The Effect Of The Michael Cohen Plea

I'm missing something big, I guess.  I keep seeing pundits on MSNBC or CNN or other mainstream media outlets so excited by Michael Cohen's plea admitting that he lied to Congress about the timing of certain negotiations in Moscow regarding a potential project there by the Trump Organization that they seem to be losing control.  I really don't understand it.

Think about it.  If the Trump Organization had built a tower in Moscow, it would have been perfectly legal.  The negotiations were with Russian individuals, not the Russian government.  In other words, there is still no proof of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding the 2016 election.  Cohen's plea is nothing much at all, if, indeed, it is anything at all when it comes to collusion.

But the pundits say it's proof that President Trump lied.  After all, Trump said he had no business interests in Russia during the 2016 campaign.  Cohen's plea doesn't change that from true to false.  Much more important, however, Trump said a lot of things on the campaign trail that weren't true.  So did Hillary.  So did Obama in 2012 and 2008.  It's called the American way of politics.  It's not a crime to stretch the truth during a campaign.
 

It's a Big Day For Hatred and Bigotry From the Left

Leftist bigotry and hatred has really made a lot of news today.  While most of the leftist media has been focused on the new guilty plea by Michael Cohen (which is really not very important), other things have happened which will have much greater impact.

1.  CNN was forced to fire Marc Lamont Hill.  For those who don't know Hill, he is a far left college professor who has appeared for many years on Fox News and then on CNN (after Fox dumped him) to spout the leftist talking point of the day.  He also just spoke at the UN at a meeting where he called for the destruction of Israel.  Let's be clear, he didn't just say that he wants a two state solution or even a democratic state that holds both Jews and Palestinians.  Nope, he used the Palestinian hate rhetoric that calls for a Palestinian state free of all Jews.  Apparently, Hill's hateful statement was too much even for CNN.  He is now history.

2.  Laura Loomer chained herself to the doors of Twitter's offices in New York.  Loomer who is a "conservative warrior" was recently banned from Twitter because she sent out a tweet calling newly elected congressman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota "pro-sharia law"  (which is accurate).  Loomer's tweet also then pointed out that Sharia called for death for LGBT individuals, subjugation of women among other things.  This was too much "hate speech" for Twitter.  Loomer, however, pointed out that tweets from Louis Farrakhan that clearly were anti-Semitic hate speech were ignored by Twitter.  As a result, Loomer raised the double standard used by the leftists who run Twitter.  In a rather funny twist, Loomer's action made her name the number 1 trending topic on Twitter today.

 

Michael Cohen's Latest

So Michael Cohen has admitted lying to Congress about the time line on a potential investment by the Trump Organization in Moscow.  It raises all sorts of questions.

1.  Is Cohen now telling the truth, or is this plea another lie?

2.  If Cohen has been convicted for lying to Congress, will we soon see Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey, Peter Strzok, James Brennan and James Clapper being charged as well.  We all remember Clapper stating that the USA was "not wittingly" collecting masses of data on Americans in testimony in to a senate committee.  That was a lie.  The NSA was collecting the metadata of all phones in the USA and Clapper knew that.  Nevertheless, he lied and did not disclose that fact.  Nothing ever happened to him as a result.

3.  Does Cohen's supposed lie about the timing of the investment in Moscow matter insofar as the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians are concerned?  It surely doesn't appear to make any difference at all.

4.  Why is Cohen being made to plead again to another charge, especially if it doesn't matter?  This is baffling.  If Mueller wants to use Cohen as a witness at some point, you would think he wouldn't want the guy to have plead guilty to multiple instances of lying under oath.  It tends to discredit anything he says.

 

Today In Migrant Caravans

Today's talking point from the pro-illegal alien crowd is that the "migrant families" in Tijuana awaiting the chance to enter the USA are "ailing" and in "dire" condition.  Think about that.

First, the majority of the people in the so called caravan are young men, not families.  Young men are not as sympathetic as children with their mothers, however, so the few families involved are highlighted by the media.

Second, all of the way from Honduras to the US border the "migrants" received medical care, food and water supplied to them by unknown benefactors.  Now that the "migrants" have made it to the border, the same benefactors either have stopped providing support in order to gain sympathy for their cause at the expense of the "migrants" or (more likely) have hidden the support so that phony claims of "need" can be made in a bid for sympathy.

Third, every one of the folks in the caravan group was offered asylum in Mexico.  That means that if they are actually suffering at the border, it is by their own choice.  They could have taken advantage of the assistance offered by the Mexican government and they could be in a much better situation than the one portrayed in the media.  Choosing not to accept asylum from Mexico is not a basis for sympathy from the USA. 

A Really Funny Outcome

There's a really funny story in the news today about a town in Washington state seeking to become a "sanctuary city" with regard to the state's gun control legislation.  The sheriff proposed that the city council pass an ordinance stating that there would be no enforcement of Washington's new gun control laws.  It's supposed to be a defense of the Second Amendment.

This is hysterical.  I saw some local gun control advocates in Washington saying that a town does not get to pick and choose which laws it must enforce.  Once the state passed the law, the town has to enforce it.  That's really funny given the many Washington cities and towns have enacted laws that make them sanctuary cities with regard to illegal immigration.  These cities and towns refuse to enforce federal law.

It's great to see the libs get stuck with their own crappy arguments.

Trouble in Stormy Land

There's a major bombshell out tonight from Stormy Daniels.  She claims that her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, started the defamation lawsuit against President Trump against her express wishes.  She also claims that Avenatti has used the funds from her fundraising site and won't give her a breakdown of the expenses or the payments.  Put those together, and you get the basis for a malpractice claim against Avenatti coupled with the possibility of disbarment or criminal prosecution of the loud mouthed lawyer for criminal fraud or embezzlement.  Here's the link to a story describing the whole mess. 

If all this is true, it's hard to imagine a worse low life than Avenatti.  The guy seems to be a shameful self-promoter.  He also seems not to care about his clients in any way.  And this is a guy who was being touted as a potential Democrat candidate in 2020.  The truth is that he would be perfect for the role.

A Crazy Smear Even For Democrats

The nomination of soon to be judge Farr for a district court seat in North Carolina passed the hurdle today of a cloture vote in the senate.  It took the vote of vice president Pence to break a 50/50 tie.

The big beef of the Democrats against Farr is that as an attorney he was hired by the state of North Carolina to defend the congressional districting map for the state and also to defend a law requiring voter ID.  The Democrats say that the map was a racial gerrymander and the voter ID law was voter suppression aimed at minority voters.  That's nonsense, but let's assume for the moment that the Democrats are actually correct.  That means that the Democrats want to keep Farr off the federal bench because as an attorney he represented a client with a view they don't like.  Think about that.  An attorney doesn't have to like his client or like his client's position.  The attorney need only provide competent representation to his client.  In fact, it would be unethical for an attorney to refuse to represent a client based upon the client's positions.

Think of what the Democrats are really saying.  They want an attorney to be responsible for the positions of clients represented in the past.  In other words, when Hillary Clinton got a child molester off many years ago in Arkansas, she was (at least according to Democrats) not carrying out her responsibilities as an attorney, but rather espousing that there's nothing wrong with molesting a child.  Any attorney who represents a murderer needs to be held responsible for doing so (or so claim the Democrats.)

This is a crazy smear even for the Democrats.

The Comparison is Crazy

There's a column in USA Today which compares the border barrier between the USA and Mexico to the Berlin Wall.  USA Today should be ashamed to print such nonsense.  According to the author, since the USA is installing barbed wire at points to stop "migrants" from "seeking asylum", this is the same as the construction by the Soviet Union of a wall that sealed the border between West and East Berlin in the early 1960s.  Really?  Does the author even know what the Berlin Wall was?  I doubt it.

In Berlin, there had been the ability for city residents to pass between the eastern (Communist) and western (free) sections after World War II.  It wasn't simple, but it was still doable.  The East German government, however, faced a crisis because so many of its citizens were going to West Berlin and fleeing from the Communist East.  As a result, the Berlin Wall was built.  It sealed the border between the two sectors.  From the day the Wall went up, it was impossible for citizens of East Germany to cross into West Berlin.

On the US-Mexico border, there is free passage for literally millions of people each year.  Every day hundreds of thousands of people commute across the border to jobs in the other country.  Anyone wishing to enter the US legally can cross at the border provided they follow the required process.  The border is not sealed.  The border is, in fact, wide open for legal transit.  All that the barbed wire does is limit the ability of drug smugglers and illegal aliens to sneak ILLEGALLY into the USA. 

Maybe it's best to use an analogy.  The events at the USA/Mexico border are roughly the equivalent of closing the windows in winter to keep the heat inside the house.  The Berlin wall was the equivalent of putting the people of East Berlin in prison.

It Must Be Killing Them

There's an update today on the story about the lawyers for Manafort briefing the President's lawyers on what Manafort was discussing with the Mueller team.  It's just a summary article in the Washington Post that says that these discussions "inflamed" the relationship between Manafort and Mueller.  No biggie there.  What is interesting is that the WaPo acknowledges in the article that the discussions were perfectly legal.  Of course, the WaPo says that the discussions "violated no laws" in order to make it sound like there's even a question about that.  (There isn't.)

