How Do Dems Deal With This?

A few weeks ago, President Trump issued a declaration of a national emergency regarding conditions at the southern border.  The nearly unanimous response from the media and the Democrats was, "emergency?  There's no emergency."  This is a phony crisis dreamed up by Trump."

The Dems and the mainstream media persisted with this position for week after week.  New numbers were released showing an avalanche of illegals, drugs and contraband pouring over the border, but the "experts" in the media and among the Dems kept telling us the same lies:  "there is no emergency."

Now, the man who was Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, has come forward and spoken on the subject.  Johnson says that there is a crisis at the border.  The level of illegals crossing into the USA is four times higher than the level which he (and the government) considered a crisis level just two years ago.  Johnson says that something has to be done to deal with this emergency.

So there you have it.  The person who would be the leading Democrat expert on the border agrees with President Trump that there is a major emergency at the border.  The media and most of the other Democrats have stopped telling us that there's no crisis, but they haven't yet agreed that there actually is one.  Instead, they are in hiding.

It would be easy to resolve this crisis if the Democrats would just come forward and meet with Trump and the Republicans to come up with a plan.  This is not rocket science.  We need a wall and much better border security.  We need a change to the law that bars those already in the country illegally from seeking asylum.  We need a clarification to the law that requires asylum requests to be made only at ports of entry or at US embassies in other countries.  We need the end to the visa diversity lottery.  We need to protect those who came to the USA illegally as children (the DACA group).  We need to expedite the deportation of those here illegally who have committed crimes or joined gangs.  We also need to have some system which provides a mechanism to allow those here illegally to apply for permanent residency and perhaps US citizenship after an appropriate waiting period and the payment of back taxes and the like.  We need to change the law to grant preference in immigration to those who can help the USA and to end chain migration for anyone other than a spouse or a minor child.  There, I resolved it myself in a paragraph.

Closing The Mexican Border

President Trump has announced a few times over the last weeks that if Mexico does not do more to stop the flow of illegal aliens across that country to the USA, he will order the closure of the US/Mexico border.  Such an order would end the flow of people and goods across the border.  It would hurt the economies of the communities in the USA near the border but it would cause total chaos in Mexico.  It's a major threat to a country in which 80% of all exports go to one country:  the USA.

The reaction from the media and the Democrats has been the usual one when it comes to immigration.  First, they trot out "experts" to tell us that the move won't work and that it will be counterproductive.  Trump, they say, must be bluffing.  +Then they bring out people to tell us that "we're better than this."  Then they move on to Trump's move being bigoted and racist.  They end with Trump's move being illegal, unconstitutional and perhaps a war crime.

Trump isn't bluffing, though.  The same experts told us that the President would never cut off aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador if they kept sending caravans to our border.  Then Trump cut off all US aid to these countries.  These governments know now that if they want to keep the gravy train coming, they actually have to take steps to reduce the flow of people to our borders from their countries.  It's too soon to see the response from the Central American governments, but I bet that losing half a billion dollars will be noticed by these governments.  I expect new action to be taken to reduce the flow of people to the USA.

Trump's move also will likely work.  A border closing would cause a ripple in the USA.  It would cause a catastrophe in Mexico.  It would also have a rather salutary effect on some parts of the USA.  All those drugs that come into the USA from Mexico would be stopped.  The media loves to tell us how the bulk of the drugs come through legal ports of entry.  That won't happen if the border is closed.  Imagine shutting down half the drug flow into the country in one move.  How many people would be saved by that move alone?

Most likely, the Mexican government will talk about not kowtowing to the USA, but they will quickly be forced to act to get the border reopened.  Mexico has laws that would permit it to round up the people in the caravans and to take them back to their home countries.  I bet that if Mexico asked, the US would find a way to pay Mexico for the costs of doing this.

And lets not forget the effect that closing the border will have on the illegals themselves.  How many fewer people will leave Guatemala and the other countries once they hear that the US border is closed to them?  It should be a substantial number.

So where will the Dems go next to try to undermine Trump?  They could go to court to seek an order from a judge to reopen the border.  The problem, however, is that the President has the absolute legal authority to close all or any part of the border.  Even some of the wackier left wing activists on the bench in the 9th circuit can't get around that one. 

I doubt that it will actually get to Trump closing the border, but if it does, it's going to be closed for a long, long time.

An Unbelievable Biden Reply

After the former Democrat candidate for lieutenant governor of Nevada came forward to detail how Joe Biden acted inappropriately backstage at a campaign rally in 2014, Biden issued a statement in response.  Old Joe says that he has "never acted inappropriately".  That's right, NEVER.  All those pictures and videos of Biden fondling women didn't happen or Biden thinks they were perfectly fine.  Let's give the old guy the benefit of the doubt; let's say he's not lying, but he just has a different view of propriety.  Giving hugs or putting his hands on a woman are appropriate in Biden-land, that imaginary village where old Joe hangs out.  Maybe Biden, unlike the rest of us, remembers a time when this sort of behavior was fine.  He could; after all he's old enough.  But even that excuse doesn't fly.  The woman who came forward and accused him of abusing her says that he leaned over, grabbed her, smelled her hair and then kissed her.  Sorry, Joe.  That's inappropriate behavior.  And we've all seen the pictures and videos of creepy uncle Joe in action.

Biden is going to have to come up with something better than a denial.

Let me be clear.  I don't think that this would necessarily disqualify Biden from the presidency.  After all, we've had Clinton and Kennedy, serial adulterers who used the White House like a brothel.  I just think that the Democrats and all their me-too people are not going to nominate another guy like that.

Watching the Joeplosion -- And He Hasn't Even Announced Yet

Joe Biden is leading all the polls for the Democrat nomination for 2020, but his candidacy is sinking fast.  The former Veep, who hasn't even announced that he is running, had a really bad week.  The big blow, of course, came yesterday when a woman who was the candidate for lieutenant governor in Nevada a few years back came forward to complain about Biden groping and kissing her backstage during a campaign appearance with her.  Now, this cannot be a surprise to anyone who has watched Biden over the years.  He regularly appeared as the creepy old guy who touched, hugged and kissed woman inappropriately.  He did it as vice-president in plain sight.  This is the first woman of stature to come forward and complain about handsy Joe going too far.  A friend of mine says that many more will likely follow.  I'm sure he's right.

The funny thing about this is that Biden's other truly bad move this week was apologizing for how he treated Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings 25 years ago.  Biden didn't protect Hill from tough questions during those hearings over which he presided.  So now he's apologizing.  In other words, Biden started the week by laying the foundation to show that he's just not exceeding the bar in this me-too era.  That much won't win Biden the votes of activists, but it could drive away more normal voters.  Biden made himself into one of the crazies.

There are just too many people out there who want to destroy Biden's potential candidacy for these stories to die.  Think about it.  Bret Kavanaugh never did anything sleazy, but the Democrat sleaze machine came forward with all manner of horrific attacks.  Biden has a past that all America knows about.  The same sleaze machine, run for the most part by far left activists who don't want Biden, can easily continue a drumbeat about what a reprobate Joe truly is.  It won't matter to them if the charges are true, just that they work.

In case you missed this

Senator Rand Paul tweeted this two days ago:

Breaking: A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report... Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP

The day of reckoning is coming..........maybe.

The Sin Of Telling The Truth

The UN Security Council yesterday condemned the recognition by the USA of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights.  The Golan is the small area of high ground along the Israel-Syria border that the Israelis captured after they were attacked by Syria in 1967.  Israel annexed the area in 1981.  Prior to 1967, the Syrians used the Golan to fire into northern Israel on a periodic basis.  Ever since 1967, the world diplomatic community has taken the position that the Golan remained part of Syria but was occupied by Israel.  A few days ago, President Trump signed a declaration that the USA now recognizes the Golan as an integral part of Israel.  Predictably, the UN is now condemning that announcement.

A few facts are necessary before we move on.  Under international law, a country that invades another and seizes land cannot annex that land.  That means that, for example, when the Russians invaded Crimea and seized it from Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea was illegal.  On the other hand, if a country is first attacked and then successfully fights back and takes land from the aggressor, then the land captured can legally be annexed according to international law.  That is what happened in 1967.  The Syrians attacked together with Egypt.  Israel defended itself and then counterattacked and took the Golan.  Under international law, it was perfectly legal for the Israelis to annex the region.

But why did President Trump change the US position after all these decades?  The answer is that it is all part of a the new US strategy for the area.  President Trump has been recognizing actual reality rather than the fictions dictated by diplomats for the last 50 years.  For example, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  The government offices and the Israeli parliament are located in Jerusalem.  Israel designates Jerusalem as the capital.  When Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital he was just recognizing reality.  The Palestinians may not have like it, but they will have to recognize reality if there is ever to be peace.  Similarly, the Golan has been under Israeli control for 52 years.  Israel properly annexed the region in accordance with international law almost 40 years ago.  Syria may not like this, but it will have to recognize reality if there is ever to be peace between Syria and Israel.  The President is just trying to get the parties to a realistic starting position for peace negotiations.    It's Trump's way of telling the Arabs that there will not be a negotiation about nonsense; it will focus on the actual facts.

