The New Economic Advisor

Bloomberg reported yesterday that Larry Kudlow was chosen to be the new White House economic adviser.  Mr. Kudlow is an economist frequently seen on CNBC.

The article outlines some of his views:

Kudlow spoke at length on the U.S. currency, including its appropriate valuation, saying he would like to see it “a wee bit stronger than it is currently, but stability is the key.” He said the president shares his views.

“A great country needs a strong currency, he knows that,” said Kudlow, after being chosen to replace Gary Cohn as director of the White House National Economic Council. “I have no reason to believe that President Trump opposes a sound and stable dollar.”

…He said the administration will pursue a “phase two” of Trump’s tax overhaul, seeking to make tax cuts for individuals permanent. Making the tax changes permanent would add $500 billion to the budget deficit, while tripling the amount of economic growth, according to a paper earlier this month from two Harvard economists.

The next phase, Kudlow said, should include a lower capital gains rate — and a rate that’s indexed for inflation. The top rate for long-term capital gains was left untouched at 20 percent.

Kudlow said he is “on board” with the duties Trump has imposed on steel and aluminum imports. He said he was encouraged by the president’s move to grant temporary waivers to allies including Canada and Mexico.

Bloomberg is not known for his support of conservative politics, so the article goes on to list some of the times that Larry Kudlow has been wrong or not supported President Trump. Be that as it may, Kudlow has been a supporter of reasonable economic policies in the past, and I am sure he will do a good job as economic advisor.

President Trump has been willing to shuffle his cabinet to get the most qualified people in the right positions. I think the choice of Larry Kudlow is a good choice.



There Really Are Not Two Parties In Washington

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today that erases any illusion anyone might have had that there are two political parties in Congress. There are two political parties in Washington–the anti-Trump agenda party and the pro-Trump agenda party, but the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress are generally one and the same despite the show they put on that they are different.

The article reports:

Now, a stunning discovery surfaces of Paul Ryan’s Congressional Leadership SuperPAC,, actually campaigning for the Democrat, Conor Lamb, in the recent PA18 congressional race.

As evidenced by Big League Politics the Paul Ryan SuperPAC sent a mailer to Pennsylvania CD-18 voters touting Lamb’s favorable position on gun ownership rights:

This is the mailer:

The article explains:

The real motive, based on an honest review of history, is the professional UniParty apparatus knew that Democrat Conor Lamb needed a lift to offset the cross party voting that was reflected in the district voting (by over 20 points) for Donald Trump in 2016.

The DC Republican apparatus is quite comfortable losing their majority position so long as they are not forced to support Trump policies which are entirely against their financial interests.  [How Mitch McConnell Crushed The Tea-Party]

It really is about money–in Washington power is measured by how much money you control. The more of taxpayers’ money Washington can seize and control, the more power they have. That’s why the establishment opposes the tea party movement and that is why the establishment opposes President Trump.

The article concludes:

The only threat to the financial interests of the GOP is President Donald Trump remaining in office and having to actually face carrying out a conservative Trump agenda in 2019 and 2020.  That Trump agenda is entirely against their “establishment republican” interests.

The Paul Ryan mailer to elect a Democrat is just another example of how corrupt the entire UniParty political apparatus is within Washington DC.

Another illustration of the opposition to President Trump is seen in the number of Libertarian and new Republican primary candidates in the current primary season. Many of these candidates are funded by the Republican establishment and are there to replace conservative Republicans who support President Trump with candidates the Republican establishment can control. President Trump is not the perfect President, but he is not part of the Washington establishment and is not controlled by it. If you want to see things change in Washington, you need to support the people who will support the President’s policies. Otherwise, we will have more of special interest fleecing the American taxpayer.

The American Family

Some thoughts from a blog called The Conservative Millennial:

In the book, Home Economics: The Consequences of Changing Family Structure, Nick Schulz presents data that shows the deconstruction of the nuclear family since 1960. Not only are people getting married later and less than they used to, in 2009, 41% of all births were to unmarried mothers.

This is significant, because, as explained in a study by Jane Anderson published by the National Institutes of Health, children and society are generally happier, healthier, and more successful when the nuclear family is intact. She points out that as societal norms and perceptions of marriage have changed – from something that’s healthy and beneficial to something that’s constricting and even harmful. Therefore, our culture has evolved to glorifying singleness — and even single parenthood — rather than embracing the nuclear family.

This has led to a higher risk of emotional distress, of psychological immaturity and social and financial immobility for many children who were raised in single-parent homes, which in turn negatively affects societies economically and socially.

This is not to say that this is the sole cause for young people committing acts of violence.  This is to argue that the deterioration of the family has hurt society as a whole, and children, specifically.

…Furthermore, a study by the Social Science Department at UCLA cites a clear link between loneliness and isolation and delinquent behavior. Sociologist Adam Lankford actually argues that lonely, troubled childhoods are a direct cause of more mass shootings.

Fatherlessness, in particular, seems to play a key role in violence among young men. In fact, the majority of school shooters come from fatherless homes. Research by W. Bradford Wilcox suggests that boys who grow up in single-mother homes are twice as likely to commit crimes than those who grow up with a present father. Both sons and daughters are more likely to be depressed without a strong relationship with a father. Broken families, in general, create not only a higher threat of delinquency for children, but also an increased risk of poverty and social immobility. The breakdown of the American family hurts our adolescent who often grow to be hurt adults, which consequently leads to a cycle of pain and violence.

All of this said, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. It is difficult to say, empirically, that the breakdown of family and community causes these horrible acts of violence, but it sure hasn’t helped.

So, if we want to get real about talking about solutions to violence and crime in America, we need to talk about the truth behind these crimes and criminals. The glorification of individualism, of singleness, and of isolation has coincided with our culture’s embrace of moral relativism and rejection of absolute truth is doing more to damage our country and promote discontentment which can lead to violence than it is helping.

Why not start there?

Is This Really What We Want?

Forbes Magazine posted an article yesterday about the Democrats planned tax policy. The article lists the specifics of the plan.