It must kill the folks at the WaPo to learn that their hero, Bob Mueller, is running such a slipshod operation that they left it wide open for all their questions to be reported directly to the White House.

 

Mississippi and the Mainstream Media

After hearing from the mainstream media a bunch of breathless stories for the last two weeks about how close the Mississippi senate runoff race was, the GOP candidate Cindy Hyde Smith easily won that race today.  I predicted last Sunday that she would win by at least 10%, and as of now, she is ahead by 11%.  For all the phony claims of racism against the senator because she mentioned a public hanging or because there are some old pictures of her wearing a confederate cap, the Mississippi voters just didn't buy it.  Indeed, it's hard to sell voters on a Democrat who was indicted for corruption while a member of the Clinton cabinet, and that's who Mike Espy is.

To me, however, the result is not the news tonight.  Rather, I'm fascinated by how little coverage media outlets like MSNBC and CNN have given to these election results.  On MSNBC, the coverage tonight has been mainly about the "shocking" news that Paul Manafort's lawyers may have told President Trump's lawyers what Manafort was discussing with the Mueller team.  I just heard Lawrence O'Donnell speculate that the discussion was obstruction of justice.  Actually, the discussion was perfectly proper insofar as it concerns the Trump team.  Apparently, the geniuses on the Mueller team didn't bother to put a provision in the plea agreement that prohibited Manafort's attorneys with speaking to lawyers for the White House.  That's a failure by Mueller.

Then there's a bunch of coverage about a story in The Guardian which claims that Manafort met with Julian Assange of Wikileaks in 2013, 2014 and very early 2016.  One does have to wonder how it could be that these meetings took place but no one knew about them for three years.  Of course, Manafort, Assange and their teams have denied strongly that they ever met.  The Guardian has no proof that these meetings took place, so it is doubtful that they did.  But we get once again to a major failing by the media.  Manafort had no connection to the Trump campaign in 2013, 2014 or early 2016.  If he met with Assange, it had nothing to do with Trump.  Further, the hack of the DNC (if indeed it was a hack) which got John Podesta's emails took place in mid 2016.  That's after all of these supposed meetings.  That means that the meetings couldn't be about the emails obtained in the hack (as the idiots in the mainstream media now claim) because even Wikileaks didn't have those emails yet.

So Mississippi disappears from the media as soon as it is clear that the Republican has won.  It gets replaced by two lame stories that are ridiculous on their face.  It's always hard to believe that the mainstream media could sink any lower, but then they just surprise you and do it.

Another First For Women In PA

In an historic action today, Kathleen Kane, the former Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania became the first female former Attorney General ordered to prison after being convicted and losing her appeal.  No doubt there will be celebrations across Pennsylvania as a result of this big step forward for women in the Keystone state.  No longer will corrupt officials in state government be only men.  Kane has broken into the glass cell block.

Seriously, here's a woman who was elected attorney general and who then leaked grand jury testimony and lied about it under oath.  The result was a criminal conviction and a sentence of 10 to 23 months in prison.  The PA Supreme Court just declined to hear her appeal, so her bail was revoked and she will start her prison term in the next day or so.

 

That's One Hot Ticket

Bill and Hillary Clinton are holding their first event on their 13 city speaking tour across North America.  It's going to be tonight in Toronto.  As of noon today, less than half of the seats in the arena were sold.  On Stub Hub, you could get resale seats for $15 (Canadian) so $11 (US).  Somehow, it seems that the Clinton magic is gone.  After all, here's a guy who used to get $750,000 for a 20 minute speech.  Now, no one cares what he says.

As for Hillary, one has to wonder if Bill would do better filling up the arena if he didn't have to offer Hillary as a speaking partner.  I mean, who in their right mind would actually pay money to hear that woman talk?

 

You Gotta Love the "Experts" Who Know Nothing

The deal between the special prosecutor and Paul Manafort has blown up.  According to the Mueller people, Manafort has lied to them after he agreed in a plea deal to tell them all he knows.  Of course, it's not up to Mueller to determine whether or not Manafort lied; that decision will be made by a federal judge.  Indeed, this whole affair may be nothing more than another way in which Manafort is being pressured by Mueller to say what Mueller wants him to say.

Let's put the content of what Manafort has to say aside for the moment since no one but the Mueller people and Manafort know what he said or what the supposed lies are.  Let's look instead at how the so called experts describe this.

One doozy of an expert writes for CNN and "explains" that Manafort obviously refused to tell Mueller all that he knew which would incriminate President Trump.  How amazing is that.  This CNN guy doesn't know what Manafort said or didn't say.  Nevertheless, he "explains" what it was that Manafort lied about.  It's the rough equivalent of a person who doesn't speak the language hearing a conversation in Chinese and then explaining why what was said was a lie.  It's just total BS.

The CNN expert, however, doesn't stop there.  He goes on to explain why this is a show of strength by Mueller because he is demonstrating that he knows enough to understand that what Manafort is saying is a lie.  Again, this is total nonsense.  We don't know what Manafort said, and neither does this expert.  Everything the so called expert explains about this conversation that he never heard is a total fantasy.

I truly hate CNN for publishing this BS.  It's giving #FakeNews a bad name.

So Will The Lies Now End?

A month ago, the mainstream media was filled with stories about the so called caravans and about how these groups 1) were mostly women and children, 2) contained no criminals, 3) were people seeking asylum to escape from persecution in Honduras and Nicaragua, and 4) were unlikely to get to the USA for many months.  It is now undeniable that these were all lies.  Even MSNBC is reporting that the caravans are mostly composed of young men who are coming to find work, not to escape persecution.  There have been about 500 different gang members and other criminals including human traffickers who have been identified and/or arrested out of the caravans.  And, as we all know, the caravans are now at the border launching attacks on the border patrol while trying to push down the border fence and enter the USA illegally.  So the question arises:  will the lies in the media now end?

Sadly, the answer seems to be a resounding NO!  When the mob of young men tried to break through into the USA while attacking the border patrol with rocks and other projectiles, the media coverage focused on a woman and her child who were fleeing the scene.  To the media, the story was this poor family, not the attack by the young thugs on the US border patrol.  But why was the woman there in the first place?  And why did she have her child with her?  If she really wanted to apply for asylum, she could just go to the border crossing and sign up on the waiting list to get an interview in the next few weeks.  Remember, this woman supposedly just spent two months walking to the USA from Central America.  What's the big deal about waiting for another week or two to follow the legal procedure?  Why would she put her child at risk to avoid the legal requirements of the very country to which she was seeking entry?  Isn't the answer clearly because her presence was a set up for the media? 

It's time for the lies to end.  We could easily have an immigration policy that made sense, but the left just doesn't want that.  They want a political issue.  It was what they wanted when they controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency under Obama but did nothing on immigration.  It remains what they want today.

In the Annals of Non-News Stories, This Is A Biggie

ABC is reporting that some unnamed sources say that the $110 billion worth of US arms that were to be sold to Saudi Arabia under an outline agreement signed when President Trump visited the Saudis in 2017 was "inflated".  If you read the whole report rather than the claim of "inflation", you find that so far the Saudis have received about $15 billion worth of arms.  The remainder is scheduled for 2019 through 2022 or is listed with the date of delivery to be determined.  In other words, while the arms sales have not yet been completed, they are still on the list to take place.  ABC blames Jared Kushner for the "inflation" of the deal.  That's a very negative way of saying that Kushner was responsible for America selling over $100 billion worth of arms to our allies the Saudis.  That sale is good for a huge number of jobs for ordinary Americans.

This deal was a very good one for the USA.  It got our domestic industries major orders.  It also reduced the cost of America's own arms by increasing the production levels, thereby saving the government a lost of cash.  It cemented an alliance with the Saudis and against Iran.  It gave the USA more influence in Saudi Arabia than it has had at any time since 1973.  But to ABC, this was some sort of phony inflated deal because it hasn't all been completed (even though it was never scheduled to be completed until 2022 or 2023.

So this is a story that gets it totally wrong.  It's not #FakeNews as such.  It is, rather, idiotic non-news.

Somehow, ABC seems incapable of reporting anything that might show the Trump administration in a good light.  Indeed, this is the rough equivalent of ABC reporting that the tax cuts passed last December are inflated because many people haven't yet received their larger tax refunds for 2018 (even though those refunds would never be due until early 2019.)

The Nonsense Never Ends

As I write this, Yahoo News is featuring a big article slamming the First Lady for giving the media a tour of the White House Christmas decorations while "children are being hit with tear gas at the border...while trying to cross the border."

It's such dishonest nonsense.  Did you watch the video of the people "trying to cross the border"?  Nearly every one of them is a young man.  And they are not "trying to cross the border"; they are attempting to rip down the border fence and illegally move into the USA.  They are also throwing stones and firecrackers at the border patrol on the American side of the fence.  The border patrol agents then responded to the attack by firing tear gas to push the men back across the border.  There was, however, a group of a few women and children stationed on the other side of the border who ran away (on cue) so that the media could have a picture of children "fleeing" the tear gas.

