deal that points to Trump, whether or not it is true.

4.  Without a doubt, the fact that the President used Cohen as an attorney for so many years speaks poorly of him.  Cohen is a low life.  Aside from the campaign finance stuff that isn't a real violation, though, none of the bad stuff Cohen did has any involvement with Trump at all.

We will now surely get at least a week or two and perhaps more of the media/Democrats screaming about impeachment and the like.  It was BS before, and it remains BS now.  There's no other way to put it.  Nevertheless, we are surely going to get a multi-week serving of this garbage.

Manafort Jury Can't Decide?

The jury sent a note to the judge today in the Manafort trial asking what they should do if they cannot come to agreement on a charge (there are 18).  There's no way of knowing if they've decided on some or most or none of the charges.  The note makes clear, however, that on at least some of the counts the jury is deadlocked.  That's another really bad sign for the prosecution.

Manafort could well still be convicted, but if you are betting on the outcome, the odds that there will be a hung jury or an verdict of not guilty just went up by 10-20%.

UPDATE:  The jury is back finally.  They couldn't decide on 10 counts but found Manafort guilty on 8.  That's enough.  Manafort is about as squeezed as he possibly could ever be. 

 

They're Going To Be Disappointed

Michael Cohen has made a tentative plea deal according to ABC News.  The media is breathlessly awaiting further news in which Cohen has given some important nugget of critical proof to Mueller about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.  It's going to be a long, long wait.  In fact, it will be a never-ending wait.  The simple truth is that Cohen doesn't have anything of the sort to offer (provided he tells the truth.)  Cohen wasn't even being investigated by the Mueller team; the investigation was by the US Attorney for the SDNY and centered on bank fraud with regard to Cohen's taxi business.  It could be that Cohen broke the law; we have no way to know that.  What we do know, though, is that Trump had nothing to do with that taxi business, so there's no connection to be offered.

There is the Stormy Daniels payment of $130,000 that Cohen arranged through a shell corporation.  That had nothing to do with Russia though.  It also is not something that forms the basis for an attack on Trump.  Did Trump know about the payment?  Maybe, but so what?  Trump didn't have any obligation to prevent such a payment; indeed, the payment was perfectly legal.  And as for reporting that payment, there is a real question whether or not it needed to be listed separately by the campaign.  After all, the Democrats funneled $13 million of campaign cash to Fusion GPS for the Trump dossier but called it legal services by giving the cash to their attorney and having him pay Fusion.  If that is permissible, then surely using non-campaign cash to pay about 1% as much to Stormy through an attorney is likewise fine. 

This is just another of those big news stories that turn out to be nothing much of importance.

UPDATE:  The NY Times is now reporting that the plea deal includes no requirement that Cohen cooperate in any other investigation.  That's the end of any hope by the Dems and the media that this has anything to do with Trump (if true -- it is the Times after all.)
UPDATE 2:  Cohen surprised and pled that he paid women what is being called "hush money" by the media at the direction of the candidate.  He is pleading guilty among other things to attempting to commit campaign finance fraud.  Until the transcript is available, it is hard to see just how this affects Trump, if at all.  After all, if Trump paid his own money to these women, it would be perfectly legal.  The question will be how much Cohen involves Trump is some sort of plan to do this in a way that would violate the campaign finance laws.  If Cohen says that it was always planned that Trump would pay him back for the payments, the Trump would not have done anything illegal.  We will have to wait and see.

A Bad Omen

Last week, two men were arrested in the USA on charges of spying for Iran.  Both are Iranian nationals, although one had dual US-Iranian citizenship.  According to the indictment, for the most part, the two men were spying on an anti-government Iranian group active in the USA.  The men attended rallies against the Iranian government and took pictures and gathered information about others who were there.  Then they passed the info on to Teheran.  That's bad enough.  Worse, however, is that the two men also surveyed various Jewish religious buildings in various cities to determine what security measures were employed at each site.  These included synagogues and community centers.  There is no reason for the Iranians to gather intel about security measures at Jewish religious institutions unless they are considering taking further actions at such locations.  The idea that the Iranians are considering launching attacks on Jewish sites in the USA is chilling. 

It's good that the Justice Department caught these guys, but one has to wonder how many more Iranian spies are here working in the USA.

A Bit More About The Socialist Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Socialist of the moment.  She won a primary in the Bronx and was proclaimed the new face of the Democrat party.  Then she went on multiple TV shows and appeared to be a moron who knew next to nothing about economics, government or many other subjects.  She did claim to be part of the "working class" but now I've discovered that this too is a lie.

Ocasio-Cortez grew up in the affluent suburb of Yorktown Heights, north of New York City.  To put in context what that town is like, the median family income there is $137,580 per year.  In other words, it is an upscale town or at least upper middle class.  Ocasio-Cortez's father was an architect, an upscale white collar job. 