The article reports:

Increase the top marginal income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent. This nearly 3 percentage point increase in the top personal rate is not only a hike in the top bracket levy, but it’s also a direct tax increase on small and mid-sized businesses. The 30 million companies which are organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, Subchapter-S corporations, and LLCs pay their business taxes on their owners’ 1040 personal tax returns. Hiking the top tax rate is a small business tax increase.

 Increasing personal income taxes would be particularly unfortunate since workers are now seeing the results of lower rates in their paychecks. Thanks to the new IRS withholding tables, in February of this year over 90 percent of workers saw higher take home pay in the form of fatter direct deposits (for a humorous spectacle of the New York Times desperately trying to get people to down-talk their bigger paychecks, click here).

I honestly cannot imagine how the Democrats can successfully sell that one.

The next change:

Increase the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 25 percent. Up until this year, the United States labored under the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. As a result, jobs and capital were fleeing America for more normal tax rates that could be found in tax havens like France and China (saracasm font very much activated). Finally, after many years of bipartisan consensus that the U.S. corporate rate had become an impediment to attracting new jobs and investment, Congress cut the rate all the way from 35 to 21 percent. Even doing that only puts us in the middle of the pack of developed nations, but that’s a heck of a lot better than dead last.


As a result of this change, companies like Fiat Chrysler, Amgen, and Amicus Therapeutics (among many others) have announced new factories and jobs would be built in America, not in other countries.

Again, do we really want to undo the benefits of this tax cut?

The attack on American prosperity continues:

Bring back the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 4 million families. Up until this year, 4 million upper middle class families had to calculate their income taxes two different ways, and then pay the higher result. This was due to a provision of the law known as the “alternative minimum tax” or AMT. Millions more had to at least pay a tax preparer to run the calculation, even if they didn’t end up paying the AMT. The new tax law all but repealed the AMT for 99 percent of these families thanks to a higher AMT “standard deduction.” Congressional Democrats would bring back the dreaded AMT, which especially hit hard two-income white collar families with kids in New York, New Jersey, and California.

And finally–bring back the tax on money already taxed at least once (if not more):

Cut the “death tax” standard deduction in half. Over the past few decades, no tax has proven more unpopular in every single poll than the death tax, the federal tax on estates. 60 to 70 percent of poll respondents consistently call for its full repeal. The new tax law didn’t repeal the death tax, but it did the next best thing–it doubled the death tax’s “standard deduction” from $5.5 million to $11 million (and twice that for surviving spouses). As a result, far fewer family businesses and farms will be subject to the death tax, and many smaller firms can shed the costly insurance, legal, and actuarial costs of avoiding the death tax. Like the top personal rate, the death tax is not something that really affects the rich, who have plenty of resources to avoid the levy. Rather, it hits hardest those companies profitable enough to worry about it but not profitable enough to not worry about, if you catch my meaning.

Remember, this is what you will get (along with the attempted impeachment of President Trump) if the Democrats regain control of the House or the Senate. Yikes.


Moving Forward Slowly

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial today about the economic numbers released today. The editorial is cautiously optimistic.

The editorial reports:

If you’re looking for good news in the latest jobs numbers, it’s hard to know where to start.

First, 313,000 was 50,000 more than expected, and is the biggest monthly gain in jobs in a year and a half.

In fact, since the recession ended in June 2009, there have only been six months in which job gains beat this number — which doesn’t say much for President Obama’s economic performance.

Better still, these employment gains were across the board. In fact, almost a third of the increase was in goods-producing industries, which climbed at a rate more than twice as fast as the overall job market.

The only part of the economy that didn’t grow was government, which can also be seen as good news. The federal workforce, in fact, dropped in February, and is now 14,000 lower than when Trump took office

At 4.1%, the overall unemployment rate is at a 17-year low, while the unemployment rates among blacks and Hispanics remain at historic lows.

But the employment numbers also show why, despite these strong gains, the economy is still far from “full employment.”

The article further reports that 653,000 people rejoined the labor force in February. That is really good news.

The editorial also notes the change in the workforce participation levels:

As a result, the employment-to-population ratio climbed to 60.4% in February. That’s higher than it ever got during Obama’s eight years in office. Better still, the employment-to-population ratio among those of prime working age jumped to 79.3%, its highest level in almost a decade.

And the labor force participation rate — the share of people looking or who have jobs — is now up to 63%, after having fallen steadily during Obama’s years (it went from 65.7% when he took office to 62.7% when he left).

There are still 5.1 million  Americans not in the labor force. Hopefully as the economy improves and the regulations on food stamps and welfare programs tighten, they will be able to find jobs.

The Russian Collusion You Haven’t Heard About

On March 1st, the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology posted the following Press Release:

SST Committee Staff Report Reveals Russia’s Social Media Meddling in U.S. Energy Markets

Mar 1, 2018
Press Release

WASHINGTON – U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today released a staff report uncovering Russia’s extensive efforts to influence U.S. energy markets through divisive and inflammatory posts on social media platforms. The report details Russia’s motives in interfering with U.S. energy markets and influencing domestic energy policy and its manipulation of Americans via social media propaganda. The report includes examples of Russian-propagated social media posts.

Chairman Smith: “This report reveals that Russian agents created and spread propaganda on U.S. social media platforms in an obvious attempt to influence the U.S. energy market. Russia benefits from stirring up controversy about U.S. energy production. U.S. energy exports to European countries are increasing, which means they will have less reason to rely upon Russia for their energy needs. This, in turn, will reduce Russia’s influence on Europe to Russia’s detriment and Europe’s benefit. That’s why Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”

The report’s key findings:

  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 9,097 Russian posts or tweets regarding U.S. energy policy or a current energy event on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 4,334 IRA accounts across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • According to information provided by Twitter, more than four percent of all IRA tweets were related to energy or environmental issues, a significant portion of content when compared to the eight percent of IRA tweets that were related to the election in the U.S.
  • Russia exploited American social media as part of its concerted effort to disrupt U.S. energy markets and influence domestic energy policy.
  • The IRA targeted pipelines, fossil fuels, climate change and other divisive issues to influence public policy in the U.S.

The report can be found here.