The truth is that the border patrol could have actually fired on the crowd trying to storm into the USA.  They didn't.  The border patrol used the minimum necessary force to guard our borders from the horde of invaders.

Maybe someone in the Democrat/media chorus will explain why the illegals trying to force their way into the USA were attacking the border patrol.  Maybe they can also explain why the illegals were trying to destroy the border wall.  And why couldn't the illegals just go to a border crossing and ask for asylum if they are fleeing persecution as the Dems always claim? 

 

Back to Phony Polls?

Now that the elections are over and the pollsters will no longer face condemnation and ridicule if their numbers are way off, we are back to what seem to be phony polls.  Here's a good example from the latest two polls to announce the job approval data for President Trump.  According to Gallup, Trump is underwater by 22% with 60% disapproval and only 38% approval.  According to Rasmussen, Trump has a net positive rating of 3% with 51% approval and 48% disapproval.

Think about those two polls.  These are not results that vary due to different samples.  The figures are way too far apart for this to be just normal variation.  Remember, we're talking here about a swing of 25% of the voters in the margins of the two polls.

The only reasonable conclusion is that one of these polls is bogus.  And there's little question which one is likely bogus.  Rasmussen's results have been remarkably consistent over the last three months.  Trump has ranged between -4% and +3% in his margin.  On the other hand, Gallup (and most of the other polls) had Trump with approval numbers in the mid 40s until he suddenly plunged to only 38% in this latest poll.  Why the drop of 7%?  There's nothing different, no reason for the move. 

It's sad that the polls get used like this.

What Trump Should Say about Ukraine

The Russians attacked and captured three different Ukrainian naval vessels in the Black Sea over the weekend.  Today, there is a meeting of the Security Council in NYC to discuss this mess.

The one thing that is certain is that nothing will come from the Security Council meeting.  So the question is raised as to what will motivate the Russians to stop with these provocations.

In my opinion, Russia would back down if President Trump were to tweet that the unprovoked Russian action makes him open to reconsidering whether or not NATO should admit Ukraine as a member.  He should also say that the scope of the defensive weapons systems that the US is selling to Ukraine must be reconsidered as well.

The last thing Putin wants is American involvement in Ukraine.  At least this threat might lead Putin to back down and release the Ukrainian ships and crews.

The Crazy Redefinition Of Reality

Did you ever think about the way in which the left wing media/Democrat complex just changes the names for things in order to make them more acceptable?  Consider:

1.  Illegal aliens are now "migrants".  For a time, they were undocumented immigrants, but that wasn't enough.  Migrants is a completely descriptive term with regard to the legal status of these people.  It removes the fact that they are not Americans.  The group are just people on the move.  Who could be against that?  The problem, though, is that these people are still trying to enter the USA contrary to the requirements of US law.  They remain citizens of countries other than the USA.  They are illegal aliens.

2.  Terrorists who fought in Iraq or in Syria morphed into militants.  They weren't any longer to be people who blew up innocent civilians in furtherance of their cause.  No, they were just people who felt strongly, indeed militantly about their cause.  They went from enemies of civilization to political protesters under the left's redefinition.  But the problem, of course, is that they are enemies of civilization.

3.  Men and women are now terms that are being condemned.  After all, some men identify as women and vice versa.  Other people have "chosen" genders that are neither male nor female.  Twitter announced a policy that bars people from classifying someone based upon their genitalia.  It's sexist or anti-trans or something to do so.

4.  People who want to stop illegal immigration morphed into racists.  You see, if you disagree with the left's desire for open borders, you must be racist.  But the people who oppose lawlessness are not racist.  To the left, though, it doesn't matter.

I could go on and on with this list.  The point is that the left just tries to define away their opposition by changing reality through names.  It's crazy and it should not work.

An Unfair Attack

Cindy Hyde Smith is the GOP candidate in Tuesday's senate election in Mississippi.  She is also the target of a vicious smear campaign by Democrats and the media who are trying to paint her as a racist.  After the first election on November 6, no candidate got 50% of the vote so Hyde Smith is in a runoff with the Democrat Mike Espy.  At a rally shortly thereafter, Hyde Smith was praising a person for whom she had high regard.  She said that she thought so much of him that if he asked her to attend a public hanging, she would be in the front row.  That was it.  She (gasp) mentioned a public hanging in Mississippi. To the media and the crazies in the Democrat party (much the same thing) that could only mean that Hyde Smith was endorsing lynching of blacks by the KKK.  That's ridiculous, of course.  It's roughly the same thing as if she had said that she would drive to meet the person and the media called that an endorsement of the Nazi who used his car to run down a counter protester last year in Charlottesville.  It's sort of like calling vanilla ice cream racist because it is all white.

The smear, however, didn't stop with this nonsense.  Various people around the country who contributed to Hyde Smith's campaign have been attacked.  According to the media, people are "outraged" by the contributions.  Again, that's nonsense.  Americans have the absolute right to contribute to political campaigns.  Cindy Hyde Smith is not a racist, and portraying her as one is disgusting and unfair.

Cindy Hyde Smith is going to win the election on Tuesday.  Bogus charges in the national media against a Mississippi candidate does not win many votes in that state.  My prediction is that she wins by at least 10%.  The media and the Democrats, however, need to keep in mind that they are doing real damage to our country with this phony charges.

Border Update -- Is Mexico Pulling Out of New Deal?

Just yesterday, the media was reporting a deal between the USA and Mexico regarding the handling of those seeking asylum in the USA.  It was a great deal that had big benefits for everyone except those who were seeking asylum without having a proper basis to do so.  Now there are reports that Mexico may be backing out of the deal.  So a deal that was not yet a formal agreement is possibly moving towards a deal that isn't actually going to be agreed to.  There's never a dull moment when it comes to this stuff at the border.

I truly hope that the Mexicans don't back out of the deal.  It was something that was strongly desired by President Trump and for which Mexico would earn not only good will but a major benefit.  We will just have to wait and see what the actual reality of the situation is.

Good News For Actual Asylum Seekers As Well As For The USA

According to reports today, the USA and Mexico have reached an agreement under which those seeking asylum in the USA would remain in Mexico while their cases are considered.  That would mean that people like those in the so-called caravans would wait on the Mexican side of the border while they made application for asylum and their cases were considered.  Those waiting would also be able to claim that they would be in danger while waiting in Mexico, but that would be a hard hurdle to jump.

The system has many benefits.

1.  First, for asylum seekers, there would be the benefit of having their cases handled more quickly.  The USA will be able to process nearly two times as many cases per day as is currently possible.  Right now, the system is slowed down by the need to find detention facilities for those seeking asylum in the USA.

2.  Also for asylum seekers, by staying in Mexico, they would not face the possibility of being separated from their families because they were placed in detention pending determination of their cases.

3.  For the USA, it will now be able to process more asylum seekers more quickly as discussed above.

4.  America will also be able more easily to weed out bogus asylum seekers since they won't be able to run away and hide in the USA.

5.  There will also be much greater difficulty in making bogus claims for asylum.  Anyone who applies for asylum and loses in after making his or her case to the immigration judge will not be sent back into Mexico but will be deported back to his or her country of origin.  What that means is that young men who come to the USA from central American to seek work won't be able to use false claims to seek asylum because they will likely end up deported back to Honduras or Nicaragua.  Asylum will no longer be a way to end run the immigration system.

Without a doubt, there will shortly be some sort of legal challenge to this new system.  Indeed, there are probably a batch of liberal judges in California or Hawaii or elsewhere in the 9th Circuit who are thinking about reasons to block implementation of the new policy.  Ultimately, however, this new policy will be implemented.  It will be a major victory for the rule of law as well as for President Trump.

The Government's Global Warming Report

I'm sitting in a very cold state of Connecticut looking at the report issued by the government on global warming.  It's actually the fourth such report since 2000.  Each report has predicted imminent catastrophe due to the climate.  We never seem to reach those catastrophes but each time we have a serious weather event, it gets blamed on global warming.

Think about this:  there were massive wild fires in California in the past month.  Some people blame these on global warming.  There were much bigger fires in California during the 1930s and 1940s, however.  Were they due to anticipatory global warming?  In the period from 2000 to 2010, there weren't many big fires in California.  Was that also due to global warming?

Or how about this:  After hurricane Katrina, the USA went for the longest stretch in recorded history without being hit by a major hurricane.  The period without those storms got so long that some global warming theorists announced that the lack of hurricanes was the result of global warming.  Then, last year we had three such storms.  What was the cause?  If you guessed global warming, you get the prize.  It seems that the lack of hurricanes as well as the presence of hurricanes are due to global warming.  That means that everything is due to global warming.

