Lies, More Lies and Fake News

I just read an article about how young people are voting in much higher numbers in early voting this year.  The author of the article pointed to a four fold increase by early voters under 30 in Pennsylvania compared to the last midterm in 2014.  That's just Fake News.  Pennsylvania does not have early voting.  You have to show up on Election day to cast your ballot.  Nevertheless, this nonsense is being pushed by the media in order to make sure that Dems don't get discouraged and Republicans do.

The truth is that according to actual figures put out by the secretary of state in the various states, there is a surge in early voting this year, but it is from Republican voters.  On average, Republicans are exceeding their number from 2016 which is extraordinary.  Democrat early voting numbers are down.  Young voters are especially NOT turning out.  For example, the average age of early voters in Arizona through yesterday was over 60.  That's official state data.

 

A Special Place in Hell for Luke Darby

I happened upon an article by a GQ staff writer named Luke Darby in which he "reports" on the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

Here's the disgusting way that Darby "reports" on what the President did.  "Donald Trump—who tacitly eggs on anti-Semitism with his talk of globalist conspiracies and the menace of George Soros—reportedly had to be convinced by his daughter and son-in-law to formally condemn violence against Jewish people."

Now what Darby says is not true.  Indeed, the idea of Donald Trump being anti-Semitic is laughable.  Nevertheless, charges of this nature are just beyond the pale.  It's an incredibly insane idea to try to blame anti-Semitism on Trump.  Trump's daughter is now a practicing Jew and some of his grandchildren are Jewish.  Are we to believe that Trump is now biased against them?  I don't think so.

Nevertheless, mindless fools like this Luke Darby character still push these lies without giving them a second thought.  Remember, if Trump were to talk about George Soros' funding of many left wing causes, is that any different than Darby and his ilk discussing Sheldon Adelson and his funding of conservative causes?  Is Darby an anti-Semite if he talks about Adelson (who is also Jewish)?

These disgusting people who claim to be journalists need to shut up.  I know that the election is just one week away, but the endless phony personal attacks have just gone too far.  At this point, Darby and his friends in the media really are enemies of a civil society.

The Lack Of Rationality

It didn't take long.  There is now a spate of articles by leftists denouncing President Trump for suggesting that he could end birthright citizenship by executive order and then going further to state that Trump should be impeached if he attempts to issue such an order.  Get it?  There's no reason to discuss whether or not the President has the power to end birthright citizenship.  According to the left, he does not, and there's no reason for any further consideration of that issue.  Indeed, any attempt to try such a thing is grounds to throw the President out of office.

There's nothing like the closed mind of the average leftist pundit/politician.  The entire basis for birthright citizenship is the 14th Amendment.  None of these articles explain how it could be that for 100 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment there was no birthright citizenship.  None of these articles try to explain why the senator who drafted the language in the 14th Amendment said in the floor debate that the Amendment would not apply to children of foreigners who happened to be in the USA.  No, those are not issues to be discussed.  The result is simply announced and then everyone must follow it or be impeached.

That's not even the only good example of a closed leftist mind today.  Senator Chris Murphy, the Democrat who embarrassingly represents my state of Connecticut commented today on the story that a woman is about to come forward to charge the special prosecutor Robert Mueller with sexually abusing her and Mueller's response that he has referred the matter to the FBI to investigate claims that the woman was paid off to make a false claim of that sort.  Murphy's comment was that this was an example of President Trump's "octopus like corruption machine."  Get it?  Neither Murphy nor anyone else knows the details of the alleged claim against Mueller.  It could be a claim like the phony one Michael Avenatti pushed against Justice Kavanaugh or it could be one with great support.  We don't know.  Neither Murphy nor anyone else has any basis for claiming that President Trump was involved in any way in arranging for this woman to come forward.  Most likely he had nothing whatsoever to do with the entire thing.  It doesn't matter.  Murphy has pronounced Trump guilty of arranging for a false claim to be made against saint Robert Mueller, and that's despicable.  All that "believe the woman" crap that Murphy was pushing just a few weeks ago is now out the window.  The idea that one needs evidence before accusing someone of wrongdoing is likewise out the window.  Murphy's view is completely irrational.

Look, I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule on birthright citizenship.  I do recognize, however, that there are arguments on both sides.  Most rational people also recognize that fact.  I have no basis for judging a possible claim of wrong doing by Mueller.  We will have to hear the allegations and investigate them to see if there is credible evidence to support them.  I have no basis for blaming the President for these claims coming out now.  Again, rational people would agree with that.

This is the biggest problem we have right now in having the politicians in this country work together.  When one side is completely irrational in its actions and beliefs, there really is no way to get people to work together.  It's both dangerous to our society and very sad as well.

 

Maybe Now They'll Stop

I'm a Boomer.  That means that when I was growing up, people remembered just who the Nazis actually were.  No one called political opponents Nazis.  It was obviously ridiculous.  There was a tiny American Nazi Party, but it was just a few kooks who were both reviled and ignored.

At some point, the left decided that it would be a good tactic to call opponents Nazis.  Many of us remember those Bush/Hitler signs that the Code Pink nuts used to carry during the Iraq war.  The tactic got more and more common as fewer people remembered who the actual Nazis were and what they did.  Now, not a day goes by without someone on the left calling president Trump a Nazi.

But now we have a reminder of reality.  A self-professed Nazi went into a synagogue in Pittsburgh and murdered 11 innocent people just because they were Jewish.  It's a horror of the sort that a true Nazi would perpetrate.

Hopefully, this event will stop the casual use of charges of Nazism by the left.  It is a subject that ought not be trivialized in this way.

Are The Children Of Illegal Aliens Automatically US Citizens?

The big new story today is that President Trump is considering issuing an executive order that will make children of illegal aliens no longer automatic citizens of the USA.  The issue of so called anchor babies has been tossed around in the last few years.  Should illegals be able to enter the USA and have a baby who is automatically a citizen.  That act pretty much cements the parents ultimate right to staying here.

The key point in the debate is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Section 1 of that Amendment reads as follows:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That sounds pretty clear if you just read the first sentence.  "All persons born ... in the US...are citizens."  But as is often the case with the Constitution, it is not that simple. 

First, it is important to remember that the 14th Amendment was designed to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War.  Much of it covers how Confederate soldiers and states were to be treated.  It also covered how former slaves were to be treated.  Simply put, a former slave born in the US was a citizen.  That's why the first sentence of the Amendment was included in the text.  It did not consider children of those here illegally.

Second, for the first 100 years after the 14th Amendment was passed, the children of people here illegally were NOT automatically citizens.  That's a pretty good indicator that when the amendment was adopted, it was not meant to cover those children.  The practice was changed in the 1960s.

The truth is that this will be a question on which the Supreme Court will have to rule.  We I a Justice on that Court, I believe I would hold that these children are citizens.  The language is just too clear to conclude anything else.  Nevertheless, I have not researched the matter fully.  I could see it possible that the other side would prevail.

One thing is important to remember, however.  The media headlines today scream about how the President is going to "revoke" the citizenship of anchor babies.  That's nonsense.  All those born to illegals who already have US citizenship cannot be stripped of it absent due process and equal protection.  That means that absent a full court hearing, no one can lose his or her citizenship.  No executive order could achieve that end.

Volusia, Florida Attack -- Ignored

Someone did a drive by shooting last night of the Volusia Florida Republican campaign office.  Five bullets went through the front window and shattered it.  Fortunately, no one was hit because the office happened to be empty at the time of the attack.

With the terrible shooting in Pittsburgh and the "suspicious package" bomber, you would think that the media would be all over this new gun attack on a political group, but it's not.  The story is being ignored by the national media for the most part.  Even parts of the Florida media is treating this as a non-event.  Here's the headline from one liberal outlet in the region:  "Republican Party headquarters vandalized by gunfire in Volusia".  That's the actual headline.  Some nutjob does a drive by shooting at a political office and the media treats it as an act of vandalism rather than attempted murder because the targets are Republicans.

This is just unacceptable.

Which Is This?

It's worth it sometimes to think about the treatment of political claims by the media.  Here are a few good examples.  Think how the media should respond to each.

1.  A candidate for governor used to work as CEO of a company that makes payday loans.  His opponent says that this proves that the fellow was trying to take advantage of the poor and this makes him unfit to be governor.

2.  A candidate for statewide office is accused by two former girlfriends of having abused them mostly by beating them.  There are police reports from when one of the girlfriends sought help after a particularly severe beating.  The candidate denies the claims and just goes on with his campaign.

3.  A candidate for governor tells interviewers that he wants to raise taxes, put tolls on highways and create a new tax on automobiles.  When his opponent starts talking about cutting taxes, the first guy announces that he is a tax cutter who will reduce the tax burden.  He acts as if he never made the prior contradictory statements.

