If It’s Not About The Money, What Is It About?

In January of 2018, The Washington Times noted that the estimated $18 billion over the next decade spent on a border wall between the United States and Mexico would be roughly 0.0338 percent of the $53.128 trillion the Congressional Budget Office currently estimates the federal government will spend over that same 10-year period. So what is all the fuss about?

Yesterday WWF came to the Oval Office in the White House when Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer discussed the border wall with President Trump. YouTube posted the video:

The battle is not about money–it’s about votes. The Democrats have lost some of the voting blocs they have counted on to win elections–they can no longer be sure of the working man’s vote or the union vote. So how are they going to win elections? They are counting on the minority vote. The Democrats are afraid that if the wall is built, they will lose the Hispanic vote.

According to the Pew Research Center, this is how Hispanics voted in 2018:

According to a USA Today article posted November 9, 2016, President Trump did surprisingly well among Hispanic voters:

Hispanics favored Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton 65% to 29%, a 36-point difference that helped her secure winning margins in states like Nevada and Colorado and kept her competitive late into the night in other key battleground states.

But that margin, based on exit polling conducted by Edison Research, was smaller than the 71%-27% split that President Obama won in 2012. And it was smaller than the 72%-21% her husband, former president Bill Clinton, won in 1996.

Because the Democrats are becoming more dependent on the votes of minority groups to win elections, it is easy to understand why they would oppose any legislation or spending that most cost them votes in the minority community.

Promises Made, Promises Broken

During the mid-term election campaign, a number of Democrats stated that it was time for new leadership in the Democrat party and that they would not support Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Well, guess what–yesterday The Western Journal posted an article with the following headline, “Democrats Nominate Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker.”

The article reports:

Nancy Pelosi has been nominated by House Democrats to lead them in the new Congress, but she still faces a showdown vote for House speaker when lawmakers convene in January.

Pelosi ran unopposed as the nominee for speaker in a closed-door Democratic caucus election Wednesday despite unrest from those clamoring for new leadership.

The California Democrat faces tougher math in January, when she’ll need 218 votes, the majority of the full House, to be elected speaker. House Democrats are taking control with at least a 233-vote majority, but some Democrats have pledged that they won’t back Pelosi for speaker.

Anyone ready to take bets? Actually Nancy Pelosi as speaker would be a good thing for Republicans–she is growing old and sometimes here statements indicate that. It truly is time for new leadership in both parties.

Looking Forward And Protecting Your Gains

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about some of Representative Nancy Pelosi’s plans should she become Speaker of the House. Say what you will about the lady, she wants to protect the Democrat party from themselves.

The article reports:

Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in the midst of fending off a coup to derail her return to the House speakership, is proposing a series of rules changes that could kneecap liberals from pursuing a bold agenda in the new Congress.

Among the many proposed rules changes the incoming majority plans to make in a draft document obtained by the Washington Post, is one backed by Pelosi and Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would “[r]equire a three-fifths supermajority to raise individual income taxes on the lowest-earning 80% of taxpayers.”

The proposed changes also hint at restoring some sort of “reasonable rule” aimed at making sure legislation is paid for, though there isn’t much elaboration.

Below is a chart from Pew Research Center illustrating who pays taxes. The chart is from 2016:

Raising taxes on the lowest 80 percent of taxpayers would theoretically even the tax burden, but it would be another blow against the Middle Class. Keep in mind that one of the signs of a country with a healthy economy is a thriving Middle Class. I would like to see all Americans pay some income tax–everyone needs ‘skin in the game’, but simply raising taxes on the lower 80 percent of Americans makes no sense–it will only slow down the economy and not raise revenue.

The article concludes:

Now, I suppose Democrats technically would have some wiggle room if the new rule were adopted. Because the proposed rule specifies “income taxes” it leaves an opening to raise money in other ways — payroll taxes, VAT taxes, and so on. But politically, that’s really a nonstarter. If Democrats make the 80 percent pledge and end up raising taxes on the middle class, Republicans will be able to effectively campaign against it as a broken promise, and any Democratic candidate trying to claim, “Well, we said income tax, but not payroll tax,” will be scorched.

I mean, I didn’t expect Pelosi to suddenly go full speed ahead with the Sanders agenda, but I also wouldn’t have predicted that she would have cut liberals down right out of the gate.

Representative Pelosi is attempting to protect her party’s chances in the 2020 presidential election. As much as I don’t wish her success, her fellow party members would do well to pay attention to what she is doing–she is trying to protect the future of the party. Older Americans are the majority of the voting population, and generally speaking, they do not support socialism–they have seen too much.

The Race Begins

Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line today about Nancy Pelosi’s quest to become Speaker of the House again. Although many Democrats ran on the promise that they would not vote for Ms. Pelosi, there seemed to be a lack of opponents.

The article reports:

Yesterday, in a post about the opposition to Nancy Pelosi’s bid to become House Speaker, I noted that, thus far, no one has stepped forward to run against Pelosi. You can’t beat somebody with nobody.

I added that if somebody emerges to oppose Pelosi, it had better be a woman. Otherwise, Pelosi and her backers are sure to play the gender card, and the new House members who are resisting the former Speaker, many of whom are females who themselves played that card during the election, will probably cave.

Now, a potential opponent has emerged — Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio. Not only is Fudge a woman, she’s African-American.

Fudge hasn’t formally entered the race, but she’s already playing the race card. She told the Washington Post, “if we’re going to have a diverse party, it ought to look like the party.” Try parsing that gibberish.