Then there's the satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature around the globe made by NASA.  The satellites that measure these temperatures were authorized by Congress in the 1990s in order to observe global warming.  From 2000 to 2017, though, these measurements from space of atmospheric temperatures have been statistically steady.  There is no rise.  And these temperatures are not affected by man's activities on the ground.  In other words, a weather station outside a rapidly growing city can record an increase in temperatures just because the city is coming closer.  Atmospheric temperatures are not affected in that way and so are much more accurate.  But there's no rise in temperatures.  In fact, the steadiness of the temperatures are sufficient to prove that the models on which all global warming theory is based are wrong.  That doesn't mean that there's not going to be global warming.  It just means that the computer systems that have been used to predict what would happen do NOT work.  In short, we just don't know.

Let's overlay the current minimum in solar activity.  There have been no sunspots in the last year.  That means a lessening of radiation of heat from the sun.  The result is that the upper atmosphere of the Earth cools, and that cooling means the lower atmosphere cools, although at a slower rate.  We may be heading into one of the coolest periods on Earth in the last 100 years.  That doesn't mean we will hit a mini-ice age, but it does give one cause to stop and wonder about the drumbeat regarding global warming.  If the sun reduces its warming of the Earth, that will far outweigh any man made effect due to greenhouse gases.  We could see severe cold.

It would be nice if the certainty with which the media portrays global warming were replaced with the proper level of scientific skepticism.  We just don't know what the climate will be in 20 years.  Anyone who tells you the contrary is either just a fool or a charlatan.

The WaPo on Racial Politics

There's an interesting article in the Washington Post today about what the Post calls surprising results shown by the exit polls in the Georgia governor's race.  It seems that the Post is mystified by the results that showed that 11% of black men voted for the GOP candidate Kemp over the Democrat candidate Abrams who happens to be black.  The Post just doesn't understand how 11% of black men could vote for the GOP since it is a white supremacist party. 

It's truly an amazing article.  First of all, the Post's article is totally racist.  It assumes that blacks will all vote for a black Democrat rather than decide for themselves who is the better candidate.  In the world of the WaPo, African Americans vote only on race.

Second, the article just says that the GOP is a white supremacist party.  (It's not.)  The Post just spouts the Democrat talking point that blacks will suffer under the GOP.  Apparently, though, many men in Georgia recognized that all time low black unemployment under the GOP is something worth supporting.  These are men who value what the parties actually accomplish rather than just what they say.

 

So How Have The Tax Cuts Worked?

Over Thanksgiving, Yahoo News published an article claiming that the Republicans' "tax cut party is officially over."  It was an amazing bit of nonsense.  Basically, the article says that the economy got much better but now it is slowing a bit, so the tax cuts failed.  This is the liberal Democrat explanation that the economy isn't really good.

Let's look at a few of the claims:

1.  Wages are growing at only 3.1% "which is barely ahead of inflation."  Amazing.  During the entire Obama presidency, real wages were stagnant or declining.  In other words, wages did not grow as fast as inflation.  That means that the average American did not get a pay raise after inflation even once during the Obama years.  Now, just ten months after the tax cuts went into effect, we have wages growing at more than 1% fast than inflation.  That means a raise for the average American.  That's great news, not bad news as Yahoo portrays it.  For the average family with income of 50,000 dollars per year, that's an extra $500 per year.  That may mean little to the wealthy liberals in Manhattan, DC and San Francisco, but it's a lot for the average family.

2.  The economy grew at only 4.2% in the second quarter and about 3.5% in the third quarter, but there's a forecasting firm that says it will only grow at 2.3% in the fourth quarter.  Yahoo calls this "weak".  Remember that for the eight years of Obama, the economy never once grew at 3% or higher.  If the current economy is "weak", then the Obama economy was stagnant at best and terrible if properly viewed.  Since Trump took over, the US economy has far outstripped the Obama years.

3.  The stock market is not up a great deal in 2018.  That's true, but it shouldn't be a surprise.  The stock market is always looking ahead.  In the second half of 2017 when the tax cuts were expected to pass, the markets soared.  Since then, it has gyrated up and down, but it's basically at the same place it was when about a month after the tax cuts passed.  Anyone who understands the markets at all also understands that they don't always just go up.

4.  Yahoo also claims that there hasn't been a big surge in business investment since the tax cuts passed.  That's another sign that the reporter doesn't understand how the economy works.  Businesses don't sit around waiting for a tax cut with "shovel ready" projects.  Once the lower rates are in position, it takes time until new investments are considered and green-lighted.  The increase in investment will come over many years.  Each extra investment will have a lasting positive effect on the US economy.  It will take time for all this to work, however.  Remember, after the big Reagan tax cuts, the US economy felt their impact for roughly 25 years.  We've only had ten months with the latest cuts.

JFK Plus 55

Yesterday marked 55 years since the assassination of President John Kennedy.  There were a bunch of reports and shows about the anniversary and the life and work of JFK.  It was essentially all a praise of the men who actually didn't accomplish much as president.  If you think about it, you find that what Kennedy did basically boils down to just a few things:

1.  The key was international affairs.  Kennedy came into office and green-lighted the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by rebels seeking to overthrow the Castro regime.  The landing could not have happened without Kennedy's support, and the anti-Castro forces went ahead eagerly with the attack.  Then, once the forces hit the beaches, Kennedy withheld any American support for them.  Without that support, the rebels were easily beaten by Castro's army.  It was a debacle.  Kennedy made the basic mistake of trying to give halfway support to a military campaign.  He seemed to think that you could partially support something of that nature.

Kennedy's next international fiasco came when he met with the leader of the USSR, Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna.  Kennedy came across to Krushchev as a weak man who could be pushed around easily.  As a result, Krushchev gambled and began to put nuclear missiles in Cuba in secret.  The USA found out about these missiles right before they were to become operational.  Remember, in 1962, there were few, if any Soviet missiles that could hit the USA.  Any nuclear attack by the Soviets required the use of bombers which could be shot down (at least in part).  Missiles in Cuba changed the balance of power.

As a result, we got the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Kennedy took a stand against the Soviet missiles, and Khrushchev ultimately removed them from Cuba.  In return, however, Kennedy stopped all American efforts to remove Castro.  Kennedy also agreed to remove American missiles from Turkey.  In other words, Kennedy gave up big things to get the missiles out of Cuba.  This outcome was a lot better than what had happened with the Bay of Pigs or Vienna, but it was hardly a great victory.

Kennedy's other big move was putting major numbers of American "advisors" into Vietnam.  At the time of his assassination, Kennedy had increased the number of US forces in South Vietnam from a few hundred at the time of his inauguration to about 16,000.  It was the true beginning of the terrible war in Vietnam.  To be fair, most of the blame for that war goes to Lyndon Johnson who raised the number ultimately to over 700,000 US troops in that country while at the same time limiting the ability of those forces to fight and trying to manage everything that happened from the White House.  For this reason alone, Kennedy's presidency was a mess.

2.  On the domestic front, Kennedy did better.  He passed a tax cut that lowered the extremely high income tax rates that had been put in place to fund World War II.  That helped get the economy growing rapidly again.

Kennedy also pushed for desegregation, voting rights, and the civil rights laws.  In that effort, Kennedy was opposed mainly by members of his own Democrat party, mainly those from the South.  The Democrats today portray themselves as the ones who delivered civil rights to blacks, but that is a lie.  It was the GOP that pushed through these laws; the Democrats were deeply split on the issue.

In sum, Kennedy was not the worst president, but he was far from the best.

Hard Times Hit A Charity

Guess which "charity" has seen over a 90% drop in contributions over the last three years.  Anyone paying attention to American politics would know the answer immediately.  Between 2015 and 2017 contributions to the Clinton Foundation have fallen by more than 90% according to the latest reports.  I use 2015 because that was the last full year during which people could believe that Hillary Clinton would be in the White House.  The other year 2017 is the first full year when everyone knew that Hillary would never be president.

Is there really anyone surprised that the ability of the Clintons to raise cash for their so called foundation collapsed with Hillary's political prospects?  It's always seemed clear that the Clinton Foundation was just a nice way for Bill and Hillary to raise tons of money from friends who even get to deduct their gifts on their tax returns.  Bill and Hillary got to use the cash as their own personal slush fund and all they really sold was access to the White House once Hillary won in 2016.  But, of course, Hillary lost.

 

Happy Thanksgiving

I want to wish you all a happy Thanksgiving.  I'll be back on Friday, but for now I plan to stay away from the news and focus on other things.

The Saudi Crown Prince -- It's A Confusing Issue

According to leaks in the media (but no official confirmation), the CIA has concluded that the Saudi crown prince Mohammed (known as MBS) ordered the killing of Kashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Turkey.  The story is that the CIA doesn't have evidence that MBS ordered the killing but rather has concluded that this is likely true.  As a result, part of the mainstream media has gone berserk demanding all sorts of retribution against the Saudis.

