Is It All A Coverup?

Thanksgiving news made me wonder if the entire impeachment farce is just intended to deflect attention from what is actually being disclosed.

Think about it.

Hunter Biden, Joe's son, got hired by Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma to be a member of the board of directors.  Hunter had no knowledge, training or indeed any qualifications for the post.  He didn't even speak Ukrainian.  Even so, he was paid twice what directors of the world's biggest energy company Exxon Mobil get paid and Hunter did essentially nothing.  Imagine getting a job that paid $1,100,000 per year for doing nothing.

Burisma was under investigation by the Ukrainian government prosecutor for corruption.  Shortly after Burisma hired Hunter, Burisma's lawyers approached the US State Department and asked them for help to quash the investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor.  After all, the Burisma lawyers said, Hunter Biden is on our board and that could be embarrassing if the company got indicted.

Just a few weeks after that, Joe Biden himeself gave the Ukrainian government an ultimatum.  Biden told them to fire the state prosecutor looking into Burisma or all US aid to Ukraine would be cut off.  The Ukrainians complied.

That is a sordid tale of corruption, and it is one that surely would be investigated in normal times.  Instead, however, the Democrats and the media have painted it as one for which there is "no evidence" (a total lie) and one that is done just to hurt Joe Biden's chances in the presidential race.  Indeed, when President Trump mentioned it to the president of Ukraine, the Dems jumped to accuse him of wrongdoing and to start the impeachment charade.

But are the Dems and the media just protecting Joe Biden?  It seems unlikely.

We just learned that at least two of the staff of Adam Schiff (the head of the impeachment investigation) also have financial connections with Burisma.  It would be bizarre that one staffer had a financial connection to a Ukrainian natural gas company.  That two have such connections is beyond bizarre and into the realm of a smoking gun.

But there's more.  We know that when the Democrats email was given to Wikileaks and then released, the computer system was never examined by the US government to see if the ID of the hacker could be determined.  Instead, the FBI took the word of the Democrats IT company.  It's amazing that the FBI would let such crucial evidence be withheld by the Democrats.  We also know that there are indications that the Democrats IT company has strong ties to Ukraine.  Indeed, it may well be that the hackers in 2016 weren't Russian but rather Ukrainian.  That would be a major embarrassment for the Dems and the FBI (or the swamp in this case.)  This is the actual subject that Trump raised with the Ukrainian president in the phone call at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

Did the impeachment inquiry come about because the Trump team was getting too close to the truth regarding the ties between Ukrainian oligarchs and the Dems?  Was poor Hunter Biden (actually rich Hunter Biden) just a conduit between the oligarchs and the Dems of the Obama administration (like Biden)?

Think about Hunter Biden for a second.  This morning's New York Post had an article discussing how employees at a New York City "strip club" warned Hunter to stop using drugs on the premises.  Then Hunter Biden sent some employees out to buy a sex toy so that the strippers could use it on him.  This is hardly what one would expect of a prominent director of Ukraine's largest energy company.

There's much more, but this is enough to understand that the Democrat corruption scandal is immense.  It seems that the Dems are following the maxim that the best defense is a good offense.  Still, Trump will survive and we will soon know how successful the Dems have been at deflecting their corrupt activities from affecting the public's view of them.

This is Important -- Ukraine's Involvement with the Dems in 2016

Sharyl Atkinson is one reporter who usually tries to stick to the facts.  That's why her latest report is so important.  Attkisson has compiled a time line of the facts regarding the involvement by Ukraine in the 2016 election -- that involvement being done in coordination with the Democrats and in an attack on candidate Trump.

This needs to be read.  The mainstream media dismisses it -- as do the Dems -- as a "conspiracy theory", but that's not correct.  I cannot tell you that everything that Attkisson is reporting is totally true; it's like any report.  Still, if you are interested in truth rather than Dem talking points, you should review this article and see for yourself the nature of what was done.

Thanksgiving

So tomorrow is the big turkey dinner with the family. I wonder how many dinners will be disrupted by political discussions.  I hope not too many.  I guess it depends on the family.

In any event, I'm not going to blog today or tomorrow.  Too much to do to get ready for the group that is coming here.

I wish everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving filled with happy moments and minimal political discussion.  Maybe you can all focus on football.

Almost, But Not Quite There

The latest poll in New Hampshire among Democrat primary voters is almost but not quite at the point of rejecting every candidate.  Right now, according to the poll, only Bernie Sanders has more than the 15% needed to get delegates, but he's at just 16%.  The poll also doesn't include Mike Bloomberg.  If Bloomberg is able to get 8% of the NH votes, he could gain enough that Sanders also falls under the 15% mark.  At that point, New Hamshire will select a slate of uncommitted delegates.  Even more important, the New Hampshire voters will be expressing their displeasure at the choices offered in the primary.

Now this is an unlikely outcome.  Still, it's jsut a bit more than 2 months until the primary.  The idea that the leader in this poll is only at 16% is already a sign of just how poor the voters think the choices are.

Not Admitting But Acting Anyway

There's a few articles in the mainstream media today that discuss how there are "no facts, no evidence" to support the need to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, but also that Biden is doing such a poor job of fighting the President on these claims that Biden doesn't deserve to be elected president himself.

Get that?  The media geniuses are denying the obvious wrongdoing by Biden, but they want to get rid of him nevertheless.  This is BIG news.

Think about it.  After two weeks of impeachment hearings during which almost all mentions of Biden were squelched by Old Big Eyes himself, Adam Schiff, the word is still spreading that Biden is nothing but damaged goods.  After all, right when the Ukrainian state prosecutor (their version of our Attorney General) began pushing on an investigation into Burisma, a company where Hunter Biden sat on the board, Joe used the threat of cutting off all American aid to Ukraine to get that state prosecutor fired.  To make things worse, that bit of blackmail by Joe Biden came about three weeks after the lawyers for Burisma asked the US State Department for help to get the investigation into the company stopped, and in that effort Burisma's lawyers pointed out to the State Department that Hunter Biden was a member of the board.  So Joe Biden went into action to protect his son's company and used a billion taxpayers' dollars in aid to corruptly push Ukraine to end the investigation.

It's not hard to understand.  There's more color to it (like Hunter getting the job even though he knew nothing about Burisma's business and couldn't speak Ukrainian), but the simple bones of the story are enough to make clear that Joe Biden seems to have acted in a corrupt and illegal manner.  It's no wonder that the media and the Democrats (really the same thing) want to take Biden out of the spotlight.

Getting rid of Biden while still denying the obvious wrongdoing may seem difficult to do, but the media/Dems are going to try.  It won't work, however.

Good For Trump

The Secretary of the Navy got booted for trying still to discipline the navy seal who had his picture taken with a dead terrorist.  They wanted to boot the guy out of the Navy Seals.  Trump pardoned him and restored his rank.  Then the navy still wanted to boot him from the seals despite that since Trump hadn''t officially ordered that he be kept in the Seals.

What was actually happening is that the Navy had prosecuted this guy for murder for allegedly killing a prisoner.  During the trial, a different sailor confessed that he had been the one who killed the prisoner.  That should have been the end of it, but the Navy didn't believe the confession and decided to still punish the seal who was acquitted

When the President took action to protect this seal, he was making clear to our fighting men that they matter.  The Secretary of the Navy was just carrying out his own view rather than his commanders.  Good for Trump for dumping him.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Justice Ginsburg is in the hospital.  The statement issued by the Court says that she responded well to treatment and should be home this morning.  As a result, the usual battle is raging on social media with one group lamenting that President Trump will get to appoint her successor, another calling on RBG not to resign even if she can no longer do her job, and a third thrilled that we will soon have a new justice to replace her.  I have two words for these people, "Shut up!"  Can't we all take a moment to wish Justice Ginsburg well?  Let's ignore the politics of this and focus on the humanity instead.  No matter what one thinks of Justice Ginsburg's opinions and her place on the Court, there will be plenty of time to deal with that in the event there is a need to do so.  For right now, let's just wish the Justice a speedy recovery.

Paying Attention

With the media focused on the big questions such as whether or not (1) the hurt feelings of a former American ambassador to Ukraine for being removed from her post constitutes an impeachable offense or (2) is it possible to hear both sides of the conversation on a cell phone in a crowded restaurant when you are sitting across the table from the person on the phone and the phone is not on "speaker", other news items are getting short shrift.  The NY Times published an article today in which it quotes the commander of Centcom (the US command that covers the Middle East) as saying that a large scale attack by Iran on one or another of its neighbors is likely imminent.  Last time the Iranians attacked the Saudis, they shut down half of Saudi oil output for weeks.  The next attack could be worse. 

As a test, I looked at the CBS News site to see if this story was covered.  Surprise -- it isn't.  War in the Middle East doesn't merit a mention even when the source is the NY Times.  There was, however, big coverage of Kamala Harris calling Pete Buttigieg "naive".

The media normally doesn't do its job very well these days.  Someone ought to be pointing out that the Iranians may mistake the impeachment charade being run by the Democrats as serious and then they may try to use that charade as a reason to attack now while the USA is "distracted".

