So Where's the Story?

The US Treasury released statistics that show that average amount of tax refunds were up by 17% last week, so that the average so far in 2019 is now about the same as it was in 2018.  After hearing for weeks from the media and the Democrats that the tax refunds were smaller than last year, that statistic is no longer true.  So where are the stories in the media telling the American people that the prior stories that claimed lower refunds were a tax "increase" were wrong? 

You can be assured that we will never see those stories.  After all, such stories would only help the Trump administration, and we can't have that, can we?

The New Health Plan From the Democrats

A bill was introduced in Congress this week which is co-sponsored by over 100 Democrat house members.  It sets up a national health care plan and the sponsors are touting it as the answer to all of the nation's healthcare problems.  Here's a sample of what it does:

1.  It ends all private health insurance.  The 180 million people who get health insurance through their jobs would lose that and get lumped into the national plan instead.  The two to three million people who work in health insurance related jobs would lose those jobs.  The companies that sell health insurance would be put out of business.

2.  It ends Medicaid and also Medicare as we know it.  It's rather funny that for the last fifty years, the Demcrats run in every election saying that the Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it, and yet the first bill with major support in Congress to do just that comes from the Democrats.  People who are satisfied with their Medicare or Medicaid coverage will lose that and it will be replaced by the new system.

3.  It keeps the separate Veterans' Administration healthcare system.  The Democrats haven't yet explained why they are still keeping a separate system for veterans.  If they think the new system is so good, why not put the veterans into it?  If they think that the current veterans' system is better than the new plan that they are espousing, then we had all better be extremely afraid of what is coming.  The failings of the veterans' system are well known even after the improvements made in the last two years since President Trump got into office.

Here's a sample of what the new bill doesn't do:

1.  The Democrats don't say anything about how they would pay for the new system.  We've heard talk of taxes on the wealthy, but even at very high rates, such taxes would not raise enough money to fund the newly proposed system.  There will have to be massive tax increases on poor and middle income taxpayers and on business as well.  The cost of the system is estimated by some to be more each year than the federal government currently spends in total.  Where do we get the four trillion bucks each year?

2.  The bill does not explain how medical care would be rationed.  If all care is free, then there are those who will use it over and over again for the simplest issues.  The system will be swamped in now time.  How will it get decided who the doctors see and when the appointments are set for.  In other countries with similar systems, it can take many months or even years to get certain types of operations.  Will we move to a system under which people die while waiting for needed treatment?

3.  The bill also does nothing to promote the addition of doctors into the system.  In order for the system to work, it is inevitable that doctors will see the payments received for their services cut substantially.  In other words, the income of the average doctor is going to take a big hit.  How many current doctors are going to retire?  How many students are going to decide to go into a different field than medicine so that they can earn more money?

These are just a sample.  America needs to ask the Democrats to explain these issues.  We cannot just move blindly into a system that seems designed to fail quickly once it is in place.

The Hanoi Meeting with the NKs

The meeting between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jung Un in Hanoi, Vietnam is over.  It ended early without any deal being reached.  Even the signing of a joint agreement which could have outlined interim steps to be taken was abandoned.  The President's main comment was "sometimes you have to walk away."

Clearly, it would have been better had there been an appropriate agreement reached.  Nevertheless, it was a refreshing switch to see the USA walk away from a deal that did not meet our goals.  Just think of the Iran nuclear deal and the negotiating style of president Obama and John Kerry.  No matter what Iran wanted or needed, Obama and Kerry agreed to it in order to get a deal done.  The stated American goal was to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, but Obama and Kerry agreed to a deal that ends with Iran having nukes in 10 years (just six years now) because they were terrified of not having a deal.  They agreed to the spectacle of pallets of cash being delivered to the Iranians to close the transaction.  President Trump didn't bow to the North Koreans just to get a deal; he actually put the interests of the USA first.  It was a very good move for the future of the USA and even for the future of US-North Korea relations.

The meeting in Hanoi was a different sort of presidential negotiation.  Normally, deals like this are negotiated by lower level officials and only signed by the leaders in big ceremonial meetings.  President Trump took a chance by meeting to negotiate directly with Kim.  He strategized that the only opinion that mattered in North Korea was Kim's and that direct contact with Kim was the best way to convince the North Korean that a deal made sense for his country.  It is hard to tell how much progress, if any, has been made on that front.  I doubt that Kim is going home to North Korea to start his missile testing program back up.  He knows that such a move could bring a very strong US response.  It may be that Kim just needs to stew about the proposed deals for a while and that a further meeting months from now could bring good results.  We will just have to wait and see.

The reaction of the mainstream media to the meeting, however, has been laughable.  One article I read this morning actually says that President Trump walked away from a deal with Kim because he wanted to take the focus back from yesterday's Cohen testimony before Congress.  That has to be the single most stupid "analysis" I have ever seen in the mainstream media.  Many articles have been written criticizing the President for his saying that he asked Kim about the death of Otto Warmbier and he believes Kim when he says that he did not know about it.  That criticism is bizarre.  There's no question that poor Otto Warmbier was gravely mistreated by the North Koreans.  Still, he was a student in prison for stealing a poster.  I doubt that Kim was getting bulletins on his treatment.  The biggest refrain in the media though is not about Warmbier.  Rather, the media "experts" are all discussing how President Trump "elevated" Kim by meeting with him while getting nothing in return.  This is the kind of analysis that led to the agreement with Iran; it analyzes things based upon what gets said and what things look like, not on the actual results.  Kim's meeting with President Trump doesn't change who he is or what North Korea is.  It doesn't change the North Korean nuclear missile program.  That program, however, has been changed since the first meeting when the NK's stopped missile and nuclear weapons testing.  The American captives that were held in North Korea were released after that meeting, and that is an actual change.  The remains of US servicemen lost during the Korean War were returned, and that is an actual change.

We will have to wait and see where this thing goes next.

Some More News From the Real World

I've been writing about the conflict between India and Pakistan in the last few days, and much has happened in the last 24 hours.  About 12 hours ago, Pakistan shot down either one or two planes of the Indian air force over Pakistani territory.  One Indian pilot was captured after he bailed out of his aircraft.  (India says it lost one plane; Pakistan says it shot down two planes.) 

Now we are getting reports that there is fighting between Indian and Pakistani forces at multiple sites along the border in Kashmir.  There is no clear word on exactly where the fighting is located or as to how many troops are involved.  This is a truly worrisome bit of news.  If the sporadic incidents of the last few days turn into all out war between India and Pakistan, we could be witnessing the start of the ultimate nightmare scenario.  It would not take much of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan to bring about nuclear winter for the entire planet.

In the past, I have been criticized by others because I write too often about the potential for dire results from events threatened or underway around the world.  This time, however, no one should think that I am overdramatizing the India/Pakistan conflict.  These are two countries that hate each other with nuclear weapons in the mix.  It is a recipe for disaster.

Let's hope that calmer heads prevail. 

Things To Consider

Here's a gem of an item to consider:  according to CNN, President Trump is trying to get North Korea to agree to denuclearization in order to distract from the coverage of the Cohen hearing today.

In the annals of all time media craziness, this has to make the top five. 

What A Waste Of Time - or - Today's Michael Cohen Hearings

This morning, I wrote about the statement Michael Cohen prepared for his testimony to Congress.  Well now we've seen most of that hearing, and, as bad as the statement was, it got worse.

My favorite moment of the day came when congressman Meadows asked Cohen to confirm that he had held contacts to lobby the administration for certain foreign companies like Novartis and others.  Cohen did confirm this.  Meadows then confirmed that Cohen never bothered to register as an agent of a foreign entity as required by law.  Cohen confirmed he hadn't registered.  After that, Meadows tweeted that he had just filed a criminal referral for Cohen's failure to follow the FARA requirements.  Cohen managed by testifying to open himself up to more criminal prosecution.

Another low point came when Cohen denied that he ever tried to get a job to work in the Trump administration.  That directly contradicts the statements that the prosecutors filed in his criminal case in federal court in which they said that Cohen confirmed that he had tried to get a job in the administration.  That was followed by tweets from various members of the Trump transition team confirming that Cohen had asked, even begged for a job in the administration.  After lying to Congress once, Cohen came back to do it again.

