Cuidado Guaido

There doesn't seem to be much good information available as to what is actually happening in Venezuela at the moment.  Hopefully, dictator Maduro is realizing that his support is crumbling and he is making plans to flee to Cuba.  Alternatively, the supporters of president Juan Guaido could be getting killed in droves by Cuban forces supporting Maduro.  There's news reports that seem to indicate both are happening, even though only one is likely correct.  Indeed, something completely different than either of these scenarios could be unfolding tonight.

We cannot directly influence the events in Venezuela.  We can pray, however, for the safety of the people of our neighbor to the south and ask that they be released from the bondage of Socialism which has put them into total grinding poverty.  We can ask the Lord to restore them to freedom. 

A New Cuban Embargo?

Today in Venezuela, there was a non-violent major demonstration to push the dictator Maduro out of office.  The demonstrators have been attacked by troops loyal to Maduro.  There is video of troops using their vehicles to run over demonstrators.  It turns out that most of those supporting Maduro in these attacks on the demonstrators are actually Cuban troops sent by the Cuban regime to "help" their socialist "brother".  It's amazing to think that socialism in Venezuela can only survive on the back of tyranny imported from Cuban.

President Trump just tweeted that if the Cubans do not immediately cease their attacks on the Venezuelan people in support of Maduro, the USA will impose and embargo and heavy sanctions on Cuba.  We could be going back to the days of the frozen relationship between Cuba and the USA.

From the days of John Kennedy to those of Barack Obama, there was a total embargo and freeze in relations between Cuba and the USA.  The Obama decided that it was time to reopen relations with the Cubans.  We exchanged diplomatic missions and opened trade and tourism.  It didn't take long for our diplomats to be subjected to mysterious attack by sound wave weapons in Havana.  Tourism went ahead, but it hasn't reached too far yet.  A reimposition of the embargo would be a big blow to the Cubans.

It would be nice to think that this threatened action will cause the Cubans to back down from their support for the murderous Maduro, but that seems like an unlikely outcome.  Instead, we should assume that there will soon be a freeze in Cuban-American relations.  If the Venezuelan people persist, however, in seeking the ouster of Maduro, even the Cuban troops in Caracas will not be enough to keep him in office.

Infrastructure

There was a meeting at the White House today to discuss an infrastructure package.  The coverage of this meeting is amazing.  I've read four different accounts of what happened.  We know that there was basic agreement that a package involving about 2 trillion dollars of infrastructure spending is going to be assembled.  The President and the Democrat leaders agreed to this.  The coverage, however, is limited to what Schumer and Pelosi have to say about the deal.  Schumer says that President Trump has to come up with a way to pay for this spending.  It is as if Congress has nothing to do with determining what is to be spent and how that money is to be raised.  Pelosi and Schumer talk about opposition from Republicans in the Senate even though none has been expressed.  The media is busy trying to give credit for any infrastructure work to the Dems alone.  It's so dishonest.

Gee, Maybe It Is An Emergency

The latest poll out today asked people their opinion of the situation at the southern border.  For the last year at least, the Democrats and the media have been telling Americans that the situation is a phony emergency created by President Trump so he could carry out racist policies against illegal immigrants.  When the President declared a national emergency due to the border problems, he was attacked by a major onslaught from the Democrats and the media which said that there was no emergency.  So how did this attack fare in convincing America that there is no problem at the border?  Eighty percent of those surveyed said that the situation at the border was either a crisis or a major problem.  18% said that it was not a major problem.  Since January when the question was last polled, nearly 20% of Democrats changed their view to rate the situation at the border a "crisis".

The Democrats and the media have lost their battle to promote the lie that the border situation is not a crisis.  Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to matter.  Even though the Dems have lost the support of the American people including a sizeable chunk of their own party, they still will not even discuss changes to the law that could assist the country to solving this border problem.

 

We Get It -- You Don't Like Trump

There's a basic deal that underlies the American Constitution:  there are elections that are held every few years, and after they are over, the people -- ALL people -- accept the results.  People never agreed to like the results, but we all agree by being American to ACCEPT the results.  If we want to change things, we do that at the next election.

That's a simplistic rendering of the American concept of government.  It was tested once beginning with the election of 1860 when 13 states seceded to form the Confederacy after Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans won election in that year.  By the time Lincoln was inaugurated in 1861, he was facing the loss of nearly half of the country that would not accept his victory.  Now don't get me wrong.  The Civil War that followed was not just a fight over Lincoln, although it was in part.  Rather, that war was the result of what Lincoln and the GOP stood for and promised to achieve, namely the beginning of the end for slavery.  After the death of over 2% of the population in that war, the Confederacy was defeated and the basic concept of our republic was reinstated.

Today, we are seeing a return to the rejection by many on the left of the American concept of government.  Trump and the Republicans won in 2016.  A great many Democrats just won't accept that.  At first, they told us all that Trump didn't really win; the Russians stole the election.  We watched the Mueller team spend 2 years and tens of millions of dollars to investigate that claim.  It turned out that the claim was false.  Russia didn't steal an election.  Trump did not collude with Russia.  In fact, much of the basis for that claim turned out to be a false dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democrat National Committee in order to launch a false attack on Trump.  So at this point, in normal American parlance, Trump won and the Dems have to accept that fact.

Sadly, the Dems and the media have reached a point where they think that they are entitled to be in power despite the will of the people in the 2016 election.  Mueller and his investigators said no collusion, but the Dems want more investigations by Congress of the same material.  The point is to remove the President.  With the failure of Mueller to find anything against Trump, other Democrats are launching all sorts of other investigations in order to try to oust Trump.  In today's news, we hear about investigations by the highly political NY Attorney General who actually ran announcing that she would investigate the President.  There's no crime being investigated; instead, a person is a target and she is using her office to look for wrongdoing.  Imagine for a moment the reaction if a police officer were to stop a young man he didn't like and to search him for that reason alone.  It would be an unconstitutional search.  It would make anything found inadmissible, but more important, it would give the man a valid claim for intentional violation of his civil rights.  We spent decades when these same people who are trying to illegally use their powers to "get" the President told us that any such use of power was wrong.

Look, America understands that the Dems and the media don't like the President.  One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to get that.  Nevertheless, Americans should insist that our basic constitutional agreement remain in place.  We have elections and the results are to be respected.  We need our government to work towards the good of the nation.  We cannot survive as America if a large portion of the country decides that it is owed power.  People make that choice, and that has to be respected.

Dems Block Barr But Blame Barr

When a member of the Cabinet testifies in front of a Congressional committee, the long established custom is for each member to get 5 minutes for questioning.  It has been over 30 years since any other procedure has been used.  Well now that Attorney General Barr is supposed to testify this week, the Democrats have decided that they want not only the 5 minute blocks for members, but they also want committee lawyers to cross examine Barr as well.  Barr is rightly balking at this, and he may not agree to testify as a result.

This is a bizarre twist due to political gamesmanship.  The committee can ask Barr anything it wants about the Mueller Report (the subject of the hearing.)  If the members are too dumb to come up with their own questions, the committee's lawyers can write the questions for them to use.  Barr has already testified to Congress many times, and he has been responsive and complete on those occasions.  There is no reason to have committee lawyers cross examine the AG.

The truth appears to be that the Democrats would rather have Barr refuse to testify so that they can say he is covering things up than to have the opportunity to learn things by asking questions to Barr.

Biden's First Rally -- or --A Tale of Two People

Joe Biden held his first live campaign rally today in Pittsburgh, PA.  The event was at a high school gymnasium.  Joe managed to fill about two thirds of the room.

Let's stop here for a moment.  This is supposed to be the culmination of months of decision making by Biden.  His campaign should have pulled out all the stops for this first big rally, but Biden couldn't even fill a small room.  That's sad.

The story goes on, however.  According to reports, some of the people at the rally admitted to local media that they had been paid to attend.  That's correct, PAID to attend.  So Joe not only could fill the room all the way; but also, he had to pay some audience members just to show up.

Contrast this with the last Trump rally from the other night.  It was held in Green Bay Wisconsin.  That's a much less populated area than Western PA.  Trump, however, filled a much, much larger arena and had thousands of people who were turned away from the rally but who remained and listened to the President outside in the cold.  None of them were paid to show up.

Now I know that it's a draw to see the President of the United States for many people.  Still Biden was VP and he seems hard-pressed to get as big a crowd as the local Dunkin Donuts gets on National Donut Day.