Harvard Yale Football Game Disrupted

It's truly perfect.  During the Harvard Yale football game today, a group of students, faculty and others stormed the field and disrupted the game with demands that each university divest all holdings of fossil fuel companies and also cancel all debt from Puerto Rico held by each.

No one in the stands seemed to care very much.  Still, I think it would be better if both Harvard and Yale not only divested of fossil fuel holdings but also refused to use any electricity generated by means of fossil fuel, refused to accept any transportation using fossil fuel and boycotted all goods produced using fossil fuel of any kind.  In that way, the students and faculty (and others) could sit in cold dark buildings, stuck no campus due to lack of transportation while starving due to lack of food and water.

Let the protesters get what they want.

It sounds like the perfect safe space.

By the way, don't think this is an anti-Harvard diatribe.  I'm a Harvard grad.  It may be an anti-Yale diatribe, but who cares about Yale anyway?

Oh, The HORROR!

Devin Nunes, the ranking GOP member of the House Intelligence Committee met many months ago with the Ukrainian State Prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired when he was vice president.  In the parlance of the mainstream media, Nunes was trying to dig up dirt on Biden.  This news spawned a big push on Twitter and other social media for Nunes to resign.  After all, Nunes was trying to find out the truth about Biden, and we can't have that.

This is truly ridiculous.  The whole point of Nunes doing an investigation is to find out the truth of what Biden did.  That's a good thing, not a bad one.  The media/Dems have gotten their world so distorted that if a Dem investigates something a Republican did, it's laudable.  On the other hand, if a Republican investigates what a Dem did, it calls for the removal of that Republican.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

If you don't understand that, then I suggest that you give up and stop paying attention to the news.

Did I Miss This?

I spent this morning looking at some of the summaries put forth by people in the media commenting on the impeachment hearings.  Many of them talked about how the case had been made against President Trump.  That's strange.  I keep waiting to hear any evidence of wrongdoing by the President.  Did I miss it?

Let's start with the simple question.  What was the crime that Trump committed?  The Democrats kept changing the target during the hearings.  We went from quid pro quo to extortion to bribery.  Still, there remains no competent evidence of any of that.  And to be clear, by "competent" evidence, I mean evidence that would be admissible in a federal criminal court.  We had hurt feelings by bureaucrats.  We had third hand hearsay by others.  We had people who didn't like what the president said because it didn't agree with the policy they thought appropriate.  What we didn't have, however, is any evidence that Trump told the Ukraine that it would have to conduct a phony (or any) investigation of Joe Biden or American aid would be cut off.  In fact, everyone agrees that Ukraine conducted no investigation of any sort regarding Biden and the aid was delivered in any event.  That means no quid and no quo.

But was there bribery?  Under the constitution that would require someone to have given a bribe to the President for him to take an action to favor the briber.  Trump didn't get anything, though.  And Trump didn't give any special favors.  Somehow, the Dems want to turn this around to claim that Trump gave a bribe to Ukraine in exchange for a special favor.  That's backwards, but even so, it also isn't borne out by any evidence.  Trump did nothing but release the aid appropriated by Congress.  That's not a special favor.  And Trump got nothing in return.  There is no investigation of Biden.

The big "bombshell" of the hearings supposedly was the people who claim to have overheard a phone call in which Trump said he didn't care about Ukraine, just the investigation.  The testimony seems dishonest, but let's give it credence for the moment.  It's not a crime or even improper for the President to tell an ambassador that he doesn't care about a particular country.  Let me tell you, I don't care much about Thailand.  That's not a crime when I say it and it's not a crime if the president says it.  Also, it's not a crime for the president to care about investigating the obvious corruption of former vice president Biden.  Telling an ambassador of that view is also not a crime.

So there's no crime and no evidence of a crime.  I didn't miss anything.

More Hunter Mess

It hasn't been a good few months for Hunter Biden.  This week, however, it really got much worse.

First, DNA tests revealed that Hunter is the father of a baby in Arkansas.  Hunter had denied this and even denied knowing the mother.  So much for that famous Hunter Biden honesty.

Second, it has now been disclosed that in 2009, Biden's company got a $138 million dollar grant from the federal government as part of the stimulus package put in place by the Obama/Biden administration.  The selection process for these grants was heavily criticized for lack of transparency.  The public didn't even learn the names of the grant recipients until 2011.  For the VP's son to have his company get such a huge grant stinks.  We don't know all the details, but it sure looks like the Burisma/Ukraine gig and the Chinese 1.5 billion dollar investment in another Hunter Biden company were not Hunter's first time he cashed in big time on his father's position.

The next question is whether or not any of this money made its way back to Old Joe himself.

Update -- And This Is CNN

Last night I noted that CNN is reporting that a senior FBI employee is under criminal investigation for presenting phony documents to the FISA court as part of the application for a warrant to surveil people connected to the Trump campaign in 2016.  It wasn't just that they used the bogus and unverified Trump dossier, but rather that the FBI actually created phony document(s) to back up the application.  This is a truly serious crime.

Now, more has come out on this story.  The person under investigation is described as an FBI lawyer.  I cannot tell you that this is accurate since the source is the media, but given how hard it must be for them to report this news, I'm betting that this is likely correct.  That would point the finger at Lisa Page (the mistress of Peter Strzok who gave rise to the famous text message about having an "insurance policy" in the unlikely event that Trump won the 2016 election.)  That is nothing but a guess on my part since Page is the most prominent FBI lawyer involved in this mess.

If, indeed, Lisa Page is the person likely to be indicted, she is also the person likely to flip on the others involved in this mess.  This is a bad day for Brennan, Comey, Clapper and the others who allegedly ran this criminal enterprise.

And This Is CNN

CNN is reporting that a high official of the FBI is under criminal investigation for allegedly altering a document used as part of the submission to the FISA court for the request for a warrant to surveil people associated with the Trump campaign in 2016.  It must be killing CNN to report this.

Think what it means.

1.  We already know that the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page in 2016 and then it used that warrant to surveil others associated with the Trump campaign.  That FISA warrant was based primarily on the bogus Trump dossier created at the behest of the Clinton campaign and the DNC.  In fact, it cost the Clinton campaign about $13 million to have the dossier ginned up by Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele.  The FBI was warned by the State Department that the Trump dossier was bogus BEFORE it was presented to the FISA court as the basis for the warrant.  That was bad enough.  The law requires that the FBI only present verified information to the FISA court.  The FBI knew that the dossier was not verified.

2.  Now we have this CNN report that someone in the FBI felt it necessary not only to present unverified information to the FISA court but also to create phony documents to present to that court as well.  The FBI could always claim ignorance about the unverified nature of the dossier, even if that claim is laughable.  There's no way to claim ignorance, however, if you intentionally created a phony document to present to the FISA court so as to defraud that court.  This is a serious criminal activity.

Remember, this report comes from CNN.  That means two things.  First, the report by CNN may be inaccurate.  CNN gets things wrong about as often as it gets things correct.  Second, CNN goes out of its way to attack Trump and to protect Obama.  This report has an Obama official breaking the law in order to improperly and illegally attack Trump.  That almost guarantees that CNN double and triple checked everything before issuing the report.

Question of the Day

Here's the Question of the day:

What managed to attract less than 2% of the country yesterday?

If you said the Democrat presidential debate, you have won.  The entire debate attracted an audience of 6.6 million viewers according to the preliminary ratings.  It's hard to imagine just how bad those numbers are.  By way of contrast, in 2016, the first debate among Republicans attracted and audience that was four times larger.

Remember, this doesn't mean 6.6 million people watched the debate from start to finish.  Nope, this indicates that 6.6 million watched all OR PART of the debates.  Someone in Ohio who tuned in for five minutes and then dumped the coverage is included in this low number.

Some have said that the extraordinarily low numbers for the Dem candidates are the result of the impeachment hearings and audience fatigue.  Remember, though, that the hearings were on earlier in the day.  Those hearings didn't even get an audience of more than three million.  Literally no one was watching.

Three Approaches To The Impeachment Hearings

It's incredible to me that the impeachment hearings are still moving forward.  We've now seen two weeks worth of this lack of performance art and have yet to hear anything that remotely approaches an impeachable offense.  The Dems are still have a trial in search of a charge.

As of now, we know that there have been a bunch of bureaucrats who have been unhappy with the policies that President Trump has followed concerning Ukraine.  That's it.  Oh wait, we also know that President Trump didn't consider Ukraine all that important.  And yes, we also know that the impeachment witnesses are busy telling us what other people said (not the President), what other people did (again not the president or at his direction)  The Dems still seem unwilling to recognize that to convict the president, the has to be some evidence of wrong doing by the President (and there isn't any.)

One group of onlookers has decided that Trump has to be impeached.  They hate him.  Were Trump to help a person with a walker across the street, this group would scream impeachment or "we have him now!"

There's a second group that tries to look insightful but seems incapable of recognizing the actual evidence (or lack of evidence.}  These people say things like Trump didn't go too far in his phone call with the Ukrainian leader, but you have to look at the call in the proper context.  What Trump did was wrong, but maybe not impeachable.  Of course, if you press these folks to tell you how Trump's actual conduct was improper, they try to change the subject.  They just don't know.  It's sad.