Then there were the questions in which Cohen demolished big chunks of the Trump Russia collusion claims that the mainstream media and the Democrats have pushed for the last two years.  Cohen said that he had never been to Prague.  Cohen confirmed that there was no video of Trump telling hookers to urinate on a bed in a Moscow hotel.  These two statements shot to hell the content of the Trump Dossier which contains those two claims.  Cohen also confirmed that no one from the FBI asked him if he had ever been to Prague prior to the dossier being used before the FISA court.  By law, the FBI had to try to confirm the contents of the Dossier before presenting it to the FISA court.  Since Cohen's supposed trip to Prague was the centerpiece of the dossier, that means that the FBI didn't bother to take even the most obvious steps to confirm the dossier before using it before the FISA court.

Overall, Cohen's performance today was so bad that the only problem for President Trump to arise from these hearings is the question as to why any rational person would hire Cohen to work for him.

The First Feedback On Lamont's Plans for Tolls and More Taxes

Yesterday, there were special elections in five state senate or house districts across Connecticut.  Each of these seats was held by a Democrat who resigned to take a position with the administration of new governor Ned Lamont.  The results were quite a slap in the face for Lamont.  Republicans won 2 out of 5, and these were seats that have been held by Democrats for a long time.  One district that was won by a GOP candidate had voted 61% for Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Each of these districts has supported Lamont last November.  The big difference, however, from past elections is that Lamont has now unveiled his plan to impose sales taxes on basic necessities like food as well as to put tolls on every major highway across the state.  These are taxes and fees that will hit the ordinary Connecticut resident every day.  At the same time, Lamont has proposed a budget that continues to increase spending.  There was not even a single major state program that Lamont thought could be cut to save money.  The anger this has unleashed across the state is major.  It's worth noting that the three Democrats who won all won by substantially smaller margins than their predecessors had gotten last November (when Lamont was still promising no raises in taxes and no tolls for CT residents.)

There has been very little coverage of this very big slap in the face to governor Lamont and his fellow Democrats, but that is not surprising given the biased nature of most Connecticut media.  It's important to know, however, that the word will get out.

The Cohen Statement -- Words to Lie By

I just read Michael Cohen's opening statement for today's testimony to a congressional committee.  They're sad.  Cohen is trying desperately to incriminate and demean President Trump, but he fails.  It's worth looking at the big items he mentions one by one.

Cohen's biggest thing is to show a check for $35,000 supposedly signed by the President in August of 2017.  Cohen says it's partial reimbursement to him for the money he used to make the payment to Stormy Daniels for entering into a confidentiality agreement.  Cohen thinks this is big news.  It's not.  We've been told for a long time by the President's lawyer Rudy Giuliani that Cohen was reimbursed by Trump for the payment to Stormy Daniels.  Showing a check doesn't change that.  Indeed, the check doesn't even say what it is for, and there's no reason to believe Cohen since he is a convicted liar.  But here's the biggest point of all:  it is perfectly legal for President Trump to make a payment to Stormy Daniels for her silence.  It may not make him a paragon of virtue, but it is not a crime.  Reimbursing his attorney for making such a payment is also perfectly legal.  So the check proves nothing.

Cohen's next big thing is that he says candidate Trump heard a few days ahead of time from Roger Stone that Wikileaks would be dumping emails from the DNC.  Supposedly Stone got that info from talking to Julian Assange.  Given the source, it is highly problematic that Cohen is telling the truth, but it doesn't matter.  Once again, hearing indirectly from Assange that the DNC emails that showed Hillary conspiring with the DNC to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders is perfectly legal.  It is not proof of any collusion with Russia.  Cohen doesn't say anything about knowing how Wikileaks got the DNC emails.  Indeed, Cohen says he has no proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. 

Cohen also says that Trump is a racist, a con man, and an all around bad person.  That stuff is silly and it relies almost completely on things that Cohen heard Trump say which no one else corroborates.  Again, we are supposed to take the convicted liar at his word.  I won't.

Finally, there is Cohen's last big item:  Trump indicated to him that he was to lie to Congress when he testified in 2017.  The problem for Cohen is that he admits that Trump never told him to lie.  Supposedly, according to Cohen, Trump only indicated in "code" that he was to lie.  That code, however, consists of a few questions Trump asked in 2016 during the campaign about how Cohen's negotiations for the Moscow Trump Tower project were going.  Amazing, isn't it, how questions asked in 2016 during the campaign were so prescient as to tell Cohen that he should lie in the summer of 2017 while testifying to Congress.  Cohen is a convicted liar, but he really isn't a very imaginative one.  He ought to come up with a better lie.

The other slurs of Trump from Cohen consist of almost silly statements except for the fact that they are so vicious.  According to Cohen, the President never expected to win; his race for the presidency was just a brand building excursion.  That's ridiculous.  We know that the President spent at least $100 million dollars of his own money on his campaign in the primaries.  He also campaigned day and night for a year and a half.  That's quite a brand building strategy.  And what was the brand to be?  Was Trump trying to brand himself as a loser?  Exactly what benefit was he to get from losing a presidential primary?  The whole story from Cohen makes no sense.  Again, it's a bad lie.  Cohen also says that Trump discussed with Don, Jr. that a meeting was set although Cohen says he didn't hear the whole conversation and never heard what meeting was in question.  Cohen suspects, however, that it was the famous Trump Tower meeting Don, Jr. had with that Russian lawyer.  That's quite a stretch.  There's nothing to indicate his suspicions are valid.

The truth is something that Michael Cohen clearly has trouble with.  He's going to prison as a result of telling lies to banks with regard to his taxi business and to Congress in his last testimony.  For someone who lies that often in key situations, you would think he would be better at it.

Sanders' Campaign Mired in Chaos

There are articles in the mainstream media today about the shake up in the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democrat nomination.  That seems to me to set a record for the quickest shake up by any campaign....EVER.  Bernie has only been an announced candidate for about a week, and he's already reorganizing?  It sounds like he never got prepared in the first place.

Sorry about the title to this post.  Bernie can reorganize his campaign if he wants.  It's just that every time Donald Trump ever changes anyone who works for him, we get stories about how his campaign, his transition staff or his White House staff, etc. are in chaos.  I figured I would return the favor to Bernie.

 

A Strange Platform

The Democrats are in full 2020 campaign mode.  The horde of presidential candidates have been offering an avalanche of policy prescriptions for America.  That's not surprising; that's what candidates normally do.  It is a difference from what president Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and from what Hillary Clinton did in 2016.  Those Democrats put forth precious little in the way of actually policies and talked instead in generalities.  2020, however, seems to be marking the return of the policy driven debate.  What is truly odd, however, is the list of policies towards which the Democrat candidates have been selecting to promote.  Here's a partial list:

1.  The abolition of private health insurance as a result of "Medicare for all."  This means people who get their health insurance at work would lose those plans.  Something like 160 million people protected under those plans would lose that coverage.  It also means that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 people whose jobs depend on the private health insurance system would be left unemployed.

2.  Air travel would be banned under the terms of the Green New Deal.  That would destroy millions of other jobs in the airlines industry as well as a big chunk of the tourism business across America.  No meaningful numbers of people would go to Hawaii or even Florida if air travel were not possible.

3.  Beef and dairy products would be banned under the terms of the Green New Deal.  This would mean unemployment for all those who work on ranches or dairy farms.  It would also mean the end of most restaurants and the loss of work for millions of employees. 

4.  Automobiles powered by internal combustions engines would be banned.  That would lead to the unemployment of millions of auto workers. 

5.  Power generation would be limited to solar and wind energy.  This would make the power grid unreliable on windless nights. 

6.  Taxes would be raised to extremely high levels.  This would be needed to pay for things like rebuilding every building in the USA.  While the main discussion right now focuses on the rich, the tax burden would have to fall heavily on the middle class if these is to be any hope of paying for all these schemes.