The truth is that Biden is a boring old man.  He's going to have to punch that up if he is ever to be successful in this race.

Legal Scholarship On the Left

I just read an article published at NBC News written by Jessica Levinson, a law professor from Loyola Law School, about the disaster that could be brewing if the Supreme Court allows the 2020 census to ask people if they are US citizens.  It's an amazingly poor piece of work.

Let's start with this key sentence:  According to Levinson, "[the census] determines how much federal funding, how many members of congress, and how many electors to the Electoral College are allocated to each district in the nation."

Wrong.  Districts all, by definition, get one member of congress.  Districts to not get electors to the Electoral College except in Nebraska and Maine, but even in those states each district gets one no matter what the census shows.  Even when it comes to federal funding, the census does not determine all of that.  There are some programs where the census plays this roll, but many where it does not.  For example, if the federal government locates a federal facility in a district, that district gets extra funding no matter what the census says.  That means that this "law professor" was totally wrong on two basic facts and half wrong on a third.  That's appalling for someone claiming to know the law.

Levinson also misstates other facts in her article.  She claims that the citizenship question was dropped from the census in 1950.  That's not true.  The question was moved from the short form to the long form at that time.  That means that 20% of all people were asked if they were citizens, a practice which has been continued into this century. 

Levinson also indicates that asking immigrants if they are citizens will discourage legal immigrants from responding to the census.  Of course, she gives no reason and offers no proof.  She just says it, so it must be true.

Look, the idea that asking people if they are US citizens is a potential cause of "disaster" is about as silly a position as one can have on an important issue.  It's the rough equivalent of saying that requiring presentation of a photo ID before entering a federal building will "discourage" those who are here illegally from dealing with the federal government on a whole range of issues.  That may or may not be true.  One thing is certain, however:  there is a security reason for requiring ID to enter a federal building.  That outweighs any of the rest of this nonsense.

A Truly Bizarre Decision

The Palestinian Authority has decided to stop allowing Palestinians to get medical treatment for serious medical conditions in Israeli hospitals.  This is in protest of Israel's cutoff of part of the tax revenue it collects for the PA in an amount equal to the pensions and bonuses that the PA pays to terrorists and their families.  The Israelis don't want to support the targeted killing of their own people; that makes sense to me.  The PA doesn't want its sick people to get treatment; that seems like a truly bizarre decision.

Some background is needed to understand just how crazy this decision is.  Israel has some advanced medical facilities; the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority do not.  Treatment for serious cancer and many other life-threatening conditions is only available at the Israeli institutions.  For the last 50 years, Palestinians from the West Bank get treatment at these Israeli institutions.  Last year, there were 3500 such patients.  Now, the PA is cutting this off.

This move is the equivalent of the PA putting out a death sentence on these sick Palestinians.  It will not hurt anyone in Israel.  It seems like a massive forced suicide chosen by the PA.

Sweet and Sour Sixteen

According to 538, there are now 16 Democrats who qualify for the first two debates which the party will hold starting in June.  It seems that every declared candidate other than Eric Swalwell, Seth Moulton and Marianne Williamson has made the cut.  And Williamson is supposedly very close to achieving that goal.  Swalwell and Moulton only got into the race recently, so maybe they too will make the grade.  In any event, it's going to be quite the spectacle when the debates actually proceed.

Debates of this sort won't make much of a difference but they will promote major hostility between the participants.  Think of it this way.  The debate will last two hours.  With introductions and other interruptions, there should be about 110 minutes available for openings, questions and closings (if there are openings and closings.)  That comes to 11 minutes per candidate if the questions are distributed evenly.  We all know, however, that those questions won't be distributed evenly.  That means that a second tier candidate will most likely get something in the area of 7 minutes of questions and answers.  The pressure to stand out will be intense; otherwise, the candidate will be forgotten in the total picture.  Will that force Tim Ryan to attack Bernie Sanders' socialism?  Will that push Amy Klobuchar to take on Joe Biden for his attitude towards women?  Will Kirsten Gillibrand point out that Kamala Harris began her career as the mistress of Willie Brown in California?  The answer to these and similar questions is almost surely yes.  If there were two or three candidates, the debates might be civil, but with nine or ten participants, the second and third tier have nothing to lose.  They have to take a shot if they are to make a big splash.

 

Subtle?

I didn't watch the coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner last night.  Life is too short to waste time on a bunch of phonies congratulating themselves on what a wonderful job they do lying to the American people.  I did see an article today, however, from the AP discussing the "subtle" jabs delivered at the dinner by the various speakers.  Not surprisingly, all of the jabs had only one target:  President Trump.  The examples given in the article of these "subtle" jabs, though weren't so much jabs as they were name-calling.  And to think that any sentient being could call them subtle is rather bizarre.  It's like calling Michael Moore "slightly overweight".  It's like calling the ladies on The View "shy".  It's like calling Hillary Clinton "honest".  It's like calling Anthony Weiner a "good citizen".  It's like calling President Trump "subtle".  It's like calling a hurricane "refreshing".

 

It "Could" Get Nasty -- Really?

The Hill published a column this weekend reporting that the Democrat race for the presidential nomination could get nasty.  Candidates may attack each other during the primary process or so this publication says.

This is the sort of nonsense that passes for in-depth reporting on the left.  What's coming next?  Will Politico report that it may rain some time during the next year?  Will the Huffington Post do an expose revealing that President Trump likes fast food on occasion?

It's a simple truth:  there will be nasty exchanges between the Democrat candidates.  There's also a second simple truth to remember:  the reasons for the nasty exchanges are that (1) these candidates want to win, and (2) there's a lot to be nasty about when describing the other candidates.

Here are a few examples; there are many more:

Joe Biden
A.  problems with racism in his past -- he fought against desegregation in Delaware at the start of his career.
B.  problems with sexism and the #metoo movement -- he chaired the committee that didn't believe Anita Hill and approved the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
C.  problems with foreign dealings and misconduct -- he is on video saying that he threatened to withhold US foreign aid designated for Ukraine until that country fired the state prosecutor who was investigating Biden's son's company.  Is it only obstruction of justice if he does it in the USA?
D.  problems with his overall creepy conduct towards women -- needs no explanation.

Bernie Sanders
A.  problem with his wife's alleged criminal behavior while president of a college in VT. -- She supposedly defrauded banks and then drove the college into bankruptcy.  Somehow, though, the Sanders family ended up as multi-millionaires.
B.  problem with his repeated expressions of support for America's enemies. 
C.  support for letting terrorists vote in US elections.

Elizabeth Warren
A.  1/1024 Native American -- enough said.

Kamala Harris
A.  Got her start in politics as the mistress of top Democrat Willie Brown in California.

Beto O'Rourke
A.  Arrested for burglary while in college.
B.  Arrested for DUI and fleeing the scene of an accident.  -- got off through "connections".

Amy Klobuchar
A.  Throws things at her staff during temper tantrums.

Mayor Pete
A.  Allegedly got major cash from "redevelopment" of a section of his city of South Bend.

You can be certain that all of the above items will be discussed during the campaign. 

The Arms Dealing Treaty

The other day President Trump withdrew America from an international treaty that seeks to control the arms trade.  It was a rather small move, but every media article I saw about this condemned Trump's move.  One has to wonder why, though.  Here are a few facts:

1.  The treaty was signed by president Obama in 2012.  It was then submitted to the Senate for passage.  Until the treaty is approved by the Senate, it is of no effect at all.

2.  Since 2012, the Democrats controlled the Senate for just over half the time.  The GOP controlled the Senate for just less than half the time.  Neither the Dems nor the GOP put the treaty up for a vote in the Senate.  Non-approval of this treaty is not based based upon partisan politics; there just seems to be no support for it in the Senate.

So given that after all these years, the senators hadn't even bothered to vote on the treaty, why is it such a terrible idea to withdraw from the treaty?  According to the pundits, the withdrawal will upset our allies.  Really?  Withdrawal upsets the allies, but failing to act on the treaty is no big deal. 

Can't the pundits try harder?  Shouldn't what they say make some sort of sense?