Then there's a third group.  This is the bulk of all Americans.  They have already concluded that there is nothing to these charges.  They stopped watching by the second day of hearings (if they ever watched.)  They figure that if there ever is a "smoking gun" or even minor evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, the endless coverage will break it's way into the consciousness of this group.    These are the folks who have gotten it correct.

Is It Really Over?

There have now been quite a few witnesses put forward by the Democrats in their impeachment soap opera....err...hearings.  They have been incredibly boring, and few people are actually tuning in.  In the 20 or so hours of coverage on essentially every network, the total viewing audience for the time slot is actually lower than it would have been on a regular day when soap operas, game shows and regular cable news programs are carried.  And there's a reason for that.  So far, all that the Democrats have established is that there are a number of people in the bureaucracy who don't like the approach toward US policy towards Ukraine that President Trump has followed.  One witness yesterday actually complained that President Trump didn't follow the settled US policy that the witness had "provided".  That's an amazing complaint since US foreign policy is totally under the control of the president and he can change it any time he wants to anything he wants.  The big takeaway so far, however, has been more than just bureaucratic annoyance.  It has been that not a single witness has provided proof of "bribery" (the Dems word of choice this week), of a quid pro quo (which was their prior favorite), of extortion (which the Dems used for a few days until that too fell apart) or of high crimes and misdemeanors (or even of low crimes.)  The hearings have been a bust.

The American people are concluding that this is all a farce.  According to one poll released yesterday, in the last two weeks the number of independents supporting impeachment has gone down by ten percentage points.  This figure which had gotten close to a majority before the "proof" went on TV has now gone to about 40% and it dropped day by day during the polling.  If that has continued after yesterday's inane performance, it's a total disaster for the Dems.  They will have succeeded in convincing independents who provide the margin in most elections that impeachment has been a bad faith charade brought to you by the untrustworthy Democrats.  No amount of media palaver in support of the Dems will change that view.

It now looks as if the impeachment mess may actually be over.  Oh, the show will play out, but the essence of the attempt by the Dems to blacken Trump's name with the American people is failing.  Most likely, we will see some crazy attempt by the Dems to change the trajectory, but that is a high stakes move.  If it gets too crazy, the Dems could even lose the moderate segments of their base.

Realism Regarding Settlements

The United States government announced in the last few days a clarification in its views towards the Israeli settlements in the West Bank region.  These settlements are not necessarily illegal or legal.

That may not seem like much, but it is a major development.  The area in question was assigned to the Arabs under the 1947 UN resolution that split the Palestine Mandate area between the Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state.  When the British withdrew their forces in 1948 and Israel declared itself an independent nation, the armies of five Arab countries that surrounded Israel all invaded.  That fighting ended in 1949 with an armistice.  Nearly all the Arab lands, however, were not made part of a Palestinian state but rather were taken over by Jordan and ruled as part of that country for the next 18 years.  In 1967, the Jordanians attacked Israel during the Six Day War.  The Israelis not only stopped the Jordanian attack but drove the Jordanians out of the entire West Bank region.  Israel has controlled this region ever since then.

While there were attempts after the Six Day War and subsequent wars to trade land for peace, the Palestinians refused every offer.  As Abba Eban famously said, "the Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Israeli started moving into the land that Jordan had ruled.  For the most part, this movement was into the eastern half of the Jerusalem metro area.  All Israelis who moved into this region were said to have created "settlements".  For a long time, these "settlements" were labelled illegal although this label was more propaganda than actual legal analysis.  Even so, the number of Israelis living in the so called settlements continued to grow.  Today, there are close to a million Israelis living in these areas (although again the vast majority is just in Jerusalem.)

During the Obama years, the USA made the settlements into a key part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace.  Obama wanted all of the so called settlements closed down.  In essence, Obama wanted to rid the West Bank of all Jewish residents.  There was discussion of the legality of the settlements, but no conclusion.

Now that has changed.  No longer will settlements just be assumed to be illegal.  That happens to be in accord with international law, but not with the views of the bureaucrats in the State Department who are invested in their long term failed strategies.  Trump has moved towards having a realistic view of the situation regarding Israel.  Just as Trump put the US law into effect and moved the embassy to Jerusalem over the objections of the State Department bureaucrats, he is now having the actual legal standard apply to settlements rather than the bogus and baseless view that they are all illegal.

For what it is worth, land taken by a country that is attacked (like Israel in 1967) can be retained by that country.  There are no limits on building towns in that region.  Hence, the settlements are basically legal.  Under the Oslo Accords, Israel gave the Palestinian Authority the right to rule all or part of certain regions in the West Bank, and in those areas, there could be some limits on construction of new towns.  Such areas/towns contain less than 5% of the settlers and some are clearly temporary.

By announcing that the real world and the real law would be applied to settlements rather than the fiction that all settlements are "illegal", the USA is providing the basis on which the Palestinians and Israelis could actually negotiate a final peace agreement.  As of now, the Palestinians are not interested in such an agreement and actively fight against it.  Still this latest move is clearly one in the right direction towards peace.

What's The Point

Michael Bloomberg is supposedly entering the Democrat presidential race as a "moderate" candidate because Joe Biden is stumbling (to say the least).  Now, before even officially joining the race, Bloomberg is issuing an apology for the "stop and frisk" program that ran in New York City while he was mayor.  That program allowed police to stop and frisk people on the street if they had reason to believe the person might have an illegal weapon.  The result was that homicides in New York continued the major decline started when Giuliani was mayor.  New York was actually the safest large city in the country.  When Bloomberg left office, he was replaced by Bill DeBlasio, a far left Democrat who immediately ended stop and frisk.  Crime has been rising since then.

Think about this.  While mayor, Bloomberg proudly defended stop and frisk as a life saving program that prevented literally hundreds of murders.  The left said the program was racist (which is ridiculous).  Now, as he enters the presidential race as a supposed moderate, Bloomberg is apologizing for stop and frisk.  What's the point of Bloomberg getting into the race if he is just going to be another anodyne far left candidate?

And What Do They Give?

In today's news, one of the big stories is that restaurant chain Chick-Fil-A announced that it was reducing the number of charities to which it contributes but increasing the amounts given to each of the remaining ones.  Many see this as a surrender by Chick-Fil-A to relentless pressure from the left and in particular the LGBT community since some of the charities cut off opposed gay marriage.  One of the more bizarre charities on that list is the Salvation Army, a charity that helps millions of people in need without regard to their sex, sexual orientation, race or creed.  The militants on the left, however, see the Salvation Army as anti-gay.  Actually, they are just Christian.

I'm not going to get into the middle of the debate about which charities Chick-Fil-A should support.  I think we should focus elsewhere.  Here's the key question for me:  To what charities do these leftist activists from the Gay community and elsewhere give?  In fact, do they give to charity at all?  Surveys have shown that conservatives give a much higher percentage of their incomes to charity than progressives.  Are these leftists complaining about charitable giving by conservatives when they don't give anything themselves?  I'd like to know the answer to this.

More From Iran

The protests in Iran that are currently underway are quite violent and widespread.  There has been a tidal wave of protest which has now reached over 100 cities across Iran.  There has also been major destruction of property as protesters have burned government buildings and banks as well as other sites.  Things have gotten so bad for the government that it has closed the internet across the country in order to prevent the protesters from communicating on social media both with each other and with the rest of the world.  Even so, video and images of fires, marches, burning cars blocking roads and the like have made their way out of Iran.  Further, while there is no way to verify the number, both the protesters and the government confirm that people have been killed.

This is amazing and important news.  Widespread public unrest could bring down the Islamic Republic and its theocratic fascist leadership.  It's hard to overstate the benefits for the region and the world were that to happen.  Iran is, after all, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.  The collapse of the Iranian regime might also lead to the end of its puppet Assad regime in Syria.  It would also remove a prime source of conflict in Iraq as there would no longer be Iranian agents pushing the Shia sect to try to control the Sunnis and others.

One would think that this news is of sufficient importance that our media would be all over it.  Guess again.  Perhaps the demise of Iran's theocrats would be a "victory" for the Trump foreign policy of confrontation of Iran.  That alone would prevent most US media from covering it.  I checked this morning.  CBS News has nothing on its web site about the protests.  ABC is running an AP article buried deep on its website.  NBC does have coverage, but not much.

Some Good News Protests

There's precious little coverage of this in the mainstream media, but today there were widespread protests in cities across Iran.  The protesters burned pictures of the Ayatollah and also set fire to a number of banks.  The immediate cause for the angry protests was the government's decision yesterday to drop subsidies for gasoline so that the price of fuel almost doubled.

This is good news.  If the Iranians are tied up with domestic protests, they will have less time or desire to spread their terrorism and hatred around the world.  It seems as if the US' sanctions put in place by President Trump after he withdrew the USA from the JCPOA are working.