On October 31, 2017, Chairman Smith sent letters to Twitter and Facebook to continue its probe into Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets via social media platforms. The letters cited additional evidence that Russian agents engaged in anti-U.S. energy activities on the platforms, including Facebook-owned Instagram, and reiterated Chairman Smith’s September request for information from the companies.

On September 26, 2017, Chairman Smith requested documents and information from Twitter and Facebook related to Russian entities purchasing anti-U.S. energy advertisements on social media platforms operated by the companies, including Facebook-owned Instagram.

On July 7, 2017, Chairman Smith and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting that the Treasury Department investigate allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. energy market through covertly funding radical environmental groups opposed to fossil fuels.

115th Congress
This is much more important than the current expensive, political, and endless investigation being carried out by Robert Mueller, yet somehow the press has not paid very much attention to it. It is time that we take a look at some of the funding of some of the radical environmental groups. For those of you old enough to remember, when the Soviet Union fell and America had access to some of their historic documents, we learned that many of the anti-war organizations of the 1960’s and 1970’s were Soviet funded. Most Americans had no idea that was happening. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

Leadership Matters

Bloomberg is reporting today that real disposable income, or earnings adjusted for taxes and inflation, advanced 0.6 percent from the prior month, the biggest gain since April 2015, according to a Commerce Department report Thursday. Part of that I suspect is due to the tax cuts, but there are other things that have made this possible.

The article reports:

The data, covering the first month since the tax law was signed in December, reflected a $30 billion increase in one-time bonuses and a $115.5 billion annualized drop in personal taxes, the Commerce Department said. Such boosts to Americans’ wallets, along with a tight labor market, will sustain spending. Those items, plus rising prices, are likely to keep Fed policy makers on track for at least three interest-rate increases this year, including one that’s widely expected later in March.

 A separate Labor Department report on Thursday showed weekly filings for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level since 1969.

 The reduction in taxes helped boost the saving rate to 3.2 percent, the highest since August, from 2.5 percent in December, which was the lowest since 2007.

Most Americans pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than what Medieval serfs paid the lord of the manor to farm their land.

The article concludes:

The Fed’s preferred price gauge — tied to consumption — rose 0.4 percent in January from the previous month and was up 1.7 percent from a year earlier. Inflation has mostly missed the central bank’s 2 percent target since 2012, though policy makers expect it to rise toward the goal.

Excluding food and energy, so-called core prices rose 0.3 percent, matching the median estimate. The core index, which Fed officials see as a better indicator of underlying price pressures, was up 1.5 percent from January 2017, the same annual gain as the prior three months.

Adjusted for inflation, personal spending declined 0.1 percent in January from the prior month, the first decrease in a year. The weakness reflected a 1.6 percent slump in outlays for durable goods as auto sales cooled.

There are a number of reasons for the improvement of the economy–ending regulations that made it very difficult to start or run a business, putting more money in Americans’ pockets by lowering the individual tax burden, ending the financial penalties that were included in ObamaCare, lowering corporate tax rates to make American more competitive worldwide as a place to locate a business, and simply making it clear that America now welcomes businesses and is prepared to encourage entrepreneurship. Even if you don’t support President Trump, you need to acknowledge that he has been a successful businessman who is attempting to bring that success to America as a whole.

The “Dreamer” Spin

If your news sources are limited to the mainstream media, you may have the impression that President Trump is randomly breaking up families and deporting illegal immigrants. Stories in the mainstream show crying children whose parent or parents are being deported, and these stories just reek of sympathetic angles. However, when you look past the obvious, you often find out that what you are being told may not be the entire story.

Hot Air posted an article today about one such story about a deported illegal alien.

The article reports:

ICE agents took Armando Nunez Salgado into custody outside his home. According to family members, he was in the backyard when agents walked right in through the side gate. His 14-year-old daughter Isabel Salgado dissolved into tears.

“I cried. I got very emotional, I was really sad,” said Isabel. “I mean to watch someone who is part of your everyday life and then you just have to watch him leave without saying goodbye. It kind of hurts.”

Armando is a construction worker who has been in America more than 30 years. His wife Elena Ponce said his parents brought him to the U.S. when he was only four years old.

The article at Hot Air begins to tell us more of the story:

But it turns out, Armando does have a dangerous past. After our interview, his family members told KPIX 5 he was involved in gangs and drugs for a long time.

In fact, at one point, he was on ICE’s most wanted list for charges of felony force and assault with a deadly weapon.

…“On Sunday, Feb. 25, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) San Francisco Fugitive Operations Team arrested ICE fugitive Armando Nuñez-Salgado, 38, a citizen of Mexico and documented Sureño gang member, who has been previously removed by ICE on four prior occasions. Over the past 18 years he has accumulated criminal convictions in California that have resulted in more than 15 years of prison sentencings. His criminal convictions include assault with a deadly weapon (statutorily enhanced because of his gang member status), burglary, hit-and-run causing injury and evading a peace officer.”

The man had been deported four times and done fifteen years in prison! This is not an innocent man who is an asset to America.

Helping The Victims Of ObamaCare

ObamaCare didn’t improve health insurance for Americans. ObamaCare required people long past child-bearing years to pay for insurance that covered children.. ObamaCare forced single men to pay for maternity care–it was the only way the program could be cost effective.  Other than that, if you chose not to buy insurance, you had to pay a fine. It is ironic to me that the fine was paid to the government–the insurance companies did not receive the money from the uninsured.

Well, Congress obviously was not interested in repealing ObamaCare, so we are still stuck with it. What can we do for people who can’t afford health insurance and yet are forced to pay a fine because they are not insured? That makes about as much sense as debtor’s prison.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about some temporary relief for people who cannot afford high-priced health insurance policies.

The article reports:

This week, Trump’s Health and Human Services department issued regulations that will let insurers sell short-term insurance plans that don’t have to comply with ObamaCare’s onerous market regulations and benefit mandates.

To prevent people from escaping ObamaCare, President Obama limited these plans to just three months. Trump would let them last just shy of one year.

“Americans need more choices in health insurance so they can find coverage that meets their needs,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement.