The Latest From Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

Let's Not Overlook Shelly Joseph of Massachusetts

This is Shelly Joseph of Massachusetts

 

Ms. Joseph is a state judge.  She hears criminal cases.  A few months back, Judge Joseph was hearing a case in which the defendant was an illegal alien who had been arrested on a felony.  That defendant had previously been convicted of serious crimes in other states.  He was also wanted on other charges outside of Massachusetts.  ICE found out that the defendant was about to be released, so it obtained a warrant for the arrest of the defendant and placed a detainer notice with the prison system and the court.  This warrant required that the court or the prison turn the defendant over to ICE for further proceedings once his case in Massachusetts was over.  Judge Joseph, however, is a member of the resistance.  She runs a "sanctuary courtroom".  As a result, at the end of the hearing, when the defendant was being released by Massachusetts, Judge Joseph allegedly arranged to sneak the fellow out a side door of the courthouse so that he could evade arrest by the ICE agents who were waiting for him.

 

This week, there was an update to the story.  Shelly Joseph is now a criminal defendant herself.  She was arrested by federal authorities for obstruction of justice and interfering with federal criminal law enforcement.  The picture above is of her just when they were taking her away.

 

For pete's sake, this woman is a judge.  She ought to know better.  She shouldn't be helping major criminals avoid deportation by ICE.

This Should be Interesting

Tonight, CNN is having special live coverage of the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  I goes on for more than two hours.  Meanwhile tonight President Trump is holding a rally in Wisconsin.  For at least the first part of the dinner and the last part of the rally, these two events will be up against each other.  I'm not sure if any of the cable networks are going to show the President's speech live.  If so, I would be curious to see how the two events far in  terms of total audience in the ratings.  My bet would be on Trump crushing the dinner.

Think about it.  You would have to be pretty strange to want to hear the correspondents dinner over the president of the United States.  The dinner has been pretty boring in the past, but this year they are not even having a comedian.  I'm falling asleep just thinking about it.

Why Does Politico Call It News?

The constant spin and even blatant dishonesty of the media still amazes me.  It shouldn't; it has been going on for as long as I can remember.  Nevertheless, what used to be a trickle of misstatements that the media tried to hide is now a torrent of lies that the media sees as a badge of honor rather than the disgrace it actually is.  I was reminded of this again by an article in Politico about how Joe Biden and his campaign is getting under the skin of President Trump.  It seemed to be reporting on a man and a campaign other than the one which exists in the real world.

Let me explain with a few examples.

1.  Biden's campaign launch has been a fiasco.  He issued a video rather than holding an event.  That's fine, but the video had as its central point a discussion of what President Trump supposedly had to say about Charlottesville two years ago.   That was a major mistake.  Biden lied about what Trump actually said.  It's an easy lie to correct despite years of the media repeating that lie.  But that's not important.  Biden can use that line if he wants, but he should have had a surrogate talking about it.  It doesn't make sense for the candidate himself to tie up so clearly with a lie.  There may be many people for whom that is a non-starter.

2.  That wasn't Biden's only blatant lie.  He was asked why Obama has not endorsed his candidacy and Biden actually said that he had asked Obama NOT to give him an endorsement.  No one who follows politics could come close to believing that.  It's an obvious lie.

3.  Biden also called Anita Hill to apologize to her for the Clarence Thomas hearings of 30 years ago.  Biden was the chair of those hearings.  At the time, he made clear that he didn't believe Hill's charges against Thomas, and Biden voted to confirm Thomas.  Nothing has changed in 30 years.  Why is Biden apologizing?  Is he saying that 30 years ago he did something wrong?  He must be, since why else apologize.  So what did he do wrong, and why did he wait 30 years to admit it?  And if he did something wrong 30 years ago, why should that make anyone want to vote for him now?  Is he planning on becoming president so that he can apologize to America in 30 years?  The best part of all this is that it brought Anita Hill out to speak to the media.  Hill told the reporters that she was not satisfied with Biden's apology.  So Biden shot himself in the foot and Hill came forward to shoot him in the other.

4.  Trump laughed at Biden on Twitter and in response to reporters' questions by contrasting Biden's age and lack of vigor with Trump's own energetic pace.  Think of it.  Trump flew to speak to the NRA at their annual convention and then came back to the White House to meet the Japanese prime minister to discuss trade.  Biden issued a 4 minute video to announce his candidacy and then took 4 days off to recuperate.

Nothing indicates that Biden has gotten under Trump's skin.  If anything, I'm sure Trump is happily watching Biden trip over his walker while he tries to campaign.  But hey, that's called the truth.  No wonder it is not in Politico.

Let's Revisit That Government Shutdown

For weeks, the business/economic media has been telling us to expect a low first quarter growth rate for the GDP.  After all, we had the partial government shutdown that lasted more than a month at the start of Q1.  Things slowed down, or so they told us.  The consensus view was for growth in the 1-1.5% range just a few weeks back; that would be a return to the sort of stagnation we saw under Obama.  Then as the report drew closer, the estimates rose to the point where they hit 2 to 2.2% growth.  The rise was based upon job growth, trade numbers and all the other statistics that come in periodically.  Well today, we got the GDP growth rate for the first quarter.  The economy grew at a rate of 3.2%.  That growth rate blew away essentially every prediction made by the "experts" and the pundits in the business/economic media.  It seems that the economy is so strong, that even the constant gloom and doom predictions didn't talk it into slowing down.

America ought to enjoy the fact that we are alone among the Western economic powers to have achieved such a strong rate of growth.  Remember 3.2% of our GDP comes to something in the area of $650 billion in additional production over the course of a year.  Let me put that in context.  That's roughly half of the total GDP of Russia in 2018. 

It's amazing what a change in leadership had done for our economy.

Biden Gets A Big Endorsement

Within hours of announcing he is joining the presidential race, Joe Biden got the endorsement of a major player among the Democrats.  Lawyer Michael Avenatti announced his full support for Joe as the nominee.  Given that Avenatti was recently indicted on something like 32 counts of criminal fraud and other crimes including things like stealing from his clients, we can expect that Biden will soon join Bernie Sanders in calling for convicted felons in prison getting the right to vote.

Here's the link to a report of the endorsement:  https://freebeacon.com/politics/joe-biden-michael-avenatti/

 

Joe Biden Jumps In

In a rather amazing video, Joe Biden jumped into the 2020 presidential election.  You have to watch it to believe it.  Here's the key 90 second excerpt.  Please take the time to watch it.

Here's the point.  The statement of Trump shown in the video is what the President said immediately prior to the quote that Biden uses.  He's such a liar.

Notice How The Colombo Massacre is Now History

It was just four days ago that Islamic terrorists killed over 300 mostly Christian victims with a wave of bombs in Sri Lanka.  If you follow the mainstream media, however, you would think it was four years ago.  There's very little coverage of the story.  ISIS took credit for the string of bombs, and that merited mention on some media outlets, but it was only a mention.  (And we don't know if the ISIS claim is real; it could just be the washed up thugs trying to stay relevant.)

Let's put this into proper context.  This was one of the biggest terrorist attacks of this century.  It was especially heinous because it attacked families who were worshiping together in church on Easter Sunday.  The victims had not wronged the terrorists in any way, real or imaginary.  Supposedly, this was some sort of revenge for the crazy attack on a mosque in New Zealand by a guy from Australia, although that may not be real.  There is no reason to hit people in Sri Lanka in response.  So, this is a major and unfathomable horror of a terror attack.

The media, however, has already forgotten the story.  They're too busy moving on to non-events like subpoenas issued by congressional committees.  It is worth noting that when the mosque attack in New Zealand took place, we had lengthy coverage that didn't vanish in a day.  That was proper.  It is a story that merited attention.  So is the attack in Sri Lanka, though.

Once again, the media is failing to get over even a very low bar.

The Night King

Warning:  Spoiler Alert

Is it me, or are we going to learn in a few episodes the surprising identity of the Night King in Game Of Thrones?

Take  a look

 

 

Compare

 

Clearly they're both very old and both look very dead

Who Can Go Furthest Left?

We've got a new Democrat trying to get to the left of all the others.  Phony Hispanic Beto O'Rourke told a crowd today at an event for women of color that President Obama followed illegal and improper policies in dealing with deportation of illegals.  He went further and said that those at ICE who enforce the current immigration laws should be subject to punishment for what they have done. 

In one answer, O'Rourke said that Obama was anti-immigrant, Trump is worse, and ICE consists of a bunch of criminals who deserve punishment.  It's a trifecta of far left thinking.

The crazy thing is that O'Rourke actually thinks that this kind of stuff will give him a shot at the Democrat nomination.  All it really does is show just how low the Dems have sunk.

