Here's a song from a new artist Lila Knight that just made it to the semi-finals in the song of the year song writing contest. Take a moment to listen:
Friday, May 31, 2019
Federal Judges and Common Sense
In the last few days, the mainstream media has gone nuts because the GOP's Senate Majority Leader said that if President Trump nominated a new Supreme Court Justice in 2020, the Senate would move ahead with confirmation of him or her. "Oh the horror!" they all screamed. After all, in 2016, president Obama nominated Garland to Justice Scalia's seat and a McConnell led Senate didn't even consider his nomination.
The only proper response to this nonsense is a shrug. It's more Fake News. In 2016, McConnell said that it had been more than a century since the Senate had confirmed a justice in an election year when the president and the senate were under the control of different parties. All of the recent Fake News leaves out this different parties part of the old statements. In 2016 we had a Democrat president and a Republican Senate. In 2020 we will have both a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Voting on a nominee in such circumstances is quite commonplace.
Part of the reason here is pure politics, but the main point that was made by McConnell in 2016 makes sense. When the people have split the government so that it is unclear which way they want to see the country go, the confirmation process ought to wait until after the next election provides a clarification of what the people want. If there isn't divided government between the President and the Senate, then there is no reason to wait.
The only proper response to this nonsense is a shrug. It's more Fake News. In 2016, McConnell said that it had been more than a century since the Senate had confirmed a justice in an election year when the president and the senate were under the control of different parties. All of the recent Fake News leaves out this different parties part of the old statements. In 2016 we had a Democrat president and a Republican Senate. In 2020 we will have both a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Voting on a nominee in such circumstances is quite commonplace.
Part of the reason here is pure politics, but the main point that was made by McConnell in 2016 makes sense. When the people have split the government so that it is unclear which way they want to see the country go, the confirmation process ought to wait until after the next election provides a clarification of what the people want. If there isn't divided government between the President and the Senate, then there is no reason to wait.
The Mueller Impact
With the big play that the media and the Democrats have given to the Mueller statement the other day, it seems that there's starting to be a shift in voter sentiment regarding President Trump. There a new Harvard - Harris poll out today which reports on job approval for Trump among voters. After all the beating that he has taken, the President's job approval has risen to the highest level in about 2 years. It's up 3% from where it was last time this pollster asked the question. Approval of the job Trump is doing was the position of 48% of voters. Disapproval was expressed by 52%.
That's right. Even after day after day of endless criticism and condemnation from the left, the average American is not only sticking with Trump but moving towards stronger support for him.
Polls like this ought to spell the end to the impeachment nonsense. The reality, however, is that the Democrats can't seem to help themselves when it comes to this subject.
That's right. Even after day after day of endless criticism and condemnation from the left, the average American is not only sticking with Trump but moving towards stronger support for him.
Polls like this ought to spell the end to the impeachment nonsense. The reality, however, is that the Democrats can't seem to help themselves when it comes to this subject.
It Ain't Going Away
Elizabeth Warren was on a prominent podcast today. The host asked her about her Native American heritage. He told Warren that she was like Rachel Dolezal. He pointed out that Dolezal was white pretending to be black while Warren was white pretending to be Native American.
It's worth pointing out that the podcast in question is hosted by a black man. It is very Progressive in its politics. It's the sort of thing that the Democrat base listens to. And even here, in what ought to be fertile ground for an angry progressive woman like Warren, she was mocked for her pretending to be Native American in order to get jobs at Penn and Harvard Law Schools.
Warren tried to put all this behind her with that DNA test last year. But guess what; it ain't going away.
It's worth pointing out that the podcast in question is hosted by a black man. It is very Progressive in its politics. It's the sort of thing that the Democrat base listens to. And even here, in what ought to be fertile ground for an angry progressive woman like Warren, she was mocked for her pretending to be Native American in order to get jobs at Penn and Harvard Law Schools.
Warren tried to put all this behind her with that DNA test last year. But guess what; it ain't going away.
Bits and Pieces
North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un had four of his diplomats executed after the last summit with President Trump failed to conclude with an agreement. He said that they were all American spies. Looks like Kim just can't deal with not getting his way.
Yesterday, I wrote to my state representative to urge him to opposed the tolls on Connecticut highways that governor Lamont is pushing. I told him that money for highways could be found by cutting unnecessary spending. He ignored my suggestion but said he would do what was physically responsible. That threw me until I realized that he meant fiscally responsible. Of course, he also made clear he was voting for tolls.
In Israel, they are having a new election after a government couldn't be formed following the last election. My guess is that the parties that caused this second election are going to be penalized by voters, but who knows. By September when the election is to take place, voters may have forgotten.
President Trump threatened to put tariffs on Mexican products if Mexico doesn't stop the flow of illegals across its country to our southern border. My bet is that tariff never goes into effect.
If you watch the mainstream media, you would think that nothing is happening across America aside from constant consideration of whether or not to impeach President Trump. That's not even close to being correct. Still, so long as the news is all impeachment all the time, the messages of all those 2020 Democrat candidates are not going to be heard. In 2016, the media covered Donald Trump something like ten times more than his primary opponents. As a result, they helped put Trump into office. Now by still focusing just on Trump, they are likely to come up with the same result.
Yesterday, I wrote to my state representative to urge him to opposed the tolls on Connecticut highways that governor Lamont is pushing. I told him that money for highways could be found by cutting unnecessary spending. He ignored my suggestion but said he would do what was physically responsible. That threw me until I realized that he meant fiscally responsible. Of course, he also made clear he was voting for tolls.
In Israel, they are having a new election after a government couldn't be formed following the last election. My guess is that the parties that caused this second election are going to be penalized by voters, but who knows. By September when the election is to take place, voters may have forgotten.
President Trump threatened to put tariffs on Mexican products if Mexico doesn't stop the flow of illegals across its country to our southern border. My bet is that tariff never goes into effect.
If you watch the mainstream media, you would think that nothing is happening across America aside from constant consideration of whether or not to impeach President Trump. That's not even close to being correct. Still, so long as the news is all impeachment all the time, the messages of all those 2020 Democrat candidates are not going to be heard. In 2016, the media covered Donald Trump something like ten times more than his primary opponents. As a result, they helped put Trump into office. Now by still focusing just on Trump, they are likely to come up with the same result.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
The Key Sentence
After yesterday's statement by former special prosecutor Robert Mueller, the discussion has gone off in the usual ways. If you watch MSNBC, you hear that Mueller told us that the President has "lied" and should be impeached. On the other side, the Trump supporters (of which I am one) point out that Mueller didn't say anything different than what is in his report which we have all had for many weeks. That's all been discussed to death in the media. I want to focus instead on what is truly disturbing about what Mueller had to say.
We all know that in American law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. That proof has to come from a prosecutor and it has to be proven to a point where it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a jury thinks that a person is more likely to have committed a crime but still has doubts, that jury is told to find the defendant not guilty. It's a system that has been in place since the founding of this nation and even before that during colonial days. Mueller, a prosecutor, indeed a special prosecutor knows this standard. He is required to follow it. But here is how Mueller put the rule he followed with regard to the claims against President Trump that he and his group investigated:
"And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
President Trump isn't "not guilty" if Mueller couldn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No, Mueller says he would pronounce Trump "not guilty" only if he could be sure that the President had not committed a crime. And it wasn't enough for them to believe the President hadn't committed a crime, it had to be "clear" that he did not. In other words, they weren't trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed a crime; no, in order to declare Trump not guilty they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent. That stands our system of justice on its head. It also puts and intolerable and unfair burden on President Trump.
Let me use an example to illustrate how this works. Let's talk about whether or not president Obama was born in the USA. For years, the people that the media called "birthers" said that Obama was not qualified to be president since he was born in Kenya. Let's assume that it would be a crime if he got sworn in as president while knowing that he was barred by the Constitution from holding that office. Prosecutors could look at this matter and they would see the birth certificate from Hawaii that president Obama made public. Under the proper standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no way that Obama could be found guilty, so he would be "not guilty". Under the standard that Mueller used, however, prosecutors would see that when Obama was in law school, his bio in the Law Review of which he was editor said he was born in Kenya. The promotional materials for his first book published long before he ever ran for office also said he was born in Kenya. Under Mueller's stand, there would be no way for the prosecutors to have confidence that Obama clearly had not committed a crime, so they wouldn't say he was not guilty.
So Mueller did exactly the wrong thing. Mueller reviewed Trump's case considering an impossible standard for Trump to meet.
We all know that in American law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. That proof has to come from a prosecutor and it has to be proven to a point where it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a jury thinks that a person is more likely to have committed a crime but still has doubts, that jury is told to find the defendant not guilty. It's a system that has been in place since the founding of this nation and even before that during colonial days. Mueller, a prosecutor, indeed a special prosecutor knows this standard. He is required to follow it. But here is how Mueller put the rule he followed with regard to the claims against President Trump that he and his group investigated:
"And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
President Trump isn't "not guilty" if Mueller couldn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No, Mueller says he would pronounce Trump "not guilty" only if he could be sure that the President had not committed a crime. And it wasn't enough for them to believe the President hadn't committed a crime, it had to be "clear" that he did not. In other words, they weren't trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed a crime; no, in order to declare Trump not guilty they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent. That stands our system of justice on its head. It also puts and intolerable and unfair burden on President Trump.
Let me use an example to illustrate how this works. Let's talk about whether or not president Obama was born in the USA. For years, the people that the media called "birthers" said that Obama was not qualified to be president since he was born in Kenya. Let's assume that it would be a crime if he got sworn in as president while knowing that he was barred by the Constitution from holding that office. Prosecutors could look at this matter and they would see the birth certificate from Hawaii that president Obama made public. Under the proper standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no way that Obama could be found guilty, so he would be "not guilty". Under the standard that Mueller used, however, prosecutors would see that when Obama was in law school, his bio in the Law Review of which he was editor said he was born in Kenya. The promotional materials for his first book published long before he ever ran for office also said he was born in Kenya. Under Mueller's stand, there would be no way for the prosecutors to have confidence that Obama clearly had not committed a crime, so they wouldn't say he was not guilty.
So Mueller did exactly the wrong thing. Mueller reviewed Trump's case considering an impossible standard for Trump to meet.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Why Socialism Doesn't Work
With the constant discussions these days about whether or not America could or should accept socialism, it amazes me just how little understanding there is of what socialism actually is. Many in the media see socialism as the equivalent of a welfare state with government programs for everything. That's not socialism. Socialism is a system in which the people own the means of production and it is run by the government. That is different from capitalism in which individuals own the means of production and run it themselves.
There are no countries left that have pure capitalism. Governments regulate businesses in one way or another. Similarly, there are no purely socialist countries. There are always little bits of private enterprise that remains.
So why is it that socialism doesn't work? It's not that difficult to understand if you think about it. Here's one way to consider it.
1. In a capitalist system, even one with much regulation like the USA, the basic economic decisions are made by individuals working together as a market. If a company decides to produce prune flavored cookies for sale and too few people buy them, production of the cookies will stop. If a company comes up with the idea of cell phones and offers them for sale, if the public likes the product, they will buy the phones and more and more will be produced. Competitors will try to improve on the phones being marketed in order to win customers. As a result, phone quality will improve as the competitors make efforts to gain customers. Prices will also come down as companies seek cheaper ways to do the same thing so that they can reduce prices and gain customers. The items produced are constantly modified to satisfy the desires of the public and the methods of production are constantly modified to improve quality and reduce cost.
2. In a socialist system, the basis economic decisions are made by government bureaucrats. If these bureaucrats decide that prune cookies are a good idea, those cookies will be produced and that production will continue whether or not the cookies are desired by the public. There will be some feedback that could lead to modifications, but it will operate much more slowly than it would in a capitalist system. If a company in a socialist society invented the cell phone, it would produce the phones and the public would buy them. There would be little incentive for the phones to be improved however since there is no competition. Phone quality would not improve and phone manufacture would not be made more efficient.
3. These examples are simplifications, but they tell the basic truth. In addition, labor would behave in a different manner in the two systems. In a capitalist system, pay is set by the value of the work being performed by the worker. This means that a worker makes more if he works harder or more efficiently. In a socialist system, pay is set by the government and it is unrelated to the value of what the worker produces. This means that the goal of the worker is likely to do as little work as possible in order to still get his or her wages. Capitalism pushes towards efficiency and socialism pushes towards avoidance of work. (This too is a gross simplification, but it also tells a basic truth.)
4. In a socialist system, the first few years can proceed well enough. As time goes by, however, the lack of incentive leads to a loss of efficiency, an economy that doesn't produce the things that people want and the continuation of outmoded processes and production methods. The products produced become shoddy and less in number. Eventually the economy breaks down. In other words, it becomes like Venezuela.
2
There are no countries left that have pure capitalism. Governments regulate businesses in one way or another. Similarly, there are no purely socialist countries. There are always little bits of private enterprise that remains.
So why is it that socialism doesn't work? It's not that difficult to understand if you think about it. Here's one way to consider it.
1. In a capitalist system, even one with much regulation like the USA, the basic economic decisions are made by individuals working together as a market. If a company decides to produce prune flavored cookies for sale and too few people buy them, production of the cookies will stop. If a company comes up with the idea of cell phones and offers them for sale, if the public likes the product, they will buy the phones and more and more will be produced. Competitors will try to improve on the phones being marketed in order to win customers. As a result, phone quality will improve as the competitors make efforts to gain customers. Prices will also come down as companies seek cheaper ways to do the same thing so that they can reduce prices and gain customers. The items produced are constantly modified to satisfy the desires of the public and the methods of production are constantly modified to improve quality and reduce cost.
2. In a socialist system, the basis economic decisions are made by government bureaucrats. If these bureaucrats decide that prune cookies are a good idea, those cookies will be produced and that production will continue whether or not the cookies are desired by the public. There will be some feedback that could lead to modifications, but it will operate much more slowly than it would in a capitalist system. If a company in a socialist society invented the cell phone, it would produce the phones and the public would buy them. There would be little incentive for the phones to be improved however since there is no competition. Phone quality would not improve and phone manufacture would not be made more efficient.
3. These examples are simplifications, but they tell the basic truth. In addition, labor would behave in a different manner in the two systems. In a capitalist system, pay is set by the value of the work being performed by the worker. This means that a worker makes more if he works harder or more efficiently. In a socialist system, pay is set by the government and it is unrelated to the value of what the worker produces. This means that the goal of the worker is likely to do as little work as possible in order to still get his or her wages. Capitalism pushes towards efficiency and socialism pushes towards avoidance of work. (This too is a gross simplification, but it also tells a basic truth.)
4. In a socialist system, the first few years can proceed well enough. As time goes by, however, the lack of incentive leads to a loss of efficiency, an economy that doesn't produce the things that people want and the continuation of outmoded processes and production methods. The products produced become shoddy and less in number. Eventually the economy breaks down. In other words, it becomes like Venezuela.