We know what she’s getting at, though: “Support for me because I’m Black.”

The article goes on to anticipate Ms.Pelosi’s response to her opponent.

The article concludes:

I’m not sure how seriously to take a potential bid by Fudge for the Speakership. Pelosi has some support withing the congressional black caucus and Fudge’s opposition, for whatever reason, to pro-gay rights legislation might be a deal-breaker for many of those insurgent Democratic members.

In any event, Pelosi’s struggle within her caucus, and the fact that it’s being played out so blatently in identity politics terms, is a sign of trouble for Democrats down the road. As Steve likes to say, “pass the popcorn.”

Stay tuned.

I Guess Caring About The Welfare Of The Voters Is Old-Fashioned

The Washington Times posted an article today about the Democrat’s plans if they win the mid-term election. One statement is particularly revealing.

The article reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said American voters will simply have to deal with the “collateral damage” that comes their way if Democrats craft economic policies in the years ahead.

The California Democrat recently sat down with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in the Big Apple to discuss public policy. The event, hosted by the Jewish organization 92nd Street Y, included a portion on climate change that sparked the lawmaker’s pronouncement.

“We owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there is some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose,” she said Sunday.

Her commentary came against a political backdrop in which the U.S. unemployment rate is at a 49-year low — 3.7 percent — in conjunction with moderate inflation.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said earlier this month, for instance, that Americans are enjoying a “historically rare” economic climate.

Wow. Representative Pelosi admitted that the economic policies will have “collateral damage.” If the Democrats understand that their economic plans will be destructive, why do they support those economic plans? Seems like a fair question. Note also that she predicts “collateral damage” to those who do not share our view. Does it make any sense at all to put this lady in a position of power?

Is This What You Want?

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article listing the Democrat priorities if they should win the House in the midterm elections. To say the least, it is an interesting list.

The article reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said the Democrats would prioritize new gun control legislation and protecting illegal immigrants if they regain control of the House of Representatives after the midterms next month.

Democrats will look to pass a gun background check bill and protect Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, Pelosi told Politico. She also said the Democrats would try to pass campaign finance reform and lower drug prices.

I suspect that the Democrats’ idea of campaign finance reform is to make sure that the playing field is no longer level and that union money will again be in control (the way it was before the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court).

The article continues:

The house minority leader is also preparing to return to the role of speaker of the House, a position she held from 2007 to 2011. Although her bid to become speaker has faced resistance from some House Democrats clamoring for new leadership, Pelosi appears to have solidified the support of her caucus, Politico notes.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) has listed five investigations the Democrats would launch if they win the House, saying they “will need to ruthlessly prioritize the most important matters first.”

Schiff wants to investigate whether the Russians have financial leverage over President Donald Trump. In the House Judiciary Committee, Schiff said Democrats will look into “abuse of the pardon power, attacks on the rule of law, and campaign finance violations.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, suggested before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed that the committee would investigate him for “any credible allegation, certainly of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler reiterated the idea Democrats would investigate Kavanaugh after the FBI concluded its investigation into allegations of sexual assault.

Can anyone explain to me how any of these agenda items help the American people in any way?

The Impact Of President Trump’s Economic Policies On Working Ameicans

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about the impact of President Trump’s economic policies on average Americans.

The article highlights the story of Tom Condon, a factory worker for 28 years, employed by Jamison Doors.

The article reports:

Before the election of President Donald Trump, John T. Williams, chairman and chief executive officer of Jamison Doors, said the policies of the federal government “had not been kind to us.”

“The economy has not been good to us and we’ve had a pretty rocky road,” he told The Daily Signal.

But since Trump became president, “the business climate changed in a significantly positive way.”

“Now not all of it could be attributed to the election,” Williams explained, “but the general attitude seemed to change because of the prospect of fewer regulations in tax reform and a generally positive attitude toward businesses and building the economy.”

Condon, and two other factory workers The Daily Signal spoke with, agreed.

“We got a good bonus this year,” said Condon. “We appreciate that. And the way the company talks, in the future we can look forward to those pretty regularly.”

Economic policies matter.

The article explains the impact of the tax cuts:

Because of tax reform passed by Congress and signed by Trump just before Christmas, the company is expanding, investing in new equipment and making plans to open a new factory.

Workers are personally benefiting, too. Condon, along with the rest of the company’s estimated 150 full-time employees in the United States, already has received two bonuses related to tax reform this year.

“Passage of the tax reform was important because it provided more money that could be used to grow our business and improve our business,” Williams said. To share in the benefits of that, Williams gave two special bonuses to everybody who’s on the payroll, each time equal to a week’s worth of salary.

In January, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described those benefits as “crumbs.”

“The bonus that corporate America received versus the crumbs that they are giving workers to kind of put the schmooze on is so pathetic,” she said.

But for workers like Condon, those bonuses are meaningful. Married for 44 years, Condon has a son and a daughter to care for, both with cerebral palsy. Twice a year, the family goes on vacation to Deep Creek Lake in western Maryland. This year, thanks to the bonuses Condon received, he’s able to rent a bigger, nicer house, and able to extend the vacation by a few days.

The American people will decide in November whether or not they want to keep this economic growth going.