This is confusing.  America deals with all sorts of murderers.  Just think of Kim Jung Un of North Korea who has murdered tens of thousands including his own brother.  Or how about president Xi of China who has sent millions to concentration camps and death.  And Obama reopened relations with Cuba where Castro killed and killed and then killed some more.  We also had relations with the USSR which murdered tens of millions.  And let's not forget our relations with all sorts of leaders in the Middle East who just murdered people constantly.  So why is this one murder worse than the others?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that we should ignore the fact that the Saudi crown prince likely had one of his citizens murdered.  I'm just wondering why the media wants us to get all crazy in this case while ignoring the thousands who were slaughtered by Assad or in Venezuela by Maduro.  There's no real difference.  The world is a dangerous place filled with bad people, including many who lead countries with whom we have no choice but to deal.

It's like the war in Yemen.  Some politicians, like senator Murphy of my state of Connecticut, constantly denounce the Sunni side in that war (backed by the Saudis) as genocidal and horrendous.  Meanwhile the conduct of the other side (the Shia Houthis backed by Iran) is just as bad, but it escapes condemnation.  That makes no sense.  The war is a bad thing.  That goes without saying.  But why should we condemn one side and ignore the other?  Is it because President Trump has the USA siding more with the Saudis than the Iranians?  Is senator Murphy's constant comment just more anti-Trump politics?  Does he actually have a reason for his position but he decided not to reveal it?

It is confusing, I say again.  It seems to me that as a world power the USA has no choice but to deal with many bad people.  We don't get to decide how other countries conduct their internal affairs.  The only other option is to withdraw from the world and to leave it to the bad people to run it.  That surely sounds like an idiotic choice.

Another Lefty Judge, Another Crazy Decision

For a long time, the conduct (or better misconduct) of many in the federal judiciary was an important political issue.  Democrats who could not win in Congress or at the ballot box used judges to get their way no matter what the law said.  Then came President Trump and the GOP senate and a big chunk of the judiciary was moved towards judges who respect the Constitution and the laws rather than rewriting them to suite the political aims of the Dems.  Two new Supreme Court justices have solidified a conservative control of the Supreme Court.  82 other judges have been appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate.  Fully one in six federal judges are now Trump appointees.  More than another 80 are awaiting confirmation.  It seemed as if the issue would recede.

Then we get a decision like yesterday's regarding the rules for granting asylum.  Under the law, the President is authorized to set rules for where, when and how asylum requests are to be processed.  There is no lack of clarity in the law; the president has that authority.  A few weeks ago, the Trump administration announced rules that all asylum requests must be made at a port of entry into the USA.  Those who enter the country illegally will no longer be allowed to request asylum if apprehended.  It's a perfectly reasonable rule governing asylum requests.  But a federal judge in San Francisco decided yesterday that it was beyond the president's authority and he enjoined the government from following the rule.

The new decision will ultimately be reversed on appeal.  It may have to go to the Supreme Court for that to happen because, not surprisingly, the ACLU brought the action in the Ninth Circuit which is an out of control leftist court.  Nevertheless, it will be reversed.  Still, what the court did yesterday was to remind those who care about the rule of law that many in the judiciary are still out of control.  The need to complete the nomination process for the rest of the Trump appointees and for the President to continue to appoint more remains.  It gives new life to the whole issue of the federal judiciary.

Another Attempt to Pander by Blumenthal

Acting Attorney General is the subject of a new lawsuit brought in federal court by senators Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse and Mazie Hirono.  These senators claim that the appointment of an acting Attorney General while the President is naming a nominee as Attorney General and the Senate is considering his or her confirmation is "unconstitutional" since the person acting has not been approved by the Senate.  It's a sad lawsuit; it's one that does nothing but pander to the lunatic leftwing base of the Democrat party.

Let's start with the law.  Under the Constitution, the principal officers of the USA (like the Attorney General) are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  There are instances, however, for which confirmation is not required.  For example, if the Senate recesses, the President can make a recess appointment which is immediately effective.  There is also the problem of how to handle a vacancy that arises if someone leaves office.  That is what happened here when Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned.

Under the Vacancy Reform Act of 1998 (which, by the way was signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton), the President can name as acting Attorney General any high level employee of the Justice Department who has worked for that Department for at least three months.  Acting Attorney General Whitaker unarguably meets these criteria.  That means that under the law, Whitaker's appointment is perfectly legal.

Blumenthal and the other two know-nothings argue, however, that the Vacancy Reform Act is unconstitutional.  They argue that only someone confirmed by Congress can act as Attorney General.  This is nonsensical.  The Constitution does not mention recess appointments, but the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that they are allowed and discussed the parameters for which they are to be accepted.  That means that there are obviously conditions under which a person not confirmed by the Senate can act as a cabinet officer.  Since Congress passed a law describing in detail who, how and when a person can be acting Attorney General, the process is obviously proper.

In short, Blumenthal who pretends to be a legal scholar and the other two senators who joined in the lawsuit are just posturing for their base.  There is no way that the suit can be successful.

Little Noticed News About Syria

Two things just happened that are of great importance regarding the USA and Syria.  First, the annual resolution at the UN general assembly got passed to condemn the Israeli "occupation" of the Golan Heights.  This year, instead of the traditional American abstention, the US voted against the resolution.  It's a symbolic change, but an important one.  America made clear that it is siding with its ally and against the murderous, Iranian-backed Assad regime that now controls much of Syria.  We picked the right side.  Moreover, it is important to remember that Israel only occupies the Golan because it captured the territory after Syria attacked Israel in 1967.  Territory captured in a defensive war is allowed, under international law, to be kept indefinitely.  Were Syria to agree to peace with Israel, it might get the Golan back, but Syria will not consider a peace agreement.  Israel has every right under international law to be in the Golan. 

The second bit of news is more important.  The administration made clear that US troops will remain in eastern Syria as part of an effort to stabilize the region to prevent the recurrence of ISIS domination in the region.  The portion of Syria east of the Euphrates river is controlled today by the Kurds and by the Syrian Democratic forces.  These are pro-US, anti-Assad and anti-Iran groups.  Keeping the US forces in place will prevent Assad and Iran from retaking the area and will also bar Iran from having an easy land route for shipping weapons from Teheran to Damascus.  There is no intention of having the troops engage in fighting; they will not be an attack force to be used to expand this area.  The troops will be there, however, to deter any attacks by Assad or the Iranians.

Of all the moves that the US could undertake to disrupt the Iranian plans for regional hegemony, this is one of the most important.

The Selective Memory Of the Media

In the last week, the media has been going overboard concerning a statement made by First Lady Melania Trump in which she sought the firing of a staffer on the National Security Council.  It was an "unprecedented" move according to the AP.  In the past no First Lady had ever gotten involved with firing White House staff.  Article after article has attacked Mrs. Trump for getting involved in the staffing of the White House in a way that had never been done before.  Except, of course, it was actually nothing new.

When the Clintons moved into the White House in 1993, one of the first things that then First Lady Hillary Clinton did was to get the staff of the White House travel office removed.  The cover story was that the FBI had found improprieties by the staff during the first Bush administration, but actually, Hillary just wanted to reward some of the Clintons' friends with the jobs.  The whole mess of her involvement and the phony charges went on for years.  It was even given the name of "Travelgate".  Various prosecutors looked into the supposed wrongdoing by the travel office staff who were fired at Hillary's behest, but no one was ever convicted of any crime.  On the other hand, an Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, issued a final report in 2000 in which he said that some of Hillary Clinton's statements in the matter were false, but he declined to indict her because there was insufficient proof that they were "knowingly" false or that she understood that her statements led to the firings.  It was just another instance of there being one law for the Clintons and one for everyone else.

The same media outlets that now castigate Melania for her "unprecedented" interference with the White House staff, defended Mrs. Clinton at the time of Travelgate.

It's important to remember that the current action by Mrs. Trump are neither dishonest, nor motivated by an attempt to get friends into cushy federal jobs.  Mrs. Clinton, however, couldn't say that.  More precisely, Mrs. Clinton couldn't HONESTLY say that.  (We all know she could say anything at any time whether or not true.)  Melania Trump was dissatisfied with the work of this NSC staffer.  She said so, but her actions were hardly unprecedented.

Being Thankful

Next Thursday we celebrate Thanksgiving as a nation.  It's a holiday whose concept seems to have been lost on many in the political class.  Each day, I read messages from my senators, Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal (who I call #LyingDick).  Nine times out of ten, the Blumenthal message is angry.  Indeed, my number is probably low.  It doesn't matter what happens, #LyingDick is angry about it.  There are wild fires in California; #LyingDick isn't concerned or wanting to help; no, he's angry and wants to blame President Trump for the fires.  A new acting Attorney General gets appointed and #LyingDick doesn't wish him well or suggest policies he might follow.  Nope, #LyingDick spends days attacking the guy on one dishonest basis after another.  Whitaker gets appointed and #LyingDick just goes on the attack no matter what the actual facts are.

The senators from my state aren't alone in this non-stop anger.  Try reading the twitter feed of Elizabeth Warren.  She seems to think that endless anger will bring her the White House.  (It won't)  For some reason, these far left types think that anger is a winning issue.  Someone needs to clue them in that anger will only draw in the other angry people.  Those who are not angry will be repulsed.  Indeed, many who are already angry will likewise be repulsed.  Americans are not looking for someone to express angry emotions.  Generally, Americans look for someone who understands their views and will fight to help them.  They also want someone who will try at least to move towards calm.  We've just had too many years of anger.