2
Fun Times With China
China and the USA are engaged in trade negotiations. That is something we all know. In the past, whenever the Chinese were even slightly challenged by America's government, they threatened some move or just refused to change. Obama backed off immediately which was his usual method of dealing with every challenge. The reality was that Obama only challenged the Chinese once, and that was not on trade. Obama sailed some navy ships through international waters that the Chinese were trying to claim as their own. President Bush also didn't do much to confront the Chinese. He followed the policy that reasoned that with the Chinese entry into the World Trade Organization, China's increasing wealth, prosperity and trade would cause the government there to open up to individual freedoms for its people. That policy proved to be a total failure. Our current negotiations, however, are different. President Trump has confounded the Chinese by not backing off. He keeps hitting them with tariffs while telling the world about his great relationship with Chinese president Xi. The Chinese put on countervailing tariffs, but they have basically run out of items to tax. We will soon see how this all plays out.
Not surprisingly, the forces of the economic and political establishment in the USA are having a nervous breakdown over the US change in tactics to playing hardball with the Chinese. These elites like the idea of America just giving in to the Chinese on everything because it didn't make waves. "We can't risk that" seems to be the rallying cry for these people. As a result, each time there seems to be an logjam in the talks the purveyors of gloom and doom come out of the woodwork to scream about all that is likely to go wrong. It's a tiresome refrain, but it gets pushed in the media each time they bring it forth. After all, it's a way to claim that the President has failed or messed up.
Today's story line is that China may be about to dump all the dollars it holds in its foreign reserves. China is one of the world's largest holders of dollars. Were the Chinese to sell all those dollars in exchange for Euros or Yen or Sterling, it could have a large impact on the foreign exchange markets in the short term. The supposed "experts" are busy screaming "Oh no, the Chinese may do this!" Of course, that is just plain silly. If the Chinese dump their dollars, think what would happen. It would drive the price of the dollar down. That would, at least temporarily, make dollar denominated goods cheaper than those priced in other currencies. That would make American steel more competitive with Chinese steel, American autos more competitive with Chinese products, indeed all American products more competitive with the products produced in the rest of the world, but especially those in China. This move would lessen the impact of those tariffs that the Chinese place on US goods and would increase the impact of the tariffs the US put on Chinese goods. And it wouldn't last. China has huge dollar reserves, but it would quickly run out of those as it tried to buy up other currencies. At that point, all things being equal, the dollar would rebound. China would have hurt itself in the short term while helping US exports and US consumers. Then things would go back to where they were except China wouldn't have US dollar reserves any more. Only an idiot policy maker would choose to do this.
Yesterday's threat was that the Chinese would cut off export of rare earth elements. That too seems like a non-starter for an attack. China now produces something like 95% of the rare earth elements world wide. That has more to do with China's tolerance for pollution and it's subsidizing of certain industries than anything else. China has used subsidies to drive non-Chinese companies out of the business. A few years ago, China limited the export of rare earths and prices soared as a result. A big batch of American companies opened mines to produce these elements and prices fell. Sine the Chinese saw that they were losing their monopoly, they produced enough to push the price down so that many of the new mines were closed. That could easily happen again. After all, despite being called "rare" earth elements, these elements are not rare. For the most part, they are all over the place. If the Chinese used rare earths as a weapon now, the most likely American response would be a crash national program to produce a supply adequate for American needs. China would lose its biggest export market. There would be a disruption while the new supply came on line, but it would not be anything that would have a long term effect. This tactic won't work.
Before the rare earth element alarm, we were told that China would dump its US treasury bonds. "No one will buy our debt!" is the rallying cry on this one. "Interest rates will soar" is another point the "experts" keep making. China owns about 5% of all US treasury debt. If the Chinese were to put all that debt on the market quickly, it would surely raise interest rates. That means that the price of treasury bonds would fall, and the Chinese would have to take a loss on their investment. The bond markets, however, are large enough to digest the Chinese position. So long as other nations like Japan do not dump the US bonds as well at the same time, we would see a very short term change and then a return to equilibrium. It is not something that one would like to see happen to the American economy, but the effect on China would be measurably worse than it would be on the USA.
The truth is that the biggest problem we face with the Chinese right now is that president Xi and his advisers know that if Trump is turned out of office, he is likely to have a new president like Old Joe Biden to deal with. Biden actually said last week that China is not a threat to the USA or even a competitor of ours. He is so out of touch that Xi knows he will be back to the old days where he called the tune in every negotiation. Other Democrats are also weak on this score and would want to show that they were changing Trump policies in every possible way, including those pertaining to China. Xi may well feel that it is in his nation's best interests to try to stall the negotiations until he can see if President Trump will get another 4 years.
Not surprisingly, the forces of the economic and political establishment in the USA are having a nervous breakdown over the US change in tactics to playing hardball with the Chinese. These elites like the idea of America just giving in to the Chinese on everything because it didn't make waves. "We can't risk that" seems to be the rallying cry for these people. As a result, each time there seems to be an logjam in the talks the purveyors of gloom and doom come out of the woodwork to scream about all that is likely to go wrong. It's a tiresome refrain, but it gets pushed in the media each time they bring it forth. After all, it's a way to claim that the President has failed or messed up.
Today's story line is that China may be about to dump all the dollars it holds in its foreign reserves. China is one of the world's largest holders of dollars. Were the Chinese to sell all those dollars in exchange for Euros or Yen or Sterling, it could have a large impact on the foreign exchange markets in the short term. The supposed "experts" are busy screaming "Oh no, the Chinese may do this!" Of course, that is just plain silly. If the Chinese dump their dollars, think what would happen. It would drive the price of the dollar down. That would, at least temporarily, make dollar denominated goods cheaper than those priced in other currencies. That would make American steel more competitive with Chinese steel, American autos more competitive with Chinese products, indeed all American products more competitive with the products produced in the rest of the world, but especially those in China. This move would lessen the impact of those tariffs that the Chinese place on US goods and would increase the impact of the tariffs the US put on Chinese goods. And it wouldn't last. China has huge dollar reserves, but it would quickly run out of those as it tried to buy up other currencies. At that point, all things being equal, the dollar would rebound. China would have hurt itself in the short term while helping US exports and US consumers. Then things would go back to where they were except China wouldn't have US dollar reserves any more. Only an idiot policy maker would choose to do this.
Yesterday's threat was that the Chinese would cut off export of rare earth elements. That too seems like a non-starter for an attack. China now produces something like 95% of the rare earth elements world wide. That has more to do with China's tolerance for pollution and it's subsidizing of certain industries than anything else. China has used subsidies to drive non-Chinese companies out of the business. A few years ago, China limited the export of rare earths and prices soared as a result. A big batch of American companies opened mines to produce these elements and prices fell. Sine the Chinese saw that they were losing their monopoly, they produced enough to push the price down so that many of the new mines were closed. That could easily happen again. After all, despite being called "rare" earth elements, these elements are not rare. For the most part, they are all over the place. If the Chinese used rare earths as a weapon now, the most likely American response would be a crash national program to produce a supply adequate for American needs. China would lose its biggest export market. There would be a disruption while the new supply came on line, but it would not be anything that would have a long term effect. This tactic won't work.
Before the rare earth element alarm, we were told that China would dump its US treasury bonds. "No one will buy our debt!" is the rallying cry on this one. "Interest rates will soar" is another point the "experts" keep making. China owns about 5% of all US treasury debt. If the Chinese were to put all that debt on the market quickly, it would surely raise interest rates. That means that the price of treasury bonds would fall, and the Chinese would have to take a loss on their investment. The bond markets, however, are large enough to digest the Chinese position. So long as other nations like Japan do not dump the US bonds as well at the same time, we would see a very short term change and then a return to equilibrium. It is not something that one would like to see happen to the American economy, but the effect on China would be measurably worse than it would be on the USA.
The truth is that the biggest problem we face with the Chinese right now is that president Xi and his advisers know that if Trump is turned out of office, he is likely to have a new president like Old Joe Biden to deal with. Biden actually said last week that China is not a threat to the USA or even a competitor of ours. He is so out of touch that Xi knows he will be back to the old days where he called the tune in every negotiation. Other Democrats are also weak on this score and would want to show that they were changing Trump policies in every possible way, including those pertaining to China. Xi may well feel that it is in his nation's best interests to try to stall the negotiations until he can see if President Trump will get another 4 years.
Mueller Speaks
Former special counsel Robert Mueller made a statement this morning to the media. He took no questions. A fair summary of what he said was this:
1. The task assigned to the special counsel has been completed. Accordingly, he is resigning and going back to private life. The office of the special counsel is closing.
2. The report his office issued speaks to their conclusions. He has nothing to add. If he is called to testify, he will just repeat what is already set forth in the report.
3. There were Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, but there is no evidence to support charges of conspiracy or collusion against anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
4. His office also investigated obstruction of justice. Under the law, he couldn't bring charges against the President since to do so would be unconstitutional. It also would not have been fair to bring such charges because there couldn't be a trial in court to determine the validity of such charges. Since there were no charges, he laid out in the report the evidence that pertained to possible obstruction. He neither cleared nor charged the President.
5. He has no problems with the way that Attorney General Barr made public his report, particularly since Barr had no obligation to make any of the report public and further since Barr made public more than the sections that Mueller had asked to be disclosed.
This statement basically can be described in two sentences.
A. It said nothing new other than that Mueller is resigning.
B. It is a bitter disappointment to Democrats and the media since it offered nothing that can be used against Trump and made clear that even if Mueller is called to testify, he won't be offering anything that can be used against Trump. The Mueller Report says all Mueller has to say.
That's all there is. There ain't no more.
1. The task assigned to the special counsel has been completed. Accordingly, he is resigning and going back to private life. The office of the special counsel is closing.
2. The report his office issued speaks to their conclusions. He has nothing to add. If he is called to testify, he will just repeat what is already set forth in the report.
3. There were Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, but there is no evidence to support charges of conspiracy or collusion against anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
4. His office also investigated obstruction of justice. Under the law, he couldn't bring charges against the President since to do so would be unconstitutional. It also would not have been fair to bring such charges because there couldn't be a trial in court to determine the validity of such charges. Since there were no charges, he laid out in the report the evidence that pertained to possible obstruction. He neither cleared nor charged the President.
5. He has no problems with the way that Attorney General Barr made public his report, particularly since Barr had no obligation to make any of the report public and further since Barr made public more than the sections that Mueller had asked to be disclosed.
This statement basically can be described in two sentences.
A. It said nothing new other than that Mueller is resigning.
B. It is a bitter disappointment to Democrats and the media since it offered nothing that can be used against Trump and made clear that even if Mueller is called to testify, he won't be offering anything that can be used against Trump. The Mueller Report says all Mueller has to say.
That's all there is. There ain't no more.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Was This Weekend A Harbinger Of Things To Come For Biden?
We just finished Memorial Day weekend 2019. There's still a year and a half until election day in 2020, but sadly, the presidential campaign is in full swing. Most people aren't paying attention yet, but the candidates, especially on the Democrat side, are holding event after event trying to drum up support. The holiday weekend is a particular fertile time to plant seed for future support. There are parades and memorials and all sorts of events at which a candidate can make an appearance, meet some people and get some coverage. That's why it is important to note that Joe Biden, the Democrats' current front runner, was missing in action during this time. Biden, in fact, has hardly been seen on the campaign trail or on TV giving interviews or, indeed, much of anywhere since he announced his candidacy. What's going on?
Does Biden not have the stamina to make appearances? That hardly seems likely. We are not talking about barnstorming tours with ten stops a day; we are discussing making one or two appearances over a weekend. Even at close to 80, Biden ought to be able to manage that much if he is serious about being President.
It is more likely that the lack of appearances is a conscious strategy worked out by Biden's campaign team. Right now, Biden is the Old Joe of his vice presidential years. No one is asking him questions. No one is hearing Biden's positions on issues from his view of the border/immigration to those on abortion. As a result, Biden gets to keep his "nostalgia" support while other candidates manage to stick one or both feet in their mouths. Biden is running in many ways as the "new Hillary Clinton". He is keeping a low profile and relying to a great extent on his "right" to be the nominee.
The problem with this strategy is that there's about a year until the bulk of the primaries/caucuses. Biden can't hide for a year. He has to make connections with voters if he is to have any chance to win. And as he finally steps out on the platform to campaign, we will get the inevitable Biden mistakes. Everyone knows that Biden is prone to making mistakes. Biden will also have to tell us his positions on all sorts of issues. Does he believe in late term abortion for any reason like almost all the Democrat candidates? If so, he may lose the pro-life segment of the Democrat base (it's small but it's there.) Is he in favor of raising taxes and, if so, on whom? Most likely, the targets of those taxes won't be too happy with Old Joe. The list goes on and on. If he wants to win the nomination, it just won't be enough for him to say "I'm not Trump." After all, none of the Democrats are. With each position expressed, Old Joe runs the risk of losing support rather than gaining it. It will be interesting to see just when Old Joe's advisers decide it is time for him to actually campaign for the office.
Does Biden not have the stamina to make appearances? That hardly seems likely. We are not talking about barnstorming tours with ten stops a day; we are discussing making one or two appearances over a weekend. Even at close to 80, Biden ought to be able to manage that much if he is serious about being President.
It is more likely that the lack of appearances is a conscious strategy worked out by Biden's campaign team. Right now, Biden is the Old Joe of his vice presidential years. No one is asking him questions. No one is hearing Biden's positions on issues from his view of the border/immigration to those on abortion. As a result, Biden gets to keep his "nostalgia" support while other candidates manage to stick one or both feet in their mouths. Biden is running in many ways as the "new Hillary Clinton". He is keeping a low profile and relying to a great extent on his "right" to be the nominee.
The problem with this strategy is that there's about a year until the bulk of the primaries/caucuses. Biden can't hide for a year. He has to make connections with voters if he is to have any chance to win. And as he finally steps out on the platform to campaign, we will get the inevitable Biden mistakes. Everyone knows that Biden is prone to making mistakes. Biden will also have to tell us his positions on all sorts of issues. Does he believe in late term abortion for any reason like almost all the Democrat candidates? If so, he may lose the pro-life segment of the Democrat base (it's small but it's there.) Is he in favor of raising taxes and, if so, on whom? Most likely, the targets of those taxes won't be too happy with Old Joe. The list goes on and on. If he wants to win the nomination, it just won't be enough for him to say "I'm not Trump." After all, none of the Democrats are. With each position expressed, Old Joe runs the risk of losing support rather than gaining it. It will be interesting to see just when Old Joe's advisers decide it is time for him to actually campaign for the office.
Monday, May 27, 2019
Nya Nya Nya
You have to smile when you read the mainstream media. You really do. Here's a good example of why:
In the last two days, a group led by former White House adviser Steve Bannon built a strip of border wall over a mile in length. The group bought the rights to the site from landowners after hearing from the border patrol as to which was the worst section of the border in that area insofar as drugs and illegal crossings were concerned. The border patrol pointed to a section where there was a gap between two previously built sections of wall. In this roughly one mile gap there was constant heavy traffic by the cartels as well as by those entering the country illegally. Bannon's group built the wall section for about $6 million which includes the rights to the land -- a lot cheaper and quicker than the federal government has been doing.
The idea that this wall has gone up under the radar, so to speak, has allowed it to progress without all the red tape and publicity that a government built wall would encounter. The construction shows what could be accomplished if the opposition would end and construction allowed to move ahead quickly.
The mainstream media freaked out about the construction. It is hard for that group to consider anything that helps build the wall in a positive light, but here we had a quick and inexpensive construction that was choking off a major entry point for illegal drugs. There was nothing to criticize.