4.  A candidate for the top law enforcement position in a state says that if elected there will be no investigations of the governor's office unless such investigation is requested by the governor.

5.  A candidate for governor is under investigation by the FBI.  There is incontrovertible proof that the candidate took "gifts" from an undercover FBI agent in exchange for favors given to the FBI agent.

6.  A candidate for governor is revealed to have been arrested for burglary and also DUI.  That candidate is also reported in the police records to have tried to flee the scene of the DUI but was restrained by witnesses until police arrived.

7.  A candidate for governor says he thinks that it is a good idea to keep illegal aliens out of the USA.  The candidate announces support for a border wall.

These are all state races, so I'm going to discuss the reactions of the state and, if applicable, the national media.

The items that got extensive coverage in the state media were numbers 1 and 7 above.  Items number 5 and 6 got some attention from the local media, but not very much.  Items 2, 3, and 4 were left essentially uncovered by state media.

Think about that.  Keith Ellison is trying to be elected Attorney General of Minnesota as a Democrat.  He has been the subject of some very credible allegations that he beat two former girlfriends.  The Minnesota media has treated the story as if it did not exist.  That's item 2.

On the other hand, Bob Stefanowski was brought in as CEO of a company that had big problems.  That company, among other things, made payday loans.  Stefanowski revamped the management, lowered the interest rates charged and brought order out of the chaos at the company.  Stefanowski is the Republican candidate for governor of Connecticut.  The state media has treated this story as if it is some sort of scandal that disqualifies Stefanowski.

The truth is that the allegations against Ellison are 100 times more important than the issue of the payday loan company and Stefanowski.  Ellison, however, is a Democrat, so there's no coverage.  Stefanowski is a Republican, so there's coverage of something that really doesn't matter.  In fact, each of the allegations regarding Democrat candidates list above got scant media attention.  Each one the dealt with a Republican was treated as if it was the end of the world.

It would be nice to see, just once, an election in which the media behaved fairly.

Greenland Is Gaining Ice -- How Can That Be?

The initial figures are in for the change in surface ice and snow in Greenland through the end of the summer of 2018.  These figures are computed annually and they measure the change in the total amount of ice and snow across the island for the previous year.  For the year ending in September of 2018, there was an enormous increase of more than 150 billion tons of ice on the surface of Greenland during the preceding year.  The prior year (which ended 9/30/17) also saw a gain of about that same amount of ice and snow.  To be complete, one would have to adjust these figures for the calving of icebergs that break off into the North Atlantic from glaciers in Greenland.  Those figures have to be compiled by satellite data and will not be available for a few months.  Nevertheless, the figures which are now available are a dramatic slap in the face of the global warming models and theories.  Remember, we've been told for multiple decades now that rising global temperatures would result in major melting of ice in Greenland and a concomitant rise of sea level.  Instead of major ice melting, Greenland has just completed two years of major ice formation.  So much for the validity of the global warming theory.

But there's more.  Detailed satellite observations of Antarctica during this century have shown that there is an annual increase in the ice on that continent which is even more than the increase in ice in Greenland discussed above.  Since Greenland and Antarctica are the two principal repositories of ice on Earth, major buildups there mean that sea levels should actually fall rather than rise.  It also means that global temperatures are not rising.

For year after year we were told that temperature rise around the globe is inevitable.  Now we get the data which should show the results of that temperature rise, and it indicates exactly the opposite is happening.

For what it is worth, this is what one would call actual science.  We get data to see if the theory is correct.  In this case, it seems that global warming theory is flawed at best and completely wrong at worst.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Andy McCarthy said earlier today that President Trump's opponents do much more for him than he could ever do for himself, and it's true.  They slam Trump no matter what he says or does.  Much of the time, the criticisms are obviously unreasonable.  Often, the criticism is based upon a lie.  The strange thing is that these people often don't even realize what they are doing.

Here's an example:

Newsweek published an article in which it "reported" based upon unnamed sources that before the President condemned the Pittsburgh synagogue shootings he had to be convinced by his daughter Ivanka to do so.  That's an obvious false story.  First of all, the idea that the President or any president of the United States would need to be convinced to condemn a deadly and hateful attack by a Nazi is ridiculous.  The only issue would be HOW best to condemn it, not whether or not to condemn it.

Second, Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner are themselves orthodox Jews.  They wouldn't have been working at the White House on a Saturday.  Almost certainly, they would have been at synagogue themselves for the Sabbath services.  Now the Secret Service would have been guarding Ivanka, so there would be a means to get a message to her, but it is extremely unlikely that they would have interfered with the services for that purpose. 

Third, the attack began at about 9:55 am according to the news reports.  It concluded with the arrest of the shooter at roughly 10:20.  President Trump's first comment on the event came within 45 minutes when he tweeted out a warning about what was transpiring.  Not long after that, the President tweeted out condolences to the victims and their families and condemnation of the attack.  He also said he would be speaking to the nation about the attack shortly.  That statement came within another 20 minutes.  There was no opportunity for Trump to even have a real conversation with Ivanka before he issued that statement.

If you still doubt this, take a look at Ivanka's own statement on the events in Pittsburgh.  She took the extraordinary step of issuing a tweet at about 1:45.  It's extraordinary because she would normally never go on Twitter on the Sabbath.  Nevertheless, if she were busy convincing the President to condemn the attack, she would have no doubt issued her own statement earlier.

So put this all together and it points to the Newsweek story be just another of those phony reports based upon unnamed sources that have no basis in reality.  That's pretty bad.  If Newsweek wants to disagree with the President, that's fine.  If the magazine instead makes up phony stories in an attack on Trump, that's unforgiveable.

But it gets worse.  I was reading the comments made by various people on social media about the Newsweek story.  One common thread seems to be for the smug and self righteous people on the left to call the campaign rally that Trump spoke to Saturday night a "Klan rally".  Think about that.  The event was a long scheduled rally in an Illinois district with a close congressional race.  It was attended by a standard cross section of Americans living in that area.  But the strident leftists can't call it a campaign rally.  No, they have to call it a "Klan rally".  Everyone there is labeled a racist and a bigot as a result.  The left had no reason to use that name except that these people support President Trump.  It's like Hillary Clinton's denunciation of Trump supporters as deplorables.  It didn't convince anyone to support her views who didn't already hold them.  It did, however, galvanize Republicans to go out and vote.  After all, letting the Democrats win would just give power to people who could easily and without any basis condemn Republicans as racists, sexists, etc.

McCarthy is correct.  These enemies of Trump do more to get out the vote for Republicans than on would ever expect.

Talking Heads

In the aftermath of the Pittsburgh shooting, I am struck once again by the overwhelming importance to the Democrats and media of what gets said rather than what gets done.  Pundit after pundit, Dem after Dem have denounced the President because he "gave permission" to the Nazi shooter by what he said at rallies.  Of course, when Trump denounced the "suspicious package" bomber who was sending possible bombs to prominent Democrats, the Democrat leaders denounced Trump for "hollow words" because those words didn't match his "conduct".  And I've heard countless pundits tell us that the President's strong words condemning the Pittsburgh attack were just not enough.

We should all be clear about one thing:  the Nazi who shot up the synagogue in Pittsburgh is the cause of all that death and horror.  That mindless thug was filled with hate:  hate for Jews, hate for the President, hate for all sorts of people.  He didn't get that from Republicans or Democrats.  He didn't get that from the media.  No sane American with a platform was pushing the kind of hatred that this Nazi was embracing.  And what mattered was what he did, not what he said.  People are dead because of what he did, not because of what he said.

 

What a Few Days!

On Friday and Saturday, I was off helping a family member move.  They turned out to be quite momentous days.

First, the guy who allegedly sent all those "suspicious packages" was arrested in Florida.  After all the speculation, he turned out to be a wacko with a criminal record that goes on for page after page after page.  According to various news reports, his grip on reality is not great.  He claimed to have achieved all sorts of things, but none of those claims were true when checked.  He also is said to be a Nazi sympathizer according to a statement made by his last employer.  That employer is a lesbian in Florida who had the guy delivering pizzas.  She say that he used to tell her that because she was a lesbian she should be put on an island with other lesbians and burned.  That's bizarre, but to me it is even more bizarre why she continued to employ him after he said that.  The guy is also a big fan of President Trump although he seems so divorced from reality that I wonder if he really likes the actual Trump or the hate-filled caricature created by the Democrats in order to attack Trump.  And we still don't know for sure if the guy wanted the bombs to detonate or not. 

Let's just leave the bomber with the thought that we're all thankful that the FBI caught him so quickly.