No doubt there is a threat that the Europeans will decide that they need to help the Iranians escape the impact of sanctions.  It would not be the first idiotic move by Europe when it comes to Iran.  This is unlikely, however.

Let's hope that the protest movement grows.  Maybe the protesters can overthrow the Islamic republic and return Iran to being a member of the modern world.

The Proof That Patrick and Bloomberg Needed

The latest poll in Iowa among Democrats gives Mayor Pete a 9 point lead over Biden, Warren and Sanders who are bunched around 15%.  This is more a rejection of Biden, Warren and Sanders than an endorsement of Pete.  Now to be fair, this is a CNN poll (with the Des Moines Register), so it is suspect to say the least.  Still, one has to remember that in the last six months Biden was way out front until his stumbling bumbling persona was shown to voters and his past involvement with corruption in Ukraine and China to help his son was spread across the news pages.  Warren then moved way out in front until she revealed her Medicare For All plan that clearly was a Poverty For All Plan.  Iowa Democrats left her behind in droves in what seems to be a direct response to her crazy plans to destroy the US economy.  Bernie had much more support in the early polls, but he lost a lot of that when he had his heart attack.  No one wants a candidate who might not survive the campaign.  To be fair, Sanders has started picking up some support again, but he is still in third or fourth place in the polls.

Mayor Pete seems to be gaining support simply as someone who doesn't have a disqualifying problem.  Sure, there are no doubt some Iowa Democrats who don't want to vote for Pete because he is gay, but that can't be too many.  The fact that Pete has no meaningful experience is also not yet a problem because his main opponents are so flawed.  Pete has been mayor of a city of 120,000 people, and he hasn't been very successful even at that.  He has no business experience or anything else that might show promise towards leading the nation.  Indeed, over the summer, there was a police shooting that led to confrontations in South Bend (where Pete is mayor) and he botched his handling of that mess in a major way.  Still, the media didn't pick that up because he was a minor candidate at that time and a Democrat to boot.

Even more proof that the voters are voting against Biden, Warren and Sanders more than for the others is that Amy Klobuchar has risen to fifth place with 6% in the latest poll.  Some will say it is because she is from a neighboring state, but she has been from a neighboring state all through the campaign and voters didn't pick her til now.  Klobuchar has nothing to recommend her; no real programs, no pleasing personality; no charisma. 

Polls like this were what Bloomberg and Patrick needed to convince them that the nomination could still be theirs.  There really is no front runner anymore.  There is just mass disillusionment by the real Dem voters. 

Maybe someone should start a push for Iowa caucus goers to pick "Uncommitted" as their choice.  That's a nice way of saying "none of the above."

They're Going To Need A Bigger Bomb

After a whole day of testimony from a disgruntled former ambassador did nothing to advance the impeachment inquiry, the Democrats and the media immediately shifted to yesterday's "bombshell".  They started leaking the statement of a US State Department employee in Kiev who claims he "overheard" a phone conversation between the President and a US ambassador who was seated in a restaurant in Ukraine.  Let's assume that this actually happened (although it sounds really unlikely).  According to the witness who gave a statement in secret (until the Dems leaked the whole thing), Trump said on the call that he cared much more about investigating Biden than about Ukraine.  Oh, the horror!  That's it (at least according to the media and the Dems.)  Trump's presidency is over!

But think about it.  Why is it impeachable for Trump to tell our ambassador that he cares more about an investigation than about Ukraine?  That sounds like Trump just being honest with the ambassador.  Wouldn't you think that Trump would care more about investigating the former vice president who admitted to using threats of withholding US aid in order to protect his son than about Ukraine?  After all, corruption at the highest levels of the US government is a big deal.  And there's nothing wrong, improper or illegal about Trump caring about investigating Biden.  Nor is there anything wrong, improper or illegal about Trump not caring as much about Ukraine.  It's all perfectly proper.

So why is this being touted as a "bombshell"?  There are two obvious answers:  first, that the Dems and the media have nothing else, and second that this shows that Trump wanted an investigation of Biden when he spoke earlier to president Zelensky of Ukraine.  We already knew this second point, though, because in the transcript of the call, Trump asks Zelensky to help in an investigation of Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 US election and Biden.  That's hardly a bombshell.

The impeachment debacle keeps getting worse for the Dems.  If they want to achieve anything, they are going to need a bigger bomb.

Expanding the Rocket Fire

Two days ago, a cease fire was supposedly negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza.  That was followed almost immediately by more rocket launches from inside Gaza aimed at Israel and Israeli retaliation yesterday.  Then, in the middle of last night, the Palestinians escalated the confrontation.  They fired two rockets at the Israeli city of Be'er Sheva.  Both were shot down by the Israeli Iron Dome system, but this was still a major event.  First of all, these were no longer short range missiles like those shot over the past ten days.  They were medium range rockets.  Second, Be'er Sheva is a metropolitan area with over half a million people.  This is a strike at a major Israeli city.  Third, these missiles came (according to Israeli intelligence) from the stockpiles of Hamas rather than Islamic Jihad which had launched all the prior attacks.  The Israelis responded with air strikes on Hamas targets.

Most likely, all of these launches are attempts by the most militant Palestinians in Gaza to foment an all out war between Israel and Hamas.  That may seem odd since Hamas would surely lose such a war.  Nevertheless, these militants think that by forcing Israel to attack the forces of Hamas, they can convince the world that Israel is committing "war crimes" by defending itself and that this will redound to their benefit eventually.  It seems like a rather demented strategy to me, but I frown on getting innocent people killed to advance one's political position.

In any event, we will have to see where this goes in the next few days.  If the Hamas leadership has actually invested itself in a current battle with Israel, we could see war here this week.  If, as seems more likely, the Hamas leadership did not sanction the latest attack, things might calm down.

The True Bottom Of The Barrel

After Marie Yovanovich had testified for about an hour or so this morning, President Trump tweeted about her.  He said that she was not a very successful ambassador in any of her postings.  This was then posted on Twitter.  Within minutes, Adam Schiff interrupted to hearings to read the tweet to Marie Yovanovich and to ask her to respond and also how the tweet made her feel.  Schiff then accused President Trump of "witness intimidation".

It's hard to overstate just how ridiculous this charge is.  Remember, a witness isn't immune from criticism.  For example, I could tell you that some of the witnesses who are listed for testifying next week are biased, incompetent, uninformed or poor at their jobs.  That isn't witness intimidation.  Indeed, witness intimidation requires threatening the witness with harm if he or she actually testifies or at least gives unhelpful testimony.  Trump didn't do that.  He just commented on Yovanovich's abilities (or lack thereof) as an ambassador.  But more important is that Trump didn't tell this to Yovanovich.  Trump tweeted while she was testifying.  Yovanovich wasn't checking Trump's Twitter account; she was busy.  Yovanovich would never have even known about the tweet before the end of her testimony but for the fact that Democrat Adam Schiff rushed to tell her about it.

Now, however, the Democrats and their toadies in the media are busy adopting this "witness intimidation" nonsense.  No rational and sane person could accept that as valid.  In fact, the reliance of the Democrats on this nonsense shows that they are scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel to try to come up something, anything that could possibly be the basis for impeachment.

Unbelievable Coverage

Marie the ex-ambassador Yovanovich testified today in the impeachment circus.  I didn't watch; I see no reason to waste my time.  I did, however, happen to see or read six different accounts of her testimony.  All were from the mainstream media.  The most amazing thing to me is that not a single one of the accounts mentioned that the witness had nothing (and I mean NOTHING) to say about the subject matter of impeachment.  She was gone from Ukraine prior to any of the communications about Joe Biden, investigations, release of military aid and the like.  She never spoke to President Trump or the White House chief of staff in 2019.  She wasn't even still ambassador to Ukraine when any of the relevant events happened.  Indeed, when she was removed as ambassador, the then president elect of Ukraine told President Trump that the removal was a great idea since Yovanovich was hostile to the incoming president.  Put simply, everything that Yovanovich had to say today had nothing to do with impeachment.  She's just a former ambassador who doesn't like the way in which she was fired.

It is impossible to miss Yovanovich's total lack of importance.  Adam Schiff could have brought in a waiter from a Ukrainian restaurant in DC to talk about Ukrainian cuisine.  It would have had just as much impact.  In view of this, how is it possible that the mainstream media could fail to mention this?  That's not just biased reporting; it's intentional dishonest propaganda.

Those Terrible Tariffs

Although it has been crowded off the news pages by the impeachment circus, the issue of tariffs has been a big one in the mainstream media over the last 18 months.  Let's do a test to see if you've heard and absorbed the reports.  Answer this question:

The effect of the tariffs imposed by President Trump on China and some other countries  has been

A.  To raise the prices paid by the average American for all sorts of consumer good;

B.  To slow the growth of the American economy;

C.  To cost thousands of jobs for American workers; or

D.  None of the above.

The correct answer is D, none of the above (although it's not an answer you ever hear from the media.

New data released today shows that the prices paid by US buyers of imported goods have FALLEN 3% over the last year.  That's right; China is paying a 25% tariff on most goods but the prices of those goods have fallen.