Some Of The Signs Don’t Agree With The Stated Purpose

The rallies held around the country yesterday supposedly had the aim of ending gun violence, but when you looked at some of the signs the protesters carried, you began to wonder what the actual agenda was.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air posted a few pictures from the “March for Our Lives”:

So what have we here? The march opposed the Second Amendment–an Amendment that actually protects their right to protest–without the Second Amendment it is very unlikely that the right of free speech or the right of assembly would exist. The march blames the GOP for the loss of life due to gun violence. To say that is a stretch is a bit of an understatement. Also, doesn’t that make this a political march? If so, why did schools bus children to various cities to participate? Is that not a use of tax dollars for political purposes? The march targeted the NRA–a group that promotes gun safety. I guess they needed a target–regardless of the validity of targeting that organization.

The true purpose of this march was to register young Democrat voters–the Democratic party is losing voters because of its dramatic shift left. As the party is being taken over by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, the traditional base of the Democratic party is leaving the party. President Trump’s win in 2016 included votes from many of the Democrats who were Reagan Democrats. This is frightening to the party leaders. The two groups currently being used to build up Democratic voters by the party leaders are Hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal) and youth. This march was an example of the lack of knowledge of American history and the U.S. Constitution in our young people. These things are no longer being taught effectively in school. Therefore these young people are easily manipulated through emotion rather than logic. We may be in danger of losing the republic that we know and love if the Democratic party is successful in their goals.

There is some good news. Breitbart reported today:

A report indicates attendance at Saturday’s student march for gun control was approximately 200,000, which is less than half of the expected crowd size.

…But CBS News reports that the actual number of attendees turned out to be about 300,000 lower than Witt expected. They put the number at “202,796” at its peak.

Nevertheless, USA Today reports that march organizers claimed “800,000 protesters attended the gun-control demonstration in Washington, DC, on Saturday.”

Despite what you have heard in the media, hopefully many of our youth are smarter than we give them credit for.

I Wouldn’t Celebrate Just Yet

The Hill is reporting today that Democrat Conor Lamb has declared victory in the House of Representatives race in Pennsylvania. It is quite possible that he has won, but all of the votes have not been counted yet, and the race is extremely close. This race is a beautiful example of the fact that every vote counts. When it is all over, it will be very close.

There are a few things to look at in this race. Conor Lamb is a very attractive candidate. He is a Marine and a former federal prosecutor. The Democratic candidate ran as a conservative, but when you look at his website, his views are not necessarily all that conservative. He sounds like another tax and spend Democrat. Mr. Lamb is not pro-life–according to The Weekly Standard, he has stated that he does not support proposals to ban abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which fetuses can feel pain. His website states that he wants to fix ObamaCare (not repeal it), forgive student debt, encourage more green energy, support unions, spend on job training, and spend on infrastructure.

It is obvious that Conor Lamb wants to be another Joe Manchin. However, the thing to remember is that Joe Manchin votes with the Democrats when his vote is needed. He votes with the Republicans when the Democrats do not need his vote. Electing a conservative Democrat to the House of Representatives does not in any way make the House any more conservative–the new house member will tow the party line when asked. Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker if the Democrats gain the majority in the House. Impeachment proceedings against President Trump will begin (Lord knows on what basis), and the tax cuts will be taken away from average Americans. Conor Lamb successfully (and smartly) avoided nationalizing his race. However, that does not mean that the consequences of electing Democrats will not be national.

Grasping At Straws After You Have Lost The Argument

Ordinary Americans are already benefiting from the tax reforms passed by Congress. People who work for the corporations who got the tax breaks are getting raises and bonuses. People who have 401k plans are watching their portfolios grow exponentially. So what’s the downside? If you’re a Democrat, it’s the fear that the economy may continue to grow in a way that positively impacts the average American. That fear is illustrated by a recent statement by Representative Nancy Pelosi.

Townhall.com posted an article today reporting Representative Pelosi’s comments on the impact of the tax reform.

The article reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who infamously called the tax law “Armaggedon,” is now acknowledging the bonuses, but insists they are “insignificant” when you look at the bigger picture of how corporations unfairly benefitted from the bill.

“In terms of the bonus that corporate America received versus the crumbs they are giving to workers, to kind of put the schmooze is so pathetic, it’s so pathetic,” Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday when asked about companies investing more in their workforce.

Pelosi explained where she was coming from by singling out one of the bonuses that is not that impressive because it was “already in a union contract.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) were among the other liberal lawmakers who couldn’t fully appreciate the positive consequences of a “make-rich-people-richer tax bill.” 

Representative Pelosi may consider the bonuses (and raises) insignificant in relation to the corporations, but there is another part of the story.  According to a website called celebritynetworth.com, in her 2015 wealth disclosure, Nancy Pelosi and her husband estimated their personal net worth to be between $43 million and $202 million. No wonder she regards the rewards for the American worker as insignificant!

What Is True vs. What Is Reported

Media bias is old news, but every now and then it can be really interesting. The following story illustrates why President Trump needs to hold on to his Twitter account.

This morning the Associated Press reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top House and Senate Democrats said Wednesday they had reached agreement with President Donald Trump to protect thousands of younger immigrants from deportation and fund some border security enhancements — not including Trump’s long-sought border wall.

The agreement, the latest instance of Trump ditching his own party to make common cause with the opposition, was announced by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi following a White House dinner that Republican lawmakers weren’t invited to attend. It would enshrine protections for the nearly 800,000 immigrants brought illegally to this country as kids who had benefited from former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, which provided temporary work permits and shielded recipients from deportation.

Fox News reported today:

President Trump on Thursday denied reports that he struck a “deal” overnight with top Democrats to protect so-called “Dreamers,” while insisting “massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent.”