I don't care whether or not Ocasio-Cortez has a working class background or not.  It doesn't change her views or her talents.  I just find it offensive that she feels compelled to lie about her background so as to prove her Socialist bona fides.

Mr Cheerful, George Will

Do you know who George Will is?  If you watch cable news, you've seen him.  He's a rather soft spoken pundit with a preference for big words.  He's also partial to bowties.  Oh, I left out the most important part:  he's a pompous fool who is certain that he is always correct.  (I realize that this description--the pompous fool part, not the bowties,etc-- describes a big chunk of the punditry on cable news.  Still Will is in a league of his own when it comes to thinking himself above the hoi polloi.  And he's always disapproving of something.

For example, Will's latest commentary discusses how a major economic collapse is coming.  Will, of course, doesn't say when or how the collapse will occur, he just scoffs at current growth and reminds us all that sooner or later it will all come crashing down.  If it doesn't happen, he will just claim that it hasn't happened YET.  If it does happen, we will get the George Will "I told you so."

There used to be a market for pundits like Will.  They tried so very hard to seem above the crowd while dispensing mundane and pedantic commentary.  Now, with the hard crashing combat in the political arena, a pundit like Will just seems an anachronism.  He's casting a jaundiced eye while other pundits are beating each other about the head and shoulders.  As a result of the change in the news atmosphere, Will is now relegated to appearing on those panels on CNN along with seemingly limitless numbers of other commentators.  Most likely, he will soon vanish as even the CNN audience grows tired of hearing from him.

Omarosa Is Getting Desperate

Omarosa was fired by the White House not long ago.  She wasn't happy.  As a result, she went on a big public push to condemn the President and all at the White House.  She came forward with tapes she illegally made in the most secret area of the White House; they recorded General Kelly telling her that she was fired.  The tapes weren't really newsworthy, but the media went into a feeding frenzy.  CNN had Omarosa on something like every ten minutes for a few days so she could tell her anti-Trump story.  But that was then.  Now, the Omarosa story has been supplanted by the cancellation of the security clearance of John Brennan, another minor story that the media has blown out of proportion.  Omarosa lost her prominent position, and she doesn't like it.  The result is that she has tried to come up with a new angle to keep her on TV.  Omarosa yesterday announced that Donald Trump wants to "start a race war" in the USA.  As proof, Omarosa points to the "fact" that the President doesn't have a special assistant for matters pertaining to the black community.

I'm not making this up.  Omarosa said that because the President doesn't have a special assistant for African American affairs, he wants to start a race war in the USA.  Look, no one ever said that Omarosa was the smartest person around, but this has to be among the dumbest thing ever said.  She's just pandering to the hysterical anti-Trump people in the media.  Here she is, a former White House staffer accusing Trump of wanting to start a race war.  It's so bizarre that she won't even get much TV time out of it, even on CNN.  Omarosa just made herself a laughing stock instead.

Think about it.  Here's a woman who worked for over a year to get Trump elected.  Then she worked for over a year in the White House.  Now, suddenly, she says the President wants to start a race war?  And that only happened after she was fired?  Why would she work for such a person?

We will soon see the last of Omarosa.  I, for one, won't miss her.

Another Outrage by ICE -- They Arrest a Man Taking His Wife to the Hospital

Yesterday, the mainstream media went to town reporting on the story of a California man who was stopped and taken into custody by ICE as the man was driving his wife to the hospital to deliver their child.  The stories focused on the wife/mother who had to drive the rest of the way to the hospital herself even though she was in labor.  She made it and mother and son are doing fine.

But here's the piece missing from the first batch of stories:  the guy arrested was wanted for murder.  Sure, he was an illegal alien, but he was wanted for murder.  That's MURDER in case you missed it.

Is there really anyone out there who says that ICE should have let the guy go despite the murder charges?  I don't think so.  Even the most strident opponent of ICE and immigration enforcement would admit that murder is a sufficient reason to arrest someone even if he's here illegally.

So far, we've heard no excuses or apologies from the media for failing to report that the guy was arrested for murder.  I'm not waiting to hear any either.

How Is China's Economy Doing?

As usual these days, there is a major disagreement about an important international fact.  This time, the issue is just how well the Chinese economy is doing.  Supposedly, China's economy is growing at the rate of over 6% at least according to official figures.  Not too many people believe those figures, however.  What we don't know is whether the actual figures show China growing at 4%, 1% or shrinking in terms of GDP.  Any of those (or other) figures can be justified based upon recent events.  The Chinese government has shifted from tightening to reduce dependence on debt to a more accommodative policy to promote growth.  The Chinese currency has seen a decline of about 9% in the last few months.  Nine percent is hardly a collapse, but in terms of a major international currency, that is a really big move.  We could go into the weeds to discuss various other indicators, but the point is that there is a perceived issue with the rate of continuing Chinese economic growth.

So how important would a slowdown in China be to the world economy?  Remember, China has the second biggest economy in the world.  It is the world's biggest consumer of metals and many other commodities.  It is also a major user of shipping.  That means that a slowdown in China would have ripples (or even waves) throughout the world economy that could cause real harm.