Second, we had the massacre in the synagogue in Pittsburgh yesterday.  This attack killed many innocent people.  It was carried out by an actual Nazi who wanted to kill Jews.  (Where do all these Nazis come from?)  The police responded quickly and bravely.  After a vicious fire fight, they caught him.  There are no words that can explain how senseless hate can cause such events.  We can only pray for the victims and their families and ask that such events never happen again.

The response to Pittsburgh has been predictable.  President Trump has strongly condemned the attack.  Even though the shooter hated Trump and claimed on his social media posts that Trump was "controlled by Jews," the first reaction by the Democrats and the media was to blame the President for the attack.  It makes me wonder if there is anything bad that could happen which the Democrats and the media wouldn't blame on the President.  I would have said the weather, but as we know, they blamed Trump for the hurricanes because he withdrew the USA from the Paris climate accords. 

The truly sad thing is that unlike the "suspicious package" bomber, the Pittsburgh killings resulted in real harm.  People are dead.  A community is scarred.  And there's the media/Dems trying to turn it all into a political event.  Can't they just once wait long enough for the dead to be buried before they make the whole thing into a political circus?

Third, there's been a flurry of activity in the Middle East.  Hamas launched over 30 rockets into Israel from Gaza.  The Israelis shot down 11 and the others fell into unpopulated areas.  This was a major escalation of the rocket attacks from Gaza.  In response, the Israeli Air Force hit a large number of Hamas targets in Gaza.  The situation on the border there is moving closer and closer to actual war.  Meanwhile, the Israeli prime minister flew to Oman to meet with that country's ruler.  It's another sign that the Sunni Arab nations are much more concerned about Iran than the Hamas terrorists in Gaza.  Despite the tensions on the Gaza border, the leader of a major Arab nation actually met with the leader of Israel.

Fourth, the stock market is continuing to gyrate.  One day way up, and the next day way down.  Overall, it has been more down than up.  On Friday, we had a down day.  Even so, the underlying economic data continues to be quite good.  In 2008 when the recession was starting, there were many other signs that it was coming besides the stock market.  It's different now, though.  We may see a resumption of the rise after a correction.  All this movement makes for some nervous investors nevertheless.

Florida, By The Numbers

In the state of Florida, there are two close and important races.  Senator Bill Nelson is defending his seat against Republican Rick Scott.  In the governor's race, Republican De Santis is opposed by Democrat Gillum.  De Santis is Hispanic while Gillum is African American.

The polls are close.  Most of the recent ones have the Democrats slightly ahead.  And then there's the actual vote counts which says it is time to throw away all those polls.

Historically in Florida, the GOP leads in absentee ballots, the Dems lead in early voting, and the GOP leads on Election Day voting.  These trends have stayed in place through all the elections since the start of early voting.  So where are we now?

1.  The GOP is way ahead in absentee voting.
2.  The Dems are just about breaking even in the early voting. 

With just over ten days to go until election day, the Republicans have a lead of about 50,000 votes statewide coming from absentee and early voting combined.  That's with more than a million votes already in.  While these are registration figures and not actual votes, it seems as if the GOP is doing quite well.

Then there's this:  the breakdown of absentee/early voting by race is 75% white and 8.5% black.  The census figures put the Florida population as something like 75% white and 16% black.  That means that African Americans are not turning out as of yet.  For the Democrats, low black turnout is a major omen of disaster.

There's also this:  so far the number of voters over 85 is the same as the number of voters ages 18-29.  Think about that for a minute.  Very elderly voters are equaling the number of millennials even though there are  more than five times the numbers of 18-29 year olds in Florida compared to the elderly.  Again, 18-29 is a strong support group for Democrats, so this is a very bad sign for the Dems.

It may be that all the old trends have shifted this year.  Maybe the Dems will win Florida.  Nevertheless, these voting figures seem to clearly indicate that both Nelson and Gillum are going down to defeat, indeed a pretty bad defeat. 

News Today From the Senate Judiciary Committee

Here's the opening of the latest press release from the Senate Judiciary committee:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley today referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for criminal investigation relating to a potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The full release can be found here.

It's always good to see consequences for lying under oath to Congress.

So Is Megyn Kelly Out at NBC

Let's start with the only appropriate response to the news that Megyn Kelly may be out at NBC:  "Who cares!"

That being said, you have to laugh at the foolishness of the NBC corporate structure that hire Megyn under a contract which requires the network to pay her nearly seventy million dollars if she is, indeed fired.  You also have to laugh at network officials who though that Megyn would bring her Fox News audience with her.  These bozos at NBC put her into a show that did not play to her strengths but rather asked her to emphasize gossip and cooking news.  She's a slasher, not a potato masher.

I hope that someone at Comcast takes a look at this misadventure at NBC.  If Kelly is really tossed out, there are more than a few executives who should be going as well.

Some Fascinating Polling Data

The senate election in Michigan was thought to be over long ago.  Incumbent Debbie Stabenow had a lead one month ago of 23% over Republican challenger James.  Since then the polls have been moving towards James.  Today, a new poll out in Michigan has Stabenow up only 7% over James.  Stabenow no longer has more than 50% of the vote as well.

This is an epic move for polling data.  Stabenow is well known in Michigan; James is not.  Ms. Stabenow, however, is a rather boring and dull senator who seems not to take the lead on anything.  James is a West Point graduate and veteran who is also the first black Republican candidate for senate in Michigan history.  It's hard to tell thought if race is playing a role in the election.  It seems more likely that as Michigan gets to know James, the state's voters like what they are seeing.

Anyone placing a bet on this race would still be wise to select Stabenow as the winner.  Still, the race is no longer a laugher.  James really has a good chance to win.

And by the way, if James wins in Michigan, we will likely see a GOP net pickup of more than six senate seats.  (Hardly a blue wave.)

Spartacus is Angry

This just in:  NJ Democrat Cory Booker is very angry and upset because no one sent a suspicious package to his office.  Booker (who calls himself Spartacus) thinks that he is a prominent Democrat who is the subject of discrimination. 

Robert DeNiro? Really?

Another of those non-exploding bombs was discovered at 4:45 this morning in the mail room at the office of Robert DeNiro in New York.  The police were called and the package was taken away for disposal.  We don't know yet if the "bomb" inside the package was actually primed to explode.  It was however, the latest in the string of failed bomb packages to be discovered.

So let's think this through.  Is the bomber perhaps the most inept terrorist in the history of the USA?  He or she managed to send nine or ten of these packages and not a single one of them exploded.  Could someone have actually put in all this effort thinking that they were sending terrorist bombs only to find out later that the bombs didn't work?  I doubt it.  It's possible that the non-detonation of the first wave could have been a surprise to a bomber.  This latest device to DeNiro (DeNiro? Really?) only arrived today.  That's three days after the one to George Soros that threatened the mailbox at his home in suburban New York.  That means that the DeNiro package wasn't mailed until after the Soros device turned out to be a dud.  If the goal was to actually obtain an explosion, there would have been modifications made so that the DeNiro package would detonate.

Meanwhile, the device that CNN is making such a big deal about has now turned out to be harmless.  It could not detonate according to police sources in New York City.  Also, we are hearing that the "suspicious white powder" that came is not dangerous either.

Something truly bad is going on here.  The delivery of packages with real or pretend bombs in them is inexcusable.  Still, it is looking more and more like these may be phony bombs delivered as a statement only.  Hopefully, the FBI will catch the bomber(s) quickly and we will learn the truth.

 

Clear Proof

I was just watching the news on TV and I heard something that truly made me laugh out loud.  Here's the item:  because of the bomb packages in the mail today sent to seven or eight locations across the country, New York governor Andrew Cuomo has activated the New York National Guard.

Obviously, the activation of the National Guard is no laughing matter; it's serious.  Still, the idea that Cuomo would activate the guard because some person or persons sent a few non-exploding bombs through the mail is a joke.  What's the guard going to do?  They're not explosive experts.  For most of the National Guard, all they know about the mail is that it gets delivered every day but Sunday.

This is just a political stunt by Cuomo who is in the middle of a re-election campaign.  I guess he wants to show that he's doing something.  Maybe next month he can activate more of the New York National Guard to throw ice cubes into the ocean to combat global warming.

The "Bombs" -- An Update

There's more news about those suspicious packages that are thought to contain bombs sent to prominent Democrats and media people.

1.  Only some of the bombs in the packages were functional.  Some were meant only to scare the recipients.

2.  NY Governor Cuomo claimed that his office receive one of these bombs.  That turned out to be false.  Was this a pathetic attempt by Cuomo to make it into the highest rank among Democrats?

3.  There have been no arrests yet.  Still, it should not be long before the secret service and FBI figure out who sent these packages.  It was truly moronic for the bomber to attack former presidents who have protection furnished by the secret service.