So does that mean that President Trump has to tone it down?  I think so, but just in a minor way.  There's nothing wrong with expressing views, something that Trump always does.  There's also nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in the opposition's views.  Again, this is something that Trump always does.  The unnecessary attacks on opponents, however, are too much.  Let me give an example:  When Trump calls Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas", it's fine.  He's making a point of her phony claims to being 1/1028 Native American, a percentage that is only half that of the average white American.  Warren's BS about her heritage deserves to be mocked; she made herself a laughing stock.  On the other hand, there's no need to call Maxine Waters "low IQ".  Waters does a good job showing her stupidity, and I think Trump would do better to simply point out some of Waters' more crazy moves and say, "Can you believe that?"

But back to expressing anger vs. giving thanks.  Think about it.  When was the last time you heard a Democrat express thanks for living in this great country?  I truly can't remember that happening.  Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't think so.  At least since 2016, the Democrats describe America as being the gateway to hell.  But it wasn't the 2016 election; that made things worse, but it didn't create the anger.  It seems as if we haven't seen a Democrat happy about the USA in this century.

I think that we could all use this week to think about the amazing benefit we have all received to live in this great country.  To use the cliché, there's a reason why so many people are trying to get into the USA whether legally or not.  That reason isn't because things are so horrible here.  No, it's a testament to the greatness of this place.  Let's all give thanks this week for our blessing in living here.

The Left Doesn't Understand How Litigation Works

This morning, I saw a tweet expressing outrage that a conservative federal judge said yesterday that if it were up to him, he would end discovery in all cases in which less than half a million dollars was at stake.  The person expressing outrage claimed that this proposal was being put forward because "justice" in America is reserved for the wealthy.  The tweet was an amazing display of just how out to lunch so many on the left truly are.

Discovery is often used by one side to try to bash the other into submission.  Let me give you an example:

Some years ago, I represented a company that had installed certain material on a federal project.  The material was supposed to be of a certain quality and that was what my client ordered from a very large national supplier.  The material was delivered labeled as being of the required quality and two thirds was installed.  At that point, the government tested some of the material and found it to be substandard.  The government ordered it all ripped out and replaced.  My client complied but then sued the supplier for delivering material that did not meet the required standard.  There were extra costs incurred of between 2 and 3 million dollars. 

We then started a lawsuit against the supplier who was then represented by a very large New York law firm.  The supplier's attorney then began a discovery process that they made larger and larger.  We had nearly 40 days of depositions, most of which were entirely meaningless.  There was all sort of document discovery and interrogatories.  There was no way to stop this; the supplier's lawyers just went to town and pushed for more and more discovery, something to which they were entitled under the rules.  To put this in context, you need to know that we took one deposition that lasted three hours and looked at certain documents produced by the supplier.  Our discovery was about 3% of the total and the supplier took 97% of the total.  The expense of the discovery was substantial, and my client had been forced to lay out millions to do the replacement work.

Finally, the discovery ended and we were going to trial.  The supplier's attorneys tried another move to delay the trial by bringing in a new party, but at my request, the judge blocked that move. 

In the month before trial, the supplier's attorneys suggested settling.  I demanded payment in full with interest.  The case settled for payment in full with 2/3 of the legal interest.  It was a total victory.

The point of the story is that the strategy of the supplier's attorneys was to try to drive my client under by running up the litigation costs to an unsustainable level.  It's not an unusual ploy.  Indeed, discovery abuses are one of the main problems in civil litigation today.

What this all means is that ending discovery (or severely limiting it) in smaller federal cases would actually take away from rich litigants their ability to use the cost of discovery to win cases by outlasting the adversary.  Somehow, the left never sees this.  Of course, it is also possible that since the trial attorneys are such strong supporters of the Democrats, it may be just that the left does understand, but can't accept any solution which might discommode their supporters.

What It Means To Help Those In Need

In the midst of this past week's hoopla over the choice by Amazon for it's split second headquarters, most of the focus in New York was on the enormous amount of tax breaks the state gave to the company to lure it to Queens.  Amazon will be building a major corporate campus right on the East River across from Manhattan and the state will contribute billions.  The figures show that the state is kicking in something just under $50,000 per job created.  But there's another important bit of information that seems to have been overlooked.  The land on which the new buildings will be built had been designated for low cost housing and acquired by the state for that purpose.  There were to have been thousands of affordable apartment units built there which will now not be built.  It's important to remember that affordable housing and New York City are two things that usually don't go together.  The idea of adding thousands of affordable, new units in a convenient location is one that has great appeal.  Now, the people who would have gotten the benefit of that construction are just plain out of luck.  No one in Albany or in City Hall, it seems, cared at all about these people in need of better housing when there was a chance to lure in Amazon.  That's government in New York; it professes to be all about helping the downtrodden until it actually gets the chance to do something.  Then it's Amazon all the way and the downtrodden be damned!

Can It Be? Did The Clintons Really Cancel Their Tour?

Here's some possible good news.  There are reports that the 13 city tour by Bill and Hillary Clinton has been cancelled due to poor ticket sales.  The Clintons were going to speak to the "crowds" for a ticket price that started at $75 each and went up from there for the "good" seats.  There always was the question which hung over the tour as to what sort of person would actually pay big bucks to see the over-the-hill gang talk about things as if their views still mattered.  Indeed, the idea of the tour seemed nothing more than a gross delusion by the Clintons who obviously believe that people actually wanted to see more of them.  (Hint:  they don't.)

Hopefully, this lack of interest in the tour will finally convince Hillary that she should not run in 2020.  Of course, even Hillary can recognize that there are just no viable Democrat candidates for president as of yet.  A meeting of the "big" names who could get into the race is much like a bridge game at a retirement home; it's a bunch of old people talking about the past.

 

No Matter What, Stacy Abrams Is Setting a New Low For A Political Candidate

Stacy Abrams was the Democrat candidate for governor of Georgia this year.  She lost.  As contested elections go, it wasn't even that close.  She ran about 3% behind the GOP candidate Kemp.  But Abrams isn't conceding and according to reports she is preparing for a legal challenge to the results once they are certified.  Abrams will claim that there were voters who left long lines at polling places where delays were experienced, voters who weren't offered provisional ballots by poll workers when they showed at the wrong polling place and the like.  Supposedly, this is sufficient legally to cast doubt on the outcome and to require a new election.

Think about that.  Have you ever stood in line for a long time to vote?  I have.  You just have to wait if you want to vote.  If voters decided to leave instead, that's hardly voter suppression.  And what about provisional ballots being offered?  I don't pretend to know Georgia law, but if a voter shows at the wrong place, why should he or she get to vote that way.  Wouldn't the logical remedy be for the voter to go to the correct polling place and vote?

This sounds like the lamest challenge to an election ever.  Of course, Abrams is a Democrat so maybe she can find a judge to rule her way.  If so, it will be a disgrace.  Elections should be decided by votes not by judges.  Abrams needs to give up and go home.

A "Win" For Acosta

If you read the mainstream media, you would think that Jim Acosta and CNN won a great victory in court today and the petulant reporter will be back working as usual in the White House from now on.  That's not actually the result.  What the judge said was that Acosta's hard pass which gives him quick access to the White House grounds could not be taken away absent "due process".  It didn't require a court hearing, but there had to be some procedure followed before the government could take the pass away.  The judge pointed out that the assistant US attorney appearing before him could not even state who had made the decision to take the hard pass away, let alone the reason for the decision.  The judge also noted that even though Acosta had his pass back, the White House need not ever call upon him again to ask a question.  So what we had was a technical and legalistic decision about process, not about right or wrong.  Acosta can have his hard pass back, but it is still up to the White House and only the White House if Acosta can return to asking questions.

I haven't studied the decision, but it seems like a reasonable result.

When Personal Vendettas Triumph

Senator Jeff Flake will be out of office in about six weeks.  The Arizona Republican did not run for re-election since he was showing at less than 25% support in the polls.  Essentially no one in Arizona who knew him wanted to vote for him.  Flake claims to be a conservative Republican, but he became a never-Trumper in 2016, and his support vanished.  Democrats didn't want a conservative.  Republicans didn't want a never-Trumper.  So now it's time for Flake to hit the road, and he's come up with a parting shot.  Flake has announced that he won't vote for any nominees during the remainder of his term unless the Senate first votes on a bill to "protect" the special prosecutor Robert Mueller from being fired.  It's a totally ridiculous move that shows just who Flake truly is and what is important to him.

First of all, let's start with the fact that Mueller doesn't need protection.  For the last year and a half, senators like Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have been pushing a bill to "protect" Mueller, but even though no such bill passed, Mueller is still there and his investigation has gone on unhindered.  The "protect Mueller" movement has been just a political ploy.  It lets liars like Blumenthal claim that the President is planning to fire Mueller and then make a big deal out of trying to stop him.  Of course, if the President really wanted to fire Mueller, he would already have done so.  One thing we all know is that President Trump has no trouble firing people.  So this whole subject is nonsense.