…As it is, ObamaCare isn’t working. Despite promises from Democrats that it would stabilize the individual insurance market, it’s had the opposite effect. Where there was healthy competition, there is often one insurer. Where double-digit premium increases were a rarity before ObamaCare, they’ve become a grim routine since.

This option isn’t likely to draw people away from ObamaCare, because millions aren’t enrolled anyway because they don’t want it or can’t afford it.

The article points out that one problem with ObamaCare is that young people did not sign up for it–the premiums were too high and the deductibles were too high. The young people signing up was supposed to impact the actuary tables in a way that would make ObamaCare cost effective. The changes in the new regulations will help bring free market principles into the health insurance picture and will allow people a wider range of insurance choices.

The Laffer Curve At Work

Yesterday CNS News reported that during the month of January (the first month the Trump tax cuts were in effect), the federal government ran a surplus.

The article reports:

January was the first month under the new tax law that President Donald Trump signed in December.

During January, the Treasury collected approximately $361,038,000,000 in total tax revenues and spent a total of approximately $311,802,000,000 to run a surplus of approximately $49,236,000,000.

Despite the monthly surplus of $49,236,000,000, the federal government is still running a deficit of approximately $175,718,000,000 for fiscal year 2018. That is because the government entered the month with a deficit of approximately $224,955,000,000.

The article also reports some of the history:

Over the last twenty fiscal years, going back to 1999, the federal government has run surpluses in the month of January 13 times and deficits 7 times. Six of the Januaries in which the federal government ran deficits overlapped President Barack Obama’s time in office—including January 2009, the month Obama was inaugurated, and the Januaries in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2016.

If you are not familiar with the Laffer Curve, it is a financial theory that the website the balance describes as follows:

The Laffer Curve is a theory that states lower tax rates boost economic growth. It underpins supply-side economicsReaganomics and the Tea Party’s economic policies. Economist Arthur Laffer developed it in 1979.

The Laffer Curve describes how changes in tax rates affect government revenues in two ways. One is immediate, which Laffer describes as “arithmetic.” Every dollar in tax cuts translates directly to one less dollar in government revenue. 

The other effect is longer-term, which Laffer describes as the “economic” effect. It works in the opposite direction. Lower tax rates put money into the hands of taxpayers, who then spend it. It creates more business activity to meet consumer demand. For this, companies hire more workers, who then spend their additional income. This boost to economic growth generates a larger tax base. It eventually replaces any revenue lost from the tax cut.

This is an illustration of how the Laffer Curve works:

As you can see, there is a point where taxes reach a high point and the amount of revenue generated from taxes goes down. That is not a coincidence–that is what tax attorneys get paid for. One of the reasons we need to make the tax code simpler is that we need to take away the complexities that allow people to hide income and avoid taxes. I believe that was one of the goals of the Trump tax plan. It remains to be seen whether or not that goal was achieved.

From The Gateway Pundit

Posted today at The Gateway Pundit:

Jarrett also said, “Again, if true, Rosenstein’s action was an illegal abuse of power and he should no longer serve as Deputy Attorney General. He allegedly used threats to try to stop the Intelligence Committee from exposing wrongful behavior in an attempt to cover it up.’

The swamp is deep, and there will be a lot of resistance to cleaning it up. Hopefully there are enough honest people in Washington to get the job done. It is time for some people to be fired and arrested.

It Sounded Good–It Just Wasn’t True

Last night Breitbart did a fact check on one point of Joseph Kennedy‘s speech that I thought was rather interesting.

Here is the comment:

Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) claimed the host-city of his response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, Fall River, Massachusetts was “built by immigrants.”


What is now Fall River was first established in the 1600s by English settlers who were not “immigrants” but colonists. A native-born family, the Bordens ran a mill in what became the town for generations before and after the American revolution. Industrialization began when Col. Joseph Durfee, a native-born Revolutionary War hero built the first factory in 1811. Later, at the end of the 19th Century a wave of immigrants swelled the town’s population. Immigrants, however, never made up a majority of the population of Bristol County, where Fall River lies, even at their early 20th Century peak.

The Democrats are so busy trying to win the votes of people they hope to make citizens, they are misstating history. One might wonder if some of the groups of immigrants coming into this country now are immigrants or colonists.

The Speech

First a few general comments. If you watched the State of the Union speech by President Trump last night, there were some things you might have noticed. First of all, the State of the Union speech has become a forum for Congressmen and women to act like children. If you are in Congress, why would you not stand when someone suggests that standing for our national anthem is appropriate? If you do not want to stand for our national anthem, what are you doing in Congress? There were other similar moments that called for unity, but that particular one really should be non-partisan. Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist (1867-1928), one stated, “There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.” It is time we realized that as a country.

There were some very unifying parts of the speech. Unfortunately there are also members of Congress who prefer divisiveness.

Some excerpts:

Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone. After years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages.

Unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low. African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history.

…We slashed the business tax rate from 35 percent all the way down to 21 percent, so American companies can compete and win against anyone in the world. These changes alone are estimated to increase average family income by more than $4,000.

The economic turnaround created by de-regulation and tax cuts has impacted all working Americans.

The speech continues:

We also believe that patients with terminal conditions should have access to experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives.

People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure — I want to give them a chance right here at home. It is time for the Congress to give these wonderful Americans the “right to try.”

One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs. In many other countries, these drugs cost far less than what we pay in the United States. That is why I have directed my Administration to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities. Prices will come down.

Lower drug prices are needed. Access to experimental treatments will also be a good thing.

There were a few areas where bipartisanship was called for. One example:

I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve.

Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment we need.

Every Federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with State and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment — to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit.

Any bill must also streamline the permitting and approval process — getting it down to no more than two years, and perhaps even one.

Together, we can reclaim our building heritage. We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways across our land. And we will do it with American heart, American hands, and American grit.

The President also outlined his immigration plans:

The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age — that covers almost three times more people than the previous administration. Under our plan, those who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States.

The second pillar fully secures the border. That means building a wall on the Southern border, and it means hiring more heroes like CJ to keep our communities safe. Crucially, our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country — and it finally ends the dangerous practice of “catch and release.”