Trump’s Twitter post was in response to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announcing after a dinner meeting at the White House that they had “agreed to a plan to work out an agreement to protect our nation’s DREAMers from deportation.”

They also said “we would review border security measures that didn’t include building a wall.”

The president clarified Thursday morning that he intends for the wall to be built — and while he wants to helps Dreamers, there’s no deal yet. 

The political consequences for President Trump if he does not build a wall would be enormous.

On Tuesday The Hill posted an article about support for the wall among Americans.

These are a few highlights from the article:

Last February, Pew reported similar findings: 62 percent of Americans oppose building a wall. Only 35 percent support it.

But are we telling the whole story?

First, it’s worth looking at what Pew asked: “All in all, would you favor or oppose building a wall along the entire border with Mexico?” To me, it’s a confusing question. After all, there already is a wall or fencing along approximately 700 miles of the southern border. It might make more sense to ask, “Would you favor or oppose building a wall along the remaining, unwalled portion of the border with Mexico?”

…While we’re in the weeds, assuming there’s value to asking a poll question about something that nobody is proposing, there’s additional nuance to consider. Pew ended up with a Democrat-heavy sample: 38 percent Republican/Republican leaning and 52 percent Democrat/Democrat leaning. The 14 percentage point difference means Pew interviewed 38 percent more Democrat thinkers than Republican thinkers. I can’t find any estimate that says the actual U.S. population is politically lopsided along those lines.

That is how you skew a poll.

The article at The Hill concludes:

There are two things we could do to provide more meaningful reporting. First, when addressing polls on political topics, we should disclose the breakdown of Democrats and Republicans upfront. To state the obvious: findings from a sample that’s made up of 98 percent Republicans will be entirely different than findings from a sample of 98 percent Democrats. How can meaning be put behind results on any political topic without the partisan makeup of the sample being considered?

Second, our reporting could include opposing findings and trends, if they exist. For example, in the most recent Pew poll, “three-quarters (74 percent) of Republicans and Republican-leaners supported a border wall” and that support had grown substantially in recent months. Conservative Republican support for a wall was up nine points since Trump was elected President (from 71 percent to 80 percent).

Support also grew among moderate and liberal Republicans (from 51 percent to 60 percent). An accurate headline could just as well have been: “Poll shows growing Republican support for a wall under a Trump presidency.”

All things considered, I came up with my own headline that’s more transparent than many of the ones I saw: “In polls with Democrat-heavy sampling, there’s overwhelming opposition to building a wall along the ‘entire’ border; a concept that nobody is, in fact, proposing.”

The article at The Hill was written by Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson), an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of the New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program “Full Measure.” If you are not familiar with her story, please search for her on the Internet and read her history. She definitely knows what she is talking about.

Ignoring A Major Story

Yesterday Newsbusters posted an article which reveals how biased our mainstream media has become. If you depend on the mainstream media for your news, the following events may come as a surprise to you.

The article lists the timeline on the scandal involving the Information Technology specialists working for many of the Democrats in Congress. This is the timeline (the story has been covered from the beginning by The Daily Caller):

  • August 1GOP Rep: House IT Scandal Among ‘All-Time Congressional Scandals’ Of Last 30 Years.” That time frame would take things back to before the infamous House Bank scandal, which ended the careers of dozens of Congresspersons who routinely wrote checks despite having insufficient funds in their House Bank accounts to cover them. Of the 22 congresspersons singled out for particularly egregious abuse in this scandal (and although, to be clear, many other congresspersons engaged in the practice), 18 were Democrats.
  • August 3“Florida Congressman Pays Girlfriend’s Family, Money Launderer For Unexplained Work.” If it involves Florida and political corruption, you almost have to know that the name of Congressman Alcee Hastings, who was one a federal judge until he was impeached and convicted by the House and Senate, respectively, in 1989, will come up. In this instance, Hastings allegedly “used his taxpayer-funded office to pay high salaries to a convicted money launderer, as well as Hastings’s girlfriend and her daughter, and the Florida politician won’t say what kind of work the convicted money launder(er) does.” This is potentially relevant to the Imran Awan case because it “raise(s) questions about how common it is for members of Congress to place ‘ghost employees’ on the payroll” — an allegation which potentially applies to Awan’s vastly overpaid relatives.
  • August 4“DWS: Imran Awan Is The Kindest, Bravest, Warmest, Most Wonderful Human Being I’ve Ever Known In My Life.” This item by Jim Treacher, whose penetrating sarcasm is a national treasure, isn’t newsworthy by itself, but it does link to a Broward County (FL) Sun Sentinel item where Wasserman Schultz ridicules the notion that Awan was trying to flee the U.S. when he was arrested at Dulles Airport after having transferred about $300,000 to an account or accounts in Pakistan. If a Republican congressman made such a claim about an aide in a similar situation, the late-night leftist activists posing as comedians would be all over it.
  • August 4 — “Wasserman Schultz Says Laptop She Sought To Keep From Police Was Awan’s, Not Hers.” Imagine that: After resisting police efforts to seize the laptop based on issues relating to whether it belongs to a “member” (of Congress), Wasserman Schultz has now totally changed her tune, claiming that, in reporter Luke Rosiak’s words, “it was Imran’s laptop but purchased using taxpayer funds from her office,” and that, in her words, “This was not my laptop. I have never seen that laptop. I don’t know what’s on the laptop.”
  • August 5Jeb Bush Just RIPPED Debbie Wasserman Schultz Over The House IT Scandal.” What Bush said or didn’t say isn’t nearly as important as the should-be-obvious point that if someone like Chuck Schumer or Andrew Cuomo was “ripping” a Republican involved in a scandal like this, you’d have to rent a major hotel meeting room to accommodate the establishment media horde which would be hanging on their every word instead of ignoring the successful governor of one of the nation’s largest states.
  • August 8“Grassley Seeks Immigration Files For Pakistani Suspects In House IT Probe.” Yes, “suspects” is plural: “the immigration files were requested for … (Imran Awan’s) wife, Hina Alvi, his brothers Abid and Jamal, sister-in-law Natalia Sova and friend Rao Rabbas. All are suspects in the criminal investigation, which became public in February.”
  • August 17“Two Former Wasserman Schultz IT Aides Indicted For Conspiracy Against US.”
  • August 18“Media Ignores Indictment Of Wassermann Schultz IT Aide.” How often does the actual indictment of criminal arrested on serious charges while potentially facing far more serious charges relating to a congressional scandal get totally ignored by the establishment press? I’m sorry, I meant to ask how often that happens if the person involved is or is associated with a Republican or conservative. Answer: almost never.
  • August 22“Dem Rep Dodges Questions On Arrested House IT Staffer.” New York Congresswoman Yvette Clarke “agreed last year to sign away $120,000 of missing computer equipment for the two former IT aides who authorities now believe stole the gear from Congress,” and “refused to answer questions” from a reporter about Awan.
  • August 24“DWS ‘Islamophobia’ Claim Prompts Angered Marine To Go Public On Awans.” Yes, Wasserman Schultz and Awan’s Bill Clinton-connected lawyer are claiming that the matter is of no substance, and that it’s really about “Islamophobia.” It’s really hard to blame the Marine involved for getting extremely angry over this when he sees someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect this country’s interest so obviously demonstrate that she cares about neither.