What's The Point

On Yahoo News, there's a big story at the moment that an unverified report says that North Korea executed four officials from the foreign ministry after the last talks between Kim Jung Un and President Trump failed.  What nonsense.  To be clear, if Kim decides to kill some of his people if talks with the USA fail, that's pretty bad (although it really isn't any of our business.)  What gets me, however, is that there is no evidence that any of this is true.  Even a Fake News outlet like Yahoo News isn't publishing it as a regular report.  Instead, Yahoo calls it an unverified report.  That's a nice way of saying that it's just a rumor.

If journalists are ever to regain the respect of the American people, they will have to stop publishing rumors as if they are news.

Coming To The Wrong Conclusion

Here's a fast question:  What do Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar have in commone?

 

If you said they are all Democrats, you'd be correct, but that's not the point of the question.  If you said that they are the Democrat presidential candidates who have publically vowed that they would reinstate the Iran nuclear deal if elected, then you win a prize.  That's right, these four prominent candidates say that they would go back to a deal that guarantees that Iran gets nuclear weapons in just another five years.  The reasons that they give for such a boneheaded move is that Obama put us into that deal and Trump took us out.  They may not use those exact words, but their statements boil down to that fact.

 

When President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA (as the Iran deal is called), the pundits told us that it would isolate the USA and have no effect on Iran.  The withdrawal would never work to pressure Iran because the other countries involved did not join in that move.  Now, more than a year later, it has become clear that these self proclaimed experts were wrong.  American sanctions have been reimposed.  Iranian oil sales have plummeted, and are about to go much lower as the initial waivers granted by the USA expire and are not renewed.  Iran's economy is reeling.  The pressure on the mullahs is growing by the day, and the USA has suffered no ill effects.  We are NOT isolated.

 

Given that Trump's policy is moving towards a positive outcome, why would these four Democrats rush to announce that they would reverse that policy?  The only audience that really cares about such statements is in Teheran.  The mullahs are being told that if they can just wait for President Trump to be defeated, then they can get their deal back; they can get back the huge cash flow that the US action has cut off.  They can get back their path to nuclear weapons approved by their enemies.  They can laugh as the foolish Americans manage to give them everything they want while they give up nothing in return.

 

I've yet to hear any rationale from any of these four why the JCPOA should be reinstated.  No one asks about it.  The reporters are all too hung up on Medicare for All or the Green New Deal.  They ask the same questions over and over and never get to other critical issues.  In the past Sanders has said things like we shouldn't be the ones who decide what other countries do, even when it comes to nuclear weapons.  That's crazy, especially if those other countries are always chanting "death to America", but hey, that's Bernie.  The other three have never said much on the issue of Iran.

 

As of now, these four have come to the wrong conclusion.  Hopefully, they will change their minds.  Stopping Iran from getting nukes should not be a partisan issue.

Good For Them

The White House staff is not going to this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner.  For the last two years, President Trump didn't go, but the staff did.  That led to some rather nasty attacks by the comedian on that staff.  This year none of them are going.  No Trump and no staff.

Good for them.  It was one thing for the correspondents to joke about the President or his staff and for the staff and the President to joke back.  That's not where the dinner has gone, however.  Some of the crazies of Fake News have remade the event into a Trump-bashing exercise more like a Democrat campaign rally than a good natured industry event.  Why would the White House do anything to up the profile of such a partisan attack?  With neither the President nor his staff at the event, there's nothing newsworthy about it.  It can sink back into the slime of the swamp that it came from.

The best thing about all this is the outrage with which this decision has been greeted by the swamp creatures.  The same people who spend 24/7 falsely attacking the President and his staff are outraged that the President won't help them promote yet another attack.

These people truly need help.

The Wailing Has Already Started -- Rather Prematurely

That didn't take long.  The Supreme Court heard argument this morning on the issue of whether or not the 2020 census can ask people if they are American citizens, and the media is flooding the zone with "experts" who are opining that allowing that question would be catastrophic.

I'm not kidding.  USA Today just published a column claiming that including a census question would do terrible damage to every American for many decades to come.  The argument is basically that the census is important.  That's something to which nearly all Americans would agree.  It's important.

What the report in USA Today doesn't do is offer any evidence to show that including the citizenship question would make the census inaccurate.  Indeed, that key point is never "proven" in any of the arguments; rather it is assumed.  Even at today's Supreme Court hearing, Justice Sotomayor said that it was "obvious" that including the question would mean millions of people would not answer the census.  Why is that?  The truth is that we don't know that.  Indeed, Congress gave the Secretary of Commerce power to decide questions like that one, and Secretary Ross ruled that the census question ought be included.

In may respects, this argument reminds me of global warming.  For the last 30 years, we've been told that computer models that predict global warming say that time is running out.  We have ten years left to act.  We have 12 years left to act.  We have 4 years left to act.  Then it will be too late.  Of course, all these predictions of imminent disaster never came to pass.  The computer models predicted a certain level of temperature increases that never happened.  It's not just that the precise temperature rise didn't occur, but rather that the actual temperatures were so different from those predicted by the models that mathematically the models were shown to be INCORRECT.  But it doesn't matter.  No one can explain why the computer models were so wrong, but the global warming crowd still follows them.  It has become an act of faith, not of science or logic.

The truth is that we don't know if the citizenship question will affect the number of people responding to the census.  All we know is that Congress designated the Secretary of Commerce to make that decision, and he did.  That should be the end of the matter.

So, Are You A Citizen of the USA?

The Supreme Court heard arguments today on the question of whether or not the 2020 census form could include a question asking if the people responding are citizens.  That question was included in every census from 1810 to 1950.  At that point, the question was moved from the short form which everyone answers to the long form which only 20% must answer.  The Secretary of Commerce (who oversees the census) put the question back on the short form for 2020.  After that, various Democrats sued claiming that the citizenship question was illegal since it would depress the numbers of illegal immigrants who answer the census.  Three lower federal courts have accepted that argument, but these are rulings from highly sympathetic liberal judges.  The case went up on appeal directly to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis since a rapid decision is needed so that the census forms can be prepared in time for the count next March.

Determining the view of the court from an oral argument is a remarkably hard and risky thing to do.  Nevertheless, the consensus view of observers seems to be that the government will win by a 5-4 or 6-3 vote.  Apparently, all the conservative justices who spoke seemed to favor allowing the question while the liberals opposed it.  Justice Breyer didn't have much to say, so there is much less speculation about his views.  Similarly Justice Thomas didn't say much, but he rarely does during oral argument.

The idea that there is something improper about asking this question is at best idiotic.  My prediction is that the Court will rule for the government within the next 6 weeks.

Trump Administration Forces "Extreme Agenda" on Texas Tech Medical School

Last week, during the all Mueller Report phase of media coverage, it was announced that after a 15 year investigation by the federal government, Texas Tech had agreed not to use race as a basis for admission to its medical school.  That's right, for the first time in many decades, this school's admission policies will be color blind.  That sounds like a good outcome.  The applicants will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.  It's an outcome that Dr. Martin Luther King would have applauded.

The reaction from the left, however, has been most instructive.  They don't just oppose this result, but they are horrified by it.  The head of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund stated that the Trump administration had "enshrined an extreme agenda" at the school.  Really, he said that.  Ignoring race in making admission decisions -- for the left -- is an extreme agenda.

There's no question that favoring one race over another race is racist.  It's the very definition of racism.  We're now at the point where the left tells us that ending racism is an "extreme agenda".

It's a very strange world in which we live.

Updating The News

Over the weekend, I wrote about the Ukrainian elections.  It turns out that the Ukrainians selected a TV comedian as their new president by a margin of 3 to 1.  It's an amazing result.

I also wrote about the bombings in Sri Lanka.  As of now, most authorities are blaming the blasts which killed over 300 people on an Islamic terrorist group.  That group, however, has not claimed credit for the bombs.  It still may turn out that Iran is involved in this mess.

This morning, the USA announced that it would not grant further waivers to countries to purchase oil from Iran.  That move should put enormous pressure on Iran.  If the Iranians can't export oil in large quantities, then they won't have the currency needed to buy military supplies.  All I can say about this move is "It's about time."

 

As The Candidates Sink Slowly ......

2020 seems to be the race for Dems who start with a lot of hoopla and then sink into oblivion.

Look at this one.  Elizabeth Warren began her campaign for president just a few months ago.  Before that, she was leading the field of Democrats in New Hampshire polling.  That's not surprising since NH is just next to Warren's state of Massachusetts, so she's well known there.  She was polling at 26% of the vote.  In the latest polling, Warren is coming in at just 5%.  That's a total collapse.