The third pillar ends the visa lottery — a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people. It is time to begin moving towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country.

The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration. Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security, and our future.

This is a good starting place. If Congress can debate without acting like five-year olds, something might actually get accomplished.

The President concluded:

And freedom stands tall over one more monument: this one. This Capitol. This living monument to the American people.

A people whose heroes live not only in the past, but all around us — defending hope, pride, and the American way.

They work in every trade. They sacrifice to raise a family. They care for our children at home. They defend our flag abroad. They are strong moms and brave kids. They are firefighters, police officers, border agents, medics, and Marines.

But above all else, they are Americans. And this Capitol, this city, and this Nation, belong to them.

Our task is to respect them, to listen to them, to serve them, to protect them, and to always be worthy of them.

Americans fill the world with art and music. They push the bounds of science and discovery. And they forever remind us of what we should never forget: The people dreamed this country. The people built this country. And it is the people who are making America great again.

As long as we are proud of who we are, and what we are fighting for, there is nothing we cannot achieve.

As long as we have confidence in our values, faith in our citizens, and trust in our God, we will not fail.

Our families will thrive.

Our people will prosper.

And our Nation will forever be safe and strong and proud and mighty and free.

Thank you, and God bless America.

This was a very unifying speech, whether or not you like President Trump. It is time to put petty personalities behind us and work together. It would be nice if this speech was the beginning of that unity.

Immigration As Seen By A Thirty-Something

Below is a guest post by Michael Daskalos, a young friend who follows history and politics very closely. The links with the paragraphs are the sources for his statements.

Trump wants a deal; and indications are that if you voted for him, you consider what he wants is pretty moderate by any reasonable standards. If you voted for him and are incredibly disappointed, it’s probably because you think this is way less effective than a reasonable and well thought out plan that involves more deportations, lots of rope and assorted other things best left unsaid…and that’s just for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and its immigration activist allies. Let them run for office in Mexico, or the Knesset where they can have all the open borders immigration they want.

The sticking point is the Democrats vested interest—getting every single possible future vote out of this that they can get as fast as possible. Trump’s vested interests—getting re-elected and Making America Great Again are counter to this plan. As such President Trump wants whatever deal is made to have teeth and enforcement up front and concrete—just like people have been promised for years now. It is telling that when anyone asks for the law as written to be applied, they are called a fascistic racist white supremacist. If President Trump does not get guaranteed ironclad language, he knows he would have on his hands what most will instantly understand as “Getting Reaganed” wherein every state mentioned below gets the California treatment in short order.

The corporate-paid-for class of professional Republicans are fine with this. Many of them are getting forced out or retiring from seats that are becoming “electorally unwinnable” (political euphemism for “your voters were demographically displaced”) or being voluntold by their donor handlers to take the money and run because they don’t fit in this new divide. This anti-Trump gambit supported by all the anti-Trump voices we are familiar with is attempting to give the Democrats the House and increase pressure for amnesty that way and feign the appearance that Americans support it. The anti-Trump forces are also aware that one of the first actions of a Democratic House of Representatives would be to initiate the impeachment process.
What flashy titles for pieces like the one linked above are doing is taking a simple thing that’s well known: Trump is ok with a few DACA recipients, a micro fraction of the eligible “Dreamers” that might be useful and possibly a few hangers on that also attended diploma mills, a path to citizenship as a bargaining chip, and framing it for a particular audience. They leave out or bury the fact that the concessions on DACA are being made in exchange for teeth everywhere else in the deal. The reason President Trump is demanding specific language is so that it won’t or can’t be expanded by the courts later, as anyone with a couple brain cells knows will happen if they have seen the last year unfold.

Those articles are an attempt to separate hardliners and reasonable people like myself from supporting the president because he might not force as tough a line as could be imagined. The governing dynamic that has to be understood is that Democrats want every single illegal immigrant in the country currently to be eligible to vote in 2018.  That’s the starting position they are working from when they approach the table for any “compromise.” The wording is to be designed to wiggle as high a number of them into that possible, and as soon as possible, regardless of language that might infer otherwise. This fight is about language that will allow Democrats and their Republican allies, you know the names, the legal space to pull shenanigans through the courts with hand picked judges to make that happen.

They Used To Call This Treason

Yesterday John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line about recent statements made by former Secretary of State John Kerry to Hussein Agha, a close associate of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The article quotes the Jerusalem Post:

Maariv reported that former US secretary of state John Kerry met in London with a close associate of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Hussein Agha, for a long and open conversation about a variety of topics. Agha apparently reported details of the conversation to senior PA officials in Ramallah. A senior PA official confirmed to Maariv that the meeting took place.
During the conversation, according to the report, Kerry asked Agha to convey a message to Abbas and ask him to “hold on and be strong.” Tell him, he told Agha, “that he should stay strong in his spirit and play for time, that he will not break and will not yield to President [Donald] Trump’s demands.”

…According to Kerry, Trump will not remain in office for a long time. It was reported that Kerry said that within a year there was a good chance that Trump would not be in the White House.

…He surprised his interlocutor by saying he was seriously considering running for president in 2020. When asked about his advanced age, he said he was not much older than Trump and would not have an age problem.

…In a report on the conversation, Agha said that Kerry appears to be “crazy about things,” very energetic, and someone who is yearning to help realize the dream of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

As a country we have not enforced the Logan Act; however, this does seem a bit over the top.

Wikipedia definesThe Logan Act as follows:

“The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.”

If John Kerry decides to run for President in 2020, he will be competing against Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. I am not sure there is enough popcorn in the world to watch that.



One Way Tax Rates Influence The Economy

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the impact of corporate tax rates on entrepreneurship. The article notes that as the corporate tax rate increases, the number of start-up companies decreases.

The article reports:

Entrepreneurship is negatively impacted by higher corporate tax rates, according to a study from the Federal Reserve.

“While there are many actions governments may take to affect entrepreneurship, few are as important or contentiously debated as the setting of tax policy,” the paper explains. “Taxes are viewed by many as the primary lever elected officials have at their disposal to change the business environment, promote growth, and encourage innovation.”