Of course, the lack of anything to criticize didn't stop the media. They decided to add into the story about wall construction a fast look at the parties in Europe that Bannon has been helping in the election for European Union Parliament. The story about the wall spends the last third covering how Bannon's clients did. According to Yahoo News, those parties just didn't do well. In the UK, the Brexit party only came in first by a large margin. In France, Marine LePen's party only came in first, beating the party of French president Macron. In Italy, the party Bannon was helping only came in first. This is actually how Yahoo News presented the story. In Holland, the party Bannon was helping didn't gain as many seats as had been expected, but it still did better than last time. There were two smaller countries where the party Bannon assisted did not do well. Overall, there was a big shift towards the parties Bannon favored. The media, however, is celebrating that the shift was not as big as it could have been.
Hard to believe.
In the last two days, a group led by former White House adviser Steve Bannon built a strip of border wall over a mile in length. The group bought the rights to the site from landowners after hearing from the border patrol as to which was the worst section of the border in that area insofar as drugs and illegal crossings were concerned. The border patrol pointed to a section where there was a gap between two previously built sections of wall. In this roughly one mile gap there was constant heavy traffic by the cartels as well as by those entering the country illegally. Bannon's group built the wall section for about $6 million which includes the rights to the land -- a lot cheaper and quicker than the federal government has been doing.
The idea that this wall has gone up under the radar, so to speak, has allowed it to progress without all the red tape and publicity that a government built wall would encounter. The construction shows what could be accomplished if the opposition would end and construction allowed to move ahead quickly.
The mainstream media freaked out about the construction. It is hard for that group to consider anything that helps build the wall in a positive light, but here we had a quick and inexpensive construction that was choking off a major entry point for illegal drugs. There was nothing to criticize.
Of course, the lack of anything to criticize didn't stop the media. They decided to add into the story about wall construction a fast look at the parties in Europe that Bannon has been helping in the election for European Union Parliament. The story about the wall spends the last third covering how Bannon's clients did. According to Yahoo News, those parties just didn't do well. In the UK, the Brexit party only came in first by a large margin. In France, Marine LePen's party only came in first, beating the party of French president Macron. In Italy, the party Bannon was helping only came in first. This is actually how Yahoo News presented the story. In Holland, the party Bannon was helping didn't gain as many seats as had been expected, but it still did better than last time. There were two smaller countries where the party Bannon assisted did not do well. Overall, there was a big shift towards the parties Bannon favored. The media, however, is celebrating that the shift was not as big as it could have been.
Hard to believe.
Could It Happen Here?
Yesterday we heard the results of the elections to the European Parliament. They are best described as a political earthquake. The established parties in most of the large countries lost and in some cases last big.
Britain had the biggest changes. As of nearly final results, here is the breakdown of the British vote by party: Brexit Party - 31.6 percent of the vote share, the Liberal Democrats - 20.3 percent, Labour - 14.1 percent, Green - 12.1 percent and Conservatives - 9.1 percent. Think about that for a moment. The Conservatives and Labour have headed every British government for the last 100 years. During that time, the other party was the largest opposition in the UK. In one election, the two controlling parties together got less than one vote in four. The Brexit Party was only formed six weeks ago. To be fair, this was only a vote for the European Parliament, and Britain is supposed to be leaving that bloc by this fall via Brexit. Still, even as a protest vote, this was a staggering result.
Across Europe, nationalist and populist parties made huge gains. In France, the party of President Macron lost to the party of Marine LePen. Similar results occurred in Italy. In Germany, the changes were less severe, by Chancellor Merkel's party did not do well.
Since this is the EU, of course, the change in the Parliament will not make much of a difference. Most of the EU government is run by a bureaucracy rather than the legislature. Still, we could see that change, and the EU Parliament is where that change could start.
The inevitable articles are going to be written in the US mainstream media comparing these election results with the 2016 victory for President Trump. What does this mean for 2020? Will fed up Americans get rid of the Democrats and the Republicans and move to a new party? It ought to be good for weeks of analysis in the media unless another committee in the House decides to focus on issuing a subpoena to someone they consider critical to their latest useless investigation like the podiatrist that Ivanka Trump once visited in New York.
The basic question has a simple answer: NO. We are not about to see the American parties replaced. Instead, what could happen is something that has occurred repeatedly over the time since the Republicans were formed in 1856 leading to our current two party lineup: the parties will reinvent themselves and realign. Consider: the 2020 Democrats are totally different than the 1960 Democrats. In 1960, the Democrats supported a strong national defense, pushed for tax cuts to invigorate the economy, fought Marxism and it's political dogmas like socialism, and were the main support for segregation. That's not who they are today.
Britain had the biggest changes. As of nearly final results, here is the breakdown of the British vote by party: Brexit Party - 31.6 percent of the vote share, the Liberal Democrats - 20.3 percent, Labour - 14.1 percent, Green - 12.1 percent and Conservatives - 9.1 percent. Think about that for a moment. The Conservatives and Labour have headed every British government for the last 100 years. During that time, the other party was the largest opposition in the UK. In one election, the two controlling parties together got less than one vote in four. The Brexit Party was only formed six weeks ago. To be fair, this was only a vote for the European Parliament, and Britain is supposed to be leaving that bloc by this fall via Brexit. Still, even as a protest vote, this was a staggering result.
Across Europe, nationalist and populist parties made huge gains. In France, the party of President Macron lost to the party of Marine LePen. Similar results occurred in Italy. In Germany, the changes were less severe, by Chancellor Merkel's party did not do well.
Since this is the EU, of course, the change in the Parliament will not make much of a difference. Most of the EU government is run by a bureaucracy rather than the legislature. Still, we could see that change, and the EU Parliament is where that change could start.
The inevitable articles are going to be written in the US mainstream media comparing these election results with the 2016 victory for President Trump. What does this mean for 2020? Will fed up Americans get rid of the Democrats and the Republicans and move to a new party? It ought to be good for weeks of analysis in the media unless another committee in the House decides to focus on issuing a subpoena to someone they consider critical to their latest useless investigation like the podiatrist that Ivanka Trump once visited in New York.
The basic question has a simple answer: NO. We are not about to see the American parties replaced. Instead, what could happen is something that has occurred repeatedly over the time since the Republicans were formed in 1856 leading to our current two party lineup: the parties will reinvent themselves and realign. Consider: the 2020 Democrats are totally different than the 1960 Democrats. In 1960, the Democrats supported a strong national defense, pushed for tax cuts to invigorate the economy, fought Marxism and it's political dogmas like socialism, and were the main support for segregation. That's not who they are today.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
For Whom The Bells Don't Toll?
What's happening on tolls on Connecticut highways? Has the governor thrown in the towel in his effort to stick yet another tax -- excuse me, fee -- on the citizens of this state? Can it be that the outrage of the citizenry at getting hit with another unnecessary charge by the state has won?
The simple answer seems to be that all we are seeing is a change in tactics, not an admission that the goal of using tolls to raise taxes is dead. We've just gone through a period during which the legislation to impose tolls on essentially every highway across the state has meandered through the Legislature. During that time, there has been intense opposition from the citizens. That opposition has persisted despite major campaigns by public employee unions and construction companies about the "need" for tolls to repair out bridges and roads. Governor Malloy, excuse me Lamont (they're hard to tell apart), tried to buy votes from those in the state legislature getting an avalanche of opposition messages about the tolls. Lamont actually announced that he would make sure that those who vote for tolls will get large campaign contributions. Lamont wasn't trading votes on one program for votes on another. No, he was offering cash for votes. Just when you think Lamont couldn't get any worse, he does something like this which proves you wrong.
Now, however, Lamont has moved on to "deal with the budget" rather than tolls. Some may think that this is Lamont admitting defeat; the public has won and there won't be tolls. Don't believe it. There may not be tolls passed in the next few weeks, but after the budget is finished and other taxes are raised, the governor will come back to the toll issue and start again on getting that cash squeezed out of those who can least afford it.
If you are opposed to the imposition of tolls, you need to keep up the pressure. If you've written previously to your legislator, write again, and again, and again. Keep asking that the legislature mandate that the money collected for gasoline taxes be used (as it is supposed to be used) to pay for highway maintenance and construction. There's more than enough cash raised from that tax to pay for what is needed. Keep telling the legislature that tolls will choke off commerce and jobs in our state. Keep asking the legislature to CUT expenditures. (Okay, I doubt that will work, but hey, you never know. It's worth a try.)
Remember this: eternal vigilance is the price of keeping those damn tolls off our highways.
The simple answer seems to be that all we are seeing is a change in tactics, not an admission that the goal of using tolls to raise taxes is dead. We've just gone through a period during which the legislation to impose tolls on essentially every highway across the state has meandered through the Legislature. During that time, there has been intense opposition from the citizens. That opposition has persisted despite major campaigns by public employee unions and construction companies about the "need" for tolls to repair out bridges and roads. Governor Malloy, excuse me Lamont (they're hard to tell apart), tried to buy votes from those in the state legislature getting an avalanche of opposition messages about the tolls. Lamont actually announced that he would make sure that those who vote for tolls will get large campaign contributions. Lamont wasn't trading votes on one program for votes on another. No, he was offering cash for votes. Just when you think Lamont couldn't get any worse, he does something like this which proves you wrong.
Now, however, Lamont has moved on to "deal with the budget" rather than tolls. Some may think that this is Lamont admitting defeat; the public has won and there won't be tolls. Don't believe it. There may not be tolls passed in the next few weeks, but after the budget is finished and other taxes are raised, the governor will come back to the toll issue and start again on getting that cash squeezed out of those who can least afford it.
If you are opposed to the imposition of tolls, you need to keep up the pressure. If you've written previously to your legislator, write again, and again, and again. Keep asking that the legislature mandate that the money collected for gasoline taxes be used (as it is supposed to be used) to pay for highway maintenance and construction. There's more than enough cash raised from that tax to pay for what is needed. Keep telling the legislature that tolls will choke off commerce and jobs in our state. Keep asking the legislature to CUT expenditures. (Okay, I doubt that will work, but hey, you never know. It's worth a try.)
Remember this: eternal vigilance is the price of keeping those damn tolls off our highways.
Maybe It Really Is Making A Difference
In USA Today, there's an op-ed about Republicans and what is described as their phony charges of anti-Semitism leveled at progressive leaders. It's not a particularly interesting piece for what it says. Nor is it particularly honest. Basically, it tries to convince the reader that neither congressmen Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar are actually anti-Semitic despite what they say. No, the real villains are Republicans who use what Tlaib and Omar say to make false charges of anti-Semitism against these two women. It's part of the normal slant of the mainstream media. If a Republican says something objectionable, the story is about what he or she said. If a Democrat says something objectionable, the story is about the Republican overreaction to what was said.
What is actually interesting about today's USA Today column is just what its very existence indicates. This is an attempt at damage control by those on the left after constant anti-Semitic attacks by people like Tlaib, Omar and others on the left. Maybe, for once, American Jews are realizing that the main source of anti-Semitism in America today comes from the left rather than the crazies on the far right.
If the average American starts recognizing the hatred being spewed by the left, it will be the beginning of the end for them. And there's a great deal of hatred coming from the left.
Here's an example: yesterday, I commented on Twitter on a particularly angry message posted by someone who attacked Attorney General Barr and President Trump for launching a coverup by declassifying the documents related to the beginnings of the Russia collusion investigation. Basically, I said that it's hard to cover something up by taking steps to allow the public to see it. It's the opposite of a cover up. I got an immediate reply that didn't consider what I had said but instead denounced me as an "angry old white guy." I replied to the woman posting that it was sad that she used racist and sexist positions to put me down rather than to consider what I had said. I added that truth remains true no matter the race or gender of the person speaking. That brought a torrent of abuse. The point about how opening up something to the public cannot be a cover up was never mentioned by those who responded. Instead, I was just attacked for my race or gender or even because I have a picture of my dog on my tweets. It was all hatred all the time. Now, I don't care what people say about me on Twitter; it's just the rantings of those who are basically just wasting time. The point, though, is that the go to position from this "progressive" and her friends was to attack something they didn't like on racist and sexist ground. The response to reason was rage and hatred.
The more this happens, the more average people will see the progressive left for who they truly are.
What is actually interesting about today's USA Today column is just what its very existence indicates. This is an attempt at damage control by those on the left after constant anti-Semitic attacks by people like Tlaib, Omar and others on the left. Maybe, for once, American Jews are realizing that the main source of anti-Semitism in America today comes from the left rather than the crazies on the far right.
If the average American starts recognizing the hatred being spewed by the left, it will be the beginning of the end for them. And there's a great deal of hatred coming from the left.
Here's an example: yesterday, I commented on Twitter on a particularly angry message posted by someone who attacked Attorney General Barr and President Trump for launching a coverup by declassifying the documents related to the beginnings of the Russia collusion investigation. Basically, I said that it's hard to cover something up by taking steps to allow the public to see it. It's the opposite of a cover up. I got an immediate reply that didn't consider what I had said but instead denounced me as an "angry old white guy." I replied to the woman posting that it was sad that she used racist and sexist positions to put me down rather than to consider what I had said. I added that truth remains true no matter the race or gender of the person speaking. That brought a torrent of abuse. The point about how opening up something to the public cannot be a cover up was never mentioned by those who responded. Instead, I was just attacked for my race or gender or even because I have a picture of my dog on my tweets. It was all hatred all the time. Now, I don't care what people say about me on Twitter; it's just the rantings of those who are basically just wasting time. The point, though, is that the go to position from this "progressive" and her friends was to attack something they didn't like on racist and sexist ground. The response to reason was rage and hatred.
The more this happens, the more average people will see the progressive left for who they truly are.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
What Are They Offering?
I was thinking about the various 2020 candidates that the Dems have and considering what these people are offering to the American people. It's not much. Sometimes, a leader doesn't have to offer much. Winston Churchill famously spoke in Parliament when he was named Prime Minister during the darkest days of the Second World War and told the nation that he had "nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat and tears". Churchill, however, made plain that the goal was victory over Germany and survival for the British Empire and all for which it stood. The British people accepted that offer and even applauded it.
The Democrats are not offering victory over tyranny by those who would end our way of life. Instead, they are offering a list of things such as the following:
1. A government take over of the health care system. The hundreds of millions of people who are happy with their healthcare will lose what they have and instead will be thrown into some replica of what the Veterans' Administration health system was like under Obama. People will have to wait for months for healthcare, and often they will not get needed treatment at all.
2. Higher taxes for everyone. The discussion will be on higher taxes for the wealthy, but the taxes will fall on everyone. Just the taxes for the healthcare system alone will take a minimum of 10% from everyone, and most will get hit with at least 30% additional taken in taxes.
3. Lower wages and fewer jobs for everyone. Higher taxes and additional regulations demanded by the Dems will undo the stimulus provided to the economy by President Trump and his administration. Wages were stagnant for a decade prior to Trump getting them moving up again. That growth will stop and decline will set back in.
4. Much higher prices for daily necessities. Energy costs will go through the roof. Some people will have to choose between heat in the winter and food on the table. Others who live in hot climates will lose the ability to pay for air conditioning. Travel will zoom up in price as fuel prices go through the roof. All the higher energy costs will mean higher food price. Clothing and other basic necessities will also rise in price.
