This Story Really Belongs On A Satire Site

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article yesterday about a recent truck accident in Maine.

The article reports:

An animal rights advocate wants to place a roadside memorial in Maine to remember thousands of lobsters killed in a highway wreck.

A member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed an application for the memorial earlier on Wednesday to build a large grave to mark the site of a truck crash that resulted in thousands of lobsters spilling out onto a highway. 

PETA hopes to memorialize the ‘countless sensitive crustaceans’ who were killed during the August 22 crash in Brunswick, the animal rights group said. 

The grave would ‘remind everyone that the best way to prevent such tragedies is to go vegan,’ the animal rights group said. 

7,000 pounds of live lobsters were destroyed and it’s believed at least 4,500 lobsters died.  It’s believed the truck’s driver lost control because of rain.

Some of the lobsters died from being crushed, police say. Detective William Moir told The Bangor Daily News that the scene of lobster carnage ‘was something I’ve never seen before. Some lobsters were loose on the ground from being spilled over so we went to work to save the ones we could.’

I don’t mean to be difficult, but I suspect there are many other places the money involved could be put to better use. I am sorry about the lobsters, but they were not purposely harmed, and I do truly believe this article belongs on a satire site.

Follow The Money

I need to say up front that I have no idea how to clean up the money in politics. In cases where a political action group had to list their donors, those donors were vulnerable to economic or physical attacks, so that is a problem. Yet we need more transparency regarding the money in politics. Opensecrets.org is a good source of information, but no one is telling us who is paying for trips, lunches, and dinners in Washington. It is interesting to see how much money is being spent on various elections. That information provides some insight into what political parties think is at stake.

The Daily Caller posted an article today stating that according to federal campaign finance data, environmentalists have outspent the oil and gas industry more than 2-to-1 so far this election cycle. Wow. The obvious question is, “Where is their money coming from?”

The article explains:

About $14 million of environmentalist spending this cycle came from organizations, while around $29 million came from individuals affiliated with eco-groups and causes, according to CRP data.

Spending from individuals, however, almost exactly match spending by San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, who founded the environmental group NextGen Climate Action. Steyer’s given NextGen more than $29 million this election cycle, CRP figures show.

Steyer was the single largest donor in the 2016 election cycle, spending more than $89.7 million, and bundled donations for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Steyer made his name among liberal activists opposing the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

All but $250,000 of Steyer’s outside spending this election cycle went to NextGen Climate Action. The money Steyer didn’t give the environmental group went to his multi-million dollar “Need to Impeach” campaign.

We know that money does not buy elections. If it did, we would have either President Jeb Bush or President Hillary Clinton. Both candidates outspent President Trump by large amounts. The American people (I think and hope) are smart enough not to be bought by money, although money pays for campaign ads which do have an impact.

 

 

Somehow It Always Comes Back To The Same Players

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about some things that have been learned about the testimony of Bruce Ohr. It is a very complex article, and I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article. I will try to grab the high points, but there is a lot there.

My first observation concerning the things Donald Trump is accused of is that generally speaking they are just not sexy enough to be interesting to the American public. Paying off a girlfriend just isn’t anything new. In 2017, CNN posted an article stating that Congress had a fund that had paid out $17 million as a result of sexual harassment claims against Congressmen (and Congresswomen). Does anyone honestly believe that some of that wasn’t hush money? That makes Donald Trump look like a piker. But back to the testimony of Bruce Ohr.

The article at The Conservative Treehouse notes some connections between Bruce Ohr and some of the players on Robert Mueller’s team:

…Nellie Ohr was working for Fusion GPS in 2015.  Previous to that statement by Issa the timeline for Nellie Ohr working with Fusion GPS began in April of 2016 (simultaneous to Fusion beginning the contract work for the Clinton Campaign and sub-contracting of Chris Steele).

…