Isn’t this story newsworthy?

How The Deep State Works

It is nearly impossible to fire a federal employee. The logic behind this is that civil servants should not be at the mercy of elections. They should have some modicum of job security. Although in theory that is a really good idea, it prevents the occasional housecleaning that Washington, D.C. needs. The group in Washington that is dedicated to maintaining the status quo is a small portion of the deep state. The deep state is much more complex and entangled than that, but for the purposes of this article, the deep state is simply the entrenched bureaucracy that is intent on maintaining the status quo. The deep state is one of the few things in Washington that is truly bi-partisan.

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article yesterday that illustrates how the deep state works.

The article reports:

Chairman Nunes is the only member of the Intelligence Oversight Gang-of-Eight who has reviewed the executive level intelligence product which caused him concern.  Nunes alleged in the last week he received evidence that Obama administration political figures gained access to unmasked American identities through foreign intercepts involving the Trump transition team between November 2016 and January 2017.

Media and congressional leadership intentionally skip the obvious questions:

Why don’t the other seven members also go look at the same executive intel?

  • Why, instead of looking at the same data, does the entire UniParty political apparatus and DC media now seem intent on eliminating Devin Nunes?
  • Why doesn’t Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or Mark Warner simply go look at the same executive intelligence product?
  • Why doesn’t Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell or Richard Burr simply go look at the same executive intelligence product?
  • Why doesn’t any member of the DC media ask such brutally obvious questions?
  • Why is the DC UniParty both intent on not looking at the intelligence and simultaneously intent on removing Nunes, and getting the investigation removed from the House Intelligence Committee (Nunes/Schiff) and over to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Burr/Warner)?
  • What is it about that Executive Office Level Intelligence Product the gang-of-eight are all so desperately afraid of?
  • Why would the Senate launch another entire congressional intelligence inquiry, when the head of the Senate Intelligence Committees, Burr and Warner, are desperate NOT to see the intelligence product that causes Nunes such concern?

In a previous article, The Conservative Treehouse explains why much of those in Washington who should see the intelligence reports have not:

If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it.  If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes.

The same political perspective applies to Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Minority leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Mark Warner. For each of them to see the information would eliminate their ability to talk about it, or criticize Nunes. The politics of the situation are more valuable so long as they don’t engage in actual truthful knowledge.

Chairman Nunes cannot share his intelligence finding with the House Committee, because the intelligence product is beyond their intel authority. Nunes has to ask for it in portions as each compartment would permit and authorize; And so long as Pelosi, Schumer, Warner and Schiff refuse to look at the intelligence that ‘only they’ are allowed to see, they can continue to ridicule and take political advantage.

This reality is also the reason why the media is so able to manipulate the narrative around Chairman Nunes; and simultaneously why he’s able to say he’s done nothing wrong.

Until we go back to a system under which civil servants can be fired and there is a periodic housecleaning in Washington, we will be a bi-partisan government of unelected bureaucrats and our votes will not be worth much. If President Trump is serious about changing Washington, he needs to begin clearing out the deep state by firing civil servants who are working against the interests of elected officials. The uproar will be monstrous, but it is truly the only way to drain the swamp.

 

 

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

Donald Trump was elected President In November. To say the least, he did not fit the profile of recently elected Presidents. His election was a statement by the American people that they wanted Washington, D.C., to listen to what they were saying. I left the Republican Party because I was tired of supporting people who promised things and then made excuses for why they couldn’t keep their promises. I am hoping President Trump will end that trend, but I am not sure Congress is with him.

The New York Post posted a story today that echoes my feelings.