7.  Income inequality would be remedied by making the wealthy poor rather than by raising up the poor.

8.  Guns would be confiscated by the government.  As a result, only criminals would have guns.

9. Guaranteed incomes for everyone combined with open borders would bring huge numbers of additional people to this country.  The result would be ever more widespread poverty.  Americans currently working on the low end of the wage scale would see more competition for jobs from the illegals, and that would make the poor even poorer.

10.  On the international stage, the USA would rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, with the result that Iran would be guaranteed to becoming a nuclear power.

11.  America would pull away from its support of Israel and would go back to Obama's plan to bring the Israelis down.

12.  In Europe, the USA would suddenly stop confronting Russia and would also stop provoking our NATO allies into meeting their obligations.

13.  The USA would go back to dealing with China in the methods of the past, with the result that China would get a free hand to do whatever it wants in the realm of trade and theft of intellectual property.

14.  Abortion would be common place and optional until a short time after a baby is born. 

There's more, but one really has to wonder just who it is that would actually want to see this program get put into effect.  Are the Democrats serious?  Do they really think Americans want to see all this happen?

Maybe She Was Telling 1/1024 of the Truth

When she announced her candidacy a few weeks ago, Elizabeth Warren made a big point of promising that she would not take campaign funds from big donors like lobbyists or political action committees.  Last night on MSNBC, she "clarified" that promise by saying that it didn't actually apply to the 2020 general election.  At this point, Liz is promising not to sell out to the big money during the primaries but says she is fine with it during the general election.  You have to admire the "flexibility" of her principles.  It's much like the "flexibility" of her claim to being a Native American.

It's strange, but Warren is starting to look like the answer to the following question:  "Hillary Clinton actually looks honest and principled compared to whom?"

More News That Gets No Coverage

Yesterday, in Buenos Aires, the chief rabbi of Argentina and his wife were attacked in their home by a group of seven thugs.  The rabbi was beaten until he was unconscious with severe injuries.  His house was ransacked.  The attackers told the rabbi and his wife that they knew he was the chief rabbi of the country.  The attackers have not been identified or captured, and the Argentine authorities are investigating.  It is not yet known if this was an attack against the rabbi and his wife because of his position as the country's chief rabbi or if this was just a home invasion by a rather well informed group of thugs.  The former certainly seems more likely.

Argentina has the biggest Jewish community in South America and the sixth largest in the world.  It's a real shock for the religious leader of that community to be attacked by anti-Semitic thugs.  It's the sort of thing that Iran might arrange to have happen as a non-military response in its confrontation with Israel.  Iran has used Buenos Aires as a staging ground for anti-Semitic acts in the past.  About 25 years ago, the Iranians had the Jewish community center in that city blown up resulting in the deaths of just under 100 people.  Let's hope this is not the start of an entire campaign. 

India - Pakistan Confrontation Gets Worse

Overnight, the Indian air force launched an attack on what it described as a terrorist training camp inside Pakistan.  According to India, a significant number of terrorists were killed.  Pakistan said that no one was hurt, but it kept everyone including reporters about a mile away from the site, so there is no verification of the results of the attack.  India says that the camp was being used by the terrorist group that launched last week's attack in Kashmir in which over 40 Indian troops and police were killed.

A strike of this sort is very unusual in the ongoing cold war between India and Pakistan.  The obvious concern is what will happen if Pakistan decides that it has to strike back at the Indians.  It would not take much for this to escalate into a full blown war between two nuclear-armed states.  That would be a disaster for the entire world.  Remember, a nuclear exchange in South Asia could bring on a nuclear winter for the globe.  The results of something like that could be mass death around the world.

What can one say next?  Have a nice day?

Are You Ready For This, Peace Lovers?

There are stories making in the mainstream media that predict that at the meeting between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, a declaration ending the Korean War may be signed.  The stories then go on to discuss why a formal end to that war is a bad idea.  I'm not kidding.  There are actually pundits and Democrats who are announcing that a peace agreement with the North Koreans is a bad idea.  Amazingly, these are for the most part the same people who have been saying that when America sent huge quantities of humanitarian supplies to help the starving people of Venezuela, that was just a "trick" by President Trump to drag the USA into a war in Venezuela.  It seems that these "experts" a both against ending war and providing help to starving people so long as President Trump is on the other side.

It's important to keep in mind that the fighting in the Korean War ended in 1953 when president Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against the North Koreans and their Chinese allies.  After the passage of sixty-six years, it seems about time that the war should brought to a formal end.  Nevertheless, the "experts" are busy announcing that should this happen, it will be the result of Kim Jung Un "tricking" president Trump.

In nearly all of the recent past, the Democrats have claimed to be the party that promotes peace.  Republicans, they told us, are war mongers.  It seems stranger than strange, though, that these self proclaimed lovers of peace are now against a formal peace with North Korea and the helping of starving people in Venezuela.

One More Note About Tax Refunds

The dishonest story about how tax refunds in 2019 are less than they were in 2018 and the supposed blame for that put on the tax cut legislation that got limited the deduction for state and local taxes continues apace.  The truth is that after the tax cuts were passed, the IRS modified the withholding tables so that all year long Americans got substantially more take home pay than the during the prior year.  In the past, the withholding was too high, so that at tax filing time people got a refund.  The new withholding rates were adjusted so that people were no longer over withheld.  The extra cash received during the year was far larger than the refunds of the past, but the media is now trying to make a story about the "outrage" of smaller refunds.  I get that; it's a political lie being pushed by the Democrats.  It's as if they were all screaming "if you like your tax refund, you should have kept your tax refund."

My problem, though, is a different one.  I am hearing reports in the business and financial media that make the dishonest lower refund point.  These are reports from sources that clearly know and understand the reality of why the tax refunds are lower.  Nevertheless, these reports are pushing the lie.  For example, on CBS News this morning, the business reporter said that alarming lower refunds were the result of the loss of the deduction for state and local taxes.  That's not even close to being true, and the reporter knows that.  So why is a business reporter pushing Fake News?  It's so dishonest and destructive.  It's not something that is open to opinions; it's a simple fact.  The media should not make up its own facts just to suit the anti-Trump narrative.

Polling Games The Media Plays

You have to wonder sometimes why the mainstream media bothers with polls.  It would be easier just to publish their opinions and claim it is the voice of the people.  It would also be equally unreliable.  I say this as I look at the two latest polls taken in New Hampshire among voters who can participate in the Democrat primary for president in 2020.  In the poll taken by UMass, Joe Biden leads the pack by 8 percentage points with Bernie Sanders second.  In the poll taken at the same time by Emerson, Sanders is up by 2 points over Biden.  There is no way that this is a statistical error; the difference is too great.  Similarly, UMass found support for Amy Klobuchar at 1% while Emerson put her support at 8%.  Again, this is not just a statistical fluke.

So we know that at least one, if not both, of these polls is erroneous.  You have to wonder how the pollsters could get things so wrong.  Is one of these polls slanted to help one candidate or another?  Did Emerson give a bump up to Klobuchar who seems stuck at 1-2% in every other poll taken regarding 2020?  We have no way to tell, but it certainly seems reasonable.

Some Things Are Hard To Believe -- Venezuela Style

The people of Venezuela are starving.  After the economic disaster which has been the socialist system imposed first by Chavez and continued by Maduro, production of all sorts of things has collapsed.  This includes food.  The average Venezuelan has lost over 20 pounds during the last two years.  It's a disaster.  It's a true humanitarian crisis.  It's not one that the media cares much about since the perpetrator of this horror is a socialist, but that doesn't lessen the terrible effect all this has had on the people of Venezuela.  But things may be changing.  Juan Guaido was named interim president by the National Assembly to replace the dictator Maduro, but most of the armed forces stayed supporting Maduro.  That didn't stop the new president.  He obtained relief supplies that were sent by the USA, Brazil and Colombia.  Desperately needed food was delivered to the border of Venezuela since Maduro wouldn't let it be flown into Caracas and other Venezuelan cities.  In the last 24 hours, though, Maduro announced that he was sealing the borders to keep the relief supplies out.  Maduro also severed relations with Colombia because it was letting the relief supplies come to the border.