Second, the nominations that Flake is trying to block are almost entirely of judicial conservatives who have been named to the federal courts.  For a long time, Flake has professed that one of his goals as a senator was to see the crazy liberal judges who legislate from the bench reined in.  That's exactly what these appointments help accomplish.  So Flake is blocking the achievement of his supposed goal in order to support a nonsense move.

So what's the reason for this?  The answer is simple.  It is Flake's way of taking a personal shot at the President.  He gets to claim that the President is going to fire Mueller and Flake is the one who stopped it.  It's part of his vendetta towards Trump.

Flake deserves to be roundly condemned for this move.  He's talked of running for president in 2020, but I think I have a better chance of getting the GOP nomination than he does and I have no chance.  One nice thing to consider, however, is that Flake will soon be gone.  Most likely, he will become a regular on CNN or MSNBC who have a constant need for so called Republicans that they can put on the air to criticize the President.

It Would Be a Disaster If This Leads To Corbyn

It's unclear at the moment if Teresa May will be ousted as the British Prime Minister and if that will lead to elections.  There is a deep split among the Tories and with the Unionists in Ulster about the terms under which Brexit will be accomplished.  May has negotiated what many describe as a semi-exit from the European Union rather than a return to full British sovereignty.  That will keep the border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland as a "soft" one, but it will also subject the UK to many of the regulations of the EU.  And to be clear, those regulations will be made in Brussels but without any input from the UK.  Her approach seems deeply flawed.  It does not accomplish the aim of Brexit, but it gives up control to Brussels for very little benefit.

That being said, the mess being made by May in the Brexit talks may lead to a victory for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour.  That would be a disaster.  Corbyn is no Tony Blair.  He's a hard left ideologue who could easily take Britain back down the socialist rabbit hole.  He's also a bigot who has frequently expressed anti-Semitic views.  It would be sad indeed to see overt bigotry in the British prime minister.

Gee, Maybe He Could Get The Nomination

There's more news about Michael Avenatti who first came to prominence as the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels.  He was arrested today in LA on charges of felony domestic abuse.  The charges were made by a person the media described as a "woman with many visible bruises".  As of yet, her name has not been released.  As usual, Avenatti says that there is no truth to the allegations.

It's been an amazing few months for Avenatti.  He got tons of media coverage with Stormy Daniels and said that he would bring down the President.  Then he got involved pushing an obviously dishonest claim against Justice Kavanaugh; his client swore that the Justice had organized gang rape parties when he was a junior in high school.  Those allegations disintegrated quickly and the Senate Judiciary committee sent criminal referrals in connection with them.  Then much of the law suit brought by Avenatti against Trump was dismissed and the court ordered Daniels to pay Trump's legal fees.  That was a disaster for Daniels.  Next a court ruled that Avenatti owed a former partner many millions of dollars for fraud.  Then his law firm was evicted for non-payment of rent.  Now he's been arrested.

The best part of all this is that Avenatti has been talking about running for president as a Democrat and many in the media took him seriously.  He never had a chance.  Of course, now that he has been accused of domestic violence, he could be just the candidate the Democrats have been seeking.  Indeed, if Avenatti gets the nomination, he could pick Keith Ellison as his running mate.  Imagine that:  two men accused of domestic violence against women on the same ticket.  It would be a fitting sequel to Hillary Clinton.

I'm Confused

The "prison reform" legislation that is being pushed in DC at the moment includes leniency in the form of early release for a variety of people convicted of federal crimes.  One of the group to whom leniency would be given under the legislation consists of felons convicted of creating or selling child pornography.  To be clear, anyone convicted more than once of crimes concerning child pornography would be ineligible for help, but first time offenders would get early release.

This is confusing.  Who is it who is pushing for the release of child pornographers and why would the GOP or the President agree to that?  There simply is no constituency in the GOP for child pornography.  I doubt there's much of one in the Democrat party either.  So I ask again, who is pushing for this goal of early release for purveyors of kiddie porn?

This needs to be fixed or the bill needs to be defeated.

Climate Change in California

For as long as I can remember, there have been periodic wild fires in California and other parts of the West.  Decades ago, however, there weren't as many people living in California, so there were many fewer homes to burn and more acres of open land.  This year we've seen some of the worst fires ever in the Golden State.  It seemed an inevitable moment as the fire this year started in bad places.  Despite this, we're now getting a drumbeat of statements from Progressives in California blaming global warming for this year's fires.

It's a strange thing that happens every time there is a weather related event; it is always blamed on global warming.  Back in 2000, we were told that sea levels would rise as ice melted around the world due to rising temperatures.  This year we have scientific proof that the amount of ice is increasing in a major way in Antarctica and Greenland, the two major repositories of ice on earth.  The response has been that the ice buildup is a result of global warming.  In 2000, we were told that global warming would bring many more major storms across the planet.  Then we went for the longest stretch ever without a major hurricane hitting the USA.  We were then told that the lack of hurricanes was due to global warming.  Then we had last year when, not surprisingly, there were more major hurricanes than usual.  The consensus was that it was due to global warming.  This year saw the normal level of storms; it was global warming at work once again.  In 2000, we were told that after ten years it would be too late to stop global warming.  This year we are being told that after ten years it will be too late to stop global warming.  The only conclusion is that no matter what happens, it is due to global warming.

I'm waiting for the first article that says that the election of Donald Trump was due to global warming.  It's the only thing the left hasn't yet blamed for the President.

You Have To Love This

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has moved to DC and the first thing she did once there was to join a protest in the office of Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi.  The subject of the protest was climate change, but that really doesn't matter.  What's important is the optics of a freshman Democrat protesting in the office of her party's leader in the House.  It conveys the impression that Ocasio Cortez doesn't think all that highly of Pelosi.

There's been speculation regarding whether or not Pelosi could hold onto her leadership position.  The pundits all wrinkle their brows and say she's a shoo in, but I'm not so sure.  These so called experts seem to be missing just how many Democrats view Pelosi as the problem rather than the solution.

On another front today, a few reporters questioned why Pelosi is under assault from Democrat House members after she led them to victory while Chuck Schumer is not being questioned after he led Democrats in the senate to defeat.  It must be sexism according to these people.  So now Democrats are hurling charges of sexism at each other at the same time others are protesting fellow party members for not doing enough about Climate Change.

Maybe next week they can call each other racist or homophobic.

Cuomo Buying Bezos for 2020??

The tax benefits used to lure Amazon to New York City are much greater than those offered by Virginia or Tennessee, the other successful locales.  According to Amazon, the cost per job for New York taxpayers is $48,000, compared to $22,000 for Virginia and $13,000 for Tennessee.

This makes me wonder.  Why would NYC with all its attractions have to pay twice as much in tax benefits to get Amazon to locate there?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that governor Cuomo is planning to run for president in 2020 and would like favorable coverage from the Washington Post which just happens to be owned by Amazon's principal shareholder Jeff Bezos?  It would not be unusual for a NY politician to use taxpayer money to buy a better political future for him or herself.

Since corruption is a way of life in New York government, you really cannot rule this out.

Indeed, this is such a serious charge that there probably ought to be an investigation launched into Cuomo's dealings with Amazon and Bezos.

The Climate is......Cooling????

There's a spate of articles today about a warning from NASA that the dearth of sunspots during the current solar minimum could lead to unprecedented cold for the modern age.  To be clear, it is not another Ice Age.  It's just that the normal cycle of the sun has reached a lower low than any of the last century.  These minimums correspond to colder temperatures on the Earth.  Put that together and we may be facing a colder winter than usual, indeed a colder period for the next few years.

I realize that to the global warming crowd, this news is akin to blasphemy.  Still, for the group that constantly tells us how they want to follow "science", it will be interesting to see why they are sure the earth will still warm even as it cools.  Maybe a better way to put this is:  when the two forces involved are the sun on the one side and excess carbon dioxide from human activity on the other side, the truly puny nature of humanity's effect on the Earth is clearly evident.

The News No One Covers

Last night, there was a barrage of 300 missiles fired from Gaza by the Palestinians at Israel.  About 80 of these missiles were shot down by the Israeli Iron Dome system, but a few got through and hit targets.  One hit a bus and critically wounded the driver.  Others hit homes and businesses.  The Israeli Air Force in turn hit about 50 Hamas targets in response to the missiles.  At the moment, the Israelis and Hamas are as close to all out war as they have been since their lengthy battle in 2014.  It's a very dangerous moment in the Middle East, and the impact of such a battle could seriously affect the USA not only because Israel is our ally, but because renewed fighting between Israel and Hamas could endanger the anti-Iranian coalition in the region.  As of now, Israel and most of the non-Palestinian Sunni Arab nations are working together in that coalition. 

The strange thing, however, is that the mainstream media has hardly covered this story.  I don't mean that the story has been relegated to the back pages -- so to speak -- of the web sites.  I mean that the story is not even mentioned by some news organizations like NBC News.  I checked that NBC site carefully.  They were promoting a story reporting on if "white nationalists" consider the President to be a racist.  Seriously, there are probably only a few thousand actual white nationalists in the USA, but NBC is reporting on their views of the President as if those views mattered.