5. People will lose their prospects for having sufficient cash to allow for retirement. When the Democrats taxes and regulations cut corporate profits, it will hurt the value of stock market investments. Lower incomes will then cut the level of consumer spending. That again will lower profits. Stock prices will fall. Investments will become less enticing because of lower expected profits and higher taxes on those profits. It's a vicious cycle, but it will slow our growth dramatically.
6. An endless cycle of wars will restart. Despite non-stop criticism from the Democrats, President Trump ended the war against ISIS by beating them. Afghanistan has wound down. We've not had any new wars. The Democrats, however, want to stop trying to keep terrorists out of the USA. They don't want to help our allies in the Middle East protect themselves from Iranian aggression. It's inevitable that if one of these Democrats gets in office, we will be facing another war sooner rather than later. We could go back to a dithering leader like Obama who just let things get worse and worse until major problems erupted.
7. All sorts of limitations will be put in place to fight climate change. The Green New Deal will limit all sorts of freedoms. One thing that the Green New Deal won't do, even according to the Democrats, is to stop climate change. Basically, the Green New Deal will dramatically alter life in the USA, but it won't affect the course of global warming in any material fashion.
8. Freedom of speech will be limited. Only those who say what the government wants will be allowed to speak. Under the guise of limiting "hate", all sorts of dissidents will be shut down by the government.
These are not all the planks of the Democrats' platform, but they are the most important ones.
Who is actually going to want to live under that regime?
The Democrats are not offering victory over tyranny by those who would end our way of life. Instead, they are offering a list of things such as the following:
1. A government take over of the health care system. The hundreds of millions of people who are happy with their healthcare will lose what they have and instead will be thrown into some replica of what the Veterans' Administration health system was like under Obama. People will have to wait for months for healthcare, and often they will not get needed treatment at all.
2. Higher taxes for everyone. The discussion will be on higher taxes for the wealthy, but the taxes will fall on everyone. Just the taxes for the healthcare system alone will take a minimum of 10% from everyone, and most will get hit with at least 30% additional taken in taxes.
3. Lower wages and fewer jobs for everyone. Higher taxes and additional regulations demanded by the Dems will undo the stimulus provided to the economy by President Trump and his administration. Wages were stagnant for a decade prior to Trump getting them moving up again. That growth will stop and decline will set back in.
4. Much higher prices for daily necessities. Energy costs will go through the roof. Some people will have to choose between heat in the winter and food on the table. Others who live in hot climates will lose the ability to pay for air conditioning. Travel will zoom up in price as fuel prices go through the roof. All the higher energy costs will mean higher food price. Clothing and other basic necessities will also rise in price.
5. People will lose their prospects for having sufficient cash to allow for retirement. When the Democrats taxes and regulations cut corporate profits, it will hurt the value of stock market investments. Lower incomes will then cut the level of consumer spending. That again will lower profits. Stock prices will fall. Investments will become less enticing because of lower expected profits and higher taxes on those profits. It's a vicious cycle, but it will slow our growth dramatically.
6. An endless cycle of wars will restart. Despite non-stop criticism from the Democrats, President Trump ended the war against ISIS by beating them. Afghanistan has wound down. We've not had any new wars. The Democrats, however, want to stop trying to keep terrorists out of the USA. They don't want to help our allies in the Middle East protect themselves from Iranian aggression. It's inevitable that if one of these Democrats gets in office, we will be facing another war sooner rather than later. We could go back to a dithering leader like Obama who just let things get worse and worse until major problems erupted.
7. All sorts of limitations will be put in place to fight climate change. The Green New Deal will limit all sorts of freedoms. One thing that the Green New Deal won't do, even according to the Democrats, is to stop climate change. Basically, the Green New Deal will dramatically alter life in the USA, but it won't affect the course of global warming in any material fashion.
8. Freedom of speech will be limited. Only those who say what the government wants will be allowed to speak. Under the guise of limiting "hate", all sorts of dissidents will be shut down by the government.
These are not all the planks of the Democrats' platform, but they are the most important ones.
Who is actually going to want to live under that regime?
Even The Lies Aren't As Good As They Used To Be
The head of the CIA under Obama has been having a bad few months and now he's in such bad shape that even his lies aren't even close to passable.
Brennan, of course, ran the CIA when it set up a sting on the Trump campaign in 2015 and 2016. He allegedly is part of a group that set up George Papadopoulos to provide information that the group fed to him so that they could then justify spying on the Trump campaign. It was all supposed to lead to the ouster of President Trump once the Mueller Report was completed. Brennan spent the weeks prior to the release of Mueller's conclusions telling the CNN audience over and over again that Mueller had clear evidence of collusion and Trump's goose was cooked. Trump was a Russian agent, he told us. Of course, when Mueller released his report, he announced that an exhaustive investigation had found no evidence of any collusion between Trump and his campaign and the Russians. Brennan's lies were revealed for what they actually were: lies.
Now we have Attorney General Barr running an investigation into the propriety of the original spying on the Trump campaign. The media and the Democrats get all excited as to whether or not it was "spying" or "surveillance" as if that makes a difference. We had American intelligence agencies listening in on conversations of candidate Trump and his campaign and reporting the content to the White House. There is not yet any proof in public that Obama was given updates on what the CIA and FBI found while listening to Trump and his campaign, but anyone who thinks that the CIA and FBI actually wiretapped Trump and his people without the knowledge of president Obama is insane. This investigation by Barr is making Brennan into a nervous wreck.
Now we have a terrible development for Brennan. President Trump has given the Attorney General the ability to declassify documents regarding the genesis of the investigation by the intelligence agencies into the Trump campaign. That includes the bogus applications for FISA court warrants and the communications between people like Brennan and the others who were involved. Brennan is losing the protection of being able to hide behind "national security" to keep his machinations secret.
So what does Brennan do? He goes on MSNBC and says this:
“This [declassification of documents] is a very very serious and outrageous move on the part of Mr. Trump once again trampling upon the statutory authorities of the director of national intelligence and the heads of the independent intelligence agencies. I know that my former colleagues in the intelligence agencies are looking upon this with great concern and worry.”
Brennan says that the authority to declassify belongs to the DNI and the heads of the intelligence agencies? That's not just a lie; it's a poor, indeed a silly lie. The final authority, by statute, when it comes to what gets declassified is the President of the United States. The President can classify or declassify whatever he sees fit. President Trump is not trampling statutory authorities; he's using the statutory authority given to him by federal law.
Brennan must know that his attack on Trump's declassification is idiotic. So too the media must know that Brennan is losing it. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop them from pushing this line. But what will Brennan do in a month when we learn that the documents show that he actually knowingly approved of using Mifsud and Halper and the others to set up a trap to snare Papadopoulos in order to justify improper spying on the Trump campaign? Will he get sympathy because the declassification of the incriminating documents was authorized by President Trump? I don't think so.
Brennan is swimming in a deep water at the moment and it sure looks like he is going under. Lying won't save him, no matter how idiotic the lies are.
Brennan, of course, ran the CIA when it set up a sting on the Trump campaign in 2015 and 2016. He allegedly is part of a group that set up George Papadopoulos to provide information that the group fed to him so that they could then justify spying on the Trump campaign. It was all supposed to lead to the ouster of President Trump once the Mueller Report was completed. Brennan spent the weeks prior to the release of Mueller's conclusions telling the CNN audience over and over again that Mueller had clear evidence of collusion and Trump's goose was cooked. Trump was a Russian agent, he told us. Of course, when Mueller released his report, he announced that an exhaustive investigation had found no evidence of any collusion between Trump and his campaign and the Russians. Brennan's lies were revealed for what they actually were: lies.
Now we have Attorney General Barr running an investigation into the propriety of the original spying on the Trump campaign. The media and the Democrats get all excited as to whether or not it was "spying" or "surveillance" as if that makes a difference. We had American intelligence agencies listening in on conversations of candidate Trump and his campaign and reporting the content to the White House. There is not yet any proof in public that Obama was given updates on what the CIA and FBI found while listening to Trump and his campaign, but anyone who thinks that the CIA and FBI actually wiretapped Trump and his people without the knowledge of president Obama is insane. This investigation by Barr is making Brennan into a nervous wreck.
Now we have a terrible development for Brennan. President Trump has given the Attorney General the ability to declassify documents regarding the genesis of the investigation by the intelligence agencies into the Trump campaign. That includes the bogus applications for FISA court warrants and the communications between people like Brennan and the others who were involved. Brennan is losing the protection of being able to hide behind "national security" to keep his machinations secret.
So what does Brennan do? He goes on MSNBC and says this:
“This [declassification of documents] is a very very serious and outrageous move on the part of Mr. Trump once again trampling upon the statutory authorities of the director of national intelligence and the heads of the independent intelligence agencies. I know that my former colleagues in the intelligence agencies are looking upon this with great concern and worry.”
Brennan says that the authority to declassify belongs to the DNI and the heads of the intelligence agencies? That's not just a lie; it's a poor, indeed a silly lie. The final authority, by statute, when it comes to what gets declassified is the President of the United States. The President can classify or declassify whatever he sees fit. President Trump is not trampling statutory authorities; he's using the statutory authority given to him by federal law.
Brennan must know that his attack on Trump's declassification is idiotic. So too the media must know that Brennan is losing it. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop them from pushing this line. But what will Brennan do in a month when we learn that the documents show that he actually knowingly approved of using Mifsud and Halper and the others to set up a trap to snare Papadopoulos in order to justify improper spying on the Trump campaign? Will he get sympathy because the declassification of the incriminating documents was authorized by President Trump? I don't think so.
Brennan is swimming in a deep water at the moment and it sure looks like he is going under. Lying won't save him, no matter how idiotic the lies are.
What A Surprise -- Not
A federal judge appointed by Obama and sitting in the Northern District of California yesterday issued an injunction barring the redirection of certain Defense Department funds for use in building the border wall on the southern border. I'd like to say that this is a surprise, but it isn't. It's predictable. And it is predictably wrong.
The issue here is not the declaration of an emergency and the funds that flow from such declaration. No, the funds in question were appropriated by Congress for use in fighting the flow of drugs into our country. They were designated to be for personnel and Trump changed that use to wall construction instead. The judge says that this is unconstitutional, but here's the problem with his ruling. The general law regarding these appropriations granted to the President the power to redesignate or refine the use of funds within certain parameters. President Trump was just exercising this power given to him by Congress. The Obama judge, however, in his eagerness to block the wall construction, held that once Congress designated this for personnel, it cannot be changed. That's wrong, but we will have to go through all the appeals in the 9th Circuit (which will likely uphold the ruling) and then the Supreme Court (which will likely reverse it.) Meanwhile, the border will remain relatively unprotected and drugs will still pour into the country.
If the GOP has control of both houses of Congress in 2021, it should pass legislation limiting the authority of District Courts or Circuit Courts of Appeal to issue nationwide injunctions.
The issue here is not the declaration of an emergency and the funds that flow from such declaration. No, the funds in question were appropriated by Congress for use in fighting the flow of drugs into our country. They were designated to be for personnel and Trump changed that use to wall construction instead. The judge says that this is unconstitutional, but here's the problem with his ruling. The general law regarding these appropriations granted to the President the power to redesignate or refine the use of funds within certain parameters. President Trump was just exercising this power given to him by Congress. The Obama judge, however, in his eagerness to block the wall construction, held that once Congress designated this for personnel, it cannot be changed. That's wrong, but we will have to go through all the appeals in the 9th Circuit (which will likely uphold the ruling) and then the Supreme Court (which will likely reverse it.) Meanwhile, the border will remain relatively unprotected and drugs will still pour into the country.
If the GOP has control of both houses of Congress in 2021, it should pass legislation limiting the authority of District Courts or Circuit Courts of Appeal to issue nationwide injunctions.
Friday, May 24, 2019
So Was It Fake News?
Starting about ten days ago, various mainstream media outlets broadcast reports that the Pentagon had presented a plan to send an additional 120,000 US troops to Iraq, Saudi Arabia and a few other spots near Iran. Even though President Trump denied the reports, the mainstream media kept reporting that there would be 120,000 troops going to the Persian Gulf region. Then we got a series of Democrat politicians denouncing the President for sending these troops to the region without approval by Congress. The President was also denounced by the media and the Democrats for fomenting a war with Iran. Bozos like my own states senator Chris Murphy kept announcing that this plan for 120,000 was just part of Trump's move to start a war.
Tonight, we heard the actual news. The USA is sending 1500 additional troops to the Middle East region. A big chunk of these troops are engineers who are going to fortify current American bases so that they will be harder to attack. Another group is going with Patriot missile batteries. Patriot missiles are totally defensive in nature. They are used to shoot down incoming missiles launched at American bases. There is also a fighter squadron being sent to the region. These planes are principally designed to defend against air attacks. So the deployment is almost exclusively defensive; it is obviously not intended to be used to start a war. It is also only about 1% of the size of last week's big mainstream media reports.
To put it mildly, last week's reports were Fake News. I know that the media will no doubt claim that the original plan was for 120,000 troops but they cut it to 1500 when the news of the deployment leaked out. That would just be more Fake News.
Tonight, we heard the actual news. The USA is sending 1500 additional troops to the Middle East region. A big chunk of these troops are engineers who are going to fortify current American bases so that they will be harder to attack. Another group is going with Patriot missile batteries. Patriot missiles are totally defensive in nature. They are used to shoot down incoming missiles launched at American bases. There is also a fighter squadron being sent to the region. These planes are principally designed to defend against air attacks. So the deployment is almost exclusively defensive; it is obviously not intended to be used to start a war. It is also only about 1% of the size of last week's big mainstream media reports.
To put it mildly, last week's reports were Fake News. I know that the media will no doubt claim that the original plan was for 120,000 troops but they cut it to 1500 when the news of the deployment leaked out. That would just be more Fake News.
What Happened To Nadler
Congressman Jerry Nadler passed out at a political event in New York City today. We still aren't sure what happened. I couldn't have been too hot given the weather in the city at the time. Maybe it was something he ate; maybe it was stress; maybe it was exhaustion; maybe it was something worse.
No matter what happened, we want to take this moment to wish congressman Nadler a speedy and full recovery.
No matter what happened, we want to take this moment to wish congressman Nadler a speedy and full recovery.
Memorial Day
Monday is Memorial Day. It was originally called Decoration Day since it arose initially as a time to place flowers or flags on the graves of those who gave their lives for this country in the armed forces. Now, rather than being a celebration to honor these gallant men and women, Memorial Day is mostly a celebration of the start of Summer. That's nothing new, of course, When I was growing up, my extended family had a picnic in the park every year on Memorial Day. I got to see cousins who I rarely saw the rest of the year. It was great fun and I remember those picnics fondly.
Nevertheless, it's worth remembering this year that (using the cliché) our freedom has not been free. There may be hordes of those on the left who scoff at America's history and call it racist or worse. Still, none of those leftists would be here able to say such hurtful nonsense if it weren't for all these people who gave their lives to preserve it. We need to take at least part of the day to remember them and their magnificent sacrifice.
Nevertheless, it's worth remembering this year that (using the cliché) our freedom has not been free. There may be hordes of those on the left who scoff at America's history and call it racist or worse. Still, none of those leftists would be here able to say such hurtful nonsense if it weren't for all these people who gave their lives to preserve it. We need to take at least part of the day to remember them and their magnificent sacrifice.
That's Too Bad
Federal Judge Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi today issued an injunction staying the enforcement of the new law in Mississippi which basically bans abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. That's too bad.