Then there's Kamala Harris.  A few months ago, the media was proclaiming her a front runner.  Here's her results in the last five polls in New Hampshire:  14, 12, 10, 7 and 4.  If she keeps going like this, she may make negative numbers by the actual New Hampshire primary.

And how about Robert "Beto" O'Rourke?  He's down to only 3% in the latest NH poll.  And the media told us that "Beto mania" was going to take this guy to the White House.  Well, maybe he can take the public tour.

And it's not just New Hampshire.  In Iowa, Harris has gone from 18% to 6% in the last five polls.  Warren has dropped from 11 to 6 percent in those same polls.  Beto is at only 5%.

The only candidate who has increased much during that time is Pete Buttigieg who has made it to the low teens.  Of course, he's still in the big burst of hoopla section of his roll out.  We will have to check back in two months to see if he is still polling in positive numbers.

Getting Ready for 2020 -- China Is a Good Trading Partner According To the Left

As the 2020 campaign approaches, the far left of the Democrat party is trying to prepare the ground for a victory against their vision of the embodiment of all evil, President Trump.  Since Trump has challenged China on its predatory trade practices and its theft of American intellectual property with what appears likely to be great success, the left is trying to change that narrative.  China, or so the new left wing line goes, isn't really a predatory trader or a thief of our ideas, but rather is a victim of increasing and poorly founded hysteria in America.  Just today, Peter Beinart writes a piece in The Atlantic entitled "China Isn't Cheating On Trade."  Beinart says that China uses policies just like any developing country and that it treats American intellectual property much better than most other countries.  It's an amazing article since it tries to rewrite the actual facts and convert them into some sort of alternate reality.

Let's start at the beginning.  The Chinese steal the secrets and the intellectual property of American companies.  There are countless examples of such theft.  Chinese government organizations hack the computer systems of American companies on a regular basis and the main thing stolen are industrial secrets.  Don't believe me, then believe the reports from the FBI issued both under Obama and Trump.

China also forces US technology companies to form joint ventures with Chinese firms if they want to do business in the Chinese market.  Those joint ventures require the US firm to turn over its intellectual property to the Chinese partner.  At that point, the secrets are lost.

And China has for a long time manipulated its currency to give its companies a major advantage in world markets.  That's about the biggest method for unfair trade there is.  And this is not my conclusion.  It's the conclusion of essentially every trade group that has looked at the subject.

So why is Beinart making such faulty arguments?  The answer is clear.  He wants to enable the Democrats to argue that Trump's focus on trade with China is baseless bullying that hurts America.  It wouldn't be true, and were that idea to gain credibility, it would actually hurt the future prospects for American success, but it would help the Dems defeat Trump.  It seems that politics triumphs over truth, reality and success for America for the Dems.

Finally a Democrat Candidate Hitting The "Major Issues" -- Seth Moulton

Democrat Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts congressman, has entered the presidential race.  He is either the 284th or 285th candidate (depending on whether or not you count the Night King from Game of Thrones.)  Moulton says he is running on three principal issues:  gun control, national security and climate change.  That's great!  We finally have a Democrat who is emphasizing these issues!  None of the others care about gun control or climate change.  And national security under President Trump is precarious; Moulton wants to go back to the Obama policies of doing nothing but talking about things and paying off Iran.

Seriously, this has to be one of the lamest excuses for a presidential run ever.  Every Democrat favors gun control.  I could write the dialogue at the first debate.

Candidate 1 -- "confiscate all guns."
Candidate 2 -- "I agree"
Candidate 3 -- "I agree"
Candidate 4 -- "I agree"
......
Candidate 52 -- "I agree"
and so on.

And as for climate change, the main dispute seems to be whether we are doomed in only 12 years or if we have 15 before Earth turns into a cinder with temperatures like 200 degrees every day.  None of the Democrat candidates says anything except the climate change alarmism orthodoxy that their base demands.

It's sad that a guy like this is jumping into this race with no reason and no chance for success.  It's also a strong commentary on the lackluster nature of the other candidates if a congressman thinks he can get traction over all the horde of other candidates.

Respect is Coming

I couldn't let this go by without reposting it:

 

Another Huge Bomb In Sri Lanka

Authorities in Sri Lanka have announced that a very large bomb was found at the airport in Colombo, the nation's capital.  Fortunately it was disarmed before it could be detonated.  After the bombs earlier today that killed over 200 at churches and hotels, the discovery of another major bomb is more than disquieting.

About ten days ago, the head of the national police had warned of intelligence that Islamic terrorists were planning a major attack against the Christian community.  Since the blasts, eight people have been arrested and reports say that they are all members of an Islamic terrorist group.  Information is sketchy still, however, so we don't know for certain who did this and why.

Sri Lanka has about equal numbers of Muslims and Christians, with both groups having less than 10% of the population.  It's hard to imagine that any group could be so misguided as to think that attacking innocent people sitting in church on Easter will advance their cause.

It's truly sad.

Is There Any Relationship?

The City of New York has seen its population decline by about 80,000 people over the last two years according to the Census Bureau.  That's a major decline for the nation's largest city.  It's also the reversal of a trend that has seen New York grow over the previous 25 years.  What has caused this?

One thing of moment that has changed is that Bill DeBlasio became mayor and the whole of city government has been taken over by the far left wing of the Democrats.  This actually lines right up with the historical numbers.  New York's population grew from the founding of the nation until 1970.  At that point, the city started running out of money.  After decades of rule by the far left, things got so bad that by 1975, New York faced a financial crisis.  This crisis required the state to come in to bail out the city.  It also required major cut backs in city government spending.  It was something, but it wasn't enough.  New York lost over 10% of its people until the city hit bottom in the early 1990's.  City leadership continued to be of the far left variety until, at the start of the 90's, an earthquake happened.  Republican Rudy Giuliani actually won the mayoral contest.  He came into office and reorganized the way the city dealt with all sorts of problems.  The police force was reorganized and new methods of policing were adopted.  The crime rate fell quickly and New York became the safest big city in the country.  Economic development also came back to the much safer city.  Transportation was also moved to a high priority and it greatly improved.  As a result, people started to move back to the city.

After Giuliani's two terms were over, Mike Bloomberg came into office for three terms.  Bloomberg won as a Republican and as an independent.  The key was that in office Bloomberg kept improving the police and pushing economic development.  The crazy social justice policies that are more virtue signaling that anything else were left to languish.  New York grew to a point where the city hit a high point of over 8.6 million people.

After Bloomberg, DeBlasio got elected.  Things changed quickly.  The police were restricted from measures that had helped stop crime in the past.  Crimes that previously had been stopped were now not even to be prosecuted.  For example, people who jumped the turnstiles on the subway were prosecuted under Giuliani and Bloomberg.  DeBlasio ended that.  People who peed or defecated on the street were prosecuted under Giuliani and Bloomberg.  When DeBlasio took office, he stopped that.  Petty theft was treated the same way.  In other words, DeBlasio ended law enforcement for minor offenses.  That also ended having the police use those offenses to find people who had committed major crimes.

DeBlasio also stopped worrying about efficiency in city government.  For example, DeBlasio put his wife in charge of a program that was funded with almost a billion dollars of city money.  After three years, the program was a total failure with nothing to show for the money.  It still goes on, however.

The efforts to promote economic growth, better performance by the Transit Authority and many other city projects also basically stopped under DeBlasio.

So what is the end result after five years of DeBlasio and government by virtue signaling?  New York is now losing about 40,000 people per year.  The numbers are actually worse than that if you look closely.  New York is gaining immigrants from abroad, many of the illegals.  For the most part, these are poor unskilled workers and their families.  The people moving out of the city are mostly middle and upper middle income families.  In other words, people who pay taxes are moving out while the poor who use up government resources are moving in.  And then there's the few ultra-wealthy who are moving away.  Each one takes with him or her a major source of tax revenue for the city.

Look, maybe there's something else at work that is driving down the New York population.  Just because that drop in population comes with the return of far left government doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship between the two.  Still, it's one hell of a coincidence.  What do you think?

Two Universes

I just finished reading an article from the left wing press (ok, from the mainstream media) discussing whether the House should move quickly or slowly to impeach President Trump.  It was bizarre.  It wasn't that the reporter ignored the Mueller Report which found no collusion and no obstruction.  No, the reporter actually said that the Mueller Report provided clear evidence of both.