Think about this for a minute.  The people are starving and the dictator is doing all he can to keep relief supplies out of the country.  That seems like a deranged action from a delusional mind.

In any event, today two other developments happened that are important to note.  First, the Venezuelan troops at one bridge on the border with Colombia deserted their posts so that they would not have to stop the relief supplies.  Second, it was disclosed that most of the commanders and troops near the border are actually Cubans rather than Venezuelans.  Apparently, there was no way that the Venezuelan troops were ready to fire upon relief workers bringing food to the hungry.

Strangely, this sounds more like Syria than Venezuela.  Even so, if the movement to abandon Maduro goes much further in the military, no amount of Cuban support will save him.  Maduro will be gone and Venezuela's long nightmare will be over.

I Don't Get It -- The Democrat Candidates All Line Up Behind The Green New Deal

In the annals of virtue signaling, there has hardly ever been a stranger item than the Green New Deal.  The supposed goal of the GND is to combat climate change and to promote income equality.  The goals sound good, but then comes the reality of the proposal.  Here are the key items:

1.  If fully enacted, the GND will have no significant effect on climate change.  The USA emits an ever decreasing share of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  Unless every other country follows with severe limitations on emissions, the forces that supposedly cause climate change will continue unabated.

2.  If fully enacted, the GND could have some effect on income equality, but that would be reached by making upper and middle income portions of society poorer rather than by making the poor wealthier.  The GND would attack economic prosperity in an effort to make us all poor.

3.  If fully enacted, the GND would end air travel and replace it with trains and ships.  A state like Hawaii would lose about 95% of its visitors and with them the tourist industry that powers the Hawaiian economy.  The same would be true in Florida and the many other locations that rely on tourism.  For example, the economy in Nevada would collapse.  Families that are spread across the country would no longer be able to visit each other.  Travel to other countries would dry up.  If the GND barred military uses of planes (which it currently does), America's ability to defend itself would be nearly destroyed.

4.  If fully enacted, the GND would change the diet of the average American.  By banning cattle, the GND would end consumption of beef, milk, cheese and other dairy products.  Think of all those fast food restaurants that would have to close.

5.  If fully enacted, the GND would end the use of gasoline powered cars.  It would also end the use of power plants that use fossil fuel or nuclear power (even though the nuke plants are totally non-polluting with zero emissions.)  That means everyone working in the oil, gas, coal, and uranium industries would lose their jobs.  It also means that huge numbers of auto workers would be put out of work as well.

6.  If fully enacted, the GND would make America dependent for power on wind and solar energy.  That may sound nice, but wind and solar are remarkably unreliable (think of night with no wind) and there is no storage mechanism for power that could possibly allow this goal to be achieved without constant periods of no power.  We could go back to candles, but they give off carbon emissions and would defeat the purpose of the GND.

7,  If fully enacted, the GND would allow anyone to decide that he or she just doesn't want to work and then to get fully supported by the government.  It doesn't take a genius to realize that many people would choose not to work if they don't have to work.  That may be a good thing since so much of the US economy would be destroyed by the GND.  Nevertheless, it would result in the end to prosperity in America.

8.  If fully enacted, the GND would required expenditures of a size never before seen on earth.  The plan of the supporters of the GND is just to print money to pay for the costs.  That will inevitably result in uncontrollable inflation and the destruction of cash as a store of value.  Wealth will be wiped out.  Americans could all be equally impoverished.

So here's the question:  if the content of the GND is so clearly disastrous for the USA (and it is), why would nearly every Democrat running for president support this program?  Whose votes are they seeking?  There aren't enough mentally deficient or deluded voters to make up a majority.  People will realize soon enough that the programs being pushed by the Democrats are a national suicide pact.

It's truly unbelievable.

Thanks

By the end of the weekend, this site should go over 400,000 visitors.  It's a level I never thought I would achieve when I began writing Connecticut Comments.  I want to thank all of you for your continuing support.

Regional School Districts

The Democrats in the legislature in Hartford are now pushing a bill that would require smaller school districts across CT to merge to form larger units.  Supposedly, this will improve education, but one has to wonder how that will happen.  The district in which I live will be unaffected because it is large enough to avoid the dictates of Hartford.  In more rural areas of the state, however, there will be new and huge school districts that almost assuredly will harm the quality of education.  One district in Litchfield County will end up consolidating nine different current districts into one.  The resulting district will be so big that it will take almost an hour and a half just to drive from one side of it to the other.  If there's a central high school for the district, just think how long those kids will be on the bus each day.  Is it actually helpful for a student to spend over two hours a day riding the bus?  I can't imagine how that could be.

There's also the question of exactly where the schools will be consolidated and what that will cost.  Hartford can mandate that six towns join together for one new district, but who pays the cost to enlarge the current schools so that they are large enough to accommodate all those pupils.  Surely, the new districts will not just operate all the current schools; many will be closed.  The remaining schools will have to handle much bigger populations and that means higher current construction expenses.

It seems odd that the Democrats have come forward with this proposal.  It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to disrupt the current educational programs across the state.  It won't combine wealthy districts with poorer ones for the most part.  It won't foster much in the way of racial integration.  It seems to nothing positive; it just serves to disrupt the status quo. 

I keep looking to find a justification for this plan, but I have yet to find one that makes sense.

Words Most People Wouldn't Expect To See

Mohamed el-Erian has had a major and extremely successful career in business.  Most important for the moment, however, is that el-Erian was for five years the head of president Obama's Global Development Council.  That's why his latest pronouncement on the trade negotiation tactics being followed by President Trump are so significant.  Here's what el-Erian had to say about the Trump trade strategy:

First widely dismissed as an unfortunate policy pivot, more people now are beginning to wonder whether the new US approach – provided it’s not used repeatedly – could in fact serve as a beneficial disruption that helps reset international trade relationships and place them on a firmer footing. It’s a view that is underpinned by evidence (the shift from retaliation to resolution by such countries as Canada, South Korea, and Mexico) and the prospect that, due to its limited options, China will have no choice but to do the same by addressing some of its non-tariff barriers.

This is about as strong an endorsement of Trump's policies as you possibly imagine from one of Obama's chief economic advisers.   Sure, el-Erian has to start by slamming it as "unfortunate" but then he takes it back.  He continues by saying it shouldn't be used too much, but then he says it worked with Canada, South Korea and Mexico.  He concludes by saying that that the Trump policy is almost certain to work well with China as well.

We've spent the last two years hearing from the Democrats and the media that President Trump doesn't know what he is doing when it comes to trade.  That was obviously false, but for such an important Democrat economic strategist to admit that the criticism was wrong and the policy has and will continue to work well is an amazing admission.  

Anyone who has paid attention to the actual facts understands that the trade negotiations have gone extremely well.  President Trump hasn't gotten everything he would like, but the USA has dramatically improved its position with regard to our biggest trading partners.  The days of the USA accepting agreements that put America at a disadvantage are over.  It's a major change for the better, and it's hard to miss the results.

The Bogus Reparations Game

In their passion to outbid their Democrat primary opponents, candidates like Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are calling for reparations to be paid to African Americans for slavery.  The supposed rationalization for the move is that blacks are unable to succeed in the USA because of the legacy of slavery.  That means that society owes them reparations.  At least that's what the Dems now say.

So let's think about this for a moment.  First there are some obvious questions.

1.  Why is this limited to blacks?  Shouldn't there be reparations to Native Americans?  Weren't their ancestors dispossessed without compensation?  What about Jews?  They suffered through long periods of blatant anti-Semitism.  Should they get reparations?  How about Japanese Americans?  Weren't their forbears put in camps during World War II?  Why is the line drawn at just blacks?

2.  Which blacks get reparations.  Take the example of Barack Obama.  He's half white and half black.  Would he pay reparations to himself?  More seriously, since Obama's father was not descended from slaves, could he qualify for reparations?  All the immigrants from Haiti in the last 30 years have no relationship with American slavery.  Do they get reparations?  If so, why?