The story reports:

House Speaker Paul Ryan says lawmakers will focus first on replacing . . . er, “repairing” ObamaCare and on President Trump’s infrastructure plans, and only take up tax bills sometime in the spring.

That means Trump won’t be able to sign anything until before the fall — at the earliest, if no other delays pop up.

No. Just No. Fall is too late. People and businesses need to know what the changes in the tax laws are going to be in order to make plans. Is this the year to take capital gains? Is my mortgage still going to be deductible? Are medical expenses and charitable giving still going to be deductible? These are questions I expect to have answered by mid-summer at the latest.

The article reminds us:

Recall the early 1980s: President Ronald Reagan got his tax cuts passed, but allowed years for them to phase in. The economy didn’t take off until 1983 — and hit recession first. In ’82, Republicans lost 26 House seats.

Similar results in 2018 could make Nancy Pelosi the speaker — and block any further reform, while empowering Democrats to launch endless investigations to gum up the Executive Branch and feed the press a heavy diet of administration “scandal.”

Above all else, Trump promised “jobs, jobs, jobs,” and the American people expect him to deliver. If he doesn’t, they’ll start looking elsewhere for answers.

This is the Republican Party’s final opportunity to get it right. Speaker Ryan can either get on the train or get run over by it. Pushing back tax reform is a mistake. Congress may never get another chance to fix a badly broken law. I tend to wonder how many lobbyists are behind the effort to delay tax reform. If it is not done quickly, it will not be done. A reformed tax code would be a serious step forward in draining the swamp. I suspect there are a lot of residents of the swamp that are trying to prevent that draining.

This Isn’t Really A Surprise

How many promises that were made so that ObamaCare would pass Congress have been broken? Do you remember that not one Republican voted for ObamaCare and that the certification of the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was delayed long enough so that he would not be seated in time to vote against ObamaCare? Do you remember Nancy Pelosi saying, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy?” Was it a fog of controversy or a fog of deception? Right now it looks as if it might have been a fog of deception. Remember, “If you like your plan, you can keep it?” Remember, “If you like your doctor, you can keep him?” How is that working for you?

CBS New York posted a story yesterday about the upcoming rise in ObamaCare premiums.

The story reports:

The Department of Health and Human Services revealed Monday that premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, and that about 1 in 5 consumers will have plans only from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.

However, in Arizona, unsubsidized premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old buying a benchmark “second-lowest cost silver plan” will jump by 116 percent, from $196 to $422, according to the administration report.

The Obama Administration claims that along with these increases in premiums there will be increases in the subsidies paid to Americans buying health insurance. Who pays the subsidies? The subsidies are paid for by taxpaying Americans (most of whom are not eligible for the subsidies). This plan essentially uses the cover of health insurance to redistribute wealth. It takes money away from the working middle class and gives it to the underclasses, insuring future votes from the underclass who don’t want the free ride to end.

ObamaCare was designed to fail. The eventual goal is government healthcare–where the government controls who receives treatment and what treatment they receive. It it important to note that many Canadians come to America for surgery to avoid their own government healthcare. That should tell us all we need to know about the quality of government healthcare.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for government healthcare. It is also a vote for higher taxes on people who work for a living. It is also a vote for limits on free speech and limits on gun ownership. That is the world she represents.

 

Playing Politics Instead Of Solving Problems

The Blaze posted a story about a statement made in the House of Representatives on Friday night by Representative Tom Marino that evidently hit a sore spot with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports Representative Marino’s statement:

“You know something that I find quite interesting about the other side?” Marino said. “Under the leadership of the former Speaker [Pelosi], and under the leadership of their former leader [Rep. Steny Hoyer], when in 2009 and 2010, they had the House, the Senate and the White House, and they knew this problem existed. They didn’t have the strength to go after it back then. But now are trying to make a political issue out of it now.”

At that point Ms. Pelosi charged across the floor and challenged him. The video of the incident is included in the article at The Blaze.

The article includes the following:

The spokeswoman also claimed that, “Pelosi accepted the Congressman’s apology” — but a spokesman for Marino said there was no apology.

“[Rep. Marino] did not apologize to Leader Pelosi and does not intend to do so as he has nothing to apologize for,” the spokesman told ABC News. “She was entirely out of line in approaching him while he was recognized and delivering remarks on the Floor.”

Marino later tweeted about the bizarre incident.

Please follow the link above to the article and read the tweets–they are hilarious.

However, there is a lesson here. Neither political party right now is looking out for the interests of America–the current members of Congress are only interested in getting re-elected and maintaining and increasing their power. There are a few exceptions, but they are very few. And unfortunately, the blame for this lies at the feet of the American voter. It is time for all of us to take a good look at our Senators and Representative and see how they have voted and if they have truly represented us. If we want Washington to respond to us, we have to send people there who represent us. It is up to us. As Pogo used to say (if you are old enough to know who Pogo is), “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Hamas Is Not A Humanitarian Organization

In order to gain support of the population, Hamas does engage in charitable endeavors. The organization works in the way that the Mafia works in America–they do favors and collect on them. They also set up charities to raise money and to provide cover for their terrorist activities. Hamas also has a provision in its charter that calls for the total destruction of Israel. So why do I mention this?

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about a recent statement by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Hamas “is a humanitarian organization,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CNN’s Candy Crowley on Sunday in a discussion of how the U.S. should handle the Islamist extremist group’s conflict with Israel.

How does she know? The Qataris “have told me over and over again.”