This strategy may or may not work.  We don't know yet.  We do know that the previous strategy of clinging to phony "diplomatic" facts never worked.  Getting rid of that failed strategy and trying something different is a good thing, not something that the UN should be condemning.  The UN diplomats, however, never forgive the USA for the sin of telling the truth. 

Where Do Things Stand For The Democrats?

With the death of the Russia collusion narrative as a result of the Mueller Report, we ought to consider where things stand for the Democrats over the next two years and in the 2020 elections.

Right now, the Democrats have only a few positions of importance.  In order of importance these positions are as follows:
1.  Trump is bad.
2.  Trump is bad.
3.  Trump is bad.
4.  We're not Trump.
5.  The world is ending due to climate change so we are going to destroy the economy to "fight" climate change although the drastic steps we propose won't really affect the climate.
6.  America ought to have open borders so that people from around the world can swamp us and ensure continuing Democrat victories.
7.  The USA should remedy the difficulties with healthcare experienced by less than 10% of our population by making sure that everyone (except for the truly wealthy) has poor healthcare.
8.  Things like college, student loans, and a basic income should be given freely to everyone.  The cost will be paid by just printing money.  It will destroy anything left of the US economy, but since the world is ending due to climate change, we don't care about that.

This may seem like a one-sided view of what the Democrats are pushing, but it really isn't.  If you think about it, there's very little, if any, exaggeration in the above list.

So, can the Democrats win on this message in 2020?  Can they actually have a debate among their candidates in the primaries where most of them push one or another of the above message?  Even four years ago, these would have seemed like bizarre questions, but the Democrats have moved so far left in those four years, that we actually need to seriously consider those questions.

Here's the first answer:  If the 2020 election is fought by the Democrats on any of their actual positions rather than their opposition to Trump, there is no way they can win.  If the country does not experience major economic problems or an international crisis, the Mueller Report makes it very close to impossible for the Democrats winning even on their opposition to Trump.  Now, Trump could always defeat himself, but he seems to have avoided that for now.  To go further, the 2020 election could be so one-sided in favor of Trump that the House will flip back to the Republicans and their Senate majority will increase by at least 3 seats.

The second question -- about the primary battle -- has a more complex answer.  Normally, primaries are times during which various factions are energized and then they coalesce around a candidate who gets their full support.  The primaries for 2020, however, are likely to split the Dems from a big chunk of their normal voters, particularly if it is fought on the current issues being pushed by the party.  How many members of the UAW will support a party that wants to destroy the automobile industry?  How many aircraft workers will support a party that wants to end air travel?  How many oil and gas workers will support a party that wants to destroy their industry?  These are not idle questions.  Look at the example of West Virginia.  It was one of the most Democrat states in the country not long ago.  Then the Democrats declared war on coal, the principal industry in the state.  In 2016, President Trump won West Virginia by a bigger margin than any other state.  In Michigan, there are still large numbers of auto workers.  Trump won that state by a tiny margin in 2016.  If the auto workers and their families vote for the preservation of their jobs, the Trump margin in 2020 will soar.  Trump also won Pennsylvania by a small margin in 2016.  Pennsylvania is the second largest producer of natural gas in the USA.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs in that state depend on the oil/gas industry.  If those voters flip towards Trump, it will be hard for any Democrat to carry the state.  Every day that the primary battles continue in the Democrat party and these positions get repeated, the Dems will be driving voters away rather than drawing them in.

Then there are the other, secondary issues that also upset the Democrat base.  Look at the rising anti-Semitism among Democrats that the party leaders won't even condemn.  How will Jews who seem to vote Democrat out of religious conviction react to this in 2020.  For those who argue that the Dems are just anti-Israel and not anti-Semitic, nothing changes with regard to 2020.  A huge chunk of the Jewish community views Israel as a very important issue.  If the anti-Israel animus of candidates like Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris and brings about a candidate who is viewed as anti-Israel, that could swing 25% of the Jewish vote to avoid voting Democrat.  That might lock in a Republican victory in Florida where Jews are one of the mainstays of that state's Democrat party.

There's more, but the point is clear.  If the Democrats fight their primary battle as a contest in which each candidate tries to be the one furthest to the loony left, they may suffer a catastrophic defeat in 2020.  They may also shift the electoral coalitions in this country for years to come.  Imagine union workers overwhelmingly supporting Republicans.  Imagine Jews moving towards the GOP.  I didn't discuss it above, but imagine African Americans moving to even a 20% vote for the Republicans.  Were this to happen, it would make it nearly impossible for the Democrats to win the White House.


 

I Had To Do It

I wasn't going to post until tomorrow, even in the face of the Mueller Report and a myriad of other news items, but I just can't let the Senate vote on the Green New Deal recede into memory without a full commentary.  The Senate voted on the measure being pushed by nearly every Democrat currently running for president as well as by the radical chic leftist brigade oh House Democrats.  Do you know how many Democrats voted to support the Green New Deal?  The correct answer is zero.  That's right not a singe senator voted to support the Green New Deal.  Not even the presidential candidates like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Corey Booker voted for the measure that they claim to support.  There were 57 votes against the measure from a bipartisan group, however.

So how could every Democrat vote against the centerpiece of the party's 2020 campaign?  What reason could they give?  Simple, the Democrats denounced the vote as a Republican trick.  They couldn't denounce the language of the proposal because the measure simply quoted the language used by the Democrats when they released the Green New Deal as a proposal.  No, the "trick" was because the GOP didn't hold hearings on the Green New Deal before putting it up for a vote.  Some trick! 

The truth is that Dems realize just how idiotic and politically toxic being tied to the Green New Deal really is.  They're not ready to commit political suicide by actually voting for this measure that they claim to support.

In the annals of stupid, this has to be among the top ten blunders of all time.  There's just no way for the Democrats to explain that they proposed and pushed the Green New Deal and then not a single one of them voted in favor of it.

More Time Off

In December, I took some time off from blogging and I think it helped me get a better perspective on the events of the day.  I'm going to try it again.  I won't be blogging for the rest of March unless events are such that I just can't be quiet.  I'll be back on line for April, but until then, just keep in mind that most of the news of the day is narrative, many reports of supposed "facts" are wrong and need to be reviewed carefully, and the thing always to remember is that actions and real events are what matter, not words and posturing.

The real question for now is how many additional Democrats will jump into the race for president before I blog again.  The over/under is 5.

Chelsea Clinton And The Mob

Yesterday, Chelsea Clinton went to a "vigil" in Manhattan for the people killed in the Christchurch New Zealand mass shooting at the mosque.  She was accosted by a mob consisting mostly of angry students from NYU.  They accused her of "stoking the hatred" that was behind the mosque shooting.  In the logic of the angry students, Clinton had promoted Islamophobia by criticizing Democrat Ilhan Omar for her repeated anti-Semitic statements.  Omar, of course, is one of the few members of Congress who is a Muslim. 

This is insane.  Omar pushes hate with her anti-Semitic statements.  She gets rightly condemned for that hatred.  These far left students, however, think she should be immune from criticism just because she is a Muslim, so they condemn that criticism as itself promoting Islamophobia.  Just think how much the parents of these students are paying for these kids to learn to be so illogical.  Who knows, maybe this crowd consists of students who got into NYU because their parents paid off the admissions staff.

Look, I'm no fan of Chelsea Clinton or her family.  I do know that she is right in this case, and the crazy mob is just plain wrong.   

New Zealand Massacre and How It Is Reported

There was a terrible terrorist attack overnight in New Zealand.  At least 49 people who were at two different mosques for Friday prayers were gunned down by what appears to be a group of four shooters.  There are an avalanche of reports on this horrendous crime, but I want to focus on just two things:

1.  The attack was carried out with various "assault style" weapons.  In New Zealand, it is not possible to buy such a weapon without passing a detailed background check run by the national police.  The police have the last word on just who can and who cannot buy a gun, and that is any gun.  It is the equivalent of universal background checks on steroids.  Further, some of the weapons used by the terrorists appear to be of a sort that are even further restricted in New Zealand.  These weapons can only be purchased if the buyer can show a valid need for the rifle.  None of these gun laws are being mentioned in the media. 

It's important to note the New Zealand gun laws because they impact on the debate here in the USA on various gun control legislation.  The big push for the legislation is that it will supposedly stop mass shootings.  Well, they have the law in NZ and it didn't stop this horrific massacre.