3.  Who pays reparations?  My grandparents came to the USA from Europe long after the end of slavery in the USA?  If they had nothing to do with slavery, why should I have to pay reparations?  there are tens of millions of people in this category.

4.  Why do the African Americans need reparations?  It is ludicrous to say that blacks cannot succeed in the USA.  Just look at all the ones who do.  Look how many congressmen and senators are black.  Look at the NFL and the NBA.  Look at African American people in business who have enormous fortunes.  Look at the blacks in the entertainment industry.  Someone like Oprah Winfrey hasn't be held back at all.  Why would she get reparations?

Besides these questions, there is a more important philosophical underpinning for the idea of reparations.  Should the focus of our society be on who are the descendants of victims from centuries ago?  Alternatively, should the focus of society be on advancing as many as possible of today's Americans.  In other words, do we want our society to become ever more successful or is the goal to not worry about helping future success, but instead to expend our energies dealing with the deeds and consequences of our long dead ancestors?

There's no end in sight if we choose the reparations method.  Hey, 2000 plus years ago, the Romans crucified Jesus.  Should today's Christians seek reparations from Italy for that act?  That may sound ridiculous, but it's not much more ridiculous than the idea of paying reparations to todays African Americans. 

Next Week Brings a Big Test For the Democrats

Next week, the Senate is going to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a law that would mandate medical care for infants born alive in the context of abortion.  This is going to be a major test for senate Democrats.

Think about it.  A doctor performs a late term abortion.  The baby survives.  The new law would say that the doctor then must provide treatment to the child so that it can stay alive.  In other words, the doctor cannot kill the living infant or deny it treatment and thereby consign it to certain death.  No matter what their view on abortion during the first trimester, the vast majority of Americans are against the killing of live infants even if they were only born due to a failed abortion.  As a result, one would think that this bill would pass the senate unanimously, but that is wrong.  The most strident supporters of abortion on demand oppose this bill and actually argue that it is an attack on the rights of the mother.  As a result, a Democrat who votes for the bill runs the risk of losing support from the pro-abortion absolutists.  A Democrat presidential candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker would not want to be denounced by the abortionists for the vote.  They are stuck in a quandary.  If they want the nomination, they have to vote no.  If they want to win the election, they have to vote yes.

Right now there are at least seven Democrats in the senate who are running or likely to run for the 2020 nomination.  There's no way that they will all come out on the same side of this issue.  This is going to be a very interesting vote.

IRS Analyst Charged with Leaking Banking Records of Michael Cohen

John Fry, and IRS analyst in San Francisco, was charged today with the crime of leaking confidential bank records for Michael Cohen that were filed with the IRS by the banks.  Fry leaked the records to Michael Avenatti (known now as "creepy porn lawyer") and then to Ronan Farrow of The New Yorker.  The leaked records quickly made their way into the media. 

If I didn't know better, I would say that Attorney General Barr is already having an impact on the Justice Department.  The reality, however, is that the charges were being held up while the US Attorney tried to negotiate a plea deal with Fry's lawyer.  No deal was reached and Fry will now be tried for this illegal leaking and a few related charges.

For the last few years, America has been inundated with leaks of confidential and even classified information used to attack President Trump and anyone related to him.  No matter what the information showed, the leakers need to be punished.  They violated the law.  This is a good step.

The Caracas Clique

Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro has quite a group of supporters.  In the last week, the main ones got together at an event in New York at the UN.  They denounced the "imminent American military invasion" of Venezuela.  Apparently, they know something that the rest of us don't.  At least that's the claim.  It worth listing the countries who are supporting this claim of American intervention, particularly since the only action undertaken by the US military with regard to Venezuela has been to fly food and other relief supplies intended for Venezuela to a town in Colombia on the border with Venezuela.  The countries endorsing the phony claim that the USA is undertaking a military intervention include Russia, China, Cuba, Bolivia, the Palestinian Authority, North Korea and Nicaragua.  What a group of peace loving nations!

The pro Caracas clique is an assortment of the usual anti-American countries.  The one surprise to me is the presence of the Palestinian Authority in this group.  Right now, president Abbas of the PA is living in fear of the soon-to-be-released American peace plan.  He has already rejected the US plan even though it hasn't been presented to him.  Since the USA moved its embassy to Jerusalem and said that it does not support the right of return (which is the Palestinian code word for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state), Abbas doesn't care what the rest of the plan says.  Basically, he has adopted the traditional Palestinian position that they have to get everything they want and even then, they may reject it.  In the past, this has just led to missed chances.  As the late Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban famously said, "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."  Now, however, that position is unlikely to be successful.  The Israelis and the Sunni Arab nations in the region are coalescing into an alliance to confront Iran and its attempt at regional dominance.  The idea that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States would act in concert with Israel means that a new day has dawned in the region.  If the Palestinians rely solely on Iranian help and funding, they may see their position deteriorate and then collapse.  The largely Sunni Palestinian population will not look kindly on having its main backer be the totally anti-Sunni Iranian regime.  The Palestinians have seen the Shiite Assad regime in Syria slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Sunnis in Syria.  They cannot hold too many illusions as to what their fate would be should the Iranians actually come to rule the region.

Another strange portion of the Caracas clique consists of the North Koreans and the Chinese.  Both countries are engaged in high stakes negotiations with the USA and President Trump.  Does President Xi of China or Kim Il Jung of North Korea actually want to risk failure of the ongoing negotiations should President Trump decide to make moves to punish them for their support for the phony attack on the USA by Maduro?  China's economy is in dangerous territory due to the ongoing trade war with the USA.  Were the negotiations to blow up, it would be bad for America, but it would be a disaster for China.

Russia and Cuba, of course, are not surprising supporters of Maduro.  Both countries have major investments in Venezuela, investments that will be wiped away once Maduro is ousted by the Venezuelan people.  

Remember This Name -- Jaish E Mohammed

Given the obsession of much of the media with the trivial in the USA, most Americans have probably never heard of Jaish E Mohammed.  Indeed, probably a hundred times more people know about what Jussee Smollett did or did not do regarding the phony attack on him that know anything about Jaish e Mohammed.  For those of you who have no idea what Jaish E Mohammed is, let me explain.  Jaish is an Islamic terrorist group based in Pakistan which carried out its latest attack in the Indian portion of Kashmir a few days ago.  A suicide bomber from Jaish wearing an explosive vest rammed a truck filled with explosives into a convoy of Indian military/police and detonated his bomb.  Forty-four Indians were killed in the blast.  Then on the next day, there was a shootout at a Jaish hideout between the Indian police and the Jaish terrorists.  Nine people died in that confrontation including five Indians and four terrorists.

Many people may think that this is just another terror attack ten thousand miles away in Asia.  Why should Americans care about it when we could fight about a border wall instead?  That attitude, however, is one that fails to give proper attention to a terrible crisis.  The Jaish E Mohammed attack has led India to blame Pakistan for harboring the group.  As a result, India has brought home its ambassador from Pakistan.  Pakistan has followed suit and recalled its ambassador in New Delhi.  Anger across India at the attack has reached a fever pitch.  We may soon see some sort of military retaliatory attack into Pakistan by the Indians.  They could hit one of the training bases used by Jaish E Mohammed, or the Indians could just hit Pakistani military posts in Kashmir.  That is bad enough, but remember, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.  It would not take all that much for there to be a nuclear exchange in South Asia.

If you think this scenario is outlandish, consider this:  how do you think the USA would react if there were a major terrorist attack in Texas by a group centered in Mexico and given a safe have by the Mexican government.  Would we sit by while Mexico supported terrorist groups attacking us?  Of course not.  India is no different than the USA when it comes to a question like that.

This problem is at a boil right now.  India's government will, no doubt, come to a conclusion as to what to do in the next few days.  The mainstream media may not be covering this story, but right now, it is just about the most important thing that is happening.

Keep Her Out

A woman from Alabama left the country six years ago and went to Syria to join ISIS.  While there, she married twice to ISIS fighters, was widowed twice and gave birth to a child.  She also posted on social media advocating violence against the USA and Americans.  Now that ISIS is defeated, she says that she made a mistake and wants to come home.  Today the State Department announced that she would not be allowed back into the USA since she has no right to US citizenship and no basis for re-entry, particularly as a supporter of ISIS.  The State Department acted on the advice of the lawyers who looked at the applicable laws regarding this sort of situation.  The reasoning of the lawyers has not been made public.