4.  The packages used an office of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a return address.  The office received one of these packages because an incorrect address was used for former attorney general Eric Holder.

5.  Some of the packages had stamps on them, but they were never cancelled by the Post Office.  The would normally mean that the packages were made to look like ones delivered by USPS, but actually the packages were hand delivered.

 

What Kind of Moron Did This?

The news today is that "suspicious packages" were found in the mail to the Clintons and the Obamas and another was sent to a local office of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  What kind of morons did this?

There's no way that a bomb could get through the secret service to Clinton or Obama, so at least they are safe.  Sending a bomb in a package to someone like Wasserman Schultz, though, could result in someone being injured.  All of this is completely unacceptable.  The perpetrator should be found and arrested ASAP.

We've just spent two years during which the left has denounced and threatened and confronted various Republicans.  A congressman was shot while paying baseball practicing for the annual Congressional game.  Another congressman was assaulted by mobs invading his office on Capitol Hill.  All sorts of people were threatened and forced to leave restaurants etc.  It is something that has made the Democrats look totally unhinged.

Now we have a batch of suspicious packages going to Georges Soros and the people listed above.  That behavior is reprehensible and has to stop.  Indeed, I wonder who sent the package.  Was it a crazy bent on retribution for all the nutty things the Democrats have been doing?  Alternatively, is it a phony bomber who sent these things to make it seem as if there are Republicans as unhinged as so many of the Democrats?  We need to know who sent this.

One thing is certain:  threatening or actually attacking political opponents is not the American way.  To quote Obama, these people are on the wrong side of history.  They need to either stop or be stopped ASAP.

This May Be the End Of Gillum

The Democrat candidate for governor of Florida may have just lost.  According to Politico, there is overwhelming evidence that Andrew Gillum accepted bribes from an undercover FBI agent investigating corruption in Gillum's city administration.  Gillum himself took free tickets to Broadway shows and a trip to Costa Rica for himself and his wife.  To put it mildly, this is very illegal.

But it gets worse.  At the Florida debate the other night, Republican Ron DeSantis asked Gillum about the free tickets and the trip to Costa Rica.  Gillum denied everything.  Now Politico, of all places, has come forward with the proof that Gillum lied.  Politico is hardly a right-wing web site.  It is generally part of the mainstream media with a strong bias in favor of the Democrats.  If Politico is publishing this evidence, you can be certain that it is the truth.

The total value of what Gillum took in these two bribes is about ten thousand dollars.  One has to wonder how much more there could be once a full investigation is done.

Gillum is toast.

They Just Don't Get It

Last night, President Trump spoke at a rally in Texas for Senator Ted Cruz and the GOP ticket.  During his remarks, the President chided "globalists" as people who cared more about other countries than the USA.  Trump then said, "I am a nationalist."  If you listened closely at that point, you could hear the heads of the pundits from the mainstream media exploding.  Today, there are a great many stories in the media about Trump calling himself a nationalist.  How could he do it?

The reality, however, is that this is just another time that the President has owned the media.  After all, a nationalist is someone who puts his own country first, a supporter of his own nation.  That's hardly a problem.  Most people are nationalists.  For the pundits, though, calling yourself a nationalist is like calling yourself a Nazi.  To them, it is just a few steps shy of a full blown fascist.  They just don't get it.

Look, 80 years ago, European nationalism exploded when it was overdone and used not just to promote one;s own country but to subjugate others.  That's not what Trump is saying.  Americans know that; they've seen him in action.  For the pundits, however, nationalism is a triggering word.  They live in a world in which what gets said is more important than what actually gets done.  (Just think about the Obama years when we had to be so careful of what we said, but nothing good ever got done.)

By using the word "nationalist", the President took a big hold of most of this and the next news cycle.  All those Democrats who want to control the headlines as part of their election strategies have just lost nearly 20% of the time remaining before the election to a discussion that hardly anyone cares about.

I wonder if some day the media will realize when it has been had.  I doubt it; they're just too Pavlovian to reform.

He Doesn't Understand

Horror writer Stephen King made "news" yesterday when he summed up President Trump's message to voters as "be afraid".  It's weird.  Anyone who actually listens to the President speak knows that is not true.  King is stating instead the message of the Democrats.  They are the ones who promote fear.  They are deathly afraid of Trump and what he does.  For example, Trump appointed a new Supreme Court Justice and the Dems treated it as if it were the end of the world.  The GOP passed a tax cut and the Dems actually said it would destroy people by raising their taxes.  So that's fear of a judge and an economic boon.  For most of the past two years, the Dems have treated Republicans as if they have the plague.  They have been deplorables, racists, sexists, you name it.  It's not true, but they want minorities to fear the GOP.  It's the basic Democrat message.  Think of the competing messages to the African American community.  From Democrats it's "Republicans are racist, white supremacists who want to hurt you."  From Republicans it's "Black unemployment is at the lowest ever measured.  New businesses are being started by blacks at a rate four times greater than under the Dems."  So who is pushing fear?

How about foreign relations?  The Dem message on North Korea was "Trump will get us into world war three and a nuclear disaster."  The GOP message was "strength will bring the NK's to the table so that we can stop their missile and nuclear program."  It was fear vs. a strategy that worked.  In the Middle East the Dems told us that Trump would get us into new wars (more fear).  The Republicans point to the destruction of ISIS.  In Europe, the Dems told us that Trump would destroy the world order established by the USA after World War II and disaster would follow.  The GOP says that we have gotten more European nations to meet their NATO obligations.  On trade, when we started renegotiating NAFTA, the Dems said a trade war would destroy our economy.  (That's more fear.)  The President pushed for a better deal and we now have that.

So King is wrong.  Be Afraid is the message of the Democrats.

So Explain This?

I just saw video from the so called "caravan" in Mexico of people marching to seek asylum in the USA.  In the video, the marchers spray painted a swastika on the American flag and then burned it.

Let's stop here.  Tell me, if you can, why would people supposedly desperate to reach the USA call this country a bunch of Nazis, burn our flag and then keep on marching here?  That's the big question.

There is only one answer possible.  These people are not really seeking asylum in the USA.  They are trying to influence America and our elections.  If these were Russians the Democrats would no doubt scream about collusion between the President and the marchers, but they're not Russian.  No, these are mostly Central Americans who seem to be an unlikely group to be seeking asylum.  Somehow, though, this group is getting fed each night.  It is getting a place to sleep.  It is getting medical care.  And these services are costing something like 20 to 30 million dollars for the trip.  That money is coming from the left's mega donors no doubt.  It's not going to be reported that this caravan is just a stage show set up for the purpose of trying to get out more Hispanic voters in the USA to vote for the Democrats.

Personally, I don't think it will work.  Most Americans can recognize what is actually happening.

Who Is Turning Out - 2

Yesterday, I wrote about the surge in Republican voters in both early and absentee voting in key states.  The trend has been unmistakable so far.  Today, NBC News is acknowledging the trend and even says it might put a "dent" in the Democrats' blue wave.  That's an understated way of saying that things are looking good at the moment for the GOP.  Of course, as a charter member of the mainstream media, NBC News could not say that directly and clearly as it might disappoint their Democrat viewers and encourage even more Republicans to vote. 

Meanwhile, polling in Indiana shows that the GOP challenger Braun has surged past the incumbent Democrat for the first time this year.  The latest polls put Braun up by about 5%.

There's still two weeks left until Election Day, so much could change, but right now, things are looking fine.

The Question of the Nuclear Arms Treaty with Russia

The 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty bars the United States and Russia from possessing, producing or test-flying a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 300 miles to 3,400 miles.  President Trump has said that he plans to withdraw the USA from the treaty.

Oh no!  That, in a nutshell, is the response of the foreign policy "experts" questioned by the media on the subject.  These "experts" are the American foreign policy establishment who have led us to where we were in 2016.  For them, it is unthinkable to pull out of a nuclear arms treaty.

But here's the question:  Russia has been violating this treaty for many years according to our intelligence agencies.  The Russians have been asked repeatedly to clarify what they were doing and to demonstrate that they were not in violation of the treaty.  The only response from the Russians has been silence.  Given that we think they are in clear violation of the treaty, should we continue to comply with its terms, or should we just pull out?

The only logical answer is to pull out.  After all, we have gone many years continuing the treaty while asking the Russians to explain their behavior.  We got no response.  There is no reason to believe that continuing the treaty now would suddenly get us a different response from the Russians.  One thing is clear:  Russian president Putin only respects and responds to strength.  By pulling out of the treaty, President Trump gives Putin a choice.  Putin can engage in a new and costly arms race with the USA which the Russians cannot hope to afford or to win, or Putin can curtail his cruise missile programs and once again comply with the treaty.  Either way Putin loses.