Here's the problem. Reeves is a strident liberal who was appointed to the bench by Obama. Just last month Reeves publically attacked President Trump for his attitude towards the Fake News media in a statement. As a result, it looks like Reeves injunction was purely political. The truth, however, is that Reeves decision is the only proper one he could have made. Under the Supreme Court decisions like Roe v Wade, no state can limit the right to abortion prior to the time when a baby can survive outside the mother's womb, and there's no way a six week old fetus can do that. The case will go back up on appeal, and SCOTUS could use it as a vehicle to correct the impropriety of finding a constitutional right to abortion in a document that never considered it. Until then, however, lower federal courts are bound to follow Roe.
It would have been better for everyone if the judge issuing this district court decision had been a conservative appointed by president Trump himself.
Here's the problem. Reeves is a strident liberal who was appointed to the bench by Obama. Just last month Reeves publically attacked President Trump for his attitude towards the Fake News media in a statement. As a result, it looks like Reeves injunction was purely political. The truth, however, is that Reeves decision is the only proper one he could have made. Under the Supreme Court decisions like Roe v Wade, no state can limit the right to abortion prior to the time when a baby can survive outside the mother's womb, and there's no way a six week old fetus can do that. The case will go back up on appeal, and SCOTUS could use it as a vehicle to correct the impropriety of finding a constitutional right to abortion in a document that never considered it. Until then, however, lower federal courts are bound to follow Roe.
It would have been better for everyone if the judge issuing this district court decision had been a conservative appointed by president Trump himself.
Big News Is Coming
The Supreme Court has stayed two different rulings from the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Both deal with the need for redistricting of congressional maps, one in Michigan and one in Ohio. There is currently pending in the Supreme Court a case on what rules, if any, a federal court should use in determining if district lines drawn by a legislature are invalid. For example, while we know that there are strict rules to follow with regard to racial makeup of a district, there is not any clear rules as of yet about how to treat districts drawn for partisan purposes. Are such lines improper under the Constitution, and, if so, how is that to be determined.
In 2010, the election results brought the Republicans into power in a majority of state legislatures for the first time in about 80 years. As a result, the district lines that always favored the Dems suddenly were drawn without that pro-Dem bias and instead with a slant towards the GOP. Democrats screamed foul as they lost this advantage that they had used for all that time to keep control, and they rushed to courts to try to get the GOP-drawn lines overturned. All those court cases resulted in a series of rulings, but no definitive view from the Supreme Court. That is about to end.
A Supreme Court ruling on this point will have major consequences in many states for the foreseeable future. The decision should be issued in the next month.
In 2010, the election results brought the Republicans into power in a majority of state legislatures for the first time in about 80 years. As a result, the district lines that always favored the Dems suddenly were drawn without that pro-Dem bias and instead with a slant towards the GOP. Democrats screamed foul as they lost this advantage that they had used for all that time to keep control, and they rushed to courts to try to get the GOP-drawn lines overturned. All those court cases resulted in a series of rulings, but no definitive view from the Supreme Court. That is about to end.
A Supreme Court ruling on this point will have major consequences in many states for the foreseeable future. The decision should be issued in the next month.
The Unanswered Question for 2020: How Will Minorities Vote?
One thing that gets essentially no coverage in the mainstream media is the question of how minorities will vote in 2020. The "experts" put forward by the media all seem just to assume that blacks will vote by the same overwhelming numbers for the Democrats, Hispanics will break totally for the Dems as well and other minorities will follow suit, but is that correct?
This is not a question of minor importance. If the African Americans split their votes with "only" 80% for the Democrats and 20% for the GOP, it almost guarantees a Republican victory. Similarly, were Hispanics to favor the Republicans, it would spell doom for the Democrats. And if Jews were to abandon the Dems, it would make a major difference in a few states. These questions are not explored by the media and it seems to me that the pundits are almost afraid to mention the subject. After all, why plant the idea that there's trouble brewing on this front for the Democrat nominee.
Let's start with a few relevant facts.
1. African American unemployment is at one of the lowest levels ever. Business formation by African Americans is at the highest level ever. The median income level for blacks is rising faster than for whites (and both are rising much faster than they ever did under Obama.) Things are going well economically for this group.
2. Blacks are the most conservative group among the parts of the Democrats coalition. Most polling shows that a sizeable chunk of this group is pro-life and strongly so.
3. Hispanic unemployment is at the lowest level ever recorded. Things are going well economically for this group as well. According to polling Hispanics are the second most conservative group in the Democrats coalition.
4. Jews are getting hit with anti-Semitism at a rate not seen in the USA since World War II. Much of that anti-Semitism comes from the far left. Prominent Democrats like Congressmen Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Rashida Tlaib keep spouting anti-Semitic statements, and the Democrats weren't even able to condemn those statements because of push back from the far left. President Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in decades if not ever. After 8 years of Obama bashing Israel, the contrast is extremely marked.
5. The Democrats and the media keep pushing the line that Trump and the Republicans are racists who hate Hispanics and Jews as well. It's the old attack line that the Democrats have used since the 1960s when it was Democrats who opposed desegregation and Republicans who passed the civil rights legislation. The GOP got these measures passed over strident Democrat opposition, and by five years later, the Democrats had adopted the attack line that they were the party of equality while the Republican were racists, bigots etc. The media repeated this, and it has continued ever since.
Given these facts, will it make a difference in 2020? Can Bernie Sanders, for example, do well among minorities in a general election? How would Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren fare? And would old Joe Biden appeal to minorities?
There are not many ways to judge where things are heading in this regard because the media avoids the topic at all costs. We do know that in the never ending stream of job approval polls for the President, the results contain some rather major surprises for the mainstream media. In many of these polls, job approval for Trump by blacks comes in at about 25%. That may sound terrible for Trump, but it is actually extremely good for this group. There have been two or three polls of this sort in which Trump's approval among blacks has actually been higher than Trump's approval among all self-identified Democrats. Remember, if 25% of blacks think Trump is doing a good job, those are voters who would seriously consider voting for Trump on election day. Not all would do so, of course, but remember, if Trump could get just 20% of the black vote, he wins the election easily. To put it in proper context, if Trump took 20% of the black vote in 2016, he would have won the popular vote and carried additional states.
Another bit of information that's worth noting is that among Hispanics, Trump's approval numbers are close to 50% in many polls. Even in polling with regard to illegal aliens, Hispanics seem to support the President's position in about the same numbers as non-Hispanics.
Then there are the movements like Blexit which is the black exit from the Democrat Party. People like Candace Owens are barnstorming the country pushing this phenomenon. Owens often speaks to white Republicans, but just as often she speaks to black groups under the radar. All we ever hear about are protests on college campuses by far left groups who seek to silence her, but for each one of those, she speaks a ten other events or more. The Blexit message is getting out. Just look at the reaction when Kanye West spoke out in support of Trump. The white liberals can attack the bona fides of Owens, but West is above successful attack on that basis.
We won't know for real how successful the effort has been until the fall of 2020 when realistic polling of the presidential race can take place. At that point, however, don't be surprised if you learn that Trump has the race locked up because of his minority support.
This is not a question of minor importance. If the African Americans split their votes with "only" 80% for the Democrats and 20% for the GOP, it almost guarantees a Republican victory. Similarly, were Hispanics to favor the Republicans, it would spell doom for the Democrats. And if Jews were to abandon the Dems, it would make a major difference in a few states. These questions are not explored by the media and it seems to me that the pundits are almost afraid to mention the subject. After all, why plant the idea that there's trouble brewing on this front for the Democrat nominee.
Let's start with a few relevant facts.
1. African American unemployment is at one of the lowest levels ever. Business formation by African Americans is at the highest level ever. The median income level for blacks is rising faster than for whites (and both are rising much faster than they ever did under Obama.) Things are going well economically for this group.
2. Blacks are the most conservative group among the parts of the Democrats coalition. Most polling shows that a sizeable chunk of this group is pro-life and strongly so.
3. Hispanic unemployment is at the lowest level ever recorded. Things are going well economically for this group as well. According to polling Hispanics are the second most conservative group in the Democrats coalition.
4. Jews are getting hit with anti-Semitism at a rate not seen in the USA since World War II. Much of that anti-Semitism comes from the far left. Prominent Democrats like Congressmen Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Rashida Tlaib keep spouting anti-Semitic statements, and the Democrats weren't even able to condemn those statements because of push back from the far left. President Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in decades if not ever. After 8 years of Obama bashing Israel, the contrast is extremely marked.
5. The Democrats and the media keep pushing the line that Trump and the Republicans are racists who hate Hispanics and Jews as well. It's the old attack line that the Democrats have used since the 1960s when it was Democrats who opposed desegregation and Republicans who passed the civil rights legislation. The GOP got these measures passed over strident Democrat opposition, and by five years later, the Democrats had adopted the attack line that they were the party of equality while the Republican were racists, bigots etc. The media repeated this, and it has continued ever since.
Given these facts, will it make a difference in 2020? Can Bernie Sanders, for example, do well among minorities in a general election? How would Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren fare? And would old Joe Biden appeal to minorities?
There are not many ways to judge where things are heading in this regard because the media avoids the topic at all costs. We do know that in the never ending stream of job approval polls for the President, the results contain some rather major surprises for the mainstream media. In many of these polls, job approval for Trump by blacks comes in at about 25%. That may sound terrible for Trump, but it is actually extremely good for this group. There have been two or three polls of this sort in which Trump's approval among blacks has actually been higher than Trump's approval among all self-identified Democrats. Remember, if 25% of blacks think Trump is doing a good job, those are voters who would seriously consider voting for Trump on election day. Not all would do so, of course, but remember, if Trump could get just 20% of the black vote, he wins the election easily. To put it in proper context, if Trump took 20% of the black vote in 2016, he would have won the popular vote and carried additional states.
Another bit of information that's worth noting is that among Hispanics, Trump's approval numbers are close to 50% in many polls. Even in polling with regard to illegal aliens, Hispanics seem to support the President's position in about the same numbers as non-Hispanics.
Then there are the movements like Blexit which is the black exit from the Democrat Party. People like Candace Owens are barnstorming the country pushing this phenomenon. Owens often speaks to white Republicans, but just as often she speaks to black groups under the radar. All we ever hear about are protests on college campuses by far left groups who seek to silence her, but for each one of those, she speaks a ten other events or more. The Blexit message is getting out. Just look at the reaction when Kanye West spoke out in support of Trump. The white liberals can attack the bona fides of Owens, but West is above successful attack on that basis.
We won't know for real how successful the effort has been until the fall of 2020 when realistic polling of the presidential race can take place. At that point, however, don't be surprised if you learn that Trump has the race locked up because of his minority support.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
What's Happening with the Dems
It's interesting that there are so many polls among the Democrat candidates for president. Old Joe Biden is in the lead, and that hasn't changed much over time. At the beginning of March, Biden was averaging about 31% support among Democrats. After that he made his formal announcement that he was entering the race. That gave him the expected short term bounce, but that has mostly dissipated now. In the last five polls, Old Joe has averaged just under 35% support. That's not much higher than the early March average.
The big change is with Bernie Sanders. In early the March polls, Bernie was getting support from just slightly few voters than Biden. Sanders was averaging just over 27% at that point. Then he came out for guaranteeing the vote to felons in prison including specifically people like the convicted Boston Marathon bomber. Even for some of the nut job leftists, that was too far out to accept. As a result, in the latest polls, Bernie is averaging just over 15%. That's a 12 point loss. That loss is bigger than the total support for any of the other candidates (other than Biden).
Over the same time period, two other candidates have had some success. Elizabeth Warren has picked up enough support to get to third place. She is still at just about 10% support, however. There don't seem to be enough angry white women Democrats to put her over the top. Pete Buttigieg has gone from almost no support to 6%. Mayor Pete, however, went first up to nearly 9%; then dropped back after people started to see and hear more of him.
Some candidates have stayed in the also ran columns. Booker, Gillibrand, Castro, Gabbard, Ryan and others get the same minuscule support all along.
The real question, though, is who will get the support when Biden implodes. You know, when Old Joe makes a major gaffe (which is inevitable), where will his support go. That's a question to which we don't yet have the answer.
The big change is with Bernie Sanders. In early the March polls, Bernie was getting support from just slightly few voters than Biden. Sanders was averaging just over 27% at that point. Then he came out for guaranteeing the vote to felons in prison including specifically people like the convicted Boston Marathon bomber. Even for some of the nut job leftists, that was too far out to accept. As a result, in the latest polls, Bernie is averaging just over 15%. That's a 12 point loss. That loss is bigger than the total support for any of the other candidates (other than Biden).
Over the same time period, two other candidates have had some success. Elizabeth Warren has picked up enough support to get to third place. She is still at just about 10% support, however. There don't seem to be enough angry white women Democrats to put her over the top. Pete Buttigieg has gone from almost no support to 6%. Mayor Pete, however, went first up to nearly 9%; then dropped back after people started to see and hear more of him.
Some candidates have stayed in the also ran columns. Booker, Gillibrand, Castro, Gabbard, Ryan and others get the same minuscule support all along.
The real question, though, is who will get the support when Biden implodes. You know, when Old Joe makes a major gaffe (which is inevitable), where will his support go. That's a question to which we don't yet have the answer.
Investing In The Future
Here's a stark question that will face American voters in 2020:
Which is more important to you?
a.) Taking the rich and large businesses down with higher taxes in the name of fairness.
b.) Having an economy with low unemployment, higher wages and continuing economic growth.
This is a question that many don't understand America to be facing, but we are. The Democrat candidates for president in 2020 have basically all opted to choose item a.) in answer to the question. President Trump chose item b.) when he came into office and has stayed with that choice. The Democrats promise all sorts of goodies; we get free college tuition, free medical care, free everything basically. And how do we pay for all this free stuff? Their answer is simple: tax the rich. No longer are the income taxes enough. Candidates like Warren and Buttigieg and others are pushing a wealth tax. That tax doesn't depend on how much you earn. Nope, you get taxed on how much you have. The best analogy is that a wealth tax is like having a federal property tax. Do you own a home? The feds are going to tax it. Do you own a car? The feds are going to tax it. Do you have savings that you put away for retirement? The feds are going to tax it. Do you own a farm or a small business? The feds are going to tax it.
Out country has grown into the world's largest economy as a result of centuries of investment. Investment is the force that drives our economy. Someone comes up with an idea for a product. In order to build that product, however, the idea is not sufficient. In order to build the product, you need capital which you can only get through investment. Other people invest in your idea and a new company is born. That company employs workers. It produces the new product. If the idea is a good one that people like, the new company prospers and grows. More production means more employees. It also means profits. The investors share in those profits. They get paid for their contributions just as the employees get paid for their labor. Without the investments, none of this process would be possible.
The Democrats want to tax actions that would stifle new investments. These are not mere adjustments around the edges. Some plans, like the one from Bernie Sanders, would put tax rates of 70% or higher on the income from investments and then take away a chunk of the funds available for investment by throwing in a wealth tax as well. That's a recipe not for a recession but for a depression. No doubt, the Democrats answer to a depression will be that we need to raise taxes even higher on the wealthy.
America's voters better get the answer to this question correct. The future depends on it.
Which is more important to you?
a.) Taking the rich and large businesses down with higher taxes in the name of fairness.
b.) Having an economy with low unemployment, higher wages and continuing economic growth.