2.  Every media report I've seen about the attack keeps repeating that the shooters were white or Caucasian.  For example, in a 90 second report on CBS radio news this morning, the listeners were told six different times that the shooters were white.  I understand that this is a relevant fact and should be reported.  Nevertheless, when a mass shooting happens in the USA, we can go for days without learning that the perpetrator was a minority.  Remember the terrorist attack on the Christmas party in Southern California that killed 15 a few years back?  It took three days before the shooters were identified as Muslim and even more before it was labeled a terrorist act.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm in favor of full disclosure of all the facts.  I want the identity of the shooters announced to the public as quickly as it is known.  If they are white racists like in NZ, that should be announced.  But if they are Islamic terrorists that too should be announced.  The politically correct limitations followed by the media in their reporting of this sort of terrible event should be jettisoned. 

Missiles Fired From Gaza at Tel Aviv

About 45 minutes ago, two missiles were fired from the Gaza Strip towards Israel.  They made it to the sky over Tel Aviv before one was shot down by Israel's Iron Dome system.  The other missile was allowed to hit the ground because it fell in an uninhabited area.

This is a major escalation by the Hamas terrorists who rule Gaza.  They are attempting to blame the Islamic Jihad group and to claim that Hamas had nothing to do with this.  That seems unlikely because Hamas evacuated all of tis headquarters buildings in Gaza so that they would be empty of people should the Israeli air force hit some of them in response to the missile attack.

There have been riots recently in Gaza directed at Hamas and its rule.  Lately, some have been warning that Hamas would likely attack Israeli targets in order to distract the populace from these anti-Hamas riots.  Today's missile attack may be just such a move.

Most likely, Israel will retaliate for these attacks.  Israel normally does not tolerate these sorts of attacks.  Right now, the Israelis are in the middle of an election campaign, so a strong response is doubly likely. 

Fortunately, it seems as if no one has been injured by these missile attacks and there has been no property damage.  Still, given the target chosen by the terrorists, there could have literally been hundreds by such a missile.

It's worth noting that Egypt has been trying to mediate between Hamas and the Israelis to reduce tensions at the Gaza border.  Today's move shows why negotiations with Hamas are a waste of time.

The Fools On The Hill

It never ceases to amaze me just how misguided so many people in Congress are.  Today the reason for my amazement is the vote in the Senate to block President Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border.  I get that the Democrats oppose that declaration; they would oppose Mother's Day if Trump were to issue a proclamation celebrating it.  It's the 12 Republican senators whose opposition to Trump on this truly surprises me.  These are senators who say that they support border security, but they think the President overstepped his constitutional role with this declaration.  That's totally idiotic.  These people are buying into the storyline being pushed by the mainstream media.

Let me explain this one more time.  About 40 years ago, Congress passed a measure that expressly gives to the president the right to declare a national emergency if he sees fit.  There are no limits on what the president could call an emergency worthy of such a declaration.  Indeed, the only way to overturn such a declaration is for both houses of Congress to vote to do so.  The Senate and House have now done this, but President Trump will surely veto the measure.  Unless both the House and Senate can come up with a two-thirds majority to override that veto, the emergency declaration will stand.  So let's stop here for a moment.  There isn't going to be a successful move to override the veto.  No court is going to hold that the emergency declaration is improper, or certainly that will be the result in the Supreme Court if one of the Obama judges in the 9th Circuit decides to go off the deep end to try to stop the emergency declaration.

The declaration of an emergency gives the president certain powers according to the statute passed by Congress all those years ago.  The main power the president gets after the declaration is the ability to move certain money already appropriated from one project to another in order to deal with the emergency.  For example, suppose that there is a major hurricane that hits the Atlantic coast of North Carolina and that serious damage occurs.  The president could declare an emergency and could take money already appropriated for certain military construction and move it to instead be used to make emergency repairs to the bridges on the interstate highways in the affected areas.  Moving funds from one account to another is exactly what President Trump is doing with his emergency declaration.  Military construction funds are to be used for the construction of sections of the border wall.

The Republican fools on Capitol Hill say they are worried that a future Democrat could use an emergency declaration to implement programs like the confiscation of guns or the like.  The problem with this point is that the legislation regarding emergencies doesn't give the president the power to do something like that.  The president can move money from one account to another so as to have funds to deal with the emergency.  The president cannot take away constitutional rights or change laws or enact new ones even after an emergency.  Remember, construction of a border wall was expressly authorized by Congress years ago.  Money has been appropriated for some of that construction.  President Trump was not doing anything more than to move cash from one account to another.

The funny thing about all this is that I know that some of the senators voting against the President know all this.  For example, Mitt Romney has a law degree from Harvard Law School; he was in my class.  He's a smart guy and he knows how to read a statute.  Even so, he's busy voting as if he has no understanding of the issue.  He thinks he can gain some political advantage by doing this.  Instead, all he is doing is undermining the President.  He won't get credit for that move, but there surely will be those who will hold it against him for years to come.  He's just another one of the fools on the Hill.

Scam Slam

For what seemed like the fiftieth time this week, I got a call a few minutes ago from "Jeremiah" who announced that he was an employment specialist on a recorded line.  He said that he might have a job for me.  Then he asked me "how are you doing today?"  Now, I know that this is actually a computer calling, not a real person (although the voice quality is truly amazing -- it sounds like a living and breathing human.)  I decided to have some fun, so I responded in Russian and said that I did not speak English.  At that point, Jeremiah laughed and said he was glad I was doing well.  I guess the computer isn't actually that smart.

Cutting Medicare

By now, no doubt, you've heard the outcry from the Democrats and the media about how President Trump's new budget cuts Medicare by over 800 billion dollars over the next ten years.  But here are three things that you haven't heard.  As Al Gore might call them, they are the inconvenient truth:

1.  Medicare benefits will not be reduced by even one cent under the Trump proposal.  All that is affected is reimbursements for providers.

2.  There are no cuts of any sort.  All that the President proposes is to slow the growth in expenditures.

3.  The changes that Trump proposes are both necessary and beneficial to the program.  Let me give you an example.  The biggest single change is a rule that would provide that payments to doctors for services will be at the same rate whether they pertain to an office visit or one in a hospital.  In other words, when the neurologist checks out a patient in the hospital or in the doctor's office, the payment by Medicare will be the same.  This rule is necessary because many hospitals are buying up medical practices in order to get the benefit of the current higher rates for office visits.  (Every doctor that I see in my town is now part of a practice owned by the Yale hospital system.)  The hospitals are gaming the system, and it has to stop.  This change alone will save Medicare about a quarter of a trillion dollars over ten years.

A Foolish Move

I have to confess that I made a mistake.  I just watched the video put out by O'Rourke to announce his candidacy.  It was strange.  Usually, a candidate gives what he or she thinks is a compelling reason for running.  I kept waiting to hear why Beto decided to run.  I wasn't looking for platitudes, but rather an actual reason.  Let me give you an example.  In 2015 when President Trump announced his candidacy, he made clear that he was running to try to stop illegal immigration and crime (like drugs) coming over the southern border.  Many people liked this and many hated it.  The point, however, is that Trump gave this and a few other reasons for his candidacy.  Beto's approach was more like "I'm destined to do this."  It wasn't even up to the standard of Hillary Clinton's "It's my turn; I'm a woman."

Why do so many of the Democrats think that they can win the presidency without giving any reason why people should vote for them?

He Soon Will Be Beto

Robert Francis O'Rourke, the former Texas congressman who just lost big to Ted Cruz in a senate race despite outspending Cruz by more than 2 to 1 is about to announce a bid for the presidency.  It's pretty funny.  While O'Rourke (who goes by the nickname Beto so that he can pretend to be Hispanic) was running against Cruz, the national media treated him as some sort of folk hero.  Then Texas voted and he became beaten Beto.  That didn't matter to some people who thought of Beto as the new far left version of JFK, a soon to be Democrat icon who could move the geriatric party leadership into a new and far-left generation.  Polling about Beto was based upon all that positive press he got while running and losing for the senate.  Beto was getting 7 to 9 percent in many national polls.  That's really good for a guy that most of the voters couldn't identify in a line up.

Then something happened.  The media adoration stopped.  There were just too many candidates for the mainstream media to give Beto totally positive coverage or even much coverage of any sort.  Beto's poll numbers have dropped by about 50%.  He was fading away.  So what is his remedy?  That's right, he's announcing for president.

The truth, though, is that unless Beto can do a magic act or maybe do some juggling during the debates among the Democrats, he's going to get lost in the shuffle as a total nobody.  My prediction is that the most likely future for this candidacy is for Beto to be out of the race by Super Tuesday in 2020.  Hopefully, Beto will at least be able to criticize Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden as really old, indeed too old to be president.  At least in that way he will perform a valuable service to the nation.  We don't need a president who can't remember where he put his phone or his keys.

Whitaker

Former acting Attorney General Whitaker testified in a confidential session today in the House.  Within minutes after the session ended, the chair of the committee, Jerry Nadler of NY told the press what Whitaker had to say.  So much for confidentiality.  Nadler said that Whitaker did not deny that Trump called him after Michael Cohen plead guilty to charges in New York.  Notice what Nadler said.  He didn't say that Whitaker confirmed that he had spoken to Trump; he just didn't deny it.  That's not the same thing.  Notice also when the conversation took place; after Cohen plead guilty.  As the media tries yet again to call something obstruction of justice, remember that for it to be obstruction, it would have to interfere with a prosecution/investigation of a case.  Cohen had already entered a guilty plea, so there was nothing to obstruct.