At the same time, millions of new jobs have been created with growth continuing month after month.  Even during the GM strike which added huge numbers of temporarily unemployed workers, the level of employment INCREASED.  The economy has been growing at rates higher than those predicted by the so called "experts" as well.

Don't expect the read or hear about the actual effects of tariffs from the mainstream media.  Why destroy a good narrative that might help the left by reporting the actual facts?

Pelosi's Take

Here is Nancy Pelosi's analysis of yesterday's impeachment hearings.

"The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery"

One has to wonder what universe Pelosi inhabits.  There is NO evidence of bribery.  Pelosi can't tell us who was bribed.  She can't tell us what was the nature of the bribe, in other words what was given to the person bribed.  She also can't tell us who gave the bribe.  Lastly, Pelosi can't tell us what the person who got the bribe gave to the person giving the bribe.

Simply put, you cannot have "evidence of bribery" without a bribe, a person receiving the bribe, a person giving a bribe, and a description of the nature of the bribe.  That, however, doesn't stop Pelosi.  She just lies and lies and lies.  Nancy Pelosi is not that dumb; nor is she so drunk that she doesn't understand reality.  Nope, Pelosi is a liar who is prepared to say anything to get full power for her party.

Look, I recognize that calling the Speaker of the House a liar is no big deal.  A lying politician is nothing that we all haven't seen before.  Still, this is more than just a political debate.  This is actually a situation in which quasi-criminal charges are being considered.  Pelosi should refrain from lying.  She should at least try to stick to the truth.  America deserves at least that much from such a high official.

I'm Tired Of The Morons

Since news of the supposed pressuring of Ukraine by President Trump to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son first broke, we've heard a lot of talk from a lot of people, but we actually have heard from only two people who participated in the phone call at the heart of this matter:  President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine.  We also have the transcript of the call.  President Trump said the call was "perfect" with "no quid pro quo" which is Trump-speak for nothing untoward happened.  That's not surprising.  President Zelensky, however, confirms what Trump says.  Zelensky says he was not pressured, black-mailed, or pushed in any way.  Zelensky confirms that he didn't know that military aid had been held up and never connected a hold up in aid with the request for an investigation of Biden.  He confirms also that there was no quid pro quo.  Since Zelensky is the one who Trump supposedly threatened with withholding the aid, Zelensky's words ought to end this entire charade.  But the morons are out there on TV busy either lying about what happened or twisting it into a pretzel in the hopes of finding something that Trump did wrong.  We had Adam Schiff actually speak at a congressional hearing where he said that Trump told Zelensky seven or eight times, "you better dig up dirt on Biden or there won't be any military aid from the US."  Schiff even pretended that this came directly from the transcript of the call.  That was a blatant lie, and when Schiff got caught in that lie, he claimed that his remarks were only a "parody".  Then we had yesterday's witnesses who basically said that Trump didn't follow US foreign policy in his approach to Ukraine.  These lifetime foreign service employees are obvious morons.  Under the Constitution, US foreign policy is whatever the President says it is.  The President, not the State Department career employees, is the one in control.  Those employees are supposed to carry out the policies set by the president, not vice versa.

But it doesn't stop there.  We also have the morons who tell us that Zelensky must be wrong in what he says, or, even worse, he must be lying.  Think about that.  Zelensky certainly must know if he was aware that there was any holdup in aid when he spoke to Trump.  There's no proof that he knew about it.  To the contrary, there's plenty of proof that the Ukrainians didn't hear about the aid hold for another few weeks.  Zelensky isn't lying or mistaken.  But that doesn't matter.  The morons tell us that Zelensky's statements about his own actions and intentions cannot be trusted because he might want to protect Trump in order to help Ukraine in its relations with the USA.  There's not a shred of evidence to support that claim though, but the morons persist.  It's the rough equivalent of saying that Zelensky was brainwashed by Martians to say what he said.  There's no proof of that, but hey, the morons could say it happened and we are then supposed to believe them.

But the killer of all this is that there's a transcript of the phone call.  No one has said that the transcript is inaccurate or phony.  It's the best evidence of what happened.  And the transcript makes clear that a hold on aid was never mentioned.  There was no pressure put on Zelensky by Trump.  The investigation sought was about the 2016 election with Biden just mentioned.

I'm tired of the morons and their moronic twaddle.

An Horrific New Low For the Washington Post

There's an article in the Washington Post in which the rabidly anti-Trump David Ignatius solemnly proclaims that people died while Trump played games with Ukraine.  He then lists one death and two injuries in October of 2019 as proof.  It's an amazing display of anti-Trump Fake and Misleading News even for the Washington Post.

Think about it.  Ignatius' premise is that by delaying release of aid to Ukraine Trump is responsible for the one death and two injuries in that country months after the release of the aid.  Remember, there is a cease fire in place between Ukraine and Russia right now, and it is the death and one injury are due to the explosion of a hand grenade in an apartment that doesn't seem to have any connection to the conflict with Russia.  Releasing aid or not releasing aid has no connection at all with the injuries.  On the other hand, when Obama was president, he steadfastly refused to give any aid at all to the Ukrainians when they were facing an active Russian invasion of their country.  Roughly 12,000 people died in that fighting.  Ignatius sees nothing wrong with that.  It's fine if a Democrat refuses aid to Ukraine during active fighting and thousands die, but it's terrible if a Republican delays aid during a cease fire and one person is injured.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to discuss the Trump policy towards Ukraine if they do so honestly and fairly.  A ridiculous smear like this WaPo piece, however, is despicable.

The Shameless Media

Former president Morales of Bolivia has fled the country for safe haven in Mexico.  He resigned a few days ago when it became clear that the army was not going to support him after he was caught rigging the presidential elections.  The situation in La Paz is still chaotic as Morales departs.  One would think that the US media would cheer for the end of the rule of a man who has been a dictator in Bolivia for over a decade.  That's not the case, however.  Morales, was -- you see -- a Socialist.

Bloomberg News actually put out a report that called Morales' tenure atop Bolivia "an eviable record of success."  The guy's a crook and a despot, but since he is a socialist (nominally) the Bloomberg crew think he was a success.  They don't care what he did, only what he said.

Impeachment Today

The big show trial in the House starts today.  Technically, it's an "investigation" but farce would be a better word.  The initial witnesses (Kent and Taylor from the State Department) are two who have previously testified in the secret hearings that the Dems held for the last two months.  We have now, however, seen the transcripts of those "hearings" and have learned the following.  Here's how Betsy McCaughy states it in the NY Post today:

 "Kent and Taylor have no evidence against Trump — only a false rumor spread during a farcical game of telephone on Sept. 7. Taylor heard the claim third-hand, and then called Kent, who got it fourth hand.  [Neither one ever] spoke with Trump about the aid and [they] admit they had no direct knowledge of why it was ­delayed. They weren’t even on the controversial July 25 phone call that has become the pretext for ­impeachment."

Think about that.  The first two witnesses called by the Democrats weren't on the call that is supposed to be the centerpiece of the impeachment.  They also admit they don't know directly why aid to Ukraine was delayed.  They only heard speculation from a guy who admits that he just presumed the reason for the delay even though he also admits that President Trump told him something different.

This is the kind of testimony that would be excluded in any criminal trial in America as unreliable hearsay.  The Dems, however, are LEADING with this.  If they are starting with BS, one can only conclude that they have no real evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump.

Now you don't need to watch.

Today's Biggest News

I couldn't let today go by without mentioning today's biggest political news.  Mark Sanford has withdrawn from the race for president.

Okay.  I know.  You want to know who Mark Sanford is.  He is a Republican who was governor of South Carolina and a congressman.  At the moment, though, he is out of office.  He had to leave office when he ran off to see his mistress in South Carolina and left a phony story with his office that he was hiking in the Appalachian mountains.  For some reason, he thought it would be appropriate to jump into the GOP race against Trump.  Now, a few months later, he apparently has realized that not only does he not have any money, but he is unlikely to get any.  The guy truly needs help.

Name That Crime

There used to be a quiz show called Name That Tune.  Players competed to see who could name a song from only hearing a few notes.  With the impeachment "hearings" starting tomorrow, it seems as if the Democrats are trying to modify that old game show for use in those proceedings.  No one has yet told us what crime the Democrats say president Trump committed.  Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" according to the Constitution.  That should mean that thte Democrats will have to find some crime of which Trump is guilty if they are to impeach him.  As of now, however, the Dems haven't bothered to identify that crime.

Imagine what would happen if a defendant in a criminal trial were brought into court without knowing the charges.  What would the defense prepared for?  Is it a murder trial or one for embezzlement?  You can't prepare if you don't know the charges.  Nevertheless, this is the nonsensical behavior that the Democrats are trying to use in these hearings.

And let's get something clear here.  It is not illegal for the President to ask a foreign country to investigate something.  It is perfectly proper.  It is also not illegal to offer a foreign country some inducement to do something that the President thinks will be helpful to the USA.  In other words, all this quid pro quo palaver doesn't indicate that anything illegal happened.  That is why a statement of charges is needed.