This is a question that many don't understand America to be facing, but we are. The Democrat candidates for president in 2020 have basically all opted to choose item a.) in answer to the question. President Trump chose item b.) when he came into office and has stayed with that choice. The Democrats promise all sorts of goodies; we get free college tuition, free medical care, free everything basically. And how do we pay for all this free stuff? Their answer is simple: tax the rich. No longer are the income taxes enough. Candidates like Warren and Buttigieg and others are pushing a wealth tax. That tax doesn't depend on how much you earn. Nope, you get taxed on how much you have. The best analogy is that a wealth tax is like having a federal property tax. Do you own a home? The feds are going to tax it. Do you own a car? The feds are going to tax it. Do you have savings that you put away for retirement? The feds are going to tax it. Do you own a farm or a small business? The feds are going to tax it.
Out country has grown into the world's largest economy as a result of centuries of investment. Investment is the force that drives our economy. Someone comes up with an idea for a product. In order to build that product, however, the idea is not sufficient. In order to build the product, you need capital which you can only get through investment. Other people invest in your idea and a new company is born. That company employs workers. It produces the new product. If the idea is a good one that people like, the new company prospers and grows. More production means more employees. It also means profits. The investors share in those profits. They get paid for their contributions just as the employees get paid for their labor. Without the investments, none of this process would be possible.
The Democrats want to tax actions that would stifle new investments. These are not mere adjustments around the edges. Some plans, like the one from Bernie Sanders, would put tax rates of 70% or higher on the income from investments and then take away a chunk of the funds available for investment by throwing in a wealth tax as well. That's a recipe not for a recession but for a depression. No doubt, the Democrats answer to a depression will be that we need to raise taxes even higher on the wealthy.
America's voters better get the answer to this question correct. The future depends on it.
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Executive Privilege Procedures Prevent Disclosure
The Democrats in the House are apoplectic because records that they want are not being released by the White House and various other agencies of the government. President Trump has asserted executive privilege for some of these documents. The Dems don't care about the privilege and are threatening to hold people in contempt of Congress for their withholding of documents. There are even some lower court rulings that call for the documents to be released, but still the Dems are waiting to get anything. Oh, the horror. Pelosi calls it a massive coverup.
But what it is really? The truth is that the government is simply following the rules for dealing with claims of executive privilege. And who set those rules in place? The answer is Pelosi/Democrat's hero Barack Obama. On his first full day in office, Obama issued an Executive order that prevents the issuance of any document on which a current or former president claims executive privilege unless the incumbent president rules that the document must be released or a court issues such a ruling and NO APPEAL IS POSSIBLE from that ruling. It is interesting that Obama's first subject for action was to protect himself from having to disclose anything he didn't want disclosed. If Trump had done the same thing, the Dems would no doubt be screaming about how he should be impeached for so doing. But no, Trump is just following the procedures put in place by St. Barack the self-important. (Is he the patron saint of ditherers?)
Once again, the Dems have shot themselves in the foot by complaining when Trump just follows the Obama procedures.
But what it is really? The truth is that the government is simply following the rules for dealing with claims of executive privilege. And who set those rules in place? The answer is Pelosi/Democrat's hero Barack Obama. On his first full day in office, Obama issued an Executive order that prevents the issuance of any document on which a current or former president claims executive privilege unless the incumbent president rules that the document must be released or a court issues such a ruling and NO APPEAL IS POSSIBLE from that ruling. It is interesting that Obama's first subject for action was to protect himself from having to disclose anything he didn't want disclosed. If Trump had done the same thing, the Dems would no doubt be screaming about how he should be impeached for so doing. But no, Trump is just following the procedures put in place by St. Barack the self-important. (Is he the patron saint of ditherers?)
Once again, the Dems have shot themselves in the foot by complaining when Trump just follows the Obama procedures.
Avenatti Indicted AGAIN
Remember when CNN, MSNBC and other media were pushing for Michael Avenatti to run for president as a Democrat? It wasn't all that long ago, something like six months. I think it's worth remembering that because Avenatti was just indicted again today. This time is it for defrauding Stormy Daniels out of something like $350,000 of her money that Avenatti allegedly took for himself.
You have to wonder what is wrong with Avenatti. If he was busy stealing from so many clients, defrauding banks, and cheating his partners in the way all of the various indictments allege, why did he give himself such a high profile. Shouldn't he want to keep under the radar rather than making himself a prominent target?
I guess there's no accounting for people who actually believe the way that the mainstream media covers them.
You have to wonder what is wrong with Avenatti. If he was busy stealing from so many clients, defrauding banks, and cheating his partners in the way all of the various indictments allege, why did he give himself such a high profile. Shouldn't he want to keep under the radar rather than making himself a prominent target?
I guess there's no accounting for people who actually believe the way that the mainstream media covers them.
I Don't Blame The President; This All Belongs To The Democrats
President Trump had a meeting scheduled with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi this morning to follow up on their general agreement with regard to infrastructure. Trump came into the meeting, complained about Pelosi denouncing him for a "cover up", said that he would be ready to negotiate once the investigations were done, and walked out. He then went to the Rose Garden for an impromptu press conference at which he said of the supposed cover up, "I don't do cover ups."
Trump certainly has a point. The circus that the Democrats are trying to create in DC with useless investigations is overwhelming the business of the people. We already lived through the Mueller investigation. For years, the Democrats told us that Mueller was the best and that he would do a fair and final investigation. So Mueller then came back finding no collusion and no basis for an indictment for obstruction. The Democrat response was "let's start another investigation of the same thing." They don't care about the country or the American people. They only care about wasting time attacking Trump.
The President cooperated fully with Mueller. He's made clear, however, that he's not going to cooperate with yet another investigation by Congress. Good for him. Let's stop the nonsense.
Trump certainly has a point. The circus that the Democrats are trying to create in DC with useless investigations is overwhelming the business of the people. We already lived through the Mueller investigation. For years, the Democrats told us that Mueller was the best and that he would do a fair and final investigation. So Mueller then came back finding no collusion and no basis for an indictment for obstruction. The Democrat response was "let's start another investigation of the same thing." They don't care about the country or the American people. They only care about wasting time attacking Trump.
The President cooperated fully with Mueller. He's made clear, however, that he's not going to cooperate with yet another investigation by Congress. Good for him. Let's stop the nonsense.
Nevada Joins The Anti-Electoral College Pact
Nevada became the 14th state to adopt the popular vote pact. That's legislation that says that a state will assign its electors to the candidate that wins the national popular vote for president once a sufficient number of states have approved so as to constitute a majority of the electoral college. It's a backhanded way of amending the Constitution without actually meeting the requirements to do so.
The problem is that this compact is arguably unconstitutional. I keep waiting for the lawsuit to be brought against it.
The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the requirement for each state to guarantee that the votes of each of its citizens are given equal weight. The popular vote compact does not honor that requirement. After all, if Nevada votes 60% for candidate A but the national vote goes 51% for candidate B, giving Nevada's electoral votes to candidate B (as the popular vote compact directs) would mean that the votes of the 40% for B in Nevada win out over the votes of the 60% majority.
Supporters of the popular vote compact say that the Constitution itself grants the state legislatures the right to pick the electors any way that they want. That is true, but then the 14th Amendment was passed. Remember, at the start of this nation, states could have a chamber in their legislature that was based upon area rather than population. You know, it was something like the US Senate. Then the 14th Amendment was passed and the Supreme Court said that state legislative seats had to be apportioned according to population. That "one person, one vote" rule is exactly the one that makes the popular vote compact unconstitutional.
It's not that a popular vote rule cannot be inserted into the Constitution. It is, rather, that a proper constitutional amendment is needed to do that. We may soon see an action for a declaratory judgment to strike the compact down before it goes any further.
The problem is that this compact is arguably unconstitutional. I keep waiting for the lawsuit to be brought against it.
The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the requirement for each state to guarantee that the votes of each of its citizens are given equal weight. The popular vote compact does not honor that requirement. After all, if Nevada votes 60% for candidate A but the national vote goes 51% for candidate B, giving Nevada's electoral votes to candidate B (as the popular vote compact directs) would mean that the votes of the 40% for B in Nevada win out over the votes of the 60% majority.
Supporters of the popular vote compact say that the Constitution itself grants the state legislatures the right to pick the electors any way that they want. That is true, but then the 14th Amendment was passed. Remember, at the start of this nation, states could have a chamber in their legislature that was based upon area rather than population. You know, it was something like the US Senate. Then the 14th Amendment was passed and the Supreme Court said that state legislative seats had to be apportioned according to population. That "one person, one vote" rule is exactly the one that makes the popular vote compact unconstitutional.
It's not that a popular vote rule cannot be inserted into the Constitution. It is, rather, that a proper constitutional amendment is needed to do that. We may soon see an action for a declaratory judgment to strike the compact down before it goes any further.
They Just Won't Stop
Here's the headline that greeted me when I looked at Yahoo News this morning:
IRS: Congress must get Trump's Tax Returns.
That's pretty definitive, don't you think? The clear meaning is that the IRS has looked into the law regarding the Congressional request by Congress for tax returns and found that Congress has the right to get them. BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE. If you read the article, you find that the IRS determined that Congress gets the returns, but only if the President decides not to assert executive privilege. All president's assert executive privilege. Trump has done it. Obama did it. Bush did it. Clinton did it. So what the IRS actually found was that if the President acts like every other president, Congress does not have the right to those tax returns.
Can you say #FakeNews?
IRS: Congress must get Trump's Tax Returns.
That's pretty definitive, don't you think? The clear meaning is that the IRS has looked into the law regarding the Congressional request by Congress for tax returns and found that Congress has the right to get them. BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE. If you read the article, you find that the IRS determined that Congress gets the returns, but only if the President decides not to assert executive privilege. All president's assert executive privilege. Trump has done it. Obama did it. Bush did it. Clinton did it. So what the IRS actually found was that if the President acts like every other president, Congress does not have the right to those tax returns.
Can you say #FakeNews?
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Not An Actual Problem -- Just A Problem For Snobs
I came across another of those scare headlines just now. It proclaims that "underemployment" is worse today than it has been in a long time. The article explains that a higher percentage of college graduates are working in jobs that don't require a college degree than has been the case in the past. That's right, college graduates are working in jobs for which, according to the article, they are over qualified. The article then says that this is a sign of just how bad our economy is. That sure sounds bad.
Of course, in the twelfth paragraph, the article finally gets to the explanation. It seems that a lot of jobs like skilled tradesmen (for example, plumbers, electricians, etc.) have seen their wages go up and up as the demand for these workers has soared with the good economy. As a result, more and more college graduates are taking jobs in this sort of field in order to get HIGHER PAY. That's right. A good plumber makes more than a great many people with college degrees earn in jobs for which their degree is necessary. For example, a social worker may make only half of what the plumber makes, or even less. The people in the work force are going for higher pay rather than sticking to the jobs for which their pedigree gives them the qualifications. These workers realize that there's no problem holding a college degree and also working in skilled trades. Only the snobs who worry that these workers are supposedly over-qualified care.
It's another problem that the media is trying to create with the economy. Except it isn't a problem, is it?
Of course, in the twelfth paragraph, the article finally gets to the explanation. It seems that a lot of jobs like skilled tradesmen (for example, plumbers, electricians, etc.) have seen their wages go up and up as the demand for these workers has soared with the good economy. As a result, more and more college graduates are taking jobs in this sort of field in order to get HIGHER PAY. That's right. A good plumber makes more than a great many people with college degrees earn in jobs for which their degree is necessary. For example, a social worker may make only half of what the plumber makes, or even less. The people in the work force are going for higher pay rather than sticking to the jobs for which their pedigree gives them the qualifications. These workers realize that there's no problem holding a college degree and also working in skilled trades. Only the snobs who worry that these workers are supposedly over-qualified care.
It's another problem that the media is trying to create with the economy. Except it isn't a problem, is it?
Such Nonsense, Such Utter Nonsense
The big excitement this afternoon on Twitter is that HUD Secretary Ben Carson is being made out to be an idiot. At a hearing this morning, Carson was asked about REO's. REO is a term used in the mortgage industry. Carson heard it as Oreo, and he was confused. What do cookies have to do with his job? Anyway, Carson asked the congressman if she meant Oreos and she said no.
A few questions later a different congressman asked Carson about the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at HUD. The congressman called it "OMWI". Carson didn't know what she was talking about. That makes Carson a dope, right? Of course, the problem is that there is no Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at HUD. There is an office that covers the same territory, but it has a different name and, therefore, different initials.
Twitter is scandalized, however, that Carson is so dumb as to not have heard REO instead of Oreo and to not know the acronym for a group that doesn't exist within his department. It's such nonsense, such utter nonsense.
You can say what you want about Ben Carson, but you really can't call him stupid. The guy was one of the premier neurosurgeons in the country for many years. He's a hell of a lot smarter than all those congressmen who questioned him today. Of course, if you think about it, being smarter than those congressmen doesn't mean he is not stupid. After all, that committee was like a meeting of Morons Anonymous.
A few questions later a different congressman asked Carson about the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at HUD. The congressman called it "OMWI". Carson didn't know what she was talking about. That makes Carson a dope, right? Of course, the problem is that there is no Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at HUD. There is an office that covers the same territory, but it has a different name and, therefore, different initials.
Twitter is scandalized, however, that Carson is so dumb as to not have heard REO instead of Oreo and to not know the acronym for a group that doesn't exist within his department. It's such nonsense, such utter nonsense.
You can say what you want about Ben Carson, but you really can't call him stupid. The guy was one of the premier neurosurgeons in the country for many years. He's a hell of a lot smarter than all those congressmen who questioned him today. Of course, if you think about it, being smarter than those congressmen doesn't mean he is not stupid. After all, that committee was like a meeting of Morons Anonymous.
The Amazing Dishonesty Of The Left
Since President Trump had a rally yesterday in Central Pennsylvania, there were a number of columns from pundits on the state of the 2020 race in PA. On the one hand, the pro-GOP pundits pointed to the economic revival of Pennsylvania under Trump. Under Obama, the state lost over 50,000 manufacturing jobs; while under Trump those jobs began coming back (like 7000). Under Obama, the overall unemployment rate in PA was over 6%. Under Trump, it has hit an all time low of 3.9%. Under Obama, the coal industry was disappearing. Under Trump, that has reversed. Under Obama, the future of the new natural gas industry was iffy at best. Under Trump, PA is now the second largest producer of natural gas in the country and output keeps soaring. Overall, the economic status of the average Pennsylvanian is far far better than it was under Obama.
Those are hard statistics with which to argue. Add in that ISIS has been defeated, a new trade treaty has been reached with Canada and Mexico, and a whole host of other accomplishments, and the GOP pundits say Trump will win Pennsylvania again.
On the other hand, the liberal pundits say literally that Trump will have a hard time overcoming his "racist" policies so as to attract enough PA voters to gain a win. I've now read three different columns that use this as the topic sentence. It must have been today's talking point issued by the DNC. Strangely, though, none of these columns mention any racist policies followed by the Trump administration, not a single one. In the past, the pundits usually point to what they call the "Muslim ban" as racist. Of course, there is no Muslim ban; countries that are home to 85% of the worlds Muslims were unaffected, but reality doesn't seem to be relevant to these pundits. For a while, these same pundits used to say that there was no crisis at the border, so a call for a wall was racist. Of course now everyone concedes that there is a crisis at the border, so that can't be the basis for charges of racism. Indeed, it seems that the liberal pundits have nothing they can point to; they just say Trump is racist and expect that to stick.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that the average Pennsylvanian like the average American already understands that when the Democrats and the media call someone racist, it doesn't mean that person is actually a racist. It only means that the Dems don't like the person and that they want to smear him or her. As has often been said; if everything is racist, then nothing is racist.