The endless nonsense that pours from partisan and immoral hacks like Nadler has to end at some point.  America deserves to have a Congress that does something to improve the lives of the average American.  It can't go with nothing more than endless bogus investigations lace with lies.

The Latest on Brexit is Bizarre

Yesterday, the British Parliament voted for a second time against a proposed treaty with the EU for Brexit.  The deal had been negotiated by prime minister May.  Today, May put forward a resolution disapproving of a no deal Brexit as of now.  Then the resolution got amended to condemn a no deal Brexit.  It was a non-binding resolution, however.  It passed, but May ended up voting against her own resolution.  Once again, the Tories rebelled against Mays instructions.  Despite the resolution, a no deal Brexit is still on tap for two weeks from now.  Tomorrow, the Commons will vote on delaying Brexit for 90 days, but the EU already said it wouldn't accept that.  In short, it's a total mess.

This mess is a catastrophe for the British government.  There seem to be no effective political parties in the UK at this time.  The Tories can't agree on Brexit.  The Labour party just split with over a dozen MPs actually resigning from the party.  It's hard to imagine just who is going to lead either party successfully.

Hopefully, both parties will hold new leadership elections so that someone with the support of the party can lead it into the next elections.  Then the British people ought to be allowed to choose new leadership.  May is just embarrassing herself day by day.  Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party leader, has managed to blow up his coalition without even getting to govern.  What a mess.

I know this sounds hard to imagine, but the Brits have managed to make American politics look stable and well grounded.

A Blast From the Past

Months ago, we heard reports that Stormy Daniels had fired Michael Avenatti as her attorney.  Then this week, Avenatti suddenly announced that his firm had dropped Daniels as a client.  It seems that each of them wants to make it seem as if it was their own decision and not that of the other one.  Then Daniels gave a speech in DC to a women's group in which she said it was not in her nature to describe the details of her alleged affair with Donald Trump two decades ago.  Of course, she then went on to do just that.

I don't like Daniels or Avenatti.  Daniels is a woman who got paid to have sex in porn movies.  That is hardly a character building experience or something that gives one the moral high ground.  Avenatti is a self important blow hard who seems to have no connection to the truth in his high profile public attacks on the Trump administration.  Just think of the client he put forward to attack Justice Kavanaugh only to have that entire story come crashing down and his client complaining that he had done all sorts of things that she had told him not to do.  There were stories at the time that he would be disbarred for that, but I don't know what came to pass in that regard.  Avenatti was also found by a court to have cheated his former law partner out of many millions of dollars.  Then he got evicted for non-payment of rent.  I can't decide which of the two I think is the bigger low life.

Their 15 minutes of fame are over -- and that's for both of them.  It would be rather nice if they would never be heard from again in the news.

 

Vicious Move By New York Prosecutor

In a move that is particularly vicious given the timing, the prosecutors in New York indicted Paul Manafort just minutes after he was sentenced by a federal judge in DC to another three years or so in prison.  The federal sentences already cover what seems likely to be the rest of Manafort's life.  The Democrats and other left wing groups have been upset that the sentence was too short.  As a result, Manafort is now facing a state prosecution for mortgage fraud and other related activities.  Like the federal crimes for which Manafort was sentenced, these state charges have nothing to do with President Trump or Manaforts short time as campaign chairman.  This is just kicking the guy when he's down, and all to satisfy the baying of the left wing wolves who want blood, not justice.

Think about it.  New York is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, to bring charges against Manafort even though he's already in prison for probably the rest of his life.  What penalty will New York prosecutors get?  Will they ask for the right to kick Manafort's corpse repeatedly after he dies?  What more do they want?

The truth is that this move just reveals the left for the bunch of vindictive jerks that they truly are.  They don't mind just wasting the time and money of the prosecutors office if they can target someone who had something to do with Trump.  That's not the kind of portrait that would appeal to anyone except the crazed crowd of cretins who form the far left base of the Democrats.  These are people so infected with hatred that they have forgotten the basic concepts of humanity and decency.

Look, I don't know if Manafort is guilty of these charges or not.  I truly do not care.  I just think that it is disgusting to think of the state spending so much unnecessary effort just to get this guy because he had the nerve to be Trump's campaign manager for three months.

All Just A Misunderstanding, Right?

Belen Sisa is the national deputy press secretary of the Bernie Sanders campaign for president in 2020.  Here are two things you need to know about her:

1.  She's an illegal alien. 

2.  Over the weekend, Sisa announced that she "stood with [representative Ilhan] Omar."  She also questioned whether the “American-Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel.”   The question was posted on a Facebook Live event and was removed by Sisa once various media began to ask about it.  Today, Sisa "apologized" for being "insensitive".  She didn't say, however, that she recognized that American Jews are as loyal to the USA as any other citizens.

So we have Sanders picking as his number two press spokesperson an illegal alien who happens also to be anti-Semitic.  Note that Sisa's question was not about Israeli policy; it was directly about the loyalty of American Jews.  That is one of the oldest lies told by anti-Semites around the world.  Sisa couldn't even bring herself to apologize for what she said and to state that she now realizes that she was wrong.  She limited her apology to the unfortunate wording she used.

This is the kind of move that truly disqualifies Bernie Sanders in my mind.  If this is the sort of person he hires, that is bad enough.  But Bernie is keeping her in her position despite her being revealed to be a bigot.  That's not just unfortunate; it's unacceptable.


 

Dems Lose Again

The Senate confirmed Neomi Rao as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals this morning.  It was a straight party line vote.  That's a shame.  Ms Rao is an outstanding legal talent with particular learning on the subject of administrative law (which is one of the main subjects addressed by the DC Circuit.  She was also highly rated by groups like the ABA.  It's sad that not even a single Democrat took the step of voting for the person instead of engaging in the Democrat party policy of trying to delay and obstruct every judicial nomination made by President Trump.

Judge Rao is a welcome addition to the federal bench.  Her confirmation also further cements President Trump's record of appointing more federal circuit judges to the bench than any other president at this point in his first term.

The Second Manafort Sentence

Paul Manafort got an additional three years plus added to his prison sentence this morning by a federal judge in DC.  While this case makes headlines because Manafort was the chair of the Trump campaign for a few months in 2016 before he was fired, it has nothing to do with Manafort's work for the President.  It is for things that happened years before Trump hired him, like Manafort's tax evasion and fraud.  As cases go, this one is a big yawn.

A few weeks ago, a judge in Virginia sentence Manafort to about four years in prison for other crimes (also unrelated to Trump).  The media and the Dems went crazy because they wanted Manafort drawn and quartered as a way to attack the President.  Despite all the shouting, Manafort didn't get a very heavy sentence today; he could have gotten ten years but got only about a third of that.

Hopefully, this will be the last of the news about Manafort.  After hearing for two years how Manafort was going to blow the lid off of Trump/Russia collusion, it is now clear that nothing of the sort happened because there was no collusion to uncover.  Indeed, the big news in the world of investigations this week doesn't even pertain to Mueller or Trump.  We learned that Lisa Paige, and FBI lawyer/agent testified to the House committee that the FBI had wanted to indict Hillary Clinton in 2016 for being grossly negligent in handling classified information.  That felony charge would probably have driven Hillary from the presidential race with the surprising result that most likely Joe Biden would have been nominated and probably beaten Donald Trump.  After all, it was Hillary's remarkable baggage as a clearly untrustworthy crook that cost her the election.  The Obama Department of Justice directed the FBI NOT to indict Clinton, however.  So there you have the Obama White House interfering with an indictment of Clinton, something that were Donald Trump to have done the same thing would be called a major obstruction of justice.  The testimony has gotten essentially no coverage in the mainstream media. 

 

Who Can Actually Win?

It's nearly two years until the presidential election in 2020, but with the thundering horde of Democrat candidates growing by the hour, it's worth taking a look at them to ask a very basic question:  which of these people could actually win?  I don't mean win the nomination; I mean which of them could beat Donald Trump?

Now, any analysis of this sort has to start with the major caveat that events between now and election day will have enormous impact, so we have to assume that things stay much as they are now.  That means:
1.  The economy stays strong with very low unemployment, record low unemployment for minorities, and more job openings than people to fill them.
2.  No foreign wars get started, ISIS is completely wiped out, and Afghanistan moves toward peace.
3.  A beneficial trade deal with China is reached and approved in Congress.
4.  The battle over the border wall moves to an inevitable approval by the Supreme Court of the President's declaration of a national emergency pursuant to the powers granted to him by Congress.
5.  No evidence exists which shows any "collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016.