So what is the predictable reaction in the media?  It's not hard to figure out.  Since this is the Trump State Department, the media is opposed to the conclusion reached by that department.  Reporters with less legal knowledge than a cockroach are busy reporting their opinions that the reasoning used by the State Department was flawed.  That's pretty amazing since they don't know what reasoning was used at State.  It doesn't matter.  The media is in full support of this terrorist woman now because in that way they can oppose Trump.

The reality is that there is no valid reason to bring a terrorist back into the USA.  She made her choice.  By fighting with ISIS she renounced her US citizenship.  Now, she should make a happy life for herself and her child in Syria or some other lovely spot.

CNN Says Mueller Is Finished

CNN is reporting that the special counsel Robert Mueller is finishing his final report and could turn it over to the Attorney General by next week.  This is big news across the internet.  But here's the key question:  since CNN gets things wrong again and again, why would anyone pay attention to this report?  It cites no source to confirm that the Mueller probe is wrapping up.  Instead, CNN reports that some employees of the special counsel were seen pushing carts filled with files out of the office and taking them to some other and unknown location.  CNN also notes that four employees of the special counsel have gone back to other work in the Justice Department.  So, I ask again about CNN, "Are they kidding?" 

It may turn out that the report from Mueller will be delivered next week.  It could also come the following week.  It may also come in 2020.  Nothing would be surprising.  The reality is that CNN doesn't know and its rather baseless speculation should be given no weight.  Indeed, given CNN's track record for error, the report from CNN makes it more likely than not that there will NOT be any report next week.

A New Entry In The Annals Of Stupid

President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority announced today that the PA would no longer accept the tax revenues collected by Israel and given to the PA each month.  It comes to about $200 million per month.  Abbas says that the PA cannot accept the cash because the Israelis have started to withhold 5% of the total because that is the amount that the PA pays to the families of terrorists who have been killed while attacking Israeli civilians.

This reminds me of a child who announces that he is going to hold his breath until you do what he wants.  Usually, that doesn't last too long.  Abbas, without the cash collected by Israel, will have essentially no power.  His government will not be able to function without paying its work force.  How long will the security forces stay on the job once their paychecks end?  What will protect the PA installations from an attack and takeover by Hamas?  The answer is that Israeli forces will have to move back into control of the West Bank areas that are now under the control of the PA.  It will not be a move that the average Palestinian will like, but it will be one that Abbas can take full credit for doing. 

Hopefully, Abbas will soon go.  The guy is a moron.

What A Bargain!

What cost ninety million dollars per mile to build but is useless?  The answer is the high speed rail line in California's Central Valley.  It's the one part of the Los Angeles to San Francisco line that the state has actually gotten under construction since voters approved the line and bonds to finance it ten (that's right TEN) years ago.  The new governor of California, Gavin Newsome, has abandoned building the rest of the line for now because, in his words, "it was taking too long."  Newsome, however, kept this portion of the line under construction even though the need for high speed rail in the Fresno area and through the farms of the Central Valley is not exactly a pressing need for the state or its people.

Yesterday, the Trump administration said that it would seek to cancel about a billion dollar grant that had been set aside to help fund the train line and also to recoup $2.5 billion in federal funds previously given to California for the train.  You may recall how president Obama promoted high speed rail as an environmental panacea and driver of economic development.  The other states offered funds decided against building such rail lines.  But back to California and the federal funds.  Under the grant of the federal funds, the feds have the right to cancel the money and get back what has already been paid should California fail to meet its obligations under the terms of the grant.  It's open and shut that California failed.  Nevertheless, the state government is screaming that this is just retribution because California has filed suit against the administration in which it seeks to overturn the President's declaration of a national emergency at the border.  It should surprise no one that the response from the left wing Democrats who control California is that when the state fails to meet its obligations regarding the train line and even publically announces cessation of construction so that federal funds must be returned, the state would take the position that asking for the money back is just a response to the 'brave" move by the state to fight the President's "racist" emergency declaration.  In California and elsewhere, Democrats cast everything the President does as "racism" or the equivalent.  As has often been said since president Obama first got elected and the Democrats started on their non-stop accusations of racism, "when everything is racist, nothing is racist."  It's a disgrace that the state of California can't even have an honest discussion about the total failure of its high speed rail line.

One last note:  remember that the Green New Deal sees high speed rail as a substitute for all air travel in ten years.  California couldn't build a line from LA to SF in ten years, but the Green New Dealers are going to build the equivalent of 300 such lines in the next ten.  If there's no cost increase per mile from what California has budgeted, the total cost will be eighteen trillion dollars.  (And we all know there would be huge cost overruns.) 

The Fog At The View

It never ceases to amaze me when I see the nonsense that gets broadcast on The View.  Today, the big story is what Meghan McCain had to say about Bernie Sanders.  According to McCain, Bernie is "the most popular politician in the country" right now.  He's also the "senior" socialist and all the other far left candidates are just his disciples.  McCain thinks he's almost a sure winner.

So is Bernie actually the most popular politician in the country?  There was a recent poll that pronounced him the most popular senator, but that was a poll taken in each senator's home state.  That makes Bernie more popular in Vermont than Kamala Harris is in California or Chuck Schumer is in New York.  The problem, though, is that no one lives in Vermont.  Popularity there doesn't mean much in a national election.  Sure, Bernie could carry Vermont, but primary candidates almost always carry their home states, and Democrats have won Vermont in presidential elections for almost 30 years.  The issue in a presidential election, though, is how does a candidate do in big toss-up states across the nation.  There's a poll today from North Carolina that pits President Trump against most of the main possible Democrat contenders.  Sanders loses to Trump by 12% in that poll, and that is the worst performance of any of the Democrat candidates tested.  So much for the nation's most popular politician. 

And as for being the "original" socialist, does that really count for anything with the electorate?  I don't think so.  Voters want the candidate most likely to succeed in helping the country.  They know that Bernie isn't even a real Democrat, so he won't have the loyalty of that party in the way that say Biden would. 

And let's not forget the tired old face problem.  Bernie is not the picture of vigor and drive.  He seems more like the guy who would come to the White House only to keep watch out the front window to make sure no one walked on his lawn.  We've all have known the crotchety old grouch who lived down the street who seems to be Sanders' role model. 

Sorry, Meghan, but your discussion of Bernie and his chances seems more like a delusion than actual  reality.

Imagine If The Media Had To Actually Get Things Right -- OH, the HORROR!!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion in the denial of certiorari in a case involving the libel/slander of a public figure.  The details of the case are unimportant.  What is important is that Thomas says that it is time for SCOTUS to reconsider the "federal" rule regarding defamation and the First Amendment.  For 170 years after the First Amendment was adopted, libel and slander laws were the province of the states.  Then, about 50 years ago, the Supreme Court stepped in an created a new rule in the Sullivan case that provided that a public figure could not recover for defamation unless that person could show actual malice by the person publishing the defamatory statements.  Thomas points out that there is no Constitutional basis for this rule; it is just something that the Court put in place by itself.

Since the Thomas opinion was issued, all sorts of people are going nuts on the internet denouncing it.  Imagine, if the Sullivan rule were overturned, media like the newspapers, TV news and the like would actually have to work to get things correct or they might be subject to damages for libel.  For half a century, the media has been able to get away with defaming one after another public figure while knowing that they were immune from essentially any lawsuit seeking compensation for the damage being done by the Fake News.  The result has been an extremely lazy group of reporters.  If they see something on Twitter, they report it whether or not it is true.  Just think back to the Kavanaugh hearings if you want a good example of false news being published which really hurt the reputation of an individual.  Wouldn't it be a good thing to stop that sort of mess?

Shouldn't There Be A Notification When a Felon Tries To Buy A Gun?