I realize that NBC considers it part of the network's mission to spend as much time as possible attacking President Trump.  So what.  When did it also become NBC's mission to ignore important international news?

The Dems' 2020 Candidate

Today in 2020 Democrat presidential moves we got a declared candidate in the form of a West Virginia state senator who supported Donald Trump in 2016 (oh boy) and Ohio senator Sherrod Brown who says he's seriously considering a run.  These guys make most of the other losers who are considering a run look good and that's not easy.

Most likely, our friend from WV will disappear quickly.  Senator Brown will still be on the scene, but should he run his total lack of charisma will weigh down his chances.  Eventually he will be forced to withdraw.

At some point, one of these bozos will pull ahead and the media will start the adoration process.  Until then, it's safe to say that even these two should stay in and fight.

The Acosta Press Credentials

My local paper says in a big headline that CNN and Jim Acosta are suing the White House over Acosta's revoked press credentials.  The article then goes on to say at the end that CNN says that it has made no decision on whether or not to sue.  This is what passes for journalism at the Hearst papers in Connecticut:  they print headlines that are contradicted by their own articles.

Let's forget for the moment the erroneous headline.  Does Acosta have a case should he decide to sue?  Is the White House barred from banning a reporter no matter what he does?  This sounds like a question for which the CNN folks will try to find a sympathetic judge to rule in their favor.  I could see the ruling go either way.  After all, Acosta will argue that it is an issue of freedom of the press and the White House will argue that CNN still has full access but that Acosta's obvious misbehavior was so egregious that he personally had to be barred.  And clearly the DC press is siding mostly with the White House here.  So far, no other network has announced support for CNN and Acosta on this issue.  They all saw Acosta's tantrum at the press conference.

My guess is that some sort of accommodation will be reached and Acosta will be allowed to return, but you never know these days.  Maybe Acosta will decide to run for president as a Democrat.  He might be a better choice than Avenatti.

Here We Go On the Road To Alexandria

In the NY Post this morning, there is an article reporting on the musings of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez regarding a possible run for President of the United States.  Cortez is a self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" but that's about the end of anything coherent from her.  She upset a long time Democrat in the primary in her NY district last summer and was inevitably elected to the House last week.  It wasn't exactly a striking win.  The district she will represent is less than 15% white, and the guy she knocked off in the primary was an old white guy.  The district is also about half Hispanic, just like Cortez.  My guess is that most of the primary voters didn't have a clue that she is a socialist; they just knew that Ocasio-Cortez has a Hispanic name.  As for the general election, there are almost no Republicans in her district; a victory by the Democrat is inevitable.  So Alexandria won on her ethnicity and is already talking about running for president.  Meanwhile, during the campaign she wouldn't answer questions a policy and made a fool of herself on multiple occasions (for her are they "ocasio-ns") by showing her complete lack of knowledge.

It's a sad commentary on the country that Alexandria's silly musings are made into news.  Remember, she's only 28, so she couldn't run for president until at least 2028 according to the Constitution (which requires the President be 35).  I doubt Alexandria knows of that age requirement, but even so her comments are silly at best.

Let Alexandria take her seat in Congress.  Then, let's stop covering this fool.

Nothing Much To See In France

President Trump is in Paris to help observe the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. The trip has been a yawn so far.  Yesterday the media tried to make a big deal about Trump's cancellation of a visit to an American cemetery from the WW I era.  The weather was rainy, so Trump's helicopter couldn't safely make the trip.  That gave rise to a bunch of snarky comments from the media and some politicians, but really, does anyone actually believe that Trump just decided on a whim not to go after first scheduling the visit?

Then there's the so called Peace Forum.  That's an annual meeting run by French president Macron at which heads of state discuss peace.  Trump isn't going.  Let me clue you in to what will be discussed.  The leaders favor peace.  They won't actually do anything to guarantee the peace, though.  The forum is only long enough for each leader to make a short statement.

And let's not forget the French protesters against President Trump.  Today, there was supposed to be a march in Paris by some protesters, but that's nothing new.  There was also a protest at which some topless women ran into traffic near Trump's motorcade.  I'm not sure what they were protesting, but I am sure that Trump appreciated the protest if he actually saw it.
 

It's Time To Brighten Your Day

It has been a tough few days for a variety of reasons.  As a result, I was very happy to see this story; it made me laugh, and that's a good thing.  According to reports, soon to be former Arizona senator Jeff Flake (who "retired" because he didn't stand a chance of winning either a primary or a general election) told a reporter that he had not ruled out running in the GOP primaries in 2020 against Donald Trump.

I guess the only thing I can add is that I haven't ruled out such a run either, and I think I would have a better chance than Flake at success.

The egos of politicians are amazing things.

More Nonsense From Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes

We have a new kerfuffle from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes.  Today's nonsense is about Alexandria saying that she can't afford to rent an apartment in DC until her salary kicks in as a member of Congress.  She will earn $174,000 per year in that job.  When they reported this news item on Fox News, one of the anchors laughed and Ocasio-Cortes took umbrage at that and claimed that Fox makes fun of the working class people of America.

I'm surprised.  I saw many pictures of Ocasio-Cortes on the campaign trail this fall.  She dresses in designer clothes.  Where did the money for that come from?  She had no job during her campaign, but she seemed to have no problem supporting herself.  Where did the money for that come from?

One thing is clear:  Ocasio-Cortes is not "working class".  She's also not poor.  So here's my suggestion:  don't tell us how you can't afford to rent an apartment.  Just go to DC and do your job.

A Chinese Recession

What would the effect of a recession in China be?  That sounds like the start of some dense discussion/speculation of international economics and interest rates.  It's not.  Actually, it's a question to which the world will soon get an answer.  China's economy is on the brink of recession if it is not already there.  The Chinese have grown their economy for decades based upon huge investment levels.  Roads, bridges, railway systems, ports, and all manner of public infrastructure were built.  Simultaneously, private investment was also soaring.  Cities were rebuilt.  Huge factories were put in place.  It was the engine for the Chinese economic miracle that moved China to its position as the world's second largest economy.  But then something major happened.  The supply of investment goods began to outstrip the actual demand for them.  In a true market economy, the economy would have shifted to meet the new levels of demand.  In China, the outcome was something different.  The command economy pushed growth in the same direction as always.  Buildings, streets and neighborhoods were built with thousands of homes/apartments appearing for which there was little or no demand.  For a while, Chinese investors actually bought and held vacant apartments as investments which they thought would go up in value.  There are literally empty neighborhoods in China that are "investments".  This kept growth going, but it was a true waste of resources.  Meanwhile, China's economy got laden with more and more debt.  Now, the Chinese face a slowing economy, high debt and, to boot, a trade war with the USA that threatens many Chinese products with tariffs in their largest foreign market.  It's a recipe for recession.

(Okay, before you tell me that my discussion above is simplistic, let me say that I know that.  There's no way to discuss the reasons for a Chinese recession in a blog post without being simplistic.)

A recession in China was and is inevitable.  It is much in line with what has happened in nearly every other rapidly developing economy in the world.  Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the like had decades of rapid economic growth, but after 35 years on average, they each hit recessions followed by long periods of slower growth as the nature of their economies changed.  It's about time for that to happen in China.

The question, though, is not what will happen in China, but rather what will the effect of a Chinese recession be in the rest of the world, especially in the US.  Some economists say that a Chinese slow down will reduce the profits earned by US businesses on sales in China, will reduce the amount of US Treasury debt purchased by China, and will limit sales of raw materials to China, all of which will cause a slow down in US economic growth.  Others see much less of an impact on the US economy.  They see the reduction of demand from China as a basis for lower prices around the world for goods and services. 

The truth is that we will have to wait and see what happens.  It's important to be wary of how this will all turn out. 

Malthus Would Be Proud

Thomas Robert Malthus was an English cleric who first came forward with the theory that world population would grow more rapidly than the food supply and other resources so that progress in those areas would be wiped out.  In other words, humanity would need more resources than the Earth could ever supply with the result being starvation and mass depravation.  That sounds a great deal like the current view of much of the environmentalist left.  Climate change is just the latest manifestation of this argument:  people are causing the Earth to warm and that will soon destroy humanity.

Here's the key, though:  Malthus came forward with this view in 1796.  That's right, 222 years ago, this idea was put forward with the inevitable starvation of humanity seen to be coming in 20-30 years after that.  Since that time, one after another "expert" has come forward with a similar view, just with a different time frame.  So far, however, it hasn't happened.  Indeed, the standard of living for humanity has risen dramatically over those two centuries.

Today, however, I saw an interview with the chief astronomer of the UK in which he expressed his view that it would be tough for humanity to survive the rest of this century because of the inability of the Earth's resources to support the human population.  Somehow, the identity of the "expert" changes, but the idea does not.  Nevertheless, there's no reason to believe that humanity is any close to disaster today than it was 10 or 50 or 100 years ago.