In this atmosphere, the number of Democrats who could possibly win is very low.  Think about it; could anyone who has endorsed the Green New Deal actually win a national election?  Remember, the election comes only after a campaign.  Polls have shown that many Americans support the Green New Deal when they hear that it is meant to save the planet from climate change.  When told that the Green New Deal includes measures that would end or severely curtail air travel and private automobile usage, stop consumption of meat and dairy products, and provide support to those who are unwilling to work, that support collapses to fewer than one in five.  A Trump campaign would focus on this relentlessly, and it would move millions of votes away from Democrats like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.

Similarly, the support by a candidate for open borders and abolishment of ICE would deal a body blow to his or her prospects.  There are varying degrees of support for the Trump border wall, but at the same time, there is huge majority support for enforcement of secure borders and fair immigration laws.

Then there's the effect of what is soon to be a major battle between the candidates and among the various interest groups that make up the Democrats.  Just watching AOC or Ilhan Omar denounce the "old" leadership of the House illustrates the fault lines that are only going to grow as each of the candidates denounce the others.  Sure, there may be some well behaved candidates who refrain from attacks, but with 349 candidates, there will surely be some who go for the jugular of their opponents.  It's safe to say that things like Elizabeth Warren's sortee into the DNA battlelines will be the subject of discussion and even outrage as the campaign proceeds.  So too will the name change by Robert Francis O'Rourke who tried to become Hispanic by pretending his name is Beto.  At the end of the primary campaign, the diehard Democrat base will be ready to coalesce to beat the President, but that is always the case.  The real issue is what impact this impending food fight will have on the votes of independents and marginal Democrats.  Will the endless fighting move them to either not voting or going with Trump or Schultz (if he runs as expected.)  Remember, in 2016, the Republicans had the Never Trumpers who basically were GOP affiliated voters who were so turned off by the Trump performance in the primaries that they didn't vote for him.

Right now, the only Democrats who seems to have a chance to win is Joe Biden.  His problem, of course, is that he is still Joe Biden.  As the voice of center/left reason, he might be able to keep the Democrats from totally dissolving, but he's just so old and tired that it's hard to imagine him building up much excitement.  He's like the Democrat version of Bob Dole in 1996.

The truth is that I just don't see any Democrat beating Trump as of now.

Big Mythstakes

I happened to flip on cable news tonight for a moment or two.  On MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell was holding his 1537th panel discussion of the collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016 and why Trump should be impeached.  Since that was extremely old, I turned to CNN to see what their panel was discussing.  CNN was actually talking about the Hollywood multi-millionaire stars and others who had bribed the way for their kids to get into various colleges including a few in the Ivy league and some others of rather questionable pedigree.  I thought that surprising since CNN is normally all anti-Trump all the time.  Then it happened.  One of the panelists blamed the bribery scandal on Jared Kushner because his position as a White House advisor told these rich Hollywood types that they could get away with buying the future for their kids.  I truly tried to follow the logic, but since the point was completely illogical, I just couldn't get it.  Then the CNN panelist started to talk about the suit by the Asian American kids who sued Harvard for discriminating against them in the admissions process.  The panelist complained that the Asian Americans were acting like they owned these positions.  She then blamed that attitude on President Trump.  It was a complete fantasy, a potpourri of errors and delusion.  It's no wonder that no one watches CNN these days. 

The Pelosi Choir Sings Hallelujah

Yesterday, I wrote about how Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now announced that the House will not impeach President Trump.  Pelosi says it would just be too divisive.

This was quite a blow to the Democrats who have been pushing for impeachment for over two years.  Now, however, Pelosi's allies are coming out to support her new position.  Schiffty McKnowNothing, aka Adam Schiff, told the media today that Pelosi is absolutely correct in her position.  Remember, Schiffty has spent the last two years leaking all sorts of confidential and classified information to the media as well as telling that same media on something like 1000 different occasions that he had clear and convincing evidence that proved that Donald Trump had committed crimes that were impeachable offenses.  So for two years Schiffty had "proof" sufficient for impeachment, but now that it would be time to act, he has nothing.  The guy is nothing more than a congenital liar.

Then we have a bunch of other committee chairs in the House who have been going berserk calling for impeachment for almost two years.  Suddenly, they have a new mantra which is as follows:  "NEVERMIND".

 

Brexit Deal Loses Again in the Commons

The British Parliament just rejected the latest version of the Brexit deal.  It was a lopsided vote against this deal.  The prime minister announced that she will now have the Commons vote on whether or not to have a no-deal Brexit, in other words, the Brits would leave the EU with no agreement in place.  If that fails (and it likely will), the PM will hold a vote on whether or not to extend the date for Brexit.

What a mess!  The Brits have a choice between the Tories who can't seem to get it together to reach a viable Brexit deal, the Labour Party which has seen its ranks shrink due to major policy divisions and a torrent of hateful bigotry coming from the Labour leadership and some minor parties that have no chance to govern.  It's like a choice between releative incompetence and total intolerance. 

Fortunately for the PM, she does not have to resign since she just won a vote of no-confidence a few months ago.  Even so, Britain now has, at best, a wounded and dying government.  The best course would be for the Tories to pick a new leader and to get ready to hold national elections.  Prime Minister May seems to be about as popular as Donald Trump would be at the annual Antifa picnic.

6 Is 9 Upside Down -- At Least in Court

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that Ohio could cut off state funding to clinics that perform non-therapeutic abortions or which advocate for abortions.  The ruling was by the entire court sitting en banc.  The vote was 11-6.  Every article I've seen so far points out that President Trump has appointed 4 of these judges, but none of the articles goes on to point out that the 13 judges NOT appointed by Trump voted 7-6 to allow the state to cut off these funds.

Ohio passed a law in 2016 which provided that state funding would not be given to these clinics.  The court held that this was a proper measure by the state.  The clinics do not have a constitutional right to perform abortions, so there is no basis to bar the state from cutting off funding.

I doubt that the Supreme Court will take up this case.  I don't think that SCOTUS is looking for another abortion case to change the current status of the law.

Equality?

The Democrats and the rest of the left are constantly talking about equality.  Multimillionaires like Elizabeth Warren harps on income inequality.  So, too, does socialist Bernie Sanders who somehow managed to acquire enough millions of dollars to own three different homes all while working his entire adult life in government positions.  Many Democrats like my own state's senator Richard Bloomenthal constantly shriek about inequality in our medical system all while making sure that he and other congressional Democrats don't have to endure Obamacare coverage like they inflicted on millions of other Americans.  Countless high profile Democrats lament the supposed inequality in our public schools while making sure to send their own children to private schools of the sort that are out of the reach of most American families. 

Today, we got a new example of just how inequality works in university admissions.  As you may know, admission to many elite universities has been changed from a merit system to one in which race or ethnic background is more important that the student's talents.  For example, there is currently a major lawsuit against Harvard for blatant discrimination against Asian American students.  Harvard is said to deny admission to Asian Americans even if their grades and test scores are far better than those of African American or Hispanic students.  This is done in the name of equality and diversity.  Most likely, this practice will ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court as nothing more than institutionalized racism and bigotry.  Liberals and Democrats (ok, same thing) have been horrified at the thought that Harvard might have to admit students principally based upon merit rather than race.  These people have screamed about the harm that this would do to "equality".  Now we learn that a large group of rich Hollywood leftist celebrities have been allegedly paying off various admission related people at Harvard and elsewhere to guarantee admission for their own children.  You know, they favor equality so long as that equality doesn't keep their children from getting admission to the school they desire.

The Democrats' party coalition consists principally of the very affluent and the very poor and minority populations.  The Dems talk constantly about how they want to help the poor, but they act in the main to guarantee that the privileges of their very wealthy donors are not disturbed.  They fight for Democrats to be in power, but they don't care about their poor and minority voters once the Dems get into office.  It seems as if the Democrat leaders think that most of their own voters are so stupid that they won't recognize the lack of concern towards them that the Dems display every day.

House Democrats Announce New and Expanded Amnesty Bill

In the next installment of the kabuki theater which qualifies for "debate" about illegal immigration, House Democrats have announced a new and expanded version of the so called Dream Act.  This would grant amnesty and a short path to citizenship for close to three million people in the country illegally.  The original name for the new bill was the Democrat Instant Voters Act or DIVA.  (But of course, I am kidding.)  The joke, however, is funny because it unveils the true purpose of this new proposal.

There is no chance that this bill will pass absent a comprehensive immigration agreement that includes full construction of the wall, a change to chain migration, an end to the diversity lottery and changes to rules for immediate deportation of those who are NOT from Mexico.  Indeed, there is adequate evidence that the Democrats don't really care about the so-called dreamers.  During January of this year, President Trump was willing to trade help for the dreamers for funding for the border wall.  The Democrats felt that it was more important to fight Trump than to help the dreamers, and they rejected that offer.  Now, they are attempting to convince those who now doubt their commitment to helping the dreamers by putting forth this bill which they already know cannot pass.