The study looked at counties that had changes to their state corporate, personal, or sales tax rates and how entrepreneurial activity was affected compared with those counties that had no changes to tax rates. The study defines entrepreneurs and startups as those that are two years old or younger.

“We find that increases in corporate tax rates have a statistically and economically significant negative effect on employment among startup firms,” the study explains. “Specifically, for every one percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate employment in startup firms declines 3.7 percent.”

…”Tax liability reduces economic profits, restricting the set of potential entrepreneurs whose likely profits exceed entry costs,” the study explains. “Tax policy affects labor demand via the dependence of firm-level labor demand on other production or revenue factors.”

The study also points to previous research that finds self-employment is affected by how complex the tax code is. Corporate tax rates reduce research and development and new product development.

If this study is accurate, we are going to have substantial economic growth in America as the corporate tax cut begins to take effect. Like him or not, President Trump is a businessman, and a rather successful one. I suspect he was already aware of the relationship between corporate taxes and start-up companies.

Just for the record, I was talking to someone last night who has been a Trump supporter since he announced his candidacy. She said something to me that I think is very astute–“Trump had to be the candidate–we needed a mud wrestler to fight the Democrats. The other Republican candidates wouldn’t do it.” That is an amazing (and true) statement.

The Worldwide Impact Of Developing America’s Energy Resources

With the lifting of many of the restrictions on domestic oil drilling (and fracking) in America, the impact of American oil and natural gas on the world market has grown. Today Reuters posted an article about the impact of American energy on the global oil market.

The article reports:

Surging shale production is poised to push U.S. oil output to more than 10 million barrels per day – toppling a record set in 1970 and crossing a threshold few could have imagined even a decade ago.

So what does this mean?

The article explains:

The economic and political impacts of soaring U.S. output are breathtaking, cutting the nation’s oil imports by a fifth over a decade, providing high-paying jobs in rural communities and lowering consumer prices for domestic gasoline by 37 percent from a 2008 peak.

…“It has had incredibly positive impacts for the U.S. economy, for the workforce and even our reduced carbon footprint” as shale natural gas has displaced coal at power plants, said John England, head of consultancy Deloitte’s U.S. energy and resources practice.

The article notes that in an attempt to stop American energy development, OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) tried to discourage shale production of oil in America by flooding the market with oil (Saudi Arabia also played a role in financing movies and advertising containing misinformation about fracking).

The article notes:

The cartel of oil-producing nations backed down in November 2016 and enacted production cuts amid pressure from their own members over low prices – which had plunged to below $27 earlier that year from more than $100 a barrel in 2014.

Shale producers won the price war through aggressive cost-cutting and rapid advances in drilling technology. Oil now trades above $64 a barrel, enough for many U.S. producers to finance both expanded drilling and dividends for shareholders.

The article also  mentions American oil exports:

Efficiencies spurred by the battle with OPEC – including faster drilling, better well designs and more fracking – helped U.S. firms produce enough oil to successfully lobby for the repeal of a ban on oil exports. In late 2015, Congress overturned the prohibition it had imposed following OPEC’s 1973 embargo.

The United States now exports up to 1.7 million barrels per day of crude, and this year will have the capacity to export 3.8 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. Terminals conceived for importing liquefied natural gas have now been overhauled to allow exports.

That export demand, along with surging production in remote locations such as West Texas and North Dakota, has led to a boom in U.S. pipeline construction. Firms including Kinder Morgan and Enterprise Products Partners added 26,000 miles of liquids pipelines in the five years between 2012 and 2016, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Several more multi-billion-dollar pipeline projects are on the drawing board.

Energy independence is important for America. Total energy independence will have a very positive impact on our foreign policy. Because tyrannical regimes in the Middle East have traditionally controlled the oil supply to the rest of the world, western countries have been required to support governments they should not be supporting in order to keep the oil flooding. Russia is another country that has used its pipelines to Europe as a way to control certain European countries. Energy independence will give America a degree of freedom we have not had for a long time. Hopefully we will use that freedom wisely.

Undoing America, One Vote At A Time

Breitbart is reporting today that chain migration is likely to add potentially 8 million foreign-born voters to America over the next two decades.

The article reports:

Research by University of Maryland, College Park political scientist James Gimpel has found in recent years that more immigrants to the U.S. inevitably means more Democrat voters and thus, increasing electoral victories for the Democratic Party.

In 2014, Gimpel’s research concluded with three major findings:

Immigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives. As a result, survey data show a two-to-one party identification with Democrats over Republicans.

By increasing income inequality and adding to the low-income population (e.g. immigrants and their minor children account for one-fourth of those in poverty and one-third of the uninsured) immigration likely makes all voters more supportive of redistributive policies championed by Democrats to support disadvantaged populations.

There is evidence that immigration may cause more Republican-oriented voters to move away from areas of high immigrant settlement leaving behind a more lopsided Democrat majority.

The article further reports that five years of chain migration to the U.S. has exceeded one year of all American births, where about 4 million U.S. babies are born every year.

So what does this mean? First of all, we need to address the fact that American school children are not being taught the ideas and principles behind the U.S. Constitution. If we are not teaching American children how our government works and we import millions of people from countries that do not have constitutions, what will our government look like in twenty years? If we are not teaching our children to treasure our freedom and our culture, how can we expect those who have not grown up with that freedom and culture to respect it? How do those coming to America see government? Do they see government as a valid authority or has their past taught them that equal justice under the law is not possible?

We really do need to rethink our immigration policies. We used to allow people to immigrate who were willing to assimilate and contribute to the country. In recent years, we have allowed people to come to America to take advantage of government programs and live at the expense of the Americans who already live here. That has got to stop. We cannot afford to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for everyone in the world. Charity is a wonderful thing, but it needs to be voluntary and begin at home. After we have helped our homeless veterans, children of fallen soldiers, and children of fallen policemen, we can begin to help people from other countries. Until then, we need to live up to our responsibilities at home.

And So It Begins?

Yesterday while the mainstream media had their panties all in a wad over something President Trump may or may not have said in a private meeting, The Daily Wire posted an article about the Uranium One scandal.