A House committee just voted to approve a bill requiring background checks for all gun sales or transfers in the USA.  Most likely, the bill will pass through the House when presented for a vote.  The committee, however, rejected a proposal that would provide the names of those failing the background check to local and federal law enforcement.  In other words, if a guy who was in prison for armed robbery goes to buy a gun but gets rejected because of his criminal record of gun violence, the amendment would have required that the police be notified that this guy is trying to buy weapons.  That might be a violation of his parole or it could just be an indicator that the guy is planning to go back to his old ways.  The Democrats on the committee rejected the amendment because it might notify police of illegal aliens who failed the background check.  Think about that for a moment.  The Democrats who always talk about how important gun control would be for stopping crime voted against a plan to give police a heads up that some criminal is trying to get guns because it might lead to ICE getting a notice about an illegal alien.

Here's the real question:  why are the Democrats more worried about protecting illegal aliens with criminal records that about safeguarding the American citizens who could be put at risk if criminals get guns?  It sure seems like their priorities are scrambled.

Is It Bern Out?

Bernie Sanders has announced that he is running again for president.  He's following in the tradition of other candidates who came in second in the nomination race and then tried again.  We all remember the success of people like Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.  They were rejected by the voters once, but then they came back for a second try and a second rejection.  The problem for Sanders is that he is yesterday's news.  The Democrats would love to have a new face, not a familiar old one.  And old that face is.  Bernie is 77 and looks tired and beaten next to any of the other potential candidates aside from Joe Biden.  The weirdest part of the race right now is that Biden tops the polls with Sanders second, but a large majority of Democrats say that they want someone new as the candidate.

Here's a prediction:  by the Iowa caucus, Sanders will have been pushed aside by the Democrat voters.  He may get enough votes to stay in the race for a few primaries, but his effort will fail.  In 2016 he had the good fortune to run against Hillary Clinton.  Think about it.  Hillary was perhaps the only candidate the Dems could have run who would have lost to President Trump in that year.  In 2020, Hillary isn't going to be in the mix (at least we hope she won't.)  Without being the anti-Hillary, what is the reason to choose Sanders as president.  Is America actually looking for a curmudgeon?  I don't think so.

No Surprise Here

Last year, during the CT election campaign, Democrat Ned Lamont said that he favored reimposing tolls on CT highways.  When that statement was picked up by the GOP candidate, Lamont denied that he favored tolls.  Ultimately, he claimed that he would only approve tolls on out-of-state trucks.  Of course, that was then, and now we have something completely different.

Now Governor Lamont is proposing putting tolls for all vehicles on every major road in the state.  That is in combination with his plan to put sales tax on food and other basic items.  In short, Lamont has gone back on his campaign promises and will be levying close to $2 billion in additional taxes across CT.  He is also pushing for what he calls "sin taxes".  That includes taxes on sugary drinks, plastic bags, e cigarettes and alcohol.  Worse, Lamont says that the point of these "sin taxes" is to change behavior rather than to raise money.  So having a Coke is now a "sin".

The media across CT is busy praising Lamont for realistically and bravely coming forward with these taxes.  They say that instead of hiding behind his campaign rhetoric, Lamont is doing what is necessary for CT.  It's astounding.

Think of the impact of these new taxes.  Tolls hit everyone.  The overwhelming bulk of these taxes will be paid by ordinary citizens of the state who have to use their cars to get back and forth to work or to shop or to take the kids to an event.  Taxes on groceries also will hit the average citizen.  For the wealthy, it will not make much of a difference, but for the poor or even lower middle income, it is just another big boost to the cost of living in CT.  The same is true of the so called sin taxes.  This will just be more costs piled on the average CT resident.

If the Republicans controlled the state government, a tax plan that raised two billion bucks off the back of the poor and middle income groups would be denounced as some sort of gift to the wealthy.  No doubt it would also be called racist or anti-immigrant or something else like that.  When the Democrats hit the poor and middle income like this, though, it is realistic and brave.

It is no surprise that Lamont and the Dems are piling more taxes on top of the already heavy burden in CT.  It's also no surprise that the media is supporting the move in a less than honest manner.  The sad thing, though, is that for the people of CT there is no relief in sight.  Lamont has said and done nothing to reduce government spending since he took office.  There is an easy half billion in annual state spending that could be eliminated if minimal effort was made to achieve that.  And there's a lot more that could be eliminated as well.  Sadly, that will not happen until CT finally gets rid of the Democrat lock on Hartford and the state government. 

Calling a Spade A Club

USA Today is running an article that says that Republicans in the Senate are "plotting" against the Green New Deal (the GND) by scheduling a vote on that plan being pushed by the far left of the Democrat party.  According to the article, "It's not because the GOP supports the transformation of the electric grid from fossil fuels to renewable energy called for in the plan to combat climate change. Or because Republicans agree with the approach the plan lays out for boosting Americans' economic security and giving people access to affordable health care."  Those two sentences seem to take the Green New Deal and transform it into something it isn't all at the expense of the truth.

Think of it this way:  The GND calls for the end of air travel and its replacement with high speed trains.  That amazingly unworkable idea isn't mentioned by USA Today as part of the GND.  The GND calls for the elimination of cattle in order to get rid of cow flatulence.  That would mean the end of beef from the American diet along with all dairy products like milk, cheese and ice cream.  That ridiculous idea isn't mentioned in the USA Today article.  The GND calls for the reconstruction of every building in the country in the next decade.  That also isn't mentioned in the USA Today article.  The GND calls for everyone to get a government guaranteed job or else an income from the government for those unable or UNWILLING to work.  The USA Today article calls that "boosting American's economic security."  There's a big difference between economic security and welfare for all, but the article doesn't mention that.  The GND also wants to end private health insurance and replace it with a government run system.  After seeing what a mess the government made of the Veterans healthcare system, we are supposed to believe that a totally government run system would provide good healthcare.  Hundreds of millions of people with access to good healthcare through their jobs are supposed to replace that with access to a government plan so that a few million others can have access to affordable healthcare.  But people with low income already have access to affordable healthcare through Medicaid.  The ones without coverage are the ones who don't take advantage of what the current system provides.  The GND wants to disrupt and then destroy the entire American health system so that those who now choose not to take advantage of the healthcare system will be able to do so in the future.  In other words, the healthcare system that covers the bulk of the American people will be trashed to provide a benefit to others that they already have.  The GND also calls for the end of the industries that provide coal, oil, natural gas, and a host of other products important to the US economy.  Literally tens of millions of people would lose their jobs at the same time that taxes would at least triple just to pay for all this program, but USA Today doesn't mention this.

No, USA Today presents the GND as some sort of beneficial plan to promote environmental and economic benefits.  That's completely divorced from reality.  USA Today should be ashamed.

The Wages of Delusion

Romans 6:23 reads:  "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."  It's not a difficult concept to understand.  Sin will not bring you anything ultimately but death, while accepting God will save you.  In that same vein, I think it may be time to talk about what the are the "wages of delusion".  So many people across America are deluded about the actual reality we face, that as a nation, we have to look at the consequences of this phenomenon.

Let's start with some common delusions and examples:

1.  In the period after World War II until now, the level of bigotry, racism and the like in the USA has fallen dramatically, but there is a delusion in which many believe that it is worse than ever.  In 1950, America had segregated schools, legally segregated communities, segregated stores, hotels and restaurants, and voting rules that denied the vote to minorities.  At that time, employers could discriminate in hiring on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc.  Today, all of that is gone.  In 1950, organizations like the KKK flourished, but today they are tiny groups of crackpots who hardly exist and who have no impact.  But, it you read the news and listen to many Democrat politicians, the improvements of the last 70 years never happened.  These sources spew the lie of rampant "white supremacy".  While I'm sure that there is still racism in parts of the country, there is no true white supremacist movement aside from a few fringe elements that do not affect society.  It doesn't matter, however, because after the constant drumbeat from the left, a great many Americans think that racism, sexism, homophobia and the like is rampant across the country.  Reality doesn't matter.