Just for once, wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats would actually try to solve some of the problems facing America rather than devoting all their efforts to positioning themselves for political advantage?

US Diplomats Pull Out Of Venezuela

With the power outages continuing across Venezuela, the State Department announced that all US diplomatic personnel are being pulled out of that country.  America had only a small presence in the embassy in Caracas, but the departure is still striking.  It's a wise move.  The electrical grid has failed, and people across the country are starving as the little bit of food remaining has spoiled in the heat without refrigeration.  Water systems are working.  Medical emergencies are going untreated; for example, people on dialysis cannot get treatment and will die in a few more days.  Looting has broken out across the main cities.  And to top all of this, the Maduro dictatorship won't admit that lack of maintenance has caused the collapse but rather blames sabotage by the USA.  America may be a tempting target for pro-regime crazies as the world collapses in Venezuela.  It makes sense to get US diplomats out of that mess before there is total chaos.  There may be a revolt to topple Maduro, especially since Maduro is trying to use the chaos to take down as many of the opposition leaders as he can.

If this were happening in a different country, the media would be all over the story emphasizing the human tragedy of the disaster.  Venezuela is socialist, however, so the media is trying to give as little coverage as possible to the story.  They don't want to embarrass the socialist cause, especially since so many of them subscribe to it.  But there is a human dimension to this tragedy that politics should not coverup.  There are literally millions of people at risk of dying here.  This may sound alarmist, but just imagine how easily an epidemic of cholera could spread in Caracas as untreated water is distributed through that city.  It is unacceptable for the full picture of life in this socialist hell hole to be covered up. 

What Free Speech Means And What It Doesn't

The House Democrats are busy crowing about HR 1, their campaign "reform" bill passed last week.  That bill will never be enacted into law; it is highly unlikely that the Senate will even vote on it.  But whether or not it becomes law, it is worth considering what the Democrats think is essential campaign finance reform.

Here's an example to consider.  I live in Connecticut where our new governor is pushing for placing tolls on all the major highways.  That boneheaded move has sparked outrage all across the state.  Organizations to coordinate opposition to the tolls have sprung up rather spontaneously.  These groups and raising money to hold rallies and to contact the legislators to fight the new toll proposal.  It's a classic grassroots movement that has happened often in America.  In that respect it's no different than the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter.  So here's the question:  should these groups be allowed to function on their own or should they be regulated by the federal government?  Should a new group with a political agenda have to register, list all its donors, and comply with all the rules set by a regulatory body in DC?  That is, in a nutshell, what the Democrats want.  If Planned Parenthood wants to form a group to support abortion rights and to lobby for election of certain candidates, it will have to register, disclose donors, and meet complex regulations.  If a pro-life group wants to do the same, it too will have to meet the same requirements.  If an animal rights organization wants to oppose legislation regarding hunting in certain states, it would have to meet these rules too.

Take a moment and think about this.  We have already seen the Obama administration weaponize the IRS for use against the Tea Party.  Should a group of federal bureaucrats be allowed to "regulate" the political speech in America?  What if the bureaucrats don't like that group; will they be even-handed?  Will pro-life or pro-choice groups get battered with the criminal complaints that the Democrats allow under their bill for not following their new rules perfectly?  There aren't even clear rules set forth; those will be set by the new bureaucracy set up by the bill.

This is not a free speech bill.  This is not bringing clarity or transparency to political speech in the USA.  This is a bill to undermine the First Amendment by giving the feds the power to regulate and limit the speech of individuals.  It is an attempt to do exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

In short, it is a constitutional abomination.  No wonder the Democrats are so proud of it.

Pelosi Throws In The Towel On Impeachment Fantasies

Ever since President Trump took office, Democrats have been engaging in impeachment fantasies.  We've seen silly attempts by left wing morons like representative Al Green who introduced articles of impeachment that went nowhere.  (I think Green's got voted down by about a 8 to 1 margin.)  Some of the new far left and Islamic Democrats are busy screaming about impeachment.  Rashida Tlaib, the Democrat from Michigan who calls herself a Palestinian rather than an American announced when she was sworn in that she was going to impeach "that motherf**ker".  (She's such a model of propriety and good manners, don't you think?)  Groups like Moveon.org that were actually formed to call for Congress to move on from impeachment (of Bill Clinton) stridently now call for Trump's impeachment because of Russian collusion.

But today, it is all going away.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the press today that she was not going to do anything with regard to impeachment unless some striking new evidence of serious wrongdoing comes out.  She said that impeaching Trump just wasn't worth it.  Suddenly, the Dems went from ridding the country of this horrible scoundrel to saying "nevermind" and moving on. 

The truth is that the inevitable is fast approaching.  Pelosi knows that the Mueller probe uncovered no evidence of collusion by Trump or any other sort of wrongdoing by the President.  Even Pelosi is not going to try to impeach the President for liking vanilla ice cream more than strawberry.  They have nothing, no basis at all to attack Trump.  Pelosi is preparing the ground for the inevitable disappointment of the crazy left Democrat bas when the Mueller probe ends in exoneration of Trump.

I hope that people across America realize just how badly they were lied to by the Democrats and the media.  They told us that they had clear evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, but they never produced anything.  They're a bunch of liars.  There's no other way to say it.  I hope the price they pay for their lies is extreme.

How Many Times Can They Report The Same NON - News

Here's a headline from Politico today:

The week that could reveal Mueller’s end-game

Notice that the headline doesn't say that the Mueller report is coming this week  It only says that the report COULD come this week.  Last week, it was reported that the Mueller report was coming last Friday based upon a statement by former CIA Director John Brennan.  (To be fair, Brennan never got much right when he headed the CIA, so there was no reason to believe him on the Mueller report.)  Next week, there will no doubt be more articles that the Mueller report could be coming.  Eventually, there will be some report by Mueller, but no one in the media knows when that will be.  Instead, we will get the could, might, possibly, maybe news.

How lazy does a reporter have to be to write an article that is just sheer speculation? 
 

How Predictable -- Milwaukee

The Democrats have chosen Milwaukee as the site for their convention in 2020.  It's just so predictable.  There were three "finalists" with Milwaukee just being one of the three.  When I first heard the list, I asked myself whether or not the Democrats could be so predictable and so hung up on symbolism that they would choose Milwaukee to right the mistake by Hillary Clinton of never visiting Wisconsin.  I pondered that question and concluded that even the Democrats would realize that holding their convention in Milwaukee wouldn't change votes in November.  After all, the Dems in 2016 held their convention in Philadelphia, and Trump won that state.  But a Milwaukee convention would be a symbolic act, and those are things that the Democrats think are more important than anything else.

Sure enough, the Dems have picked Milwaukee. 

I think we should have some fun with this, though.  Let's tell everyone that the Democrats chose Milwaukee in honor of the 50th anniversary this week of Golda Meir becoming the first woman prime minister of Israel.  Meir was raised in Milwaukee before she moved to Israel.  That rumor will drive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib crazy.

Maybe They Can Serve Bean Cassarole

The Mayor of New York, Bill DeBlasio announced today that starting soon, New York Schools will observe "Meatless Mondays".  According to the mayor, this is being done so that the students can take part in an effort to save the planet.  You get it, right?  The Green New Deal calls for an end to meat consumption so as to get rid of farting cattle.  If DeBlasio takes away meat from the kids on Mondays, that's just so many less cattle that will be needed.

There are a few basic truths about this move by DeBlasio.

1.  This has nothing to do with global warming.  The reduction of meat consumption by this change will have no meaningful effect on the emissions from cattle in the USA.  The real point of the move is to allow DeBlasio to burnish his crazy left wing credentials.  If he runs for president, he can talk about his big move to fight climate change.

2.  The substitution of a vegetarian meal for the typical meat on Monday will just make the kids the source of the emissions rather than the cattle.  No doubt DeBlasio will soon be advocating for abortion up to ten years old so that New Yorkers can do their part to fight global warming by getting rid of the kids.

3.  If DeBlasio had done the same thing on Friday rather than on Monday, the left would be up in arms.  Most likely there would be riots in the streets of Manhattan.

It Just Keeps Getting Worse

When I was in college, I knew a few students who were Communists.  These guys would hold sparsely attended rallies and pass out literature that focused on why the USA was bad and why the Soviet Union was good.  That may sound simplistic, but really all of what they said boiled down to just that.  Indeed, over the years, the left has had that constant focus even after the demise of the USSR.  They just shortened their mantra from "USA Bad, USSR Good" to just "USA Bad".  Some things have been incredibly idiotic.  For example, I remember the nuclear freeze movement run by leftists in the 1980s.  These people held marches calling for the USA to stop production of nuclear weapons and then to begin the process of destroying the ones we already had.  The lefty marchers didn't bother to address the thousands of nukes that the Soviets held.  They just wanted unilateral American disarmament.  Supposedly, that would bring about world peace.  After all, there is nothing like leaving America defenseless before a well armed enemy as a means to promote world peace.