It would be nice to think that the left could actually run on policy positions. Of course, they can't do that because they would get crushed in the election. Instead, they just keep going with constant dishonesty.
Those are hard statistics with which to argue. Add in that ISIS has been defeated, a new trade treaty has been reached with Canada and Mexico, and a whole host of other accomplishments, and the GOP pundits say Trump will win Pennsylvania again.
On the other hand, the liberal pundits say literally that Trump will have a hard time overcoming his "racist" policies so as to attract enough PA voters to gain a win. I've now read three different columns that use this as the topic sentence. It must have been today's talking point issued by the DNC. Strangely, though, none of these columns mention any racist policies followed by the Trump administration, not a single one. In the past, the pundits usually point to what they call the "Muslim ban" as racist. Of course, there is no Muslim ban; countries that are home to 85% of the worlds Muslims were unaffected, but reality doesn't seem to be relevant to these pundits. For a while, these same pundits used to say that there was no crisis at the border, so a call for a wall was racist. Of course now everyone concedes that there is a crisis at the border, so that can't be the basis for charges of racism. Indeed, it seems that the liberal pundits have nothing they can point to; they just say Trump is racist and expect that to stick.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that the average Pennsylvanian like the average American already understands that when the Democrats and the media call someone racist, it doesn't mean that person is actually a racist. It only means that the Dems don't like the person and that they want to smear him or her. As has often been said; if everything is racist, then nothing is racist.
It would be nice to think that the left could actually run on policy positions. Of course, they can't do that because they would get crushed in the election. Instead, they just keep going with constant dishonesty.
They Don't Seem To Understand
If you look at Twitter right now, you will see that Merrick Garland is trending. Why? It seems that the appeal with regard to the Congressional subpoena demanding certain Trump-related documents is going to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals including Merrick Garland. Supposedly, this is very funny because Garland was blocked from becoming a Supreme Court justice by the GOP in the senate.
Think about that. Here are all these people who just assume that judge Garland will rule on this issue based upon a chance to take a swipe at the President. Trump didn't block Garland; it was the Republican caucus in the Senate, but the left thinks that Garland will still take it out on Trump. The left must also think that Trump's position in this matter has great merit; that's why it needs an angry Garland to misbehave and rule against Trump even though Trump should win.
The strangest thing about all this, however, is that the media and the Dems don't seem to understand that this entire matter will be before the Supreme Court before long. What Garland does won't matter one way or the other.
Think about that. Here are all these people who just assume that judge Garland will rule on this issue based upon a chance to take a swipe at the President. Trump didn't block Garland; it was the Republican caucus in the Senate, but the left thinks that Garland will still take it out on Trump. The left must also think that Trump's position in this matter has great merit; that's why it needs an angry Garland to misbehave and rule against Trump even though Trump should win.
The strangest thing about all this, however, is that the media and the Dems don't seem to understand that this entire matter will be before the Supreme Court before long. What Garland does won't matter one way or the other.
Another Day, Another Lie
Congressman Collins released the last transcript of testimony before his committee. This time, the transcripts included testimony by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch among others. I haven't read all the transcripts, but there are some rather large discrepancies between what Lynch said and what others have said.
Here's a big one. Former FBI Director Comey testified to Congress that AG Lynch told him not to call the investigation regarding Hillary Clinton's email an "investigation" but rather to call it a "matter". Comey said that he didn't think that was the proper thing to do. Lynch, however, testified that she never told Comey to call the Clinton investigation a "matter" instead of an "investigation. It certainly seems that either Lynch or Comey is lying under oath to Congress.
Does it really matter if Lynch said to call the Clinton investigation a "matter" rather than an "investigation"? Yes! This is not just a question of semantics. The real question is whether or not the Attorney General mixed into an FBI investigation to slant things so that they would help Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Comey says she did; Lynch says she didn't. It's something that is very material.
Will we ever see an indictment here? I doubt it. Even so, however, we have reached the point where these lies deserve to be the subject of focus and, perhaps, indictment.
Here's a big one. Former FBI Director Comey testified to Congress that AG Lynch told him not to call the investigation regarding Hillary Clinton's email an "investigation" but rather to call it a "matter". Comey said that he didn't think that was the proper thing to do. Lynch, however, testified that she never told Comey to call the Clinton investigation a "matter" instead of an "investigation. It certainly seems that either Lynch or Comey is lying under oath to Congress.
Does it really matter if Lynch said to call the Clinton investigation a "matter" rather than an "investigation"? Yes! This is not just a question of semantics. The real question is whether or not the Attorney General mixed into an FBI investigation to slant things so that they would help Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Comey says she did; Lynch says she didn't. It's something that is very material.
Will we ever see an indictment here? I doubt it. Even so, however, we have reached the point where these lies deserve to be the subject of focus and, perhaps, indictment.
The Joys Of Verizon
I hate dealing with Verizon Wireless. The cell phone service is fine, but if you have to deal with these people, it is worse than going to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
About three days ago, my wife got a text message that said that our new bill was coming in a few days. That was something new and something strange. My wife told me about it and we decided to ignore it.
Yesterday, she got another message that said that the bill would be coming in the next day. We were getting a countdown from Verizon as to when our bill would be sent. I don't mind count downs for rocket launches, but for a Verizon Wireless bill it seemed like a bit of overkill, to say the least.
Last night at 1 in the morning, she got a text message saying that our bill was now ready. It said we could sign in and see the bill. It was bizarre to get a middle of the night missive from the phone company. It made me wonder whether or not this was some sort of elaborate attempt to steal personal information. We didn't click on the link.
This morning, I started the laborious process of contacting Verizon Wireless. I tried to sign into the MyVerizon website. We don't access this site often, so when I signed in Verizon told me that they didn't recognize my computer even though I had used the correct user ID and password. They asked me to identify the city in which I met my wife. I did that, but Verizon told me that I had given the wrong answer (I hadn't). I had to reregister with a new password.
Getting the new password took about ten minutes. First, I went through the entire process and Verizon wouldn't accept the new password. They said it wasn't strong enough. I tried again. This time they accepted my selection although they did critique it and told me that it ought to be stronger.
Once I had the new password, I tried to sign in. This time they wanted to make sure that I was not a robot so they had me click on which of twelve pictures had an automobile in it. They were small and somewhat blurry pictures. I clicked correctly, but they then had me do the same thing to identify which pictures had bicycles in them. Finally, I seemed to pass the test and I was actually going to be signed in to My Verizon.
Of course, the next thing that happened was that a message came up that said that the website was temporarily unavailable and that I should try again later.
Not wanting to give up, I decided to call Customer Service (or as the Verizon folks must have planned to call it Avoiding Service to Customers.)
I called and went through all the security. I won't thrill you with the details, but it took 2 minutes to get through the computer notices and security. Finally the computer asked me to describe in a few words why I was calling. I said "problem with a bill." The computer immediately told me that I could handle that best at My Verizon or on a text chat with their computer system. I just said "representative". The computer sent me a text message with a link to the computer chat. I said representative. The computer told me I should sign into my Verizon. I said representative. Finally, the computer voice said, "I understand that you wish to speak to a representative. Is that correct?" I said "yes" and just like that after only 15 minutes of effort I was going to speak to someone from Verizon. Then the computer said "one moment while your call is connected." That was followed by 8 minutes of music on hold interspersed with messages about how I could sign into My Verizon for faster service.
Finally, I got through to a live person. I told her about the messages warning that a bill was coming and then announcing that a bill was ready. I told her we had never chosen anything other than paper bills. She said I should hold and she would check. After a minute she told me we had automatically opted in to the billing process this way last week. It seems that Verizon sent emails to customers who have paper billing and if you didn't reply that you wanted to keep paper bills, they changed you to paperless billing. I was annoyed that Verizon was playing that sort of game, but it wasn't the fault of the woman to whom I was speaking, so I just said that I needed paper bills and asked if I could change back. She said that could be done, but that we needed to go through a few security measures first. That took another three minutes. Then she said she had made the changes and that I would get a text message confirming them. I got no message and told her. She tried again. This time SUCCESS!!! I also confirmed with her that we would get a paper copy of the bill just sent by paperless methods.
All in all, it only took me a half hour to correct the sneaky attempt by Verizon Wireless to move our account to paperless billing.
As I said at the start of this post, I hate dealing with Verizon Wireless.
About three days ago, my wife got a text message that said that our new bill was coming in a few days. That was something new and something strange. My wife told me about it and we decided to ignore it.
Yesterday, she got another message that said that the bill would be coming in the next day. We were getting a countdown from Verizon as to when our bill would be sent. I don't mind count downs for rocket launches, but for a Verizon Wireless bill it seemed like a bit of overkill, to say the least.
Last night at 1 in the morning, she got a text message saying that our bill was now ready. It said we could sign in and see the bill. It was bizarre to get a middle of the night missive from the phone company. It made me wonder whether or not this was some sort of elaborate attempt to steal personal information. We didn't click on the link.
This morning, I started the laborious process of contacting Verizon Wireless. I tried to sign into the MyVerizon website. We don't access this site often, so when I signed in Verizon told me that they didn't recognize my computer even though I had used the correct user ID and password. They asked me to identify the city in which I met my wife. I did that, but Verizon told me that I had given the wrong answer (I hadn't). I had to reregister with a new password.
Getting the new password took about ten minutes. First, I went through the entire process and Verizon wouldn't accept the new password. They said it wasn't strong enough. I tried again. This time they accepted my selection although they did critique it and told me that it ought to be stronger.
Once I had the new password, I tried to sign in. This time they wanted to make sure that I was not a robot so they had me click on which of twelve pictures had an automobile in it. They were small and somewhat blurry pictures. I clicked correctly, but they then had me do the same thing to identify which pictures had bicycles in them. Finally, I seemed to pass the test and I was actually going to be signed in to My Verizon.
Of course, the next thing that happened was that a message came up that said that the website was temporarily unavailable and that I should try again later.
Not wanting to give up, I decided to call Customer Service (or as the Verizon folks must have planned to call it Avoiding Service to Customers.)
I called and went through all the security. I won't thrill you with the details, but it took 2 minutes to get through the computer notices and security. Finally the computer asked me to describe in a few words why I was calling. I said "problem with a bill." The computer immediately told me that I could handle that best at My Verizon or on a text chat with their computer system. I just said "representative". The computer sent me a text message with a link to the computer chat. I said representative. The computer told me I should sign into my Verizon. I said representative. Finally, the computer voice said, "I understand that you wish to speak to a representative. Is that correct?" I said "yes" and just like that after only 15 minutes of effort I was going to speak to someone from Verizon. Then the computer said "one moment while your call is connected." That was followed by 8 minutes of music on hold interspersed with messages about how I could sign into My Verizon for faster service.
Finally, I got through to a live person. I told her about the messages warning that a bill was coming and then announcing that a bill was ready. I told her we had never chosen anything other than paper bills. She said I should hold and she would check. After a minute she told me we had automatically opted in to the billing process this way last week. It seems that Verizon sent emails to customers who have paper billing and if you didn't reply that you wanted to keep paper bills, they changed you to paperless billing. I was annoyed that Verizon was playing that sort of game, but it wasn't the fault of the woman to whom I was speaking, so I just said that I needed paper bills and asked if I could change back. She said that could be done, but that we needed to go through a few security measures first. That took another three minutes. Then she said she had made the changes and that I would get a text message confirming them. I got no message and told her. She tried again. This time SUCCESS!!! I also confirmed with her that we would get a paper copy of the bill just sent by paperless methods.
All in all, it only took me a half hour to correct the sneaky attempt by Verizon Wireless to move our account to paperless billing.
As I said at the start of this post, I hate dealing with Verizon Wireless.
Monday, May 20, 2019
No Surprise Here
Federal District Court judge Mehta ruled this afternoon that President Trump's accountants must turn over financial records to Congress. Yawn. This was so predictable. It was also so unimportant.
First of all, remember that judge Mehta was appointed by Barack Obama. That means that no matter what the proper outcome, it is at least 90% likely that the result will be the most anti-Trump one possible. It's sad to say that the federal judiciary is so politicized, but in reality it is. By the same token, if this were a judge appointed by Trump, the odds of the President winning would be the opposite.
Second, no matter which side won, we were always going to go to an appeal. The Court of Appeals will review the decision and then rule again. If it is just a three judge panel, the loser will likely ask for another review by the entire court. After that, an attempt will be made to get this to the Supreme Court. None of the decisions will matter until we get the final word from the Supreme Court.
First of all, remember that judge Mehta was appointed by Barack Obama. That means that no matter what the proper outcome, it is at least 90% likely that the result will be the most anti-Trump one possible. It's sad to say that the federal judiciary is so politicized, but in reality it is. By the same token, if this were a judge appointed by Trump, the odds of the President winning would be the opposite.
Second, no matter which side won, we were always going to go to an appeal. The Court of Appeals will review the decision and then rule again. If it is just a three judge panel, the loser will likely ask for another review by the entire court. After that, an attempt will be made to get this to the Supreme Court. None of the decisions will matter until we get the final word from the Supreme Court.
Sometimes, It's Just a Legal Question
OOOoooooh, the excitement. The media is having a field day because the Supreme Court decided a case 5-4 with all the liberal judges and Justice Gorsuch in the majority. The headlines scream that Gorsuch joined with the liberals. It's a political firestorm, don't you know; one of the Trump appointees actually voted with the left. Of course, if you were actually read the case in question, you would quickly understand that this ruling is not, that's right NOT, a liberal vs. conservative issue. The question decided was whether a treaty signed in the mid 1800s between the USA and an indian tribe was still in force or if it had expired when Wyoming became a state. This is an arcane legal question, not a political one. Most times, Supreme Court decisions are just that, answers to arcane legal questions.
For what it is worth, the majority held that the treaty is still in effect, so the Native American fellow who sued didn't need a hunting license from Wyoming to hunt on certain tribal lands. That may make a difference to a few hunters from the tribe, but beyond that, who cares?
For what it is worth, the majority held that the treaty is still in effect, so the Native American fellow who sued didn't need a hunting license from Wyoming to hunt on certain tribal lands. That may make a difference to a few hunters from the tribe, but beyond that, who cares?
Missing Yet Another Opportunity
Former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban famously said, "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Well, they're doing it again.
The US government has organized a conference to be held in Bahrain next month to come up with ways to promote economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza, both areas that are controlled by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. Today, the Palestinian Authority announced that it would boycott that conference. It stated further than anyone who would take part in the conference would be considered a collaborator with the enemy.
Think about that. Our country organizes a conference to try to help the Palestinians and in turn, the Palestinians boycott that conference and attack anyone who might attend.
The next time you hear about suffering Palestinians, tell them about this latest move by the Palestinian Authority. If you spit on the people who are trying to help you, you are not likely to get all that much help.