Here’s a lesson for Pelosi, D-Calif., on why the word of the Qataris should not inform her thoughts on U.S. policy:

The article reminds us that Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and has been on the U.S. State Department‘s list of foreign terrorist organizations since 1997. The article also points out that Qatar is a major sponsor of Hamas–financially and ideologically.

As a member of the House of Representatives, Representative Pelosi should be better informed.

These Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

On Tuesday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the Veterans Administration scandal that is the Obama Administration’s scandal de jour. The treatment of our veterans by the Veterans Administration hospitals is a disgrace and is inexcusable. However, some of the excuses given by the Obama Administration and its supporters simply do not hold water.

The Washington Examiner today quoted Nancy Pelosi on the scandal:

Pelosi took a shot at Bush while saying that the scandal is a high priority for Obama. “He sees the ramifications of some seeds that were sown a long time ago, when you have two wars over a long period of time and many, many more, millions more veterans,” she told reporters during her Thursday press briefing. “And so, I know that he is upset about it.”

The actual numbers tell a different story–it really isn’t George Bush’s fault.

Investor’s Business Daily has the chart:

The number of veterans is declining and the spending is going up, so what is going on?

The article at Investor’s Business Daily explains some of where the numbers on the chart come from:

Some will argue that the increase in health spending was the direct result of all those wounded warriors coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

But these vets aren’t driving VA costs higher.

A Congressional Budget Office report found that they cost $4,800, on average, in 2010 compared with $8,800 for other veterans who used the system.

It also found that while these Iraq and Afghan vets account for 7% of those treated, they were responsible for only 4% of its health costs.

…What’s more, the main reason for the growth in enrollment in the VA’s health service wasn’t those two wars; it was the Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, signed by President Clinton, “which required the VA to provide care to certain types of veterans, such as those with service-connected disabilities, and permitted VA to offer services to additional veterans if funding permitted,” the CBO report noted.

…That points to the fact that, unlike Medicare, Medicaid and, now, ObamaCare — which rely on private doctors and hospitals to provide subsidized or free care — the VA is a completely government-run system, with its own hospitals, clinics and providers.

As the department notes, it operates the nation’s largest integrated health care system, with more than 1,700 hospitals, clinics and other facilities.

For years, proponents of a single-payer health care system lauded the VA for this very reason, saying it was a model for the rest of the country.

“Yes, this is ‘socialized medicine,'” wrote liberal economist Paul Krugman in 2011, “But it works — and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of U.S. health care more broadly.”

At best, the VA hospital scandal is the proof that socialized medicine is exactly the wrong prescription to solve the problems in the healthcare system in America. It’s not George Bush’s fault–the failure in the VA is due to the fact that socialized medicine does not work.

 

The War On The Koch Brothers Continues

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about Harry Reid and the Democrat Party‘s continuing war on the Koch brothers. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will appear at a screening of the movie, “Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition.” The screening will take place Tuesday evening in the Capitol Visitor Center.The movie is a documentary that Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev.) participated in.

Think about this a minute. A sitting Senate Majority Leader is putting the power of his office behind an attack on two successful American businessmen who have not broken any laws. What in the world is this about? It’s about the fact that the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United broke the monopoly that labor unions had on campaign donations. Notice that the attack is on the Koch brothers, no mention is made of the impact money from George Soros or other left-leaning millionaires has had on American political campaigns.

Because it’s Friday, and we should have at least a little fun, I present to you a video from YouTube which adds entertainment value to the problem:

Enjoy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Creative Spinning

Jonah Goldberg posted an article at National Review today indicating his choice for “word (or phrase) of the year.” He admits it’s only February, but he is convinced that “joblock” will be the winner.

The article reports:

The Congressional Budget Office issued a politically explosive report this week, finding that Obamacare will reduce the number of hours Americans work by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs. This is different from killing 2.5 million jobs, Obamacare defenders are quick to insist. This will be a shortfall on the supply, not demand, side. In other words, people with health insurance will opt not to work in certain circumstances if they know they won’t lose their coverage.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says the CBO report vindicates Obamacare, because “this was one of the goals: to give people life, a healthy life, liberty to pursue their happiness. And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.” Pelosi is particularly invested in this view. She’s been mocked for years now for her repeated claims that Obamacare is an entrepreneurial bill because it would let Americans quit their jobs to, among other things, “write poetry.”

Good grief! Mr. Goldberg goes on to point out the irony of wanting people to have the freedom to quit their jobs and write poetry while at the same time forcing them to buy health insurance for conditions they are not physically able to have.

The article concludes:

Which is why the real CBO story should be: “That awkward moment when everyone realizes Obamacare was a huge mistake.” The same CBO report projects that by 2024 the number of non-elderly uninsured will be — drum roll, please — 31 million Americans.

And that’s why all of this talk of Democrats as the Job-Lock Liberators is pathetic and hilarious at the same time. Virtually every promise has been broken, every prediction falsified. And now, at a time when millions want work that doesn’t exist, Democrats are claiming victory by trimming the amount of work actually being done.

Hopefully voters will look for ways to liberate these Democrats from the curse of job-lock come November.

What a wonderful idea!

Enhanced by Zemanta

America Is Having A Bad Day

This quote has been reported by various sources:

“We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can,” an angry Park Ranger told the Washington Times. “It’s disgusting.”

The National Mall in Washington is closed, the World War II Memorial is barricaded, the Vietnam Memorial is closed, and other monuments are blocked off. However, if your politics agrees with the politics of the Obama Administration, you have access to the closed Mall.