I was reminded of this today when I read the latest comments from the far left Democrats in the House about the situation in Venezuela.  Millions of Venezuelans are facing literal starvation and that situation has gotten worse due to a near total power failure across that country.  So what are the lefties saying about Venezuela?  Anti-Semitic bigot congressman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) announced that Americans should not listen to what President Trump or his point man on the issue, Elliot Abrams, have to say about events in Venezueal; according to Omar, they just lie about it.  Omar wants to encourage conversation about Venezuela, but nothing more.  Loony lefty Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) congratulated Omar for her great insight regarding Venezuela.  She warned that President Trump was just trying to drag America into a war in South America to steal the oil reserves in Venezuela.  The loony AOC cited no evidence, but that doesn't matter to her.  After all, Maduro, the dictator of Venezuela says he is a socialist, so he is good and America is bad.

There are a series of other far left Democrats who are busy warning about the USA rather than looking at the immense suffering of the Venezuelan people who are starving and dying under socialism.  To them, a few hundred dead in Venezuela each day is not that important when the future of a nominally socialist regime is at stake.  No matter how corrupt, how vile, or how dangerous, they support a socialist government because they know that the socialist must be right.  Oh, and they know that no matter what the USA does, it must be wrong.

It was pretty bad all those years ago when supposedly intelligent students followed the communist/Soviet line no matter what the actual facts were.  It's much, much worse to think that we actually now have people in Congress who push misinformation and death for those suffering in Venezuela in service to the distorted reality of leftist thought.  Hopefully, the display of all this insanity from the left will destroy their future with the American people.  We have to rely on the inherent goodness of the average American.

Things Seem Crazy -- What Effect Is It Having?

Things are happening across the USA that I would never have predicted to be possible five years ago.  I'm left wondering if this is a signal that the attitudes of Americans have changed or that political classes have misread the situation.  Here are a few examples of what I am considering bizarre events:

1.  Every Democrat in the Senate voted against a bill that would have required doctors to provide treatment to living babies who survived a failed abortion attempt.  The idea that the party as a whole would vote against babies is astounding to me.

2.  The House Democrats just pushed through a bill that approves of having illegal aliens vote in state and local elections.  I realize that the Dems favor unrestricted immigration and open borders, but giving the vote to illegals rather than just to citizens seems incredible.

3.  The Democrats are busy pushing their Green New Deal program that in the next ten years ends air travel; restricts car travel; ends consumption of meat, cheese, and dairy products; requires the rebuilding of every structure in America; ends the use of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and even hydroelectric power across the country; and provides a guaranteed income even to people who are unwilling to work.  Almost every Democrat candidate for president in 2020 has endorsed this plan. 

4.  The Democrats and again nearly every Democrat candidate for president has endorsed some version of Medicare for All which would end private health insurance for 180 million people; throw between 2 and 3 million people out of work; bankrupt a great many hospitals; dissuade people from entering medicine as a career; and certainly end Medicare as the nation's seniors now know it.  The Democrats spent the last 40 years accusing Republicans of wanting to "end Medicare as we know it" and here they are doing just that.

5.  The Democrats are endorsing Socialism for the USA instead of Capitalism/Freedom.  The most strident supporters of this move won't even condemn the socialist government of Venezuela where Socialism has destroyed that country's economy, led to mass starvation and now led to the collapse of the country's infrastructure.

6.  The Democrats are so strong in their support for open borders and unlimited immigration that they actively attempt to undermine enforcement of the current immigration laws on the books.  Sanctuary cities and states run by the Democrats go so far as to work to protect known criminals and gang members from deportation.  They also oppose measures that would streamline the system for deportation of illegal aliens convicted of serious criminal acts.

7.  A big chunk of the Democrats have accepted and now protect anti-Semitic views.  This is more than a disagreement regarding Israeli policy; these Democrats are active haters of Jews.  The idea that a political party would, in essence, endorse bigotry is astounding.

8.  In foreign affairs, the Democrats make clear that their operating principle is just to oppose whatever President Trump does.  When the President announces a pull out from Syria of American forces now that ISIS has been defeated, the Democrats complain.  When President Trump later amends that plan to leave some Americans at bases in Eastern Syria, the same Democrats complain.  When Trump confronted North Korea early in his presidency, the Democrats screamed that it was a major foreign policy mistake; Trump should be negotiating, they said.  When Trump met with Kim Jung Un and negotiated, the Democrats screamed that it was a mistake to negotiate with Kim.  When the latest meeting in Hanoi ended without a deal, the same Democrats screamed with glee that Trump had failed and he shouldn't have negotiated with Kim.  In short, no matter what Trump did, the Democrats said it was wrong and they made clear that they wanted him to fail. 

9.  Regarding trade policy, the Democrats also made clear that no matter what Trump did, it was wrong.  For example, Trump said that NAFTA was a disaster and he wanted it renegotiated.  Democrats complained that Trump was risking a wonderful trade deal with Canada and Mexico because he didn't understand how trade worked.  When American negotiators worked out a new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that made very substantial improvements which benefit the USA and American workers, the same Democrats complained that the new agreement was not good enough.  So they professed their approval of the old NAFTA deal, but when Trump got a much better one, they said it wasn't enough and threatened to reject it.

There's so much more.  I didn't even mention the attempted lynching of Brett Kavanaugh or the endless BS of the Russia investigation.  The point, however, is that the Democrats have taken all sorts of positions and done all sorts of things that would not have even been considered five years ago.

I wonder what effect this is having.  We can look at polls.  President Trump's approval numbers in national polls are about where they've been for a while.  There was a dip during the partial government shutdown, but that was gone by the State of the Union speech a month ago.  That really doesn't tell the story, though.  Frequently, when there is going to be a shift in the views of the public, it manifests itself in questions about issues.  For example, after the Democrats supported letting a child born in a failed abortion just die without treatment, later polls showed a major shift in public support towards the pro-life position and away from the pro-choice one.  The attention that Democrat support for infanticide got move some people.  If that shift remains in place, it will likely cause some people to shift towards voting for the Republican and against the Democrat.

I don't doubt that there is a huge part of the Democrat party that supports each of the items listed above.  That's not really the issue.  The questions are 1) whether or not there is also a large part of the Democrat base that is horrified by one or another of these positions, and 2) if there is a majority of independents who are upset by these positions.  If there is 20% of the Democrat base that finds these positions unacceptable (for example, if Jews who are reliably Democrat don't like the party's new anti-Semitism), then the Democrats will either lose those votes to the GOP or to Howard Schultz or maybe these folks just won't vote.  Similarly, if the strident leftism and Trump-hatred from the Democrats leads independents to conclude that the Democrats cannot be trusted to govern the nation, then it will be a big win for the GOP.  In the election last November, the Democrats won the House by running candidates who professed to be moderates rather than extreme leftists.  For 2020, the Democrats are following a totally different plan.  Will America accept this?  I don't think so, but we will have to wait to see if the new far left, anti-Trump strategy works or if it leads the Democrat party over the cliff to oblivion.

Venezuela National Power Supply Off Line in over 96% of the Country

According to reports this morning, the electric power grid in Venezuela is still off line in over 96% of the country.  Most people have lived through power failures, so we all know just how big a problem they are.  But now imagine that you are living in Venezuela where food and other basic supplies are extremely scare.  If you have perishable food that needs refrigeration, the power outage thus far has already pretty much destroyed it.  If you live in a building that has an elevator, you are walking up many flights of stairs.  If you rely on an electric pump to deliver water to your home, then you are now without water.  If you want to learn about ongoing news and you get that on the internet, TV or radio, then most likely you are cut off.  If there is an emergency and you need to call for assistance, by now your phone is no longer working.  In short, in the midst of an already horrible crisis, the loss of power has made the situation intolerable.

So how is the Maduro regime dealing with the power outage?  If you guessed that the regime is trying to fix the power grid and get the power back on line, you would be wrong.  No, according to reports, the Maduro regime is using the lack of power and the disruption of communications to launch a strong attack against those people across Venezuela who support the provisional president Juan Guaido and who call for the ouster of Maduro.  Maduro sees the power outage as an opportunity to literally destroy the opposition at a point when those pesky reporters can no longer show the world what is happening.

The only way to describe what is happening is to point out that Maduro and his Socialist thugs are deranged monsters.  They are using major suffering inflicted on the Venezuelan people to try to solidify their control.  They care only about themselves rather than about the country.

This is really the last straw for me when it comes to Maduro.  Until now, I have supported a hands-off policy by the USA.  No more!  It is time for the USA to intervene in Venezuela on humanitarian grounds.  We ought not stand by while the Maduro regime uses this disaster (which it likely caused itself) to wipe out the opposition.  As a moral nation, we truly have no other choice in my opinion.

Intelligence -- or -- The Lack Of Intelligence

Three days ago, John Brennan the former Communist who was the head of the CIA under president Obama, announced to Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC that the Mueller report would be forthcoming yesterday along with a batch of final indictments by the special prosecutor.  Brennan also predicted that Mueller would indict a member of the Trump family and that the President would fire him in response.