I have listened to many of the "experts" lament the impending withdrawal from the treaty.  They seem to recommend that the USA beg the Russians to start complying with the treaty.  They don't want us to be seen as taking a step that could lead to an arms race.  But they never explain why Russia would start complying after these many years of cheating.

Was It The Same Video

Earlier today, I watched the video of a thug confronting senator McConnell and his wife in a restaurant in Kentucky.  The guy screamed and banged on the table and told the senator to get out.  It was a typical offensive Democrat tantrum of the sort called for by Maxine Waters and some other Democrat leaders.  It was disgusting.

The big thing about the video, however, was the reaction of the other people in the restaurant.  In the video which is posted on TMZ, the other people in the place were booing the thug who was disrupting McConnell's dinner and threatening him.  Two rather big guys got up to make the guy stop what he was doing.

Then I read the story about the event posted at HuffPo and reprinted at Yahoo News.  In that story, the reporter says that the other customers cheered the thug who was confronting McConnell.

Now, I had seen the video myself, so I knew that the HuffPo story was not true.  I just wonder how many people will be taken in by this major example of #FakeNews.

Who Is Turning Out

Election Day is two weeks away, but people are already voting all across the country.  There are absentee ballots, early voting and mail voting going on.  These are votes that will be locked in.  Nothing that happens between now and election day will change them.  It's worth taking a look to see how that voting is going.

First of all, we can't tell you the actual numbers for each candidate since the votes have not yet been tabulated.  We can, however, tell you who has voted.  In other words, we know in some states how many registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents have voted.  Since all the polling shows that over 90% of Democrats are supporting the Democrat and over 90% of the Republicans support the Republican, this gives an indication of how the results are going.  We can also gauge the turnout compared to the last midterm in 2014 at this point and can do the same compared to the presidential election in 2016.  Normally, the turnout in midterms is much lower than in presidential years.

Here are some of the results.

In North Carolina, after two days of early voting the number of Dems voting is down 7.7% from 2016 and Reps are up 4.8% from 2016.

In Tennessee, early voting numbers shows Dems down .2% and Reps up .3%.  Remember, Reps won big in 2016.

In Florida, the absentee ballots requested show 51,000 more Reps than Dems.  This is a much bigger lead than in 2016 (when Republicans won the state.)

In Georgia, the absentee/early voting is huge, up from 2016.  There is no R/D breakdown, but the numbers are available by race for some reason.  The share of those voting who are African American is down 6% from 2016 (when Trump carried the state.)  This bodes well for the Reps.

There are similar results in Indiana and Arizona where the R's are doing much better than the D's compared to 2016 (when Trump won both states.)

In Nevada, there is no appreciable difference from the 2016 proportions.  The Dems took this state then, so that is a good sign for them.

Unlike polls, these are actual vote figures.  They are just indicators and not results, of course.

Questions about Caravans

That so called caravan of refugees from Honduras is at the border between Guatemala and Mexico.  If you read the mainstream media, you hear that these are people fleeing from terrible and dangerous conditions in Honduras seeking safety and a better life in the USA.  But there are still questions such as these:

1.  If the caravan is fleeing Honduras, why are they waving Honduran flags?  Why are they celebrating the place that is supposedly so bad that they have been forced to leave?

2.  If these people are seeking entry in the USA, why are they carrying signs denouncing President Trump?  I understand that some may believe he will oppose their entry, but still it seems strange that refugees seeking asylum would insult the leader of the country from which they ask refuge.

3.  If these are actual refugees, why did they attack the Mexican police who barred their entry into Mexico?  Wouldn't it seem more likely that they would stop and attempt to negotiate a peaceful entry or transit through Mexico rather than launch an all out assault on the Mexican police?  And, if these are mostly women and children (as described by the mainstream media), how did they manage to beat up so many of the Mexican police?

4.  Why is it that the timing of the caravan so conveniently lines up with the American elections?  Nothing new happened in Honduras.  Weather conditions are no more favorable than they were three months ago.  Nothing has changed.  So why now?  Is it because the caravan is being supported by American leftist groups in order to make an impact on the election.  Is this just another Democrat ploy like the various smears they launched at Justice Kavanaugh?  While you consider that, remember that one of the men organizing the caravan turned out to be an American Democrat activist who was just arrested in Mexico in connection with the riot/attack against the Mexican police.

Nevada Tells The Story

Both President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden just held rallies at the same time in Nevada yesterday.  Biden spoke at a union sponsored event in Las Vegas.  Trump was in northern Nevada in Elko.  It's worth noting that there are about 2.2 million people in metro Las Vegas and Elko has just over 20,000 people with the entire Elko county having just under 50,000.  Biden's rally drew less than 200 people, while Trump's had over 4000.

There's no question that more people would normally rather see a sitting president than a former vice president, but these numbers are still striking.  Biden is often touted as a major presidential candidate for 2020.  If he can't even draw 200 people in a major metro area two weeks before the election, how could he ever succeed in 2020?  The reality is that he can't.

One last note:  I read three different accounts of the two rallies in the mainstream media.  Each one pointed out that Trump mocked Biden.  Two of the three said that Trump mocked the size of the crowd at the Biden event.  None of the three articles, however, stated the actual size of the crowds.  The mainstream media just couldn't accept that so many more people came to see the President in a small town in the middle of nowhere than went to see Biden in Vegas. 

The Quality of Government in CT

Many of the people who hold high elective office in CT are not just of poor quality, they are world class morons.

I was reminded of this today by a tweet that senator Chris Murphy sent out.  Murphy retweeted another tweet from President Trump and commented on it.

Here's the President's tweet: 

If the Democrats would stop being obstructionists and come together, we could write up and agree to new immigration laws in less than one hour. Look at the needless pain and suffering that they are causing. Look at the horrors taking place on the Border. Chuck & Nancy, call me!

Here is Murphy's comment:

As @brianschatz would say, the thing about this tweet is that he’s trying to take away your health care.

Think about that for a minute.  The President tweeted about the need to work together to overhaul the US immigration system.  Murphy responded by attacking on healthcare.  Those are two different things, and even Chris Murphy knows that.

The sad thing is that in two weeks Murphy is all but certain to be re-elected.

Proof Of Mismanagement Won't Change Anything -- It's New York

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority published ridership figures for the New York subways yesterday.  In August, there was a decline of 8.8% during weekends and 2.8% during weekdays in the number of riders taking the trains.  That's a continuation of a trend that has been in place for a few years now.  The subways have just been too unreliable for many to take them if not absolutely necessary.  And remember, this decline in riders comes at a point where employment and population in New York City have risen, so there ought to have been a gain in riders, not the decline.

So how can this be?  Why are the subways so unreliable?  Why is their on-time performance plummeting?  The answer is poor maintenance.  There keep being delays due to train or track problems.  These proliferate and when the Transit Authority finally does major repairs (rather than minor ones that can occur without much disruption) there are more delays.  To be fair, there were some repairs that were needed due to the flooding during Sandy in 2012, but one would have thought those repairs would be complete by now -- except, of course, this being New York, there are still big Sandy repairs to come.  The main reason is that the MTA wastes its funds and attention on big showy political projects rather than on actual proper maintenance of the system.

Here's a good example:  the MTA decided in the 1960s to build a spur from the Long Island Railroad to permit trains from the Island to go to Grand Central Terminal.  It built a new tunnel under the East River that had two levels, the upper for subways and the lower for LIRR trains.  Then in the 1970s, the system ran out of money for the project, so it was stopped.  The tunnel was completed but it sat unused for 30 years and was allowed to flood with water.  By 2000, the decision had been made to go ahead with the project, so the tunnel was emptied and the other short bit of track was begun.  In total, there is less than 3 miles of new track that was needed.  The MTA decided, however, that the LIRR trains had to go into their own new level at Grand Central.  The MTA board decided on a cavernous new station level to be built UNDER the existing Grand Central with a new tunnel to that station UNDER the existing tracks.  Just think how grand the opening day ceremony would be where all these politicians could claim credit for this big new edifice.  Of course, the price tag kept rising (from $4 billion in 2000 to $20 billion today) and the original schedule of 2008 completion has now been pushed back to sometime after 2020.  It's important to remember that had the trains been sent into the existing Grand Central Terminal, the project would have been completed at least a decade ago at a cost of no more than $5 billion (if that).  That would have freed up $15 billion for maintenance work over the last decade.  That's more than enough to have kept the trains on running on time.

There are other projects like the LIRR-Grand Central mess throughout the system, but none is so glaring or so large as that one.  Still, it's worth calling out just one other one.  The last subway station near the World Trade Center site reopened over this past Summer.  It took the MTA 17 years after 9-11 to fix up that station.  If you ever wanted a good example of the incompetence of the MTA, this is it.