Let's take a moment at this point.  Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor, concluded that no American had coordinated or conspired with the Russians in 2016 even though the Russians attempted to lure them into doing so.  Mueller gave the President and his campaign a clean bill of health on that point.  That is not debatable.  It's just what Mueller says.  But no matter, for the leftwing media, even a conclusion that there was no collusion after a two year investigation by a bunch of rabidly anti-Trump Democrats is not enough to stop consideration of impeaching the President because he supposedly colluded with the Russians.  Indeed, none of the evidence discussed by Mueller shows any involvement by President Trump in any of the events which the left usually cites in discussing collusion.  President Trump was completely uninvolved.  The response of the left, however, is let's move ahead with impeachment.

Then there's obstruction.  Mueller lists instances that could be used to argue collusion, but he doesn't indict anyone.  That means he doesn't have proof (or even a valid legal basis) to show any crime was committed.  But the left wants to impeach Trump anyway.

We seem to be living in two universes.  In the real world, the President was exonerated by the Mueller Report.  There was no collusion and no obstruction.  In the crazy universe of the Democrats, the facts don't matter.  They want to impeach the President for something for which Mueller clears him.

The momentum of the Democrat crazy move toward impeachment seems to actually be growing.  It's basically generated by strident left wingers and the media (which is the same thing.)  Around the country, though, most people look at this and see it for the bizarre manifestation of insanity that it truly is.  The Democrats spent two years digging a hole by arguing that there had been collusion.  Now, instead of stopping to dig, they are continuing.  If this doesn't end soon, the President may carry 45 states in 2020.

Release the Full Report! -- Er.....

The Mueller Report was released in redacted form a few days ago.  Those redactions are required by law.  The Justice Department had no choice but to make them.  Robert Mueller and his team was part of the group that made the redactions.  But it didn't matter.  Democrats like Nancy Pelosi called for the release of the full unredacted report and all the supporting documents, something that they know cannot legally be done.

The calls for the full report are mostly just theater so that the Dems can talk about what is being "hidden" or covered up.  But now, if there is anyone who doubts this, we have proof.  Since Friday morning, the full report has been available for review by the so-called gang of eight in Congress.  That's the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House as well as the chair and the ranking member of the intelligence committees in each house.  Nancy Pelosi could go to the DOJ and review the unredacted report in a secure room.  So could Chuck Schumer and two other Dems.  If they wanted to see what had been redacted, it would be easy to compare two documents page by page.  The key, however, is that none of the Democrats have bothered to go and look at the unredacted report.  NOT ONE.

It's not often that a simple fact discloses the true BS nature of the Democrats' arguments.  Americans should pay close attention to this.

Who Will They Actually Help?

A few weeks ago, the Democrats in NY passed a measure that provided college tuition for illegal aliens while at the same time turning down college help for the children of disabled veterans and those who gave their lives for this country.  It was disgusting, but not surprising.  Veterans tend to vote Republican, so the Dems may not have wanted to help them for that reason.  Now, however, the Democrats in NY have made a move that is aimed directly at minority children.  They have refused to raised the cap on charter schools in New York.

A short explanation is needed.  Schools in New York City are not very good.  Despite spending much more than the national average on each child, the New York City school system produces huge numbers of "graduates" who are functionally illiterate.  These kids are not prepared to succeed in the job market or in life.  The school system is heavily minority.  Out of about 1.1 million children, only 15% are non-Hispanic white.  Just about half are African American.  The parents of these children understand that the public system is not a place where their children can get a good start in life.  As a result, charter schools have popped up all over the city.  At last count, roughly 15% of children attend these charter schools.  Charter schools are semi-independent entities run by groups or institutions (like universities) under their own rules.  They have to meet state standards, but they have much more flexibility than the public schools.  In order to placate the teachers' unions (which are major Democrat donors), the state imposed a limit on the number of charter schools to be allowed.  That limit has been reached, so no new charter schools can be opened.

There are about 80,000 poor minority students in New York City whose parents have indicated that they want their kids to go to a charter school, but for whom there is no school to go.  Even governor Cuomo decided that this was wrong and asked the legislature to raise the cap.  The Democrats who control the NY Legislature won't even consider raising the cap.  They won't discuss it, and they just won't do it.  That move leaves 80,000 poor minority students stuck in schools that will not prepare them properly for life.

If Republicans had cut off 80,000 poor minority children from the chance for a better life, we would never hear the end of it.  Democrats do it to keep their major donors happy and it's kept as quiet as possible.

Look, we are talking about 80,000 American children.  There is no way to balance the wishes of a few union leaders who give big bucks to the Democrats against the needs of so many kids without deciding in favor of the kids.  Public pressure will force the Dems to ignore their big donors and favor the kids.  If you live in NY write or call your legislator or state senator.  This terrible decision has to be reversed.

Happy Easter

It's tragic and terrible.  In Sri Lanka, Easter Sunday was used as an occasion to bomb churches and hotels.  So far over 200 are dead in the attacks, and as I write this, no one is sure who is responsible. 

Sri Lanka is a multi-religious country.  The biggest segment of the population is Buddhist, but there are sizeable populations of Hindus, Muslims and Christians as well.  Something like 7% of the people are Christians.  There have been tensions between the Buddhists and the Muslims, and occasionally with the Hindus as well.  In the past, however, the Christians have not been involved in the mix.  Targeting the Christians is a new phase, and doing it on Easter Sunday is especially heinous.

It may well be that the attacks in Sri Lanka are not coming from others in that country.  They could be the work of Iranian backed terrorists.  Iran is not far from Sri Lanka, and Teheran might look at an assault on Christians and tourists as a great way to strike back at the US or the West in general.  No group has taken ownership of the attacks since they happened, and that is the usual method used by the Iranians to keep their distance from terror attacks.  For example, in the 1990s, Teheran organized a major attack on the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which killed about 100.  No one claimed credit for the blast. 

Most likely, it will take a few days before the authorities in Sri Lanka can determine who is responsible.  If it turns out to be something set up by the mullahs in Iran, however, there ought to be a swift and unified response from the world community.  Of course, when that doesn't happen, individual nations should act.

No matter who is responsible, however, we should join people all around the world in praying for the victims and their families.  Let's hope that this is the last time the world experiences something like this.

Please Make It End!

I'm tired of the endless nonsense being pushed by the media.  I'm tired of the Democrats spending all day every day attacking President Trump without offering any sort of a meaningful alternative.  I want the problems this country faces to be solved.  Maybe I'm naïve, but I think that the average American also wants there to be progress in solving some of our more difficult problems.

During the last two years, President Trump has accomplished a great deal.  The economy is going great.  Unemployment has fallen by a great deal.  Manufacturing is back.  Average wages have been rising after literally ten years of stagnation.  Minorities are doing better economically than they have ever done before.  The US has ended NAFTA and negotiated a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico which should add greatly to our GDP and the numbers of people employed.  Tremendous progress has been made in reorganizing our trade and relationship with the world's number 2 power, China.  That's something that Obama wouldn't even contemplate let alone try to do.  Veterans who had to wait months under Obama to get the medical care they needed are now able to get that care quickly.  Taxes have been cut for the middle class in a major way.  All sorts of things are better.

Certain problems, however, are still menacing our country.  Illegal immigration and the opioid crisis are two that come to mind immediately.  Something needs to be done.  President Trump has done what he can on his own, but Congress has to act.  We cannot just drift with no resolution as more and more drugs pour over the border.  We cannot sit idly by as swarms of people come from Central America to get welfare and free this or that which all of us have to pay for.  We cannot continue to let violent criminals into our country and then watch them being protected by misguided progressives who are more intent in denying a victory to Trump than in protecting the lives of their fellow Americans.  This needs action.

Health care is also coming to a crisis point.  In a few months, the Supreme Court may well rule that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  If that happens, the whole country's healthcare will be thrown into a tizzy.  Millions will suffer needlessly.  Again, it wouldn't be hard to work on a new and better system than Obamacare, but Washington just won't even try.  We will have to wait for a catastrophe and crisis, and even then it seems that the goal of the Democrats will be to make Trump look bad rather than to help the American people.