2.  The American economic system of regulated market capitalism has created the greatest economy in the history of the world.  Other countries have recognized this.  China stagnated economically for 40 years after it adopted Communism.  Then, the Chinese leadership moved towards a market economy and suddenly China took off.  The Chinese economy is not formulated exactly the way the US economy is, but no one would ever call the current Chinese economic system Communist or Socialist.  The capitalist system brought prosperity for the first time in centuries to China.  Across the world, countries that move away from the capitalist system see their economies stagnate and then collapse.  Venezuela is just the most recent example.  Despite this, there is a growing delusion that socialism is the better way in the USA.  People like the new Democrat congressman Ocasio Cortez spread the "news" that a total government/economic reorganization that ends economic freedom and adopts government control (which she calls socialism) is the best way forward for America.  Ocasio Cortez spews false facts and false claims, and the media loves it and repeats it.  She puts forth something like the Green New Deal which is an economic suicide pact for America and all the major Democrat presidential candidates endorse it.  People actually accept that ending air travel, ending the production of beef and milk and cheese, ending the use of private automobiles that run on gas, and the like while providing an income to those "unwilling to work" is feasible (which it is not).  The amount of economic double talk that gets thrown into the political media is overwhelming.  And it gets believed.

There are many more examples, but the point is that these are major delusions; we are not talking about minor stuff.

Perhaps the most important delusion of all though is the spread misrepresentation of the founding of the United States.  The patriotic men who put their honor, their fortunes and their lives on the line to free us from the yoke of the British crown and to establish this country as the first in the world where the ultimate power is in the hands of the people rather than the government, are being redefined.  Now we are told that the founders, rather than heroes, were just members of the patriarchy, i.e. rich old white men who kept slaves and were only interested in preserving their own privileges.  America is not a shining city on the hill, but rather a cesspool of racism run by a kleptocracy that spreads evil around the world.  That lie is believed by so many these days, particularly since for many, they never were taught the real facts in school.

So what are the results of these delusions?  The truth is that if these delusions are allowed to spread or even to remain, the country will falter and ultimately fail.  America is more a group of shared ideas and beliefs than anything else.  If those truths and facts are disputed by a large segment of society, then the policy prescriptions and the life realities can never be agreed upon by the people.  The danger to America is real and growing.  That danger is the wages of delusion. 


 

Weiner is Out of Prison

Anthony Weiner was released from federal prison this weekend.  The former NY Democrat congressman and mayoral candidate and the husband of Huma Abedin is a free man.  Hopefully he learned his lesson and will no longer be sexting with young women/girls that he met on the internet.

Ok, the guy has "paid his debt to society" to use the old description for a newly released convict.  he deserves to live the rest of his life in peace -- on one condition:  Weiner better not try to re-enter public life.  If he runs for office again, he will lose, even in NY.  If he tries to become a lobbyist, he should know that anything that he pushes for will be immediately tainted by his involvement.  This may sound truly horrible to Weiner, but he's going to have to get a real job.  Maybe he could drive a bus -- but not a school bus.  Maybe he could open a hot dog stand in midtown Manhattan.  He could call it Weiner's Weiners.  Whatever he does, I hope this is the last time I ever hear news about him.

A Trump Win On Asylum

The New York Times, of all places, is reporting that large numbers of people at the border who said that they wanted to seek asylum in the USA have given up and gone home.  The Times says that of 6000 people who had arrived at the border in November to seek asylum supposedly because conditions were so dangerous in their home countries, 1000 or more have accepted the offer of Mexico to stay there and over 1000 have gone home.  The Times quotes on woman who came from Honduras as saying, "I like Tijuana.  It's a very pretty city and there's plenty of work."  There were shelters that had been set up in Tijuana that housed 2500 people waiting to come to the USA, but the shelter recently closed because there were fewer than 200 people still in it.  The numbers of people who have returned home or who are staying in Mexico is not fully known; there is no accurate count.  It easily could be more than the 2000 plus mentioned above.

So what does this all mean?  The answer is simple:  the President's policies are working.  Thousands of people who were told that the way to jump the line to get into the USA was to apply for asylum and then disappear once in the USA have learned that such conduct no longer works.  They can't game the system.  There just aren't going to be huge loopholes to walk through anymore.  As word of this spreads back across Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, there aren't going to be more caravans of people making the dangerous journey to the USA for entry outside the law.  After all, why would someone spend two months traveling to the US border only to end up waiting months more to try for entry, especially since the likely result is that they won't qualify for asylum.

Look, there are people around the world who do qualify for asylum in the USA.  The system ought to function so that those people can get entry without being buried under the avalanche of false claims.  The Trump policy is moving the asylum system back to where it was supposed to be.

No Way To Swallow This.

According to the latest reports, congressman Eric Swalwell is about to jump into the Democrat presidential race.  It's strange, with candidates like senators Warren and Gillibrand, I didn't think the Democrats could sink any lower, but then they do.  Swalwell is a fixture on MSNBC and CNN.  He always comes on to make some outrageous and normally false accusation against President Trump.  He gets put on TV, however, because he is a member of a House committee conducting investigations into the administration.  He's like a second rate imitation of Adam Schiff, but even more dishonest.  That's about all he has going for him.  He has no accomplishments in Congress, no accomplishments in private life, indeed no positive record of any sort.

Why in the world is he running?  Maybe he hopes he can catch on in Iowa among the Trump haters in the Democrat electorate.  With the enormous field, though, it seems impossible for him to get the 15% of the vote needed to win delegates to the convention.  The same is true in New Hampshire.  That means that he will have been shut out after the first two contests.  That is a recipe for disaster for him.  He will have just embarrassed himself.  I guess he doesn't care.  And, as the lottery commercials say, "Hey, you never know."  Maybe Swalwell will get enough votes to win delegates.  Maybe aliens from Mars will land in Iowa on election day too.

At Some Point, They Have To Consider What's Good For the Country, Don't They?

Everyone knows that the Democrat base doesn't like President Trump.  He beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and she was entitled to be president; it was the basis for her campaign.  After that upset win, the Democrat leaders didn't move on to consider how to change in order to win the next time.  No, the Democrats and their media allies decided that they would participate in an ongoing attack on the President by claiming that his campaign had colluded with Russia and that was why he won.  It's a baseless lie, but it did major damage.  The Democrat base believed this garbage even though there is no evidence to support it, so they got more and more angry at Trump.  It moved from the Democrat office holders covering their collective behinds with a phony tale of collusion to the reverse where the base of the party is now demanding total opposition to Trump.  The problem, however, is the major damage that this is doing to the USA.

Let's look at a simple example.  In Venezuela, the socialist kleptocracy of Maduro has collapsed.  Maduro has remained in office only though the efforts of the generals whose livelihood depends on keeping the dictator in power.  The suffering masses of Venezuela have gone to the streets to oppose Maduro and their leader has now been proclaimed acting president.  America has recognized the new president.  So have nearly every nation in South America as well as Canada, Mexico, most of Central America, nearly every nation in NATO and much of Asia.  The only foreign supporters left for Maduro are Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Russia and China.  As I write this, American planes with relief supplies for the people in Venezuela have landed in Colombia at cities along the border with Venezuela.  So what is the reaction from the Democrats?  They are professing outrage that the USA is interfering in Venezuela.  They are taking at face value the lies from Maduro that America is planning a military intervention in Venezuela and then denouncing Trump for considering that action.  Think about that.  Trump is supposed to be a Russian puppet according to the lies of the Democrats, but the President is opposing the Russian puppet in Venezuela and the Democrats are supporting that puppet.  So who is on the side of the Russians?

No one is seriously advocating an American intervention in Venezuela at this point.  That doesn't seem to matter, though.  The Democrats are still denouncing such an intervention and promoting the interests of the Maduro dictatorship and its Russian and Chinese sponsors.  That position is dictated by the crazies in the Democrat base who see any agreement with a Trump policy as unacceptable even if that policy is clearly the right course for the country.

At some point, the Democrats have to consider what's good for the country and not just what's bad for the President.  There's no way the American people are going to allow the Dems to govern if their only policy is Trump bashing mixed with crazy ideas like the Green New Deal or the end of private health insurance via Medicare for All.