The obvious question which arises is this:  will anything change?  The simple answer seems to be no.  The governor and the mayor jointly control the MTA, although the governor is much more in charge.  New York's governor, Andrew Cuomo is likely to be re-elected in a few weeks.  His message on the MTA has been how great the system is.  In other words, it will just be business as usual. 

It's a sad moment.  New York has one of the best public transportation systems in the world, so allowing it to be destroyed through mismanagement is intolerable.  Of course, only the people in the region will suffer, and they are the ones choosing these incompetent leaders.  I guess the people get what they vote for.

Until Next Week

I'm taking a break from posting until the weekend at the earliest.  See you then.

Here Comes The Disinformation Campaign - 2

Yesterday, I wrote about how the AP is putting out phony reports that the Republicans are conceding defeat in Congress because the GOP campaign committees are withdrawing their cash from some seats to focus on other races that are more likely to be won.  This is nonsense; that process is done by political parties all the time, in every election.  I pointed out that the Democrats are doing this too, but no one is saying that they are conceding defeat.

It's worth noting that today we got word that the DCCC (the Democrat's congressional campaign committee) has just removed its support from the Democrat running in Minnesota's 8th district.  The party is moving those funds to other races.  Minnesota's 8th district is currently represented by a Dem, but polling the other day showed him 15% behind the GOP challenger.  So will the AP now write a report exclaiming how the Democrats are conceding defeat in the November election?  I don't think so.

 

Moving to Crazy Town

There was a battle outside the GOP headquarters in Manhattan the other night.  Thugs from Antifa fought thugs from a group called the Proud Boys.  The police basically stayed out of the battle.

Now, a few days latter, the NY Police are investigating to see if any of the Proud Boys should be arrested.  The political pressure on Mayor DeBlasio to act was just too great to let things sit.

This is crazy.  The police should have stepped in immediately once the fighting started and arrested the instigators.  The idea that NY police were told not to inject themselves into the situation is just plain wrong.  It's even worse to think that after making the wrong choice in the first place, the cops are now having to try to reconstruct the events of the other night but only to go after one side.

Let's be clear.  Thugs are thugs no matter whether they are leftist thugs or rightist thugs.  Either way, their actions are unacceptable.  It's not a political question.  It's just a matter of keeping the peace.

Here Comes The Disinformation Campaign

According to AP, Republicans are conceding defeat in the battle to hold the majority in Congress.  The AP says that they are taking resources away from candidates deemed to far gone to win and putting it into races that have a better chance of success.

What can I say?  Oh, the horror!

Actually, this is an idiotic bit of reporting.  Every election, resources get taken from races deemed lost and put into races with a greater chance of success.  Don't believe me?  In the last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dropped ad buys that they had reserved in at least six districts that the DCCC decided were too far gone to continue to contest.  They put the cash into races for which they thought they had better chances.

So maybe the AP can explain why when the Democrats move cash from one race to another, they are not conceding defeat, but when the GOP does it, the opposite is true?

The reality is that this article is part of the campaign to discourage Republican voters so that they won't show up at the polls.  It won't work.  At this point, no self respecting Republican would believe anything that the AP put out.  Indeed, in the last two weeks, the pundits agree, the Senate has moved from a position where the Dems had some possibility of taking control to a position in which the GOP is likely to increase its margin in the Senate from 51-49 to more like 55-45.  In the House, during the same time, races that have moved away from the toss up category have gone by about a 4 to 1 margin to the GOP.  That doesn't sound like something for which one would admit defeat.

We won't know who controls the House for another three weeks.  One thing is certain, though, the Republicans are not going to give up on the House or the Senate.

The Serious Side of The Elizabeth Warren DNA Test

Senator Elizabeth Warren is a Native American according to the mainstream media today.  Warren produced a DNA test that says that 0.09% of her genes show heritage from Mexico, Colombia and Peru (which the DNA test used as an equivalent to Native American genes.)  The average white American comes up with 0.18% in the same test, or twice as much native content as Warren.  Still, the media is proclaiming that Warren has been vindicated; she truly is Native American.

The Warren mess is a joke, but just think what it means if we accept it.  Suppose that some average white suburban kid is trying to get into an Ivy League school.  His parents rush to get the kid a DNA test and find that, like the average person, the kid has 0.18% Native American DNA and 0.44% African American DNA.  Now, the kid applies to Harvard and Yale as a mixed race black/native American.  Under diversity principles he gets in.  Of course, that means that another actual minority student loses that admission.  But hey, under the Warren test, the kid is a person of color.

Or here's another example:  many government contracts have minority business set asides.  In other words, a government contractor has to in turn subcontract 10 or 15% of the work to a minority business.  Will a business owned by someone with 0.18% Native American DNA now become a minority business?  The Warren test says yes, but it means that the whole point of minority business set asides has been lost.  The black community will not be helped by this; only scheming and dishonest folks who use the Warren test will prosper.

And what about the Voting Rights Act.  When the next census is taken in 2020, should anyone with 0.09% Native American DNA list him or herself as a Native American?  If that happens, Native Americans will suddenly constitute the vast majority of the American population.  We could find that districts will all become minority-majority seats in Congress.  It would destroy the entire structure of the Voting Rights Act.  But it would be the Warren test in action.

The truth is that the media is obviously wrong.  Warren is no more Native American than Queen Elizabeth.  Her arguments to the contrary are both insulting and subversive.  She should just admit the truth and stop digging the hole.  She's already about a mile down.

The Saudi "Journalist"

The big story today is Elizabeth Warren's DNA test.  Nevertheless, much of the media is still focused on the disappearance of a man who used to contribute opinion pieces to the Washington Post.  To the media, he's a journalist, although he never worked for a media company.  He went into the Saudi embassy in Istanbul and was never seen again.  There is an audio tape which supposedly records his murder by Saudi agents, but there are questions of its authenticity.  Right now, the left is screaming that America has to punish the Saudis for this "crime".  The media is likewise going berserk about this event.  They blame the Saudi crown prince, although there is no real reason for that.

So should the USA impose sanctions on the Saudis like the media/Democrat complex wants? 

Think of it this way:  in the last decade, how many countries around the world killed someone who was in custody?  We know that the Russians, the Chinese, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Libyans, the North Koreans and many others fall into this category.  Neither the media nor the Democrats have demanded sanctions on these countries as a result.  So what makes Saudi Arabia special?

In many Islamic countries, we know that women have been stoned to death for adultery.  No one demands sanctions on that basis.

But it gets worse.  Whatever happened in that embassy, the USA had nothing to do with it.  But the media/Democrat chorus is now blaming the Trump administration for failing to take action regarding this event.  We don't even have all the facts, but they are going overboard demanding action.

This is one of those events that bring out the worst in the media/Dem chorus.  Maybe they are too focused on Bret Kavanaugh.  They told us all that he was guilty until proven innocent.  Maybe they think that the Saudis are likewise guilty until proven innocent.

The reality, however, is that the Saudis are our ally.  They help us in the fight against the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons.  They also fight against the possibility of Iran becoming the regional hegemonic power.  It's not a happy choice, but it is more important for us to have the Saudi's help than for us to impose our views regarding the treatment of supposed journalists on them.

Look, we don't really know what happened in that embassy.  We do know right now that the Saudis are our friends and allies.  We should give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

The Reality of the Connecticut Income Tax

In a hit piece in the Connecticut Post today, a reporter named Dan Haar points out what he says is the result of the plan from Republican Bob Stefanowski to end the Connecticut income tax.  Haar says that the richest 400 families in the state will save $3.6 million on average.  According to Haar, this shows that the Stefanowski plan is just meant to benefit the ultra-rich.

This is the kind of article that a Democrat hack writer will typically put forward.  It says that rich people will benefit from something, so it must be a bad idea.  But that not only misses the point, it's wrong.

Let's take a look at the Stefanowski plan.  He wants to phase out the state personal income tax over eight years.  That means that every person in the state who pays income tax will benefit.  Haar looks only at the super rich and says that since they won't have to pay the tax any more, it must be a bad idea.  But what about a woman who makes $50,000 per year.  Right now, she is paying about $2,300 in state income taxes each year.  That's a lot less than the $3.6 million paid by one of the super rich, but I bet that the $2300 means much more to her than the $3.6 million means to the super rich.  And how about the family that makes $100,000 per year.  Right now, they pay around $4,600 per year in state taxes.  Is it a bad idea to take that burden off of that family?  Haar says it would be because someone rich might also benefit.  Most people making $100,000 would be only too happy to get out of paying that tax bill.  There's a lot one could do with an extra $95 per week.