For the last two years, we have been treated to a daily dose of BS from the media and the Democrats about the "obvious" collusion between Russian and the Trump campaign.  People like Adam Schiff and other Democrat leaders have told us that there is overwhelming evidence that Trump collusded with Russia.  We were told to wait until the Mueller Report came out and then were would be shocked to see all the evidence the investigation had uncovered.  Well, the Report is here, and THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!  I had hoped that this would mean America could move on to try to solve some of our problems.  It was a vain hope; the Democrats and the media are zeroing in on more investigations and moronic discussion of impeachment of the President.  America doesn't want to hear about this crap anymore.  The American people want to see steps taken to improve their daily lives.  We have the right to expect our elected representatives to try to make those changes.  Sure, there are some political junkies for whom the day to day political fighting is scintillating, but they are a small minority of the people.  Nevertheless, that day to day political nonsense is where the entire left seems to be coming down.

I present this plea to the Democrats and the media:  Please make it all end.  Please help focus our country on ways that can be used to improve the lives of millions.  We don't care what the cacophony of the pundits on CNN sounds like.  We don't care about hearing the endless repetition of instances the Mueller Report said could be discussed as obstruction but which didn't rise to the level of actually being prosecuted as obstruction.  Stop it!

Look, I know that none of the media or the Democrats will care about this.  I get it.  They all live in the bubble and they think that keeping Trump-Russia alive is the most important goal on Earth.  Still, I had to try to tell them what real people actually care about.  They can ignore me and the American people, but they do so at their own peril.  2020 is coming.  When that election gets here, Democrats in Congress who spend their term trying just to bring down the President without doing anything to help the American people will get to call themselves "former congressmen." 

Hell May Be Freezing Over Despite Global Warming

Very few people in the USA are concerned about elections in Ukraine, but an election for president there may be about to shake Europe.  The Ukrainian presidential election took place a few weeks back.  Since no candidate got a majority, there is about to be a runoff between the top two vote getters.  The leader in the first round was Volodymyr Zelensky.  He's a comedian and an actor who is best know for playing the president of Ukraine on a popular TV show.  The second place candidate was the incumbent president Poroshenko.  According to polls, Zelensky is leading by a wide margin in the runoff.

Remember, Ukraine is currently under attack by Russia in the eastern portion of the country.  In 2014 the Russians seized Crimea from Ukraine.  After that, so called "Russian separatists" started an "uprising" in the eastern portion of the country along the border with Russia.  Despite denials from Moscow, it is an accepted fact today that these so called "separatists" were actually Russian troops with Russian arms who had simply taken the insignias off their uniforms and equipment.  It was the kind of massive lie that the Nazis or the Communists would have used decades ago to provide an excuse for their apologists around the world.  The Ukrainian armed forces managed to stop the attack, but fighting along the eastern front is still simmering.  Under Obama, the USA stayed away from any involvement with this battle; it left Ukraine to fend for itself against its much larger and stronger invading neighbor.  President Trump has approved the sale of defensive weapons by the USA to Ukraine, a move which has greatly increased the cost that the Russians would pay were they to try to take more Ukrainian territory.

A new Ukrainian president will have to deal with the Russian threat.  The incumbent has managed to stop the losses, but sits in a stalemate.  Zelensky proposes negotiations with Putin to try to bring peace to the region.

The other big issue being pushed by Zelensky is the corruption that is endemic to so much of Ukrainian society.  Zelensky promises to mount a major fight to stamp out as much of that corruption as is possible.  It's a very popular position.

The idea of a TV comedian becoming president of a major European nation is upsetting to the governing elites across Europe as well as to many permanent employees at the US State Department.  Only someone with the expertise and experience they respect should hold such an important position.  The people in Ukraine, however, have the last word, and they seem to strongly disagree.  It's going to be interesting to watch this play out.

One last thing is important to know about Zelensky.  According to reports, he's Jewish, or his mother is Jewish, or he used to be Jewish but converted, or he has some connection to being Jewish.  That may sound confused, but the subject of Zelensky's background and religion is not one that has been much discussed by the candidate, his campaign or even his opponent.  No matter what, however, the idea that Ukraine would have a likely president who is Jewish is extraordinary.  Just about 1% of the population is Jewish, and Ukraine has a long history of virulent anti-Semitism.  During World War II while under Nazi occupation, many Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators who freed them from Soviet Russian domination.  They then participated willingly in the round up of over a million Jews. 

The election of a Jew as president of Ukraine may truly signify that hell is freezing over.

How Bad Things Must Be For Cherokee Liz

Elizabeth Warren has issued a "brave" call for the impeachment of Donald Trump as president.  Yawn.  That's the story line in far left places like the HuffPo and Yahoo News.  With the Mueller Report out and the conclusion being that Trump did not collude and obstruction cannot be proven, Warren wants to go on the war path anyway.  Cherokee Liz has pulled out her tomahawk and wants to go for the scalp of Mr. Trump.  There may be no high crimes or misdemeanors to justify impeachment, but Liz wants to go ahead with it anyway.  How bad things must be going for her campaign.

I know that after the first quarter and some rather dismal results for Liz with regard to fund raising, endorsements and poll numbers, Warren has had to fire some of her staff.  It's amazing that Warren would blame her staff for being unable to raise money for someone as unlikeable as she.  I mean who would have any sympathy for someone who pretended to be an Indian just so she could scam her way into getting a better job at the law schools at Penn and Harvard?  Can't you hear Liz now screaming at her staff, "What do you mean that don't like me and they think I'm a fraud?  Can't you tell them something to make them change their minds?  Oh wait...I know...I jump in and call for impeachment.  That should spring a load of cash my way."

A rational person would never even try for president if he or she had the problems that Warren created for herself. 

You Can Always Count On The Clintons

I didn't want anyone to miss this, so I'm posting it on my blog

It was created by Carpe Donktum

Worth Remembering -- Hillary Was In On It

With the Mueller Report finding that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, it's worth remembering a tweet sent by Hillary Clinton a little over a week before the 2016 election.  The tweet has Hillary talking about the discovery of a secret link between the Trump Organization an the Russians.  Hillary wants that link to be part of the FBI investigation into the Russian meddling in our elections.  Remember, though, this is long before anyone was talking about supposed collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  This was just at the point where the Clinton campaign and the Democrats were trying to gin up something that could be used to claim that there was such collusion.  (By the way, nearly everything discussed in the tweet turned out to be completely false.  There was no computer link to Russia.  It was just another lie from Hillary.) 

Here's the tweet:

Hillary Clinton‏Verified account @HillaryClinton 31 Oct 2016

Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.

8:36 PM - 31 Oct 2016

God Bless America and the Nazi Songs

The attacks by crazy left wingers on music are back.

First, the NY Yankees have stopped playing "God Bless America" sung by Kate Smith during their 7th inning stretch.  The reason given is that it was discovered that in 1931, Smith recorded a song that is considered "racist".  The song was entitled "That's Why Darkies Were Born."  Unbelievable!

I've looked at the 1931 song.  The lyrics are certainly racist by today's standards.  The key, however, is that they weren't anything special or offensive in that year.  Indeed, the song was recorded by two different artists.  One was Kate Smith.  The other was Paul Robeson.  Robeson was a prominent black singer who wasn't in the habit of recording racist songs.  Of course, that's racist in the sense of that time, not reinterpreted for 2019.  Since Kate Smith recorded that song in 1931, however, the PC Police say that she has to become a non-person.

Let's take a moment to consider "God Bless America."  The song isn't racist.  It was written by Irving Berlin during World War I and reworked into its current form in 1938, just prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe.  Berlin wrote the song as a hymn to peace and to keeping America out of war.  When written, it was about the most inclusive and widely accepted expression of Americanism of its day.  It was used by Franklin Roosevelt as his main campaign song in the 1940 presidential election.  Interestingly enough, it was also used Republican Wendell Willkie at his rallies in the same election.  It has been played at all manner of events.  In the 1970s, the Philadelphia Flyers started playing it before many of the teams games.  After 9-11, the NY Yankees started playing it during the 7th inning stretch in response to the terrorist attack.  It's an iconic hymn of America.  It's about a non-racist, non-bigoted and totally acceptable as any song could be.  But, the PC Police say Kate Smith recorded a song that is racist by today's standards, so God Bless America has to go.

While the news about God Bless America is an idiotic expression of PC culture, the news about the song Edelweiss is even more idiotic (if that were possible.)  One of the most important correspondents of the NY Times, Maggie Habermann, yesterday wrote about her shock to learn that the band at an event held by President Trump was playing "Edelweiss" as the people entered.  Maggie was shocked that the presidential event would feature a Nazi song.  (No, I'm not making this up.)