The Democrats are trying to railroad Trump in a kangaroo court setting.  This must be resisted.  At the start of these hearings, the Dems have to state just what crime they think Trump may have committed.

Truly Disgusting Talking Points

I just read about 15 statements from Democrats who are members of Congress.  Each of those statements contain the line that DACA members "cannot be used as political pawns."  It's really disgusting.

Remember how we got here.  In 2009-2010, the Democrats had total control of Congress and teh White House.  Although they talked about doing something about illegal immigrants, they took no action.  They did NOTHING.

Next, President Obama told us repeatedly that he didn't have the power to enact by himself a program like DACA.  Then, despite Obama's lack of power, he went ahead and did it anyway.

When Trump got elected, he wanted to reform the immigration laws, but the Democrats wouldn't seriously discuss doing anything at all on that subject.  As a result, Trump rescinded Obama's DACA program, but he put a six month time delay in place so that Congress would have the time it needed to reform the immigration laws.  Congress, however, did nothing because the Democrats blocked any attempt at action.  The Dems wanted to keep the DACA people as political pawns rather than to solve their problems.

Now that SCOTUS is hearing the case regarding that rescission of DACA, the Democrats are all screaming about using the DACA people as political pawns.  They are the ones who have used the DACA people as pawns for years.  This whole bit of nonsense is truly disgusting.

What Will Happen To DACA

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the DACA cases today.  The case comes before SCOTUS in the status where the Court of Appeals held that the Trump administration failed to give a detailed and adequate reason for ending DACA.  That's a rather strange issue.  Under the relevant administrative law statute, the government has to give its reasoning for taking an action like this at the time it acts.  If the court ultimately rules against Trump on this ground, however, all that will need to happen to once again end DACA is for the action to be taken again with a new and better memo to be written.  Surely, SCOTUS didn't take this case to enforce that issue.  Remember, SCOTUS gets to pick the cases it takes.

So what is going on here?  Most likely, justices on SCOTUS want to rule on whether or not the president has the ability to institute a program like DACA in the first place.  President Obama famously said over 20 times that he didn't have the power to put a program like DACA in place, and then he did it anyway.  A ruling that made clear that there is no executive power unilaterally to change the immigration statutes would be an issue worthy of a ruling by SCOTUS.

My prediction is that when the ultimate decision comes down, DACA will be wiped away and future presidents won't have the power to reinstitute it without action by Congress.

Hopefully, such a ruling will provide the impetus for the Democrats in Congress to stop blocking all immigration law changes and to negotiate a sensible compromise that restores the protection to those in DACA while stopping some of the most flagrant problems in the current law.

Another Amazing Devalopment

Former governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, has let it be known that he is considering entering the Democrat race for president in 2020.  This actually makes sense, although it is highly unlikely to be successful.

Right now, the Dems have the major problems that all of their main candidates are highly flawed, indeed perhaps fatally flawed.  Old Joe Biden is a bumbling stumbling old man who cannot seem to stick to or even remember the facts.  Worse, he is enmeshed by his own words in the middle of a corruption scandal in which Biden misused his position as vice president just to help his son Hunter.  That doesn't play too well.  Elizabeth Warren has put for policy positions like her 50 trillion dollar Medicare for All that will drag her under water quickly once the American public gets to understand the full implication of those policies.  Few people want to vote for "equality" that will result in an economic depression in which everyone will end up being equally poor.  Ever since she put forth the details of her Medicare for All plan, her poll numbers have been tanking.  Bernie Sanders is still the same angry old man he has always been, but now he's also the very old guy who had a serious heart attack a few weeks ago.  Why vote for the guy unlikely to make it to inauguration day.  Mayor Pete is marginally a main candidate, but he's still an inexperienced mayor of a tiny city who couldn't even deal earlier this year with the aftermath of his police department shooting a minority guy.  Oh, and he's gay which won't play all that well with the religious people in the minority communities.  The rest of the current field barely rise to the level of also-rans.

Now we get Bloomberg who may enter and Deval Patrick.  Patrick would be one more chance for a serious minority candidate to get traction in the race.  He's well known in New Hampshire.  He has executive experience.  Maybe, just maybe, Patrick could entice 15% or so of the voters to support him so that he could survive the thinning of the herd that will inevitably come about by the second week of March.

What -- No Russian Collusion?

In the UK, the Brexit party announced today that it would not field candidates for parliament in districts that were won in the last election by the Tories.  Basically, this gives the Tory party led by prime minister Boris Johnson a major advantage in the upcoming December elections.  The pro-Brexit forces in these districts will NOT be split between the Tories and the Brexit party.  Meanwhile the Remain forces WILL be split between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party.  The collapse of Labour and the resurgence of the Liberal Democrats will make it likely that these seats will be won by the Tories again.  Most likely, the Tories will also pick up a batch of additional seats, so that the large Tory lead in the polls should result in a substantial majority after the elections.

It is not at all surprising that the Brexit forces should unite.  After all, the Brexit party would be undermining its entire reason for being if it were to split the Tory vote and put Liberals or Labour members into seats previously held by Tories.

The best part of this development, however, is the reaction to it by Jeremy Corbyn, the bigoted anti-Semitic far left leader of Labour.  He actually blamed the agreement between the Brexit Party and the Tories on President Trump.  I'm not kidding.  Corbyn says that Trump engineered this.  Corbyn, of course, doesn't say how the President managed to manipulate these two major British parties into reaching this agreement, but that is no surprise.  Apparently Corbyn thinks that mentioning Trump is enough to gain him an advantage in the UK.  I really doubt that, however.  After all, how many Brits really care more about blaming Trump than about their own futures with regard to Europe?

Witnesses For The Defense

That disgusting excuse for a congressman, Adam Schiff, has already rejected a batch of witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call during the impeachment hearings.  One of them is Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden.

Think about that.  The act passed by Congress that calls for American aid to Ukraine conditions that aid on there being improvements within Ukraine with regard to fighting corruption.  The President has to find that such improvements have been made before releasing the aid.  Hunter Biden may or may not be the poster boy for corruption in Ukraine.  We don't know.  We do know that he was hired for the board of directors by the Ukraine's largest natural gas company Burisma, even though Hunter had no knowledge of the natural gas industry and couldn't even speak Ukrainian.  We also know that Burisma paid Hunter a huge amount to be on the board; Hunter was getting twice what outside directors of Exxon/Mobil (the world's largest oil and gas company get paid.)  We also know that the owner of Burisma is an oligarch who fled Ukraine in order to avoid prosecution.  We also know that representatives of Burisma used Hunter Biden's name in their dealings with the US State Department in efforts to get favorable treatment.  In short, we know that there are a lot of indicators that there was corruption involved in Hunter's being hired by Burisma.  And it isn't just any ordinary corruption, it would be corruption by the family of the vice president of the USA.

But it gets much worse.  Joe Biden has admitted (and there is video tape of this) that he threatened the government of Ukraine that over a billion dollars in American foreign aid to Ukraine would be cut off unless the Ukrainian state prosecutor was fired immediately.  The Ukrainian government complied and fired that state prosecutor.  Documents recently uncovered confirm that when Joe Biden got the state prosecutor fired, he was in the middle of an investigation of Burisma, the company that had hired Hunter Biden.  That means that the Vice President of the United States seems to have used a threat to cut off American aid to Ukraine in order to protect the company that had hired his son.  That would be corruption of a major sort, and it would be a criminal act by Biden.

Impeachment is supposedly all about an unproven claim that President Trump told the Ukrainians that he would not release aid to Ukraine unless that country did an investigation of the Bidens.  Now there's no actual evidence of Trump ever saying anything like this to the Ukrainians.  The transcript of the call between Trump and the Ukrainian president (which forms the centerpiece of the who impeachment investigation) says nothing at all about aid being withheld.  Indeed, the Ukrainians weren't even aware that aid had been held up for weeks after the Trump phone call.  Still, it's important to know what Hunter had told his father about his position with Burisma and about the status of the investigation of Burisma by the state prosecutor before Joe Biden got that prosecutor fired.  Was Biden acting to protect his son or just what was he doing?

It's very important to hear from Hunter, if we are ever to understand what Trump was doing.  Remember, Trump was required by law to make sure that corruption in Ukraine was being fought before he released the aid.

Schiff doesn't want this testimony from Biden because he knows that it could embarrass Joe Biden and the Democrats and could provide a fair reason for Trump to have done everything about which the Democrats complain.  There's no valid reason for Schiff to refuse to let Hunter be called as a witness.

It's disgusting to watch the Democrats try to pervert justice in this manner.

The Ignorant and the Willful

I just read a column written by noted climate scientist Robert Redford on CNN's site in which he laments the terrible damage done by President Trump with regard to climate change.  Trump's sin, according to this "expert" is that he has formally withdrawn the USA from the Paris climate accords.

Let's start by saying that Robert Redford is actually an old actor whose knowledge of climate science appears to stem from his role in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  As Sundance, Redford apparently was given some secret knowledge about the Sun.  Allright, maybe I'm being too snarky, but the idea of someone gaining knowledge about climate change by being a washed up actor is ridiculous.