The US government has organized a conference to be held in Bahrain next month to come up with ways to promote economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza, both areas that are controlled by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. Today, the Palestinian Authority announced that it would boycott that conference. It stated further than anyone who would take part in the conference would be considered a collaborator with the enemy.
Think about that. Our country organizes a conference to try to help the Palestinians and in turn, the Palestinians boycott that conference and attack anyone who might attend.
The next time you hear about suffering Palestinians, tell them about this latest move by the Palestinian Authority. If you spit on the people who are trying to help you, you are not likely to get all that much help.
Falling For The Media Hype
It's a strange thing to watch people who you know well fall for media hype. I noticed that again this morning when I was told by a friend about the town hall on Fox News last night for Pete Buttigieg. I doubt many people watched, but my friend did and he is now very impressed with Mayor Pete as he is known. He told me a few reasons why.
1. First he told me that the audience looked like it was filled with mostly supporters of Buttigieg. Then he told me that at the end of the hour, many in the audience gave him a standing ovation and that "impressed" the host Chris Wallace. Why is it impressive that Buttigieg supporters gave him a standing ovation? Wouldn't it have been more surprising if they didn't? Also, that same audience applauded wildly when Buttigieg said that he supported abortion up until the moment of birth. It takes a special group of Americans who think abortion two days before the due date is something to applaud.
2. My friend also told me that he had heard that Buttigieg was re-elected for his second term as mayor with 80% of the vote. This showed that the people really liked Pete, or so my friend told me. I asked my friend if he knew how many people in South Bend, IN are Democrats and how many are Republicans? He didn't. When I told him that St. Joseph's county in which South Bend is located was one of only 4 counties in Indiana that chose Hillary over Trump, my friend was unfazed. When I told him that South Bend is the most Democrat section of St. Joseph's county, he still claimed to be unfazed. I asked my friend if he had any idea how many votes Buttigieg got in this big victory, has guessed at something like 80,000. When I told him that the actual number is more like 8,000, he was surprised. He told me that there were 120,000 people in South Bend, so \80% of the vote for mayor should be a much higher number. I told him that not only was South Bend very Demcrat, but few people voted in unimportant local elections.
3. My friend told me that Buttigieg had taken a leave of absence from his position as mayor to go to Afghanistan and that it was very impressive. I told him that Mayor Pete was in the Naval reserve and that he was called up to go to Afghanistan and had no choice in the matter. My friend told me that surely Buttigieg had a choice. I then had to explain to him what it meant to serve in the reserves. One has to be ready to go whenever one is called up. If Buttigieg hadn't gone, he could have been prosecuted for desertion.
4. My friend then told me that Buttigieg wanted to raise income taxes, impose a wealth tax and impose transaction taxes on people who buy or sell securities. When I asked my friend if he like those ideas, he said that he did not. I asked if there were any policy positions that came from Mayor Pete that he liked, and my friend couldn't think of one.
5. That led to my final question: why do you like Buttigieg? That took us back to the standing ovation, the big win for mayor (with the tiny vote) and his going to Afghanistan. Oh, and Chris Wallace said that there's substance to Mayor Pete's record. Also, Mayor Pete is well-spoken according to my friend. Of course, if you don't like what he says, why is it good that he says it well?
Just like Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke before him, Buttigieg is getting the media build up now. It's a sad thing that seemingly intelligent people like my friend fall for this stuff.
If you're interested in the presidential race, I suggest that you pick issues that are key for you. Learn what each candidate says about them. Use that to make your choice. Whoever wins in 2020 will be president for four years. It will affect the lives of millions of people. Don't get sucked in to make your choice based upon hype in the media.
1. First he told me that the audience looked like it was filled with mostly supporters of Buttigieg. Then he told me that at the end of the hour, many in the audience gave him a standing ovation and that "impressed" the host Chris Wallace. Why is it impressive that Buttigieg supporters gave him a standing ovation? Wouldn't it have been more surprising if they didn't? Also, that same audience applauded wildly when Buttigieg said that he supported abortion up until the moment of birth. It takes a special group of Americans who think abortion two days before the due date is something to applaud.
2. My friend also told me that he had heard that Buttigieg was re-elected for his second term as mayor with 80% of the vote. This showed that the people really liked Pete, or so my friend told me. I asked my friend if he knew how many people in South Bend, IN are Democrats and how many are Republicans? He didn't. When I told him that St. Joseph's county in which South Bend is located was one of only 4 counties in Indiana that chose Hillary over Trump, my friend was unfazed. When I told him that South Bend is the most Democrat section of St. Joseph's county, he still claimed to be unfazed. I asked my friend if he had any idea how many votes Buttigieg got in this big victory, has guessed at something like 80,000. When I told him that the actual number is more like 8,000, he was surprised. He told me that there were 120,000 people in South Bend, so \80% of the vote for mayor should be a much higher number. I told him that not only was South Bend very Demcrat, but few people voted in unimportant local elections.
3. My friend told me that Buttigieg had taken a leave of absence from his position as mayor to go to Afghanistan and that it was very impressive. I told him that Mayor Pete was in the Naval reserve and that he was called up to go to Afghanistan and had no choice in the matter. My friend told me that surely Buttigieg had a choice. I then had to explain to him what it meant to serve in the reserves. One has to be ready to go whenever one is called up. If Buttigieg hadn't gone, he could have been prosecuted for desertion.
4. My friend then told me that Buttigieg wanted to raise income taxes, impose a wealth tax and impose transaction taxes on people who buy or sell securities. When I asked my friend if he like those ideas, he said that he did not. I asked if there were any policy positions that came from Mayor Pete that he liked, and my friend couldn't think of one.
5. That led to my final question: why do you like Buttigieg? That took us back to the standing ovation, the big win for mayor (with the tiny vote) and his going to Afghanistan. Oh, and Chris Wallace said that there's substance to Mayor Pete's record. Also, Mayor Pete is well-spoken according to my friend. Of course, if you don't like what he says, why is it good that he says it well?
Just like Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke before him, Buttigieg is getting the media build up now. It's a sad thing that seemingly intelligent people like my friend fall for this stuff.
If you're interested in the presidential race, I suggest that you pick issues that are key for you. Learn what each candidate says about them. Use that to make your choice. Whoever wins in 2020 will be president for four years. It will affect the lives of millions of people. Don't get sucked in to make your choice based upon hype in the media.
Iran To The Front
The media ignored Iran for a long time. The Iranians attacked four tankers in the Persian Gulf off Bahrain, and the coverage came and went in a flash. Iran mounted missiles on small boats in the Gulf and again, there was scant coverage. Intelligence picked up signals that Iranians were planning an attack on US interests, and it was another small mention. America ordered non-essential personnel out of the Iraq especially in zones where an Iranian attack would be most likely; it got little coverage. But now things have changed. President Trump tweeted yesterday that if Iran threatens the USA, it will be the end of the Islamic Republic. So today, we have all sorts of coverage to denounce Trump as a warmonger. There are even columns in the media proclaiming that we are already at war with Iran.
The media's inability to follow important news unless it contains a way to slam President Trump is unfortunate. Americans need to hear actual information if they are to stay informed about important matters facing our country. Not everything is about Trump, nor should it be.
The media's inability to follow important news unless it contains a way to slam President Trump is unfortunate. Americans need to hear actual information if they are to stay informed about important matters facing our country. Not everything is about Trump, nor should it be.
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Are They Kidding?
A just breaking story has Yahoo News announcing breathlessly that according to a review done by a Navy board of inquiry, sailors on the Florida, a navy sub, kept rape lists concerning the female members of the crew. The Florida was the second navy sub to have a crew integrated by sex. Here's how the Yahoo News headline put it: Navy Submarine Sailors Kept 'Rape' Lists Of Female Colleagues, Military Probe Finds. This is an outrage according to Yahoo News.
But there's a problem. If you read the article, you find out in the 9th paragraph that the was no list that mentioned rape in any way. Some male sailors aboard the Florida kept a list ranking the female crew on a scale of 1 to 4. A few had a list of which women they would like to have sex with. Sorry, but that's not an outrage. These are young men, mostly in their late teens or early twenties. These guys are off under the sea for a cruise that can last a few months. How can anyone be surprised that they noticed the women.
No matter what the social justice warriors think, people are going to be people. Men, especially at that age, are going to notice the women. And surprise! Women are going to notice the men. No amount of rules will change that basic fact of human nature. It's not an outrage. Indeed, the only thing here that is outrageous is that Yahoo News felt compelled to turn the story into Fake News in order to grab a few extra clicks for its site.
But there's a problem. If you read the article, you find out in the 9th paragraph that the was no list that mentioned rape in any way. Some male sailors aboard the Florida kept a list ranking the female crew on a scale of 1 to 4. A few had a list of which women they would like to have sex with. Sorry, but that's not an outrage. These are young men, mostly in their late teens or early twenties. These guys are off under the sea for a cruise that can last a few months. How can anyone be surprised that they noticed the women.
No matter what the social justice warriors think, people are going to be people. Men, especially at that age, are going to notice the women. And surprise! Women are going to notice the men. No amount of rules will change that basic fact of human nature. It's not an outrage. Indeed, the only thing here that is outrageous is that Yahoo News felt compelled to turn the story into Fake News in order to grab a few extra clicks for its site.
Biden II -- If At First You Don't Succeed
Joe Biden held his campaign relaunch yesterday in Philadelphia. They called it the "formal launch" of the campaign, thereby relegating the first launch of the campaign about a month ago to "informal" status. This time, Biden had a speech that sounded like someone who spoke English as a first language had written it for him. At the first informal launch, much of the speech rambled on and on and came dangerously close to incoherence. But Biden still had problems.
The biggest problem Biden faces is lack of enthusiasm. Consider this. Biden's formal launch came in the middle of a metro area with nearly seven million people, and he only drew 6000 according to the rather friendly crowd estimates from the police. That's really poor. Amy Klobuchar drew 9,000 to her launch in a much smaller city and it took place outdoors during a snowstorm. None of the rallies held by President Trump during his time in office have had a crowd as small as Biden got for his formal launch.
We all know that crowd size is not the final word on how a candidate will do at the polls. Still, Biden's team had a month to prepare this "formal" launch and to generate publicity designed to draw supporters to the event. Philadelphia is an extremely Democrat city, and there are something like 400,000 people who live within walking distance of the site of the rally. It was a nice sunny day but not too hot, perfect weather for a rally like this. So why did Biden get fewer people than came out when Pete Buttigieg launched his campaign in South Bend, a city with just 120,000 people?
Biden, right now, is way ahead in the polls, but is there really anyone out there who actually wants him to be president? Okay there's Jill Biden, excuse me, Dr. Jill Biden who supports her husband. No doubt Biden's son wants his father in office; he must be contemplating all those deals with China or Ukraine that he can arrange using the influence of his father's position. That's two. Is there anyone else?
I talk to a great many people about their political preferences. Among Democrats, I have yet to find one that wants Biden. I have spoken to two who told me that they preferred Warren or Harris, but that they would vote for Biden in the primary is their first and second choices dropped out.
My guess is that Biden is not going to be here for the long haul. He seems right now to have the same sort of support that Hillary Clinton had in 2008 and 2016. For Hillary, she was viewed as the inevitable nominee. The first time, as soon as Obama beat her in Iowa, her support dropped dramatically. In 2016 she had to struggle mightily to hold off Bernie Sanders who is not exactly Mr. Personality. I'm expecting Biden to be this year's Hillary. If someone comes up and wins in Iowa other than Biden, his support will collapse. He will be the front runner in the same way that Jeb Bush was the 2016 Republican front runner.
Look, this is politics and things change. I know that. Nevertheless, I can't see the lack of enthusiasm for Biden changing. People know old Joe pretty well. He isn't going to light a fire. He is going to be himself. He's going to continue to grope women. He's going to continue to look old and haggard. he's going to continue to wander off topic during his speeches and to make little sense when he does. Most of all, Biden is going to become the target of all the other Democrat candidates. They will ask him why he fought against desegregation in the 1970s. They will ask him why he advocated so clearly for a border wall just a few years ago. They will ask him about Anita Hill; Biden says he always believed her, so why did he vote to confirm Clarence Thomas? There's a lot more, but he's going to have to give answers for these and other questions, and he can't slough off the questions because they come from racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic Republicans. No smear of the questioner will work. Biden will be faced with questions that he just cannot answer. Without a well of enthusiasm, Biden is going to lose support with each attack.
If I haven't been clear, let me say it this way: Biden is most likely NOT going to be the nominee.
The biggest problem Biden faces is lack of enthusiasm. Consider this. Biden's formal launch came in the middle of a metro area with nearly seven million people, and he only drew 6000 according to the rather friendly crowd estimates from the police. That's really poor. Amy Klobuchar drew 9,000 to her launch in a much smaller city and it took place outdoors during a snowstorm. None of the rallies held by President Trump during his time in office have had a crowd as small as Biden got for his formal launch.
We all know that crowd size is not the final word on how a candidate will do at the polls. Still, Biden's team had a month to prepare this "formal" launch and to generate publicity designed to draw supporters to the event. Philadelphia is an extremely Democrat city, and there are something like 400,000 people who live within walking distance of the site of the rally. It was a nice sunny day but not too hot, perfect weather for a rally like this. So why did Biden get fewer people than came out when Pete Buttigieg launched his campaign in South Bend, a city with just 120,000 people?
Biden, right now, is way ahead in the polls, but is there really anyone out there who actually wants him to be president? Okay there's Jill Biden, excuse me, Dr. Jill Biden who supports her husband. No doubt Biden's son wants his father in office; he must be contemplating all those deals with China or Ukraine that he can arrange using the influence of his father's position. That's two. Is there anyone else?
I talk to a great many people about their political preferences. Among Democrats, I have yet to find one that wants Biden. I have spoken to two who told me that they preferred Warren or Harris, but that they would vote for Biden in the primary is their first and second choices dropped out.
My guess is that Biden is not going to be here for the long haul. He seems right now to have the same sort of support that Hillary Clinton had in 2008 and 2016. For Hillary, she was viewed as the inevitable nominee. The first time, as soon as Obama beat her in Iowa, her support dropped dramatically. In 2016 she had to struggle mightily to hold off Bernie Sanders who is not exactly Mr. Personality. I'm expecting Biden to be this year's Hillary. If someone comes up and wins in Iowa other than Biden, his support will collapse. He will be the front runner in the same way that Jeb Bush was the 2016 Republican front runner.
Look, this is politics and things change. I know that. Nevertheless, I can't see the lack of enthusiasm for Biden changing. People know old Joe pretty well. He isn't going to light a fire. He is going to be himself. He's going to continue to grope women. He's going to continue to look old and haggard. he's going to continue to wander off topic during his speeches and to make little sense when he does. Most of all, Biden is going to become the target of all the other Democrat candidates. They will ask him why he fought against desegregation in the 1970s. They will ask him why he advocated so clearly for a border wall just a few years ago. They will ask him about Anita Hill; Biden says he always believed her, so why did he vote to confirm Clarence Thomas? There's a lot more, but he's going to have to give answers for these and other questions, and he can't slough off the questions because they come from racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic Republicans. No smear of the questioner will work. Biden will be faced with questions that he just cannot answer. Without a well of enthusiasm, Biden is going to lose support with each attack.
If I haven't been clear, let me say it this way: Biden is most likely NOT going to be the nominee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)