It's hard to believe the total lack of knowledge by Habermann about Edelweiss.  The song is from The Sound of Music.  It's about as far away from a Nazi song as one can get.  In fact, in the show, the song is meant as a protest against the Nazis and it harkens back to an independent Austria before the Nazi takeover.  But, hey, those facts don't matter.  One of those important NY Times reporters says that Edelweiss is a Nazi song.  It must be Trump exposing his Nazi loving roots again.  It's White Supremacy!  Yeh, that must be it, White Supremacy.  Who knows what's next.  Maybe Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman can tell us how the Star Spangled Banner is actually a dog whistle that supports Russian intervention in American elections.  Maybe the Horst Wessel Lied is actually a hymn to support civil rights.  With morons like these, anything is possible.  Anything, it seems except knowledgeable and accurate reporting.

 

One Last Mueller Take

It's worth taking a moment to look at obstruction of justice as an issue for President Trump.  In order for something to qualify as obstruction, it has to be intentional.  Let me give you an example.  If Bob were being investigated for a crime and he went to a key witness and told him that he would suffer greatly were he to testify against Bob, that would constitute obstruction even if the witness ignored him.  On the other hand, if Bob were to be driving in a snowstorm and to hit a patch of ice and get into an accident during which the witness was killed, it is not obstruction because Bob didn't intend to affect the investigation.  That means that for the President to have obstructed justice, he has to have intended to harm the investigation.

So what was the President's intent?  Let's take a look.

President Trump could have prevented his staff from cooperating with the Mueller team.  Trump could have used Executive Privilege to block much of the testimony.  That is not obstruction; it is just common practice by a president.  President Obama blocked testimony by his staff on many occasions citing Executive Privilege.  But President Trump didn't assert this privilege.  He didn't act to do what he easily and legally could have done to thwart the prosecutors.

President Trump could also have used other perfectly legal and proper methods to interfere with the investigation.  He didn't. 

This raises the obvious question:  if Trump was supposedly trying to obstruct justice, why didn't he use the proper and legal means at his disposal to do just that?  The obvious answer is that the President wasn't trying to obstruct the investigation.  He just wanted it over.  That is a very human and legal reaction.

It still amazes me that the Democrats want to continue down this idiotic road with further investigations.  My guess is that after a few weeks the polling will convince them to put all this stuff on the back burner.

A Road Map?

One of the funniest takes on the Mueller Report is the refrain being pushed by Democrat/media people that it is "a road map for impeachment" given to the Congress.  Think about that.  Mueller concluded after an exhaustive investigation run by people whose main common characteristic is that they hate Donald Trump that neither the President or any American colluded with the Russians in connection with the 2016 elections.  There was according to Mueller no crime that could be found.  There were some contacts between the Trump campaign and some Russians, but that is to be expected.  Without a doubt, there were contacts between Russians and the Clinton campaign in 2016 and between Russians and the Obama and Romney campaigns in 2012.  The Russians like the governments of every other major country obviously would want to have contacts with the two people who could possibly be the next president.  But THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

Mueller went on to examine possible obstruction of justice.  This is the supposed road map.  Of course, Mueller found insufficient evidence to conclude that there had been any obstruction.  We know that because he said that.  He didn't say that there was no obstruction, but he left that determination up to the Attorney General.  AG Barr announced after looking at the evidence that there was no obstruction.  So we have no crimes here.  No obstruction joins no collusion as the outcome of this two year investigation.

Democrats in Congress like California's Adam Schiff say that the investigations must go on.  The instances of possible obstruction of justice must be looked at by Congress.  How bizarre.  Schiff, of course, is the guy who told America on numerous occasions over the last two years that there was ample evidence to establish collusion.  It was open and shut according to Schiff.  Of course, now that Mueller says there's no evidence, Schiff hasn't come forward with any.  If he had any such evidence, all that he would need to do is call a news conference and lay it out for America.  Schiff was just lying for two years in an attempt to railroad the President into resigning.  Schiff and many other Democrats just lied and lied and lied.  Isn't that the actual "roadmap".  Isn't it properly a "roadmap" for the expulsion from Congress of Schiff and others like him? 

The real truth is that America has had it with this Russia collusion nonsense.  The American people are not looking for yet another investigation by lying Democrats seeking to relitigate the 2016 elections.  Trump won; Hillary lost.  It's time for the focus to be on helping the American people.  The Dems like Schiffty can continue their investigations and lying.  They can focus day after day on this nonsense.  That, however, is a roadmap to Trump's re-election in 2020.  Indeed, it's a roadmap to a landslide loss for the Dems.  Sadly, though, I don't think they can help themselves.  The Dems are going to march over the cliff together as 2020 approaches.  No matter how crazed the far left base of the party is in its Trump hatred, the American electorate is not going to choose the candidate of the ongoing vendetta over the candidate who has achieved great things for the country and has plans to achieve much more.

The Demise Of Connecticut

Here are two bits of news that says it all about where Connecticut is going.  First, CT lost nearly 4000 jobs in the first quarter of 2019.  At the same time, the nation's employment grew by about 550,000.  CT remains the only state that has not yet regained all the jobs that were lost in the 2009 recession.  Second, the CT Legislature is debating a bill that would raise the state income tax on top earners by adding a 2% extra tax on capital gains income.  This is on top of the plan to put tolls on nearly every state highway, the increase in the sales tax, and the so called "sin" tax increases on items like sugary drinks (a sin?), e-cigarettes, etc.  This all comes when the neither the new Democrat governor nor the new and strongly Democrat legislature have made any attempts to cut any state spending.

One really has to wonder why the governor and the legislature haven't managed to see the connection between the ever rising tax levels and the job exodus from the state.  An increase in the income tax would be the fifth such increase in the last decade or so.  And it's not just jobs; the population of the state has been declining for the last few years as well.

The proposed tax increases don't even make sense.  One of the big areas of employment in the New York City suburbs which lie in Connecticut is the hedge fund industry.  Fairfield County (principally Greenwich and Stamford) are one of the world's three big centers of hedge funds (the other two being New York itself and London.)  Hedge funds don't have big capital investments that tie them to any specific location.  The principals of these mostly-private funds could easily move to Florida and avoid the heavy state taxation that CT puts on them.  Targeting capital gains income for further tax increases would hit the hedge fund owners particularly hard as well.  Hartford has to remember that if the head of a large hedge fund moves the group to Tampa, the state will lose not just that person's income to tax, but also the income earned by probably another 50 wealthy individuals who will make the move as well.  It's a crazy tax policy that seems designed to force the wealthy to leave the state.

I've lived in CT since 1984.  At that time, the state was one of the fastest growing in the nation.  thousands of companies moved here to escape the heavy taxes of New York and Massachusetts.  Then things changed.  The state adopted an income tax.  For the 15 years prior to that tax being adopted, CT's economy was the fastest growing of any state in the Union.  Since that tax was adopted, CT's economy is in 49th place in terms of economic growth.  The answer of our genius new governor and his compliant legislature is to raise taxes some more.  These morons are responsible for the imminent demise of the state.

 

Let The Downplaying Begin

In the aftermath of the Mueller Report being made public, all that palaver from the Democrats/media about how AG Barr was distorting it or improperly summarizing it has ended.  The Attorney General's letter has now been shown to be completely accurate.  There's been a flurry of left wing types cheering about how Mueller listed ten instances of possible obstruction of justice, but it's hard to get too excited about that since Mueller said there wasn't enough evidence to show that obstruction and both Barr and Rosenstein have concluded that there was none.  So what's left for the left?

Here's the answer:  the left is now telling us that the Mueller Report really isn't that important and the whole investigation won't have much impact for 2020.  You may want to read that again, since it is as if the last two and a half years didn't happen.  Here's how lefty Matt Bai put it in a column today:

"What the report won’t do, I’m betting, is have much impact, one way or the other, on the 2020 presidential campaign. Most Americans seem to have decided already whether they think Donald Trump is culpable in foreign subterfuge or the victim of what he calls a “witch hunt” (or maybe both), so nothing in Mueller’s report is likely to change the basic contours of a general election."

I wouldn't believe this if I didn't see it.  The same people who went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump Russia collusion and nothing else for literally years are now telling America it didn't really matter.

It's hard to imagine that anyone could think that this position will fly with the ordinary American.