The article reports:

An 11-count indictment was handed out on Friday connected to the alleged Russian bribery scheme involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and Uranium One.

The charges are against Mark Lambert, who is the “former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad.” Lambert 54, of Maryland, was charged with “one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering,” the DOJ said in a statement.

The charges are connected to the alleged bribery scheme that involves “Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX.”

TENEX is the commercial sales arm for Russia’s Rosatom, which took full control of Uranium One in 2013.

A report from October revealed that federal agents started collecting evidence in 2009 about Russian officials that were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering connected to the Uranium One deal

Stay tuned. This is going to get interesting. There is also a question of whether or not uranium left the country and how that happened. I suspect there is much more to come on this.

Poverty defines poverty as:

1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

Antonyms: riches, wealth, plenty.

2. deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.:

poverty of the soil.

3. scantiness; insufficiency:

Their efforts to stamp out disease were hampered by a poverty of medical supplies.

After President Trump’s remarks (in a supposedly private meeting) have caused such a stir, I thought I would point out a few things about poverty and economic refugees.

For those of you who have chosen to forget, the wealth of America was built on sacrifice and blood. It was built by a small percentage of Americans who rebelled against British rule rather than flee the country they had settled. They were never able to share in the wealth of the nation they helped create–most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence died in poverty. They fought tyranny. Why are the economic refugees we are taking in fleeing tyranny rather than fighting it?

What are the keys to economic prosperity in a country? Hernando de Soto is a Peruvian economist who has done decades of pioneering work for presidents and in the streets on behalf of property rights for the poor.

His biography, posted at the Cato Institute website states:

Having made enough money to retire, he decided to devote his life full-time to solving the riddle of development: Why are some countries rich and others poor? De Soto knew that Peruvians did not lack entrepreneurial energy. The bustling informal economy of Lima was testament to that. Nor did they lack assets, per se. From countryside to urban shantytown, ownership was governed by a system of informally evolved and acknowledged property rights.

But as de Soto explained in his 1986 book The Other Path, these de facto owners were locked out of the formal, legal economy—and that was the root of the problem. “They have houses but not titles; crops but not deeds; businesses but not statutes of incorporation.”

In 1980 de Soto created the Institute for Liberty and Democracy. The more he and his fellow researchers at the ILD investigated, the more they realized that dealing with the Peruvian state to obtain legal recognition of one’s assets was maddeningly difficult, if not impossible.

As an author and an activist, and later as adviser to President Alberto Fujimori in the early years of his administration, de Soto moved to bring his impoverished fellow countrymen out of the shadow economy and unlock their potential to build wealth, a process that continues today.

His biography also talks about some of the challenges of what Mr. de Soto is attempting:

For his efforts, the Peruvian Marxist terror group Shining Path targeted him for assassination. The institute’s offices were bombed. His car was machine-gunned. Today the Shining Path is moribund, but de Soto remains very much alive and a passionate advocate. Delivering formal property rights to the poor can bring them out of the sway of demagogues and into the extended order of the modern global economy. “Are we going to make [capitalism] inclusive and start breaking the monopoly of the left on the poor and showing that the system can be geared to them as well?” That’s de Soto’s challenge and his life’s work. (The italics are mine)

So what is compassion? Is it giving money to the leaders of impoverished countries only to have the leaders spend it on luxuries while the people starve? Is it giving to grass roots organizations that work on a people-to-people level to help the poor? Is it simply allowing the poor to escape their homes? Where will we find the people who will work with Mr. de Soto to change the way some of the world’s poorest countries are run?

Economic migration is not necessarily a good thing–you are taking people away from a place where they might be able to make a difference to a new culture where they are total aliens who may or may not be willing to assimilate. We have had a problem in many of the cities that have taken large numbers of foreign immigrants of people using public streets as toilets. There are pictures all over the internet of people relieving themselves in public and wiping themselves with their hands. That is not acceptable in American culture, but because we have overwhelmed the local populations in some towns and cities, it is becoming a problem. We have an obligation to help those in poverty in a constructive way, but we also have the right to protect our own cultural heritage.


Just a small comment on the Iranian protests. The people are protesting for many reasons, but some of them are economic–the price of food has skyrocketed, and people are hungry. They are also protesting the amount of money going to Hezbollah, Syria, Lebanon, etc. that the mullahs are sending in the hope of eventually setting up their Islamic caliphate. The money we gave Iran after the Iranian nuclear deal did not go to the people of the country–it went for military and terrorism purposes. That really isn’t a surprise, but we need to learn from that experience. It is time to use wisdom in our foreign aid–giving people money does not make people like us. If they hate us to begin with, why are we paying them to hate us? We need to remember that much of the hatred that is directed toward America is the result of dictators and tyrants using America as a scapegoat to blame for the problems in their countries. Some of the hatred is simply jealousy. America has been blessed as a nation. We need to appreciate what we have and share it where appropriate. A friend of mine from another country once told me that he was amazed at the generosity of Americans–we are among the first there to help after a disaster. We need to continue to help where help is needed, but we need to be more careful about how we distribute our foreign aid. Let’s help the people who align with us–not give money to countries that will use it against us.

Does The United Nations Support Freedom?

One America News posted an article today stating that the U.N. Security Council is set to meet Friday to discuss the ongoing protests in Iran.

The article reports:

Security Council members are divided on the matter with several powers calling for non-interference with what they see as an internal Iranian issue.

U.S. policymakers have shown rare unity on the matter with hawks among both the Democrats and mainstream Republicans embracing the Iranian protest movement.

However, while the Washington establishment is favoring the regime change strategy, it has shown little concern with the loss of human lives in Iran.

Experts don’t expect Friday’s U.N. Security Council meeting to produce major results as its permanent members are concerned with either supporting the Islamic revolution or changing the regime, rather than the well-being of the Iranian people.

One of the problems with asking the United Nations for help for the Iranian people is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57-member group with 56 members also being voting members of the United Nations.  The organisation states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” The OIC supports Sharia Law and would very much be in agreement with the mullahs rather than the people of Iran.