Well, yesterday has come and gone and there were no reports or indictments.  Brennan, who headed our biggest intelligence agency, did what he usually did at the CIA:  he got it all wrong.  It's not surprising.  This is a guy who missed what Iran was doing regarding its nuclear program.  This is a guy who missed what North Korea was doing regarding its nuclear program.  This is a guy who missed what Russia was doing regarding an invasion of Ukraine.  This is a guy who advised president Obama that ISIS was no real threat to anyone.  This is a guy who missed Russian interference in the 2016 election (although to be fair, the lion's share of credit for that mistake goes to Jim Comey over at the Obama FBI).

The truth is that under Brennan, the CIA should have been called a lack of intelligence agency. 

We're Going To Need A Scorecard

It's getting truly confusing trying to understand the position of the left.  Here's a good example:  the one-month-old son of a British woman who left the UK to join ISIS has died of pneumonia in Syria.  The mother had asked to be readmitted to the UK but the government there had already stripped her of her British citizenship for joining with the terrorists of ISIS.  As a result, the mother's application to return to the UK was denied.  Today, the news of the child's death has brought forth all sorts of complaints that the treatment of the mother was "inhumane and illegal".  Now compare that with the response from many of the same people to the concept of post-birth abortion.  In such abortion, the child is delivered alive and then killed because the mother doesn't want it.  The Senate Democrats just voted two weeks ago NOT to require American doctors to provide treatment to such children after their births.  So, for these people, the life of the child is unimportant unless the mother is an ISIS terrorist.

Let me be clear:  I strongly believe that the children in both of these situations ought to be protected.  The life of every child should be protected to the greatest extent possible.  There is no way that the position of the mother ought to make any difference for a child's fate. 

It's beyond me how the left can differentiate between these two situations.

SOOT Is Not Good For You

There's a crazy far left/victim alliance that seems to be leading the Democrats these days.  It consists of the Socialist part:  Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and the Muslim/victim part:  Omar and Tlaib.  Put them together and you get SOOT:

Sanders
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Tlaib

These four crazies have managed in two months to get the Democrats to position themselves as the party of the following:

Infanticide
No air travel
No beef, cheese, milk or ice creame
No private heathcare
No more Medicare as we know it
No need to work
No guns allowed
No borders
Poverty for all
Extremely high taxes
No defenses against terrorists
No protection for American workers against unfair foreign competition
Acceptance of Bigotry

Basically, the program can be summed up in three words:  No More America.

It seems appropriate that their names together are just a form of dirt.
 

Democrats Reap What They Sow With Omar

In the last week, there was a storm of anger over the repeated anti-Semitic statements made by Democrat congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.  The Democrat leadership in the House prepared to pass a resolution in the House condemning Omar by name as well as condemning anti-Semitism.  Then there was a counterstorm led by the far, far left wing of the Democrat party.  People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders came out defending Omar and her anti-Semitic statements.  That forced Speaker Pelosi and the other Democrat leaders to back away from condemning Omar and to instead put forward a weak, general resolution that basically says "The House doesn't support bigotry of any kind."  In other words, Omar got away without any punishment and the Democrats showed how divided and leaderless they really are.

Well, it didn't take long for Omar to take advantage of the situation.  Today, in an interview, Omar said that president Obama was nothing more than "a pretty face" who "got away with murder."  She called his "hope and change" agenda a "cruel illusion."  Omar also said that Obama's policies like caging kids at the border and drone strikes on terrorists around the world were much the same as President Trump's policies but that Obama was just more polished in presenting them.  In other words, Omar launched a nuclear strike on Obama and his legacy.

It serves the Democrats right for letting this bigot get away with her hateful attacks on Jews and others.  Now she's going for their hero.  Personally, I don't care if she trashes Obama, but I wonder how the average Democrat voter feels about that. 

In my opinion, Omar has gone off the deep end.  Simply put, she's so busy spewing hatred that she's nothing more than a bomb waiting to explode.  The House Democrats could have taken steps to disarm that bomb, but instead they lit the fuse.

UPDATE:  Within three hours of the interview discussed above being publicized, Omar came out with a statement in which she claimed to be a big fan of Obama.  She also said that she was misquoted and taken out of context.  To prove her point, she attached two minutes of audio from the interview, but that audio just proved that the initial reports about the interview were correct and Omar was just trying to lie her way out of a tight situation.

Too Silly To Miss

The February jobs report is out.  The economy added just 20,000 jobs, but the unemployment rate went down to 3.8% from 4.0%.  That combination of an unexpectedly low number of jobs created and an unexpectedly high drop in the unemployment rate illustrates the problem with these statistics.  They are based upon two different telephone surveys, like polling reports.  That means that in one survey there was a big jump in jobs and in the other there wasn't.  What is the correct number is just not known.

This difference in the results has confused even some of the financial press.  Here's a priceless bit of stupidity from MarketWatch discussing the 3.8% unemployment rate:

Separately, the jobless rate fell to 3.8% in February from 4%, mostly because fewer people said they were unemployed.

What insight!

Junk Science On Gun Control

There are big headlines today about the benefits of restrictive gun laws.  They report on a study that claims to show that more restrictive gun laws means fewer mass shootings.  The study claims to compare the number of mass shootings in a state (four or more people shot in one incident) with gun ownership and the restrictive nature of state gun laws in that state.  The results supposedly show that more restrictive gun laws mean much lower rates of mass shootings.  Actually, this is a rather bogus bit of junk science.

Let's start with some of the problems.  States with high levels of mass shootings had on average about 0.1 mass shootings per million people over the last 20 years.  For a state like Montana with its one million people, that means it had one mass shooting over the last ten years.  Montana had less restrictive gun laws than most states.  On the other hand, a state like Delaware with just under a million people and more restrictive gun laws had 0.05 mass shootings over the last 20 years.  That means it had one less mass shooting over the last 20 years than Montana.  The authors of the study say this is statistically significant.  If just one person flipped out in Delaware five years ago and started shooting, the entire difference would have disappeared.  The point is that the levels of mass shootings are so low that there's no way to generalize about them.

The second point to keep in mind is that at a national average of something like 0.07 mass shootings per million people, we are talking about an average of 22 mass shootings across the country in an average year.  That's 22 too many, but it's hard to tie that number to state gun laws.

The third point is that the authors use the number of guns in a state as part of determining whether or not state law is restrictive.  They admit, however, that there are no statistics about how many guns are owned in a state, so the instead use the rate of suicide using guns as a substitute rate.  That may only be measuring the level of comfort of the state population with having/owning guns.  I was raised in suburban Philadelphia.  No one I knew had a gun in their home.  It wasn't commonplace.  I now live in Connecticut.  I don't know anyone with a gun in their home.  Again, it is not commonplace.  In certain other places gun ownership is much more widespread.  I would think that places where gun ownership is more widespread have more suicides by gun.  I would also think that places where gun ownership is more widespread would be more resistant to gun control laws.  In other words, it may be that more restrictive gun laws do not lower mass shootings, but rather that places with more gun ownership have higher levels of suicides by gun (they're more available) and also less restrictive gun laws. 

Finally, it is worth noting that in the media we've been told that there were over 500 mass shootings in 2018.  According to the study, it was about 22.  If I had to guess which number is correct, I would side with the study, but I don't know.  If the media is correct, though, then the study not only has unsupported conclusions but also used improper data.

The Resolution That Resolves Nothing

After first telling us that there would be no resolution regarding anti-Semitism, the House Democrats rushed out a resolution today and voted on it.  The resolution condemns hatred in some rather general terms that tries to mention every type of bigotry the Dems could think of.  As I read the text of the resolution, I kept expecting to see a denunciation of the anti-Roman sentiments expressed by the barbarians who sacked Rome in the fifth century.  It was a resolution that said so much that it actually said nothing.  Remember, the impetus for this resolution was the list of anti-Semitic statements made by Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar.  Congresswoman Omar, however, is a female, Muslim originally from Somalia, so the Democrats backed off when it came time to criticize the hatred she in particular spews on a regular basis.

Think of it this way.  It is as if a court held a trial regarding a mugging and resolved it by announcing that it was against violence.  The culprit was not punished.  The culprit was not deterred in any way.  Indeed, the culprit now knows that she can get away with this on a regular basis.

Perhaps the funniest bit of reaction to the non-resolution resolution comes from Democrats and people in the media (I know -- same thing) who are criticizing the twenty or so representatives who voted against the measure.  They voted in favor of hate -- or so we are told.  That's silly.  They refused to vote for a measure that let Omar off the hook for her vile and hateful bigotry.  The best example of this is that congressman Lee Zeldin of NY voted against the resolution.  Zeldin has spent much of the last week taking Omar to task for her bigotry and hatred.  His no vote was not one in favor of hatred.  It was a vote for an actual resolution of the problem.