Even worse than giving Redford a platform, though, is what Redford has to say.

Let's start with the Paris accords which Redford makes the centerpiece of his screed.  Those supposedly "vital" accords are voluntary.  Countries "commit" to goals, but they don't have to meet them.  The world's biggest polluter of all kinds, China, doesn't even commit to doing anything to reduce emissions until 2030.  That's right, under the Paris accords, China which emits huge amounts of pollutants won't have to do anything to reduce those pollutants until after the dates on which the world as we know it will supposedly come to an end due to global warming.  Think about that for a moment.  From the point of view of the global warming crowd, it's the rough equivalent of being told by a doctor that you have a bad infection that will kill you but that treatment will only start after you are already dead.

Then there's the issue of actual reductions in emissions.  Right now, there is only one large economy that has been making major reductions in emissions.  That country is the USA.  Trump pulled us out of the Paris accords because they could be used to disrupt our economy; he hasn't stopped progress towards controlling emissions.  In the fantasy world of the left, however, what matters is what one says, not what one does.  It's a crazy upside-down world.

If Redford is really concerned about man made global warming, he should start a campaign to pressure China to reduce emissions.  That could be done.  If China were to switch its power grid from one that relies mainly on coal to one that uses natural gas, Chinese emissions could rapidly drop by 25% or more.  There's plenty of natural gas in the world to power all those plants.  As a result of the use of fracking, the world has a glut of inexpensive natural gas.  But wait, in the global warming world, fracking is evil because it allows production of more fossil fuels.  People like Redford are against it.  That's why Elizabeth Warren has said that she would ban fracking on her first day in office.  She doesn't care that taking that action would put millions of Americans out of work.  She doesn't care that taking that action would force emissions from American power plants to start rising in dramatic fashion.  It doesn't matter what would actually happen; it just sounds good to say that she would ban fracking, and what matters is what one says, not what actually happens.

There is plenty to debate about man made global warming.  Is there really warming of any sort?  That's far from clear.  Is any of the warming due to the actions of man?  That also is far from clear, although the evidence suggests that any warming is most like a natural phenomenon.  I'm not going to debate these issues now, however.  If one assumes that there is global warming and that it is due to human activity, then the position espoused by Robert Redford on CNN is still idiotic.  Redford and those like him are either ignorant or willful.  You decide.

Can Someone Ask These Questions?

Here are a few questions relevant to the Democrat 2020 primaries that need answering.  It would be nice to know the answers.

1.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the investigation of Burisma by Ukraine didn't end until after AFTER Joe Biden got the state prosecutor (the man in charge of that investigation) fired.

     a.  Is this true?
     b.  What did Joe Biden know about the status of the Burisma investigation when he got the prosecutor fired?
     c.  What is Joe Biden's explanation for WHY he told Ukraine he would cut off all aid from the USA unless the state prosecutor was fired immediately?
     d.  Are there any documents from that time period that record reasons why the state prosecutor needed to go?
     e.  If there aren't any such documents, then how did Joe Biden know that the state prosecutor ought to be his target?
   
2.  Under all these Medicare For All schemes, will patients still be responsible for 20% of costs like they are under regular Medicare?

3.  Under Medicare for All, will Medicare Advantage plans be ended?  What happens to the millions in these plans?

4.  Under Medicare for All, how will hospitals be able to pay their expenses since the reimbursements won't be enough to cover costs?

5.  Will there be any requirements before someone can get Medicare for All?
     a.  Is it limited to citizens?
     b.  Can tourists in the USA get coverage?
     c.  What happens if someone from South America flies to the USA just to get free medical treatment?
   
6.  How will the USA get enough doctors if Medicare For All takes the economic incentive away from the practice of medicine.  (In other words, doctors will make much less under this new system.  If a large number of them retire, what happens?)

7/  Will Medicare for All cover plastic surgery, sex reassignment, abortions, and other elective surgeries?

8.  What is the prognosis for Bernie Sanders after his heart attack?  We need to hear from the actual doctors who treated him, not some flack for his campaign.

Yeah, That's What We Need: A Democrat/Republican/Independent/Democrat Billionaire Former Mayor of New York City

I have to laugh at the vainglorious nature of Mike Blumenthal who is planning now to run for the Democrat presidential nomination.  A recent poll of Democrats only showed that 6% would vote for him if he runs and 32% would definitely vote against him in that situation.  Bloomberg indicates that the current Democrat candidates are of poor quality and will probably lose to President Trump.  Well, everyone knows that.  Bloomberg's answer, however, is to jump into the race himself.  It's a joke.

First, mayors of New York City historically don't play well outside of New York City.  We all remember the successful presidential campaigns of John Lindsay, Rudy Giuliani, and Bill DeBlasio, don't we?  Oh wait, each of those campaigns were total failures.  They weren't close to successful.  These candidates didn't win a single primary or caucus.  They didn't even come in second in a single primary or caucus.  And why was that?  In part, it was because a large portion of the voters don't want to recreate New York City and its political wasteland for the nation. 

And for those of you who scream that President Trump was from New York City when he won in 2016, remember this:  living in NYC is not the same as heading up the swamp that is the government in NYC.  If Washington DC is the "swamp", then government in NYC is some subterranean cesspool that is much, much worse.

Mike Bloomberg is worth something like $40 billion.  That means he can easily afford his self-indulgent nonsensical foray into the race.  The real question if he gets in, is on what date will he throw in the towel and get out.  There's no way he can win.

The Brain Dead Europeans Are Hiding from Responsibility

In 2015, the JCPOA was signed by Iran and the USA, Russia, France, Germany, the UK among others.  It guaranteed Iran would get nuclear weapons after a delay of ten years.  It also gave the Iranians hundreds of billions of dollars including a sizable amount of actual cash.  It lifted all the sanctions on Iran.  Basically it was a surrender by the West to the nuclear ambitions of the Iranians.

Last year, President Trump withdrew the USA from this one-sided agreement.  At that point, the Europeans all stayed in the agreement with Iran.  They said that they were going to hold the Iranians to compliance with the terms of that agreement (which basically just forced Iran to wait for ten years before proceeding to nukes.)

About six months ago, the Iranians let it be known that they were enriching uranium beyond the limits set by the JCPOA.  The Europeans ignored this even though it was a clear violation of the JCPOA.  Now, the Iranians have let it be known that they are once again using their facility at Fordow to carry out nuclear weapons research and production.  This is another egregious violation of the JCPOA.  Thus far, the Europeans have said nothing about this.  Remember, this is not a "possible" violation which the Iranians deny.  This is an actual violation that the Iranians concede.

So why are the Europeans hiding from their responsibility to enforce the JCPOA?  Are they brain dead?  Are they afraid to act?  Do they not care if Teheran has nukes that could incinerate Europe?  Do they think that only Israel will be targeted?

If there ever were a reason why European leaders like Merkel and Macron ought to be considered lightweights, this is it.  I'm willing to give Boris Johnson a bit more time since he is in the middle of an election and Brexit and has only been in office for about two months.

Things Heat Up In The UK

The British Parliament has formally been dissolved ahead of next month's elections.  The main issue in those elections is Brexit and how it is handled.  Now, a second issue is coming to the fore.  The question is the fitness of Labour's Jeremy Corbyn to be the Prime Minister.  Just yesterday, a senior adviser to the last Labour prime minister went on the BBC to tell voters to vote for the Tories since Corbyn is "not a patriot", favors the enemies of the UK over the country, and is an anti-Semite who promotes hatred of Jews in the Labour party.  It's the UK and left-wing version of Never-Trumpers except that the criticism is of Corbyn's policies and character, not just of his style and character (as in Trump's case).  Meanwhile, the only large circulation Jewish newspaper in London has put out an edition with a full front page editorial urging the British to please not vote for Labour because of the presence of so many anti-Semites among the leadership.  In the past, this paper has loyally been supportive of the Labour party.

The issue of Labour's anti-Semitism is not a new one.  In the last year, almost 7% of the Labour members of parliament left the party because of it.  Large numbers of Brits have switched from Labour to the Liberal Democrats and one of the reasons often given to pollsters is a distaste for Jeremy Corbyn and/or his anti-Semitism.  Right now, the polls in the UK for the upcoming election show the Tories with roughly a lead over Labour of 40% to 25%.  This means that the Tory Party is not doing as well as in the last election.  It has a large lead, however, because support for Labour has cratered.

It's a good thing to see that the Brits are rejecting hatred.  Let's hope this carries through until the election.

Funniest Headline Of The Day

In one of the most unintentionally funny headlines of all time, Real Clear Politics ran an article today under a headline that says that Julian Castro is pointing the efforts of his presidential campaign towards winning over the O'Rourke voters now that Beto has withdrawn from the race.

Think about that.  In Iowa and New Hampshire, the polls just prior to Beto's withdrawal showed him with the support of about half of one percent of the voters.  Castro had about that same level of support.  In other words, if Castro wins over all the Beto voters, Castro will still be at about 1% support in the caucus and primary.  What is the point?

Yesterday's Elections

The 2019 elections are in the books, and not much happened that could be described as "major".