That brings us to the second question:  is the slowdown in China the result of the trade war with the USA or merely a fortuitous coincidence that amplifies the effects of US actions on trade.  Again, we really don't know the answer because China's economic fortunes are so opaque. 

One thing that we all should know:  the question of Chinese economic performance is so much more important than the Mueller investigation and all the anti-Trump hysteria.  It could affect the lives of billions of people around the world.  Even so, the media hardly mentions it.

Oh NO! The Government Admits Reality and The Left Goes Nuts

The Department of Energy issued a memo recently in which it acknowledged reality, namely that reducing the use of petroleum is no longer the national priority that it used to be.  The left is going crazy about this.

Think about it.  For the first half of the twentieth century, the USA produced huge amounts of oil and was the worlds largest producer.  Then huge deposits were found elsewhere in the world and American supplies began to run down.  The price of oil was quite low, and it became the major source of energy used in the USA.  Then came OPEC, the 1973 oil embargo and the rising prices of petroleum products.  Oil that had sold for $10 a barrel went up to $100 per barrel.  America imported about half of all oil that we used domestically and spend over half a trillion dollars per year to get that oil.  Starting in 1973, it became a national imperative to reduce the amount of oil we imported.  The cost was draining our economy and it put our national security in the hands of other countries that were supplying the oil.

The result of the imperative to reduce oil consumption began to push the economy and the nation to compensate to reduce oil use.  Gas mileage in cars was improved, some pushed by the market and some by government regulation.  In 1972, the car that won the Mobil Economy Run, (an annual coast to coast race to determine which care had the best mileage) was won by a car that got 22 mpg.  So the very best highway mileage was 22 mpg.  Many cars got half that amount; some got even less.  Today, most cars sold easily beat that 22 mpg and 30 is not uncommon.  Hybrid vehicles do even better. 

Another area in which petroleum usage has fallen is in power generation.  In the early 1970s, between 15 and 20 percent of all electric power in the USA came from burning petroleum.  Today, that figure is less than one half of one percent of all electricity generated.  The big increase is that natural gas has replace not only petroleum but also coal in many plants.  This change reduced emissions by more than 70% alone.

On the supply side of the equation, there was also a dramatic change.  The use of fracking has released America's shale oil reserves for production.  As a result, the USA is once again moving to be the world's largest oil producer.  American imports of oil are falling consistently, and the USA is now exporting oil (and gas) around the world. 

Put all this together and the daily cost of net oil imports (imports less exports) is very low and going lower.  Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela no longer hold the national security of the USA in their hands (or their oil pumps).  The economy and security are both removed from the danger list regarding oil.

So what will it mean if the higher mileage standards mandated by the government are relaxed?  First, it will result in automobiles being less expensive and easier for the average American to afford.  For the high mileage already achieved to be increased as previously ordered, the car manufacturers would have been required to spend billions and billions to redesign their products in ways that would not benefit consumers except through better mileage.  The higher priced vehicles would have meant lower sales and a slower economy.  That means fewer jobs here in the USA.

But the left says that no longer mandating super high mileage by vehicles would speed up global warming.  After all, cars are a principal source of emissions.  This may sound good, but it ignores the fact that there is only one country in the world that has significantly reduced carbon emissions in this century:  the USA.  And it also ignores the truth that as of yet, the link between carbon emissions and higher temperatures has yet to be demonstrated in any method other than computer models that have all been proven to be inaccurate.  Shouldn't there be some valid evidence of global warming before we turn our country and our economy upside down to prevent something that may not be happening?

 

UPDATE on the McGahn Story

When the New York Times broke is story that the White House counsel was talking extensively to the special prosecutor (of course based upon unnamed "sources"), we got speculation that he was providing details about possible obstruction of justice by the President.  Judging from the past, I didn't believe it was a true story, and I wrote about that yesterday.  Today, we seem to be getting a great deal of verification that my take on the story was the correct one.

Rudy Giuliani was asked about the story and said it seemed to him to be a sign of desperation by the Mueller team.  He said that the President was well aware that McGahn had spent time talking to the Mueller team.  He also said that he thought the Mueller team was trying to lure the President into sitting down with them by first leaking a story indicating that McGahn was cooperating so that Mr. Trump would want to talk to set the record straight.

This morning, President Trump tweeted that he had allowed McGahn and all others the Mueller team had requested to talk to the special prosecutor.  He also called the idea that McGahn had turned on him Fake News and said that the reporters on the story from the Times knew that.

The key, of course, is that the fact that McGahn spoke to the special prosecutor is uncontested but also nothing surprising.  If the Special Prosecutor wanted to coordinate receipt of documents and witnesses from the White House, that would go through McGahn.  On the other hand, the idea that McGahn had "flipped" on Trump is just speculation, and some rather unbelievable speculation at that.