It would be very surprising to see anything come out of the United Nations in support of the Iranian people demonstrating for freedom.

Felonies Were Committed, What Happens Next?

The Hill posted an article yesterday about Ex-FBI Director James Comey’s original statement closing out the probe into Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server.

The article reports:

…(the statement) was edited by subordinates to remove five separate references to terms like “grossly negligent” and to delete mention of evidence supporting felony and misdemeanor violations, according to copies of the full document.

…The full draft, with edits, leaves little doubt that Comey originally wrote on May 2, 2016 that there was evidence that Clinton and top aides may have violated both felony and misdemeanor statutes, though he did not believe he could prove intent before a jury.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information and of the statute proscribing misdemeanor mishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey originally penned.

That passage, however, was edited to remove the references to “gross negligence” and “misdemeanor mishandling,” leaving a much more generic reference to “potential violations of the statutes.”

The FBI has told Congress the edits were made by subordinates to Comey and then accepted by the then-director before he made his final announcement July 5, 2016 that he would not pursue criminal charges against Clinton.

This is disturbing.

The article further notes:

“The edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions,” Johnson (Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wrote, noting recently released text messages show some senior FBI officials involved in the case harbored political hatred for Trump or preference for Clinton.

“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election,” Johnson wrote.

One edit that concerned Johnson was a decision to delete from Comey’s original draft a reference to the FBI working on a joint assessment with the intelligence community about possible national security damage from the classified information that passed through Clinton’s nonsecure email servers.

“We have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation,” Comey originally wrote.

The reference to the rest of the intelligence community was edited out, the memos show.

One of the main problems with this nonsecure server is the impact it may have had on the national security of the country. It is widely believed that Hillary Clinton’s private server was easily hacked by unfriendly intelligence services. That is a threat to national security. That is the true problem with the server, other than the question of what was being hidden by the destruction of evidence and the use of a private server.

As I have previously stated, I do not want to see Hillary Clinton go to jail, although I do remember that Charles Colson went to jail after Watergate. Mr. Colson’s time in jail actually had a very positive impact on his life–it changed him from a self-centered, ruthless politician to a man who genuinely cared for the well being of other people. Hmmm.

So What Did He Do?

Yesterday Chicks on the Right posted an article listing the top twenty-five accomplishments of President Trump.

Here is the list:

  1. Passage of the tax reform bill providing $5.5 billion in cuts and repealing the Obamacare mandate.
  2. Increase of the GDP above 3 percent
  3. A rebound in economic confidence to a 17-year high.
  4. Prioritizing women-owned businesses for some $500 million in SBA loans
  5. Signed an Executive Order demanding that two regulations be killed for every new one creates. He beat that big and cut 16 rules and regulations for every one created, saving $8.1 billion.
  6. Withdrew from the Obama-era Paris Climate Agreement, ending the threat of environmental regulations.
  7. Eliminated an Obama rule on streams that Trump felt unfairly targeted the coal industry.
  8. Made good on his campaign promise to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  9. Worked to bring companies back to the U.S., and companies like Toyota, Mazda, Broadcom Limited, and Foxconn announced plans to open U.S. plants.
  10. Ended Obama’s deal with Cuba.
  11. Ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
  12. Ended the Obama-era “catch and release” of illegal immigrants.
  13. Boosted the arrests of illegals inside the U.S.
  14. Started the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program.
  15. Removed 36 percent more criminal gang members than in fiscal 2016.
  16. Trump has nominated 73 federal judges and won his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
  17. First, the president declared a Nationwide Public Health Emergency on opioids.
  18. In his first week, Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy that blocks some $9 billion in foreign aid being used for abortions.
  19. Signed the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 to authorize $2.1 billion in additional funds for the Veterans Choice Program.
  20. Directed the rebuilding of the military and ordered a new national strategy and nuclear posture review.
  21. Imposed a travel ban on nations that lack border and anti-terrorism security.
  22. Saw ISIS lose virtually all of its territory.
  23. Pushed for strong action against global outlaw North Korea and its development of nuclear weapons.
  24. Ordered missile strikes against a Syrian airbase used in a chemical weapons attack.
  25. Made good on a campaign promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

That’s a pretty good year for someone who has had to fight the Democrats, the establishment Republicans and the mainstream media.


How Is This Not A Violation Of The Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Keep in mind when reading that amendment that the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment, was added to the Constitution to further insure the rights of citizens–not the rights of the government. This Amendment is there to insure the rights of the people to possess arms.The Revolutionary War battles of Lexington and Concord occurred because the British, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were ordered to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. From our beginnings as a nation, Americans have wanted to protect their right to bear arms.

California seems to have forgotten America‘s history and the U.S. Constitution. Breitbart posted an article today about new regulations going into effect in California starting today.

The article reports:

Currently, law-abiding Californians must buy their ammunition from a licensed in-state ammunition dealer. This means that Californians who buy ammunition online must have that ammo shipped to a licensed in-state dealer and pay that dealer a fee when picking up the ammo.

These controls immediately lessen the supply of ammunition, thereby driving up the price for those who demand it. Also, these controls set the stage for phase two of ammunition control, which will consist of requiring a point-of-sale background check for ammunition purchases starting January 1, 2019. The point-of-sale background check will also carry a processing fee, which will drive the price of ammunition even higher.

These controls are in addition to the requirement that law-abiding Californians obtain a firearm safety certificate from the state before buying a firearm, endure a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases, pass a universal background check, register all firearms with the state, and live under the shadow of gun confiscation laws. There is an “assault weapons” ban, a ban on campus carry, and a new law against K-12 teachers being armed to shoot back if under attack at school.

California also has a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry, which allows bureaucrats within the issuing system to strictly control the number of permits given to law-abiding citizens. This single gun control has resulted in limiting the number of permits issued in Los Angeles County to 197; Los Angles County has a population of 10.2 million, yet only 197 concealed carry permits have been issued to the law-abiding citizens residing there.

That looks like infringement to me! Unfortunately the result of these laws will be more guns in the hands of those who do not follow the law and fewer guns in the hands of those who do follow the law. That is not the way to lower the crime rate.