Remember, the reason that the wealthy get such big tax reductions from Stefanowski's plan is because they are already paying huge amounts in taxes.  If the tax burden is removed from EVERYONE, it cannot be a bad idea simply because some wealthy people will get the same relief as everyone else.

And then there's one last thing to keep in mind about the wealthy getting these tax reductions under the Stefanowski plan:  people can and do move.  A very wealthy person can easily move to Florida or New Hampshire and pay no tax.  Most of these wealthy people don't have to live in CT.  We have, in fact, been experiencing a drain of wealthy people leaving the state for the last decade or more.  CT used to have the highest income of any state; that is no longer true, and we keep sinking lower.  Stefanowski's plan will stop that loss of wealthy people.  And remember when a wealthy person leaves, it is not just the loss of one individual; it is also the loss of all the purchases made from local stores, services bought from local companies, and wealth used to benefit Connecticut.

Now let's take a look at the plan of Democrat Ned Lamont to RAISE taxes.  Lamont want to focus more of the burden on the wealthiest individuals.  Suppose you were a really rich person and your taxes just jumped from 3.6 million bucks to 5.0 million.  Would it make you more likely to move out of the state?  Obviously, the answer is yes.  The Lamont plan would just drive more wealth out of CT and actually worsen the state's economy.  Put another way, you cannot tax your way to prosperity.

This is the information that the Lamont campaign will never tell you.  It is, however, something that everyone in CT needs to know before voting.  Lamont would be a disaster for us all.

Liz Loses

Elizabeth Warren released the results of a DNA test today that shows that she could be as much as 1/32 Native American and as little as 1/512 Native American.  This is supposed to buttress her claim to being descended from Cherokee ancestors.  It doesn't.  Instead, it actually shows that she isn't even close to Native American.

The DNA results show that Warren has 0.09% of her DNA that comes from either Native American or Mexican ancestors.  Warren says, "See, I do have Native American blood."  But here's the problem:  the average white American, when tested, comes up with 0.18% Native American or Mexican.  That's twice the amount that Warren shows.  And remember, that's the average.  For African Americans, the average comes up with 0.8% Native American. 

Put all this together and one finds that Warren has much less than the average amount of Native American heritage compared to the average American citizen.

Warren came forward with this test to try to put to rest the issue of her use of a phony claim of Native American heritage to gain employment at both Penn Law School and Harvard Law School.  It seems that instead of putting the issue to rest, Liz shot herself in the foot.  She may have used a bow and arrows, but the wound was in her foot nevertheless.

Diversity Misses The Point

There's an op-ed in USA Today from former Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in which he laments the lawsuit against Harvard seeking an end to the discrimination against certain racial groups.  Specifically, the suit points to the fact that Asian-American students have to achieve much higher grades and SAT scores to gain entry to Harvard than African Americans or Hispanics.  In other words, the Harvard admissions policies give unfair preferences to blacks and Hispanics over Asians.  Mabus, of course, doesn't mention that the Asians are subjected to discrimination.  Mabus calls the practice one which promotes diversity.  Nearly his entire article is a hymn of praise to the concept of diversity.  The discussion of diversity, however, misses the point.

Think about it.  We can all agree that discrimination based upon race or sex or religion or ethnicity is a bad thing.  That is true even if those discriminated against are seeking admission to college.  If Asians do better in school and on the SAT tests, then they should be given the fruits of that performance.  There is no exception which promotes discrimination if it deals with Asians admission to colleges that take federal money.  The law is clear:  discrimination is not allowed.

 

The Ultimate Double Standard

Hillary Clinton yesterday told a national TV audience that Bill Clinton did not abuse his power as President when he had an affair (in the Oval Office and elsewhere) with Monica Lewinsky who was a White House intern 28 years younger than Bill.  Hillary's reason:  Monica was "an adult at that time."

Wow!  Hillary has always been tone deaf in politics, but this is ridiculous.  It is Hillary setting forth what has to be the clearest exposition ever of the double standard that the Clintons think apply to themselves.  There are rules for everyone else, but they just don't apply to the Clintons -- or so they think.

Consider what Hillary just said.  Harvey Weinstein meets with a young, but adult, starlet and makes clear to her that the way to get to the part in his next movie is to sleep with him.  She agrees and gets the part.  I think the national consensus now is that such conduct by Weinstein is wrong.  He is misusing his power in the movie industry to get sexual favors.  Indeed, there is an entire branch of law that deals with employers who take advantage of employees sexually.  Such conduct can lead to substantial recovery by the employee for the employer's action, and it can, depending on the circumstances, lead to criminal prosecution of the employer as well.  There is no defense that the employee is an adult.  According to Hillary, however, there is that "adult victim" defense for Bill.

This is just another example of why Hillary lost to Trump in 2016.  I can only imagine all of this year's Democrat candidates muttering, "not again!  Shut up for once, Hillary.  Go away!"

Where's November Going?

After month after month of speculation and prediction, the November elections are finally drawing close.  Voting is three weeks from Tuesday.  We will finally get to see if there is a blue wave, a red tide, or not much of any change.

There are a few harbingers of where things are going that are worth mentioning.:

The House:
We've been told since about a year ago that the Democrats will be taking back control of the House.  It's the blue wave, the Trump disapproval numbers, the GOP tax cuts, the women's vote and all other manner of things that were going to lock in Democrat victory according to the media.  But that hasn't happened.  Here are some important figures from polling for House races summarized by Real Clear Politics.

As of a month ago, the projections based upon polling showed 206 Democrats ahead, 189 Republicans ahead and 40 toss up races.  As of two weeks ago, the numbers hadn't changed; it was still 206-189-40 with the Dems ahead.  As of today, the numbers show 205 Democrats leading; 201 Republicans ahead and 29 races too close to call.  The Democrats 17 seat lead has been cut to 4.

If this trend stays, the Republicans will hold the House.

The Senate:

Most pollsters have seen a strong shift to the GOP since the Kavanaugh hearings.  Right now, there are GOP leads in enough place to lock in a two vote gain.  That still leaves five seats that are too close to call, meaning that there would be between 58 and 53 Republicans if the election were held today.  Barring a major switch, the GOP will hold the Senate and with a bigger majority than they have currently.
 

What's New In Portland?

Portland, Oregon always seemed like a rather peaceful place to me.  Well, not anymore.

There was a violent confrontation between left and right in the streets of that city.  On one side was Antifa, the left wing fascists who strangely call themselves anti-fascists.  They use violence and threats of violence in an effort to erase any who disagree with their political views.  On the other side was a group that said it was there to support prayer and patriotism.  Many of them seemed like right-wing thugs who want to use Antifa's tactics on Antifa.

A few days ago, Portland police stood aside while Antifa took over some downtown streets and blocked traffic and threatened and attack various individuals.  There was fear in Portland that the police would not do anything to stop further violence.  That fear was unfounded; the police moved in to break up the battle between the Antifa thugs and the thugs on the other side. 

The problem, however, is that there should have been mass arrests.  It cannot be acceptable for political violence to be allowed in any American city.  If a person physically attacks another for his or her political views, that crime cannot go unpunished.  Portland, however, is governed by a far left Democrat mayor.  He apparently directed that no arrests be made absent some rather major criminal actions.  Tolerance for violence, however, does NOT promote the well being of the people of the city.

 

Movement In The Middle East

The Russians supplied their S-300 anti-aircraft systems to the Assad regime in Syria over the last few weeks.  Right now, the Russians are training the Syrians to operate the system, so there are Russian forces sitting at the controls with their Syrian students.  These anti-aircraft missiles threaten American air operations in the region. 

What's the impact of this new system?  Are there actually many American air ops anymore now that ISIS has been obliterated?  There are only a few rural areas where ISIS forces remain, and they are withering away as I write this.  The truth, however, is that there are important American interests at stake in Syria which could be harmed by the new Russian systems.

Let's start with a basic review of just who controls Syria at the moment.  The western two-thirds (along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea) is mostly under Assad control.  There is an area near Turkey centered in Idlib where the rebels hold power.  The eastern third of the country (east of the Euphrates River) is almost devoid of Assad forces.  It is instead controlled by the Kurdish forces as well as by the Syrian rebel forces supported by the USA.  This is where US military forces are located.  About six months ago, the Assad forces with Russian support tried to move on a base in this eastern third of the country where there were substantial American forces.  That attempt was beaten back with the use of overwhelming air power combined with ground forces.  There were literally hundreds of Assad forces and Russian forces who were killed.  There were no known American casualties.  Recently, the Assad forces and their Russian supporters were massing troops for a new attack over the same terrain.  The US forces in the area conducted a major "drill" against a potential attacker, and the Assad forces pulled back.  Next time, however, Assad may conclude that his new anti-aircraft missiles will keep the US planes from wiping away his men.  The result could be an attack into the eastern third of Syria.  It could also mean that US forces suffer casualties.