Today’s Washington Examiner reported:

Susana Flores, a spokesperson for the rally (“Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform“), confirmed for the Washington Examiner that the Park Service will allow the event to take place under the group’s rights granted by the First Amendment.

About 30 members of Congress are expected to attend the rally, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

The event is hosted by several immigration activist groups, together with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO.

What about the rights of the businessmen the Park Service has closed or the elderly couple the Park Service evicted from their houseboat on Lake Mead? This is politics at its worst. We need to remember this in November 2014. The problem here is not the shutdown–we have had shutdowns before–the problem is the war on the American public by the government. The Obama Administration loves to pick winners and losers. In this battle the losers are the American public. We need to vote anyone out of office who took part in this war on Americans.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

President Obama’s Goals For 2014

Next year we have Congressional elections again. We have somehow morphed into a country whose leadership tends to be more concerned about campaigning than leading. The goal of the Democrats right now is to regain control of the House of Representatives and retain control of the Senate; the goal of the Republicans is to retake the Senate and retain control of the House of Representatives. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare, was passed during the time the Democrats controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. The Republicans are trying to prevent Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House and crafting and passing equally left-wing legislation.

In the April 29, 2013, issue of the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes posts an article about next year’s campaign. In many ways, the Republicans have acted as the ‘stupid party.’ They have squandered many opportunities to lead and to do the things they need to do to distinguish themselves from the Democrats. Right now they are sitting on a bill to repeal the medical device tax in Obamacare that has the support of both parties (H.R. 1295, H.R. 523, S.232). These bills have been stuck in committee because one Republican leader wants to pass a comprehensive tax reform bill rather than simply do something simple that will save jobs and improve the economy. Thus, the ‘stupid’ party.

The article at the Weekly Standard provides some insight into the strategy of President Obama in the 2014 election:

Obama has told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee he’ll do eight fundraisers for them in 2013 and no telling how many next year. And Organizing for America—his reelection campaign now functioning as the president’s personal PAC—will try to create voter turnout next year that’s more like 2012 than 2010. The goal is to prevent Republicans from dominating the 2014 elections as they did in taking over the House in the 2010 midterms.

Meanwhile, the president has set a trap for Republicans. He’s agreed to reduce annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security as a (small) concession to justify a new round of negotiations for a grand bargain on taxes, spending, and the deficit. House and Senate Republicans have wisely rejected new talks, but this allows Obama to tar them as obstructionists who oppose serious deficit reduction to protect the rich from higher taxes.

That’s just the beginning. He’ll accuse them of obstructing gun control legislation, which died in the Senate last week with the defeat of expanded background checks of gun buyers. If immigration reform fails, Obama will blame Republicans for obstructing it, too.

The Republicans have a choice–they can begin to lead or they can remain the ‘stupid party.’ There are many people (including myself) who have stopped contributing to the Republican Party and have instead supported individual candidates. The split in the Republican Party between the ‘old guard’ leadership and the Tea Party will probably come to a head during the coming campaign. For the sake of our country, I hope the Tea Party wins.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Quote Of The Week

On Thursday, The Hill reported:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers’ jobs.

 “I don’t think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “I think it’s necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”

What about all of the Americans who have not had raises or bonuses in two years because of the condition of the economy?

Representative Nancy Pelosi And Reality

When reality does not picture the truth as she sees it, Representative Pelosi obviously has no problem changing the truth. Yesterday the Washington Post posted a story about a recent picture of all of the women in the House Democratic Caucus. Sounds fine, right? Well, not so fast. Some of the women in the Caucus missed the photo shoot, so they were photo-shopped in.

The article reports Representative Pelosi’s response when asked about the picture:

“It’s an accurate historical record of who the Democratic women of Congress are. It also is an accurate record that it was freezing cold and our members had been waiting a long time for everyone to arrive and that they had to get back into the building to greet constituents, family members, to get ready to go to the floor,” she said.

It’s a photo-shopped picture. A photo-shopped picture is not an accurate record–it’s an altered record. Does this woman not know the difference between reality and fantasy? Was it also okay when Hezbollah photo-shopped pictures of damage done to Lebanon by the Israeli Defense forces? Was it also okay when Iran photo-shopped pictures of test firing missiles? Photo-shopping is a propaganda tool, why is it being used by a Congresswomen to create something that did not happen?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Haven’t These People Read The Constitution ?

CNS News reported yesterday that Representative Nancy Pelosi has suggested that Congress simply give President Obama the power to personally raise the debt ceiling whenever he thinks it is necessary. Hasn’t this woman read the U. S. Constitution?

The article reports:

The Constitution expressly gives the power to borrow money to Congress–not the president. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 says: “Congress shall have power … To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

When he met with members of Congress on Thursday to discuss a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff that is set to occur at the end of this year, Secretary Geithner suggested that Congress give Obama the personal power as president to lift the legal limit on the federal government‘s debt.

I really can’t think of a worse idea. The article points out that under the arrangement Representative Pelosi proposed, the only limit on the national debt would be President Obama’s willingness to borrow money in the name of American taxpayers. Somehow I doubt that would be any limit at all.

The Constitution was set up to let Congress control the purse strings. Congress is expected to pass an annual budget, and the government is expected to abide by that budget. Unfortunately, The last time the Senate passed a traditional year-long budget was April 29, 2009. Frankly, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Enhanced by Zemanta