1.  In Kentucky, an unpopular GOP governor lost a tight race to his Democrat challenger.  The Democrat did not run on any of the issues being raised by the national Dems.  If he had run in Connecticut, he would have been called a conservative.  Meanwhile, the GOP candidate won the race for Attorney General, the first Republican to hold that office.

2.  In Mississippi, the Republican beat the Democrat by about 7% to take the governor's race.  It was not tight, but it wasn't a landslide either.  The Democrat candidate had held statewide office for the last 16 years, so he started with a major advantage.

3.  In Virginia, the Democrats won control of the state legislature.  The GOP had held a very narrow margin prior to the election and now the Dems hold a very narrow margin after the vote.  Not much changed, but control did switch.

Locally in my own town of Greenwich, CT, the Republican won the race for First Selectment (which is what we call our mayor).  The GOP also swept all the other local races.  That switched us back to total GOP control from the Democrats success two years ago.

There were other odds and ends, like Philadelphia's mayor being re-elected, something about as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning.

There's nothing much to make of these results insofar as they could indicate anything about next year's elections.

Not To Be Missed

There's little coverage of it in the mainstream media, but huge story broke today about Jeffrey Epstein.  An ABC reporter had a well documented report that exposed not only Epsteins continuing pedophilia, but also that of a batch of other prominent men.  ABC killed the story for three years and the young girls continued to be molested by this crew.  NOW, after the story of this coverup has been broken by Project Veritas of all place, ABC just says that the story wasn't up to their standards.

Remember, this is the network that ran film of a bombing practice run at a range in Kentucky and said it was actual fighting in the Middle East.  So, I guess the only question for ABC is this:  you say the Epstein piece you squashed was not up to network standards. WHAT STANDARDS?

Burisma/Biden -- Well Now We Know

Ever since the start of the impeachment "investigation", the Democrats and Joe Biden have defended the former vice president's threat to withhold American aid to Ukraine unless the state prosecutor was fired.  Some in the media and many Democrats have said that the prosecutor was fired because he wasn't working hard enough to end corruption.  Others have announced that the same prosecutor had already cleared Burisma (where Hunter Biden was on the board) from any charges of corruption.

We now know that these claims are false.  Indeed, they seem to be intentional lies designed to provide cover for Biden and his use of the US government to get a major benefit for his son's company.

The full story was reported today by John Solomon who got documents from the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act.  These documents show that representatives from Burisma were asking the State Department for help in ending any claims of corruption against Burisma by the Ukrainian authorities.  One request (which was made less than a month before Biden used US aid to force the firing of the state prosecutor) specifically pointed out to the State Department that Hunter Biden was a director of Burisma who could be adversely affected by allegations of corruption.  This request came within a few days of the Ukrainian investigators conducting a raid at the home of the owner of Burisma in which they searched for evidence of corruption.  That owner had already fled Ukraine for Moscow and was not home during the raid.  And, of course, the official overseeing that raid was none other than the state prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired.

Think about that.  Claims that Biden got the prosecutor fired because he wasn't going after corruption are obviously false.  Just a few weeks before Biden pulled his power play with the Ukrainian government, this prosecutor was sending investigators on anti-corruption raids.  That's hardly ignoring corruption.  Likewise, claims that the prosecutor had already cleared Burisma are also obviously false.  One doesn't raid the home of the owner of a company like Burisma looking for evidence of corruption if you've already cleared that firm.  That doesn't happen, not even in Ukraine.

I suggest that you read the Solomon report linked above.  It provides fuller details.

One thing is certain:  When Old Joe Biden used the might of the US government to force the firing of the state prosecutor in Ukraine, the State Department knew that this prosecutor was going after Burisma and that Hunter Biden was a director of that company.  The State Department also knew that Burisma was desperately and repeatedly seeking help from State to protect it from the prosecutor's investigation into corruption.  Is there anyone out there who actually believes that State didn't tell the Vice President?  Was Joe Biden really so out of it that he didn't know his son was a director of Burisma when the US government obviously knew?  No way.  Old Joe may be losing it today, but back in the VP office, he was acting illegally to help his son.

Omar Endorses Bernie Sanders

Anti-Semite Congressman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota endorsed Bernie Sanders for her party's nomination yesterday at a rally in Minneapolis.  Omar said that she's thrilled to support a candidate who "will fight Western Imperialism."

Look, Omar is not known for either the depth of her understanding or knowledge of the world.  She's an ideologue who doesn't care much about facts or truth.  Still, it's funny to hear Omar rail against Western imperialism.  That's a line that's like 60 years out of date.  Up until 1960, nearly all of Africa and Asia consisted of colonies of European countries.  This led to huge empires controlled by Western powers.  At the time of World War II, over 25% of the people in the world lived in either the British or the French empires.  There really was Western imperialism.  Then those empires disappeared.  Today, the British empire consists of the UK and a few tiny places like the Falkland Islands (population 2500) and Gibraltar where the residents consistently vote to remain part of Britain.  France's overseas territories consist of places like the western half of St. Martaan in the Caribbean and an island or two elsewhere.  Simply put, there is no meaningful Western Imperialism left in the world.There are only three countries that are actually trying to expand into empires:  China, Russia and Iran.  None qualify as standard bearers for Western Imperialism.

I realize that Sanders is an unrepentant Communist who seems stuck in the 1960's.  Nevertheless, one would think that someone would tell him and Omar that dredging up rhetoric from old speeches of Fidel Castro or Nikita Khrushchev is not a good way to win over many thinking Americans. 

Of course, who knows how the other candidates will respond.  Maybe Biden will start shouting "54.40 or fight".  Warren can tell her rallies, "White man speak with forked tongue."

Yo Yovanovich!

Marie Yovanovich was the US ambassador to Ukraine during the end of the Obama years and the start of the Trump years.  She testified in the secret investigation regarding impeachment that was conducted by the Democrats.  At the time, the media was filled with all sorts of innuendo and claims about how devastating her testimony was to the President.  Well today the transcript of that testimony was finally released.  Ambassador Yovanovich starts by announcing that she was not yet present in Ukraine at the time that Joe Biden got the state prosecutor fired.  She knows nothing about whether or not Biden used his position as Vice President and the threat to cut off US aid to Ukraine in order to protect his son Hunter Biden and Hunter's employer Burisma.  Yovanovich only arrived in Kiev after all that had happened.  Yovanovich also was removed as ambassador in Ukraine months before the hold was placed upon aid to Ukraine in 2019 and many months prior to the conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian president in late July 2019.  That conversation is at the center of the entire impeachment inquiry.

Think about this.  The ambassador has no personal knowledge about any of the events that are the subject of the impeachment inquiry.  She has nothing to add as a witness.

Her deposition was mostly about her removal as ambassador in early 2019.  Yovanovich is obviously bitter that she was removed after being told that the president had lost confidence in her.  Still, while she clearly doesn't like President Trump and she criticizes foreign policy moves he has made regarding Ukraine, that dislike and disagreement cannot be the basis for impeachment.  In short, Yovanovich has really nothing to say of importance.

So what that makes clear is that all those breathless articles in the media about the importance of the Yovanovich testimony were nothing more than propaganda leaked by the Democrats to try to strengthen their non-existent factual base for impeachment.  A clearer way to say this would be to call all those stories BS.

So Trump Can't Win??? Really?

The New York Times/Siena group had polls done in eight key states matching up President Trump against Biden, Warren, and Sanders.  The current conventional wisdom in the media is that Trump cannot win re-election because more than half of voters want him impeached.  Let's see how that lines up with the new polls.  We can focus on the new "front runner" among Democrats, Elizabeth Warren.

In Michigan and Iowa, Trump beats Warren by 7%.  Trump carried both states in 2016, although it was extremely close in Michigan.  If Trump wins Michigan again in 2020, it would seem that the race would be essentially over.

In Florida, Trump wins by 4% and in North Carolina by 3%.  These are two key states that Trump won in 2016 and he is still ahead there.

In Pennsylvania, Trump beats Warren by 1%.  That's roughly the margin by which Trump beat Clinton in 2016 in PA.  If Trump wins both Michigan and PA, Warren would have no chance for victory.

Wisconsin shows up as a tie in the poll.  It went for Trump in 2016 by less than half a percent, so again, this is just a repeat of that race.

Arizona is the one state Trump carried where Warren is ahead.  She beats Trump by 2%.  Meanwhile Nevada flips the other way.  Clinton won it in 2016 by Trump bests Warren here by 2%.  This is an Emerson poll rather than a Times poll which happens to have been released today.

There's also a Texas poll which shows Trump up over Warren by 7%.  This poll was done by the University of Texas.  It's a rather strong answer to all those recent articles about how Trump is "in trouble" in Texas.

These polls don't really indicate anything as to the final outcome a year from now.  They do, however, show the reality of the media campaign to undermine Trump support by claiming that he will lose.  Trump today is just as strong as he was in 2016.  Indeed, if Warren continues to come out with fantasy nonsense like her Medicare for All plan, Trump could beat her in a landslide.