The anti-aircraft missiles may also cause Assad to start using chemical weapons again.  It's possible that Assad thinks he could use the Russian system to shoot down American cruise missiles or to dissuade President Trump from ordering another retaliation if another chemical attack comes.

The Russian anti-aircraft missile system may also dissuade the Israelis from attacking Iranian shipments bound for Hezbollah.  I doubt that any reticence by the Israelis on that front would last very long, however.  That could set up a confrontation and even a war between Israel and Syria with the Russians supporting Syria.  Any strenuous efforts by Moscow would surely bring an American response.  That is highly dangerous.

Very little attention is being given to this problem here in America.  The media has been almost completely silent.  It is too busy reporting new ways to attack Kanye West.  These latest developments in Syria, however, will have much more long term impact on the world.

Watching the Democrats Cave In - UPDATE

Two days ago, I wrote about how senate Democrats agreed to the confirmation of 15 new federal judges appointed by President Trump in order to finally adjourn the senate until after the election.  For two years, the Dems have done all they could to block every nominee for every position put forward by the President.  Suddenly, now that they want to leave town to go campaign, the Dems are agreeing to approve these nominees by unanimous consent.  That means EVERY senate Democrat had to agree to this move.

When I wrote about this previously, though, I understated the full extent of the cave in by the Dems.  In addition to the 15 judges, there were also 21 government officials who were likewise confirmed.  Some of these people have been waiting up to a year for confirmation.  That makes 36 confirmations in all. 

In a fight between their principles and campaigning for re-election, the Dems made clear on which side they stand.

How Did She Win The Primary?

Kyrsten Sinema is the Arizona Democrat whose campaign for the senate is collapsing in front of her eyes.  The latest bit of information to come out is that when Sinema was in the Arizona legislature she blocked a change to a law regarding defenses available to men charges with sex with underage prostitutes.  Arizona law allowed these men the defense that the child prostitute looked older so that the man didn't know she was underage.  Sinema prevented a move to take that defense away.

This means that in the last week, we have learned that Sinema said in a speech a few years ago that Arizona's voters were crazy.  She also called the state the "meth lab" of democracy.  She also told a guy on the radio that she was fine with him going to fight with the Taliban against American soldiers.  And now, she's fine letting men defend against statutory rape charges on the grounds that the woman looked older than she actually was.  If all this doesn't end Sinema's chances for victory in the race, then Arizona's voters really would be crazy (and they're not.)

What I really wonder is how Sinema won the primary.  Didn't her opponents bother to vet her, or is the Democrat party so far out of the mainstream that these things didn't matter?

About That Blue Wave?

We've been told for the last year that a blue wave was coming that would sweep the Democrats back into the control of Congress.  It's inevitable, or so the mainstream media told us.  Wrong.

A few weeks back, even the Democrat pollsters started admitting that it will be very difficult for the Democrats to win the Senate.  Too many races are moving towards the GOP.  But the House was still a certainty for the Democrats, or so we were told. 

Here's a bit of information that is worth considering as you ponder what will happen in the House.
A NY Times/Siena poll of the eighth district of Minnesota finds the Republican candidate Stauber up in that race by 51-32%.  That's not a polling error we are seeing.  It's a blow out.  The district is currently represented by a Democrat, so a Stauber victory would be a GOP pickup.

I mention Minnesota's eighth district because it is one of those districts listed as a "toss up" by Real Clear Politics and the Cook Political Report.  51-49 would be a toss up.  51-32 is no toss up.

Then there's Florida's 27th district.  The Democrats got former cabinet secretary Donna Shalala to run as their candidate.  They expected her to win easily.  The latest polls show her trailing and her trend is down while her GOP opponent's trend is up.  This doesn't look at the moment like a Democrat pickup.  It is rated as "leans Democrat" by two of the major "experts".

Look, there are 435 House races, so it will always be possible that the pollsters and pundits will miss one or two.  That is the charitable view, however.  There are really only about 60 or so seats where the outcome could go either way, so those are the only ones that need close attention.  Since the Kavanaugh confirmation, the polls in almost every one of these 60 districts have moved towards the Republicans. 

Blue wave?  What blue wave?

And They Actually May Believe This

Here's something that should be filed under "delusion can be funny".

According to a big front page article in this morning's New York Times, the Democrats are debating internally whether or not their "taking the high road" is a good strategy for political success.  Seriously, the party that ran a phony smear campaign against justice Kavanaugh thinks it has taken the "high road".  The party that paid $13 million to have a British spy and Russian accomplices put together a phony dossier on Donald Trump and then used that dossier to trick the FISA court into allowing the FBI and CIA to spy on the Trump campaign thinks it has taken the "high road".  The party that threatened the White House spokesman at a restaurant, attacked a Republican congressman in his office on Capitol Hill, and confronted senators with threats thinks it has taken the "high road".  The party that constantly lies about things as disparate as local police events or major foreign policy matters thinks it has taken the "high road".  The party that only yesterday had one of its prominent spokesman unmasked for raising hurricane relief funds from the public with a big chunk actually going to the spokesman's own organization thinks it has taken the "high road".  The party that labels its opponents "deplorable" and then falsely accuses those opponents of racism, sexism, and every other ism possible thinks it has taken the high road.  The party whose activists have attacked GOP offices in places as different as NY City and Arizona thinks it has taken the high road.

I used to think that the Dems knew just how dishonest they are.  I'm not sure anymore.  I think that they actually may believe this delusion of being on the "high road".  I'm also now sure which is worse.  Is it better that the Dems knowingly act like low life scum while dishonestly claiming to "go high" or that the Dems are delusional and don't have enough of a grip on reality that they even know what they are doing?  Neither choice is a good one.

 

But Beto Can't Win

It's an amazing thing to watch the mania with which the Democrats are adopting Beto O'Rourke as a political figure to follow.  Beto is the Dem candidate in the Texas senate race against Ted Cruz.  Here are a few key facts about Beto:

1.  He's good looking, draws crowds, and speaks well.

2.  He's a great money raiser.  He just took in nearly 40 million dollars in the latest reporting period.  the majority of that money came from outside Texas however.

3.  He says he's a moderate.

So much for the good things.  Here's the rest:

1.  His name was Robert O'Rourke but he changed it to Beto so that he would sound Hispanic.

2.  He has an arrest record for burglary and DUI.  According to the police report, he tried to flee the scene of the DUI, but witnesses restrained him until the police arrived.

3.  He has spent a few terms in Congress but has no accomplishments to which he can point.

4.  The polls show that as Texas gets to know him, he is falling further and further behind Cruz.  The latest poll puts the lead for Cruz in double digits.  The race is no longer considered a toss up but rather one in which Cruz is clearly leading.

So how do the Democrats respond?  Some of them are now touting O'Rourke as a presidential candidate.  Seriously, they are. 

Why would America vote for a candidate like this?

Watching A Campaign Fall Apart Arizona Style

One of the senate races that has been billed as a potential Democrat pickup is Arizona.  The "moderate" Democrat Kyrsten Sinema has at times led her Republican opponent Martha McSally for the seat being vacated with the departure of Jeff Flake.  That race moved towards a McSally lead after the Kavanaugh hearings, but in the last few days it has broken wide open.

First, a video surfaced of Sinema telling a crowd in Texas a few years ago that people in Arizona are "crazy" and that Texans needed to work hard to avoid turning into Arizona.  She called her state the "meth lab of democracy".  She also repeatedly denounced the views of the Arizona public as insane.  Needless to say, it is unlikely that this will go over too well in Arizona.  Most people don't like the idea that their senator thinks they are crazy.  There haven't been any polls yet which indicate the impact, but we will soon see how this plays out.  You can be sure, however, that the GOP will not let this video escape the attention of the average Arizona voter.

Now, CNN of all places has broken a story about other past "exploits" of Sinema.  There's an audio tape of her telling a guy on the radio that she thinks it's fine if he wants to go join the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Remember, American troops are fighting the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan, but Sinema thinks it's ok for someone to go join the Taliban cause.  Really?  The same CNN report also points out other instances in which Sinema took extreme left wing positions.

Put all this together and it destroys the posture that Sinema has tried to adopt in the senate race.  Sinema portrays herself as a moderate Democrat.  Now, she is exposed in some rather harsh light as a far left activist and not a moderate at all.  Arizona voters are presented with a choice of McSally who is a veteran who fought for America in recent years and Sinema who is fine with people going to join the fight against America's forces by joint the Taliban.  I doubt that would be a winner for Sinema in any state, but it should be the death knell for her campaign in Arizona.  It's not often that one gets to see a candidate implode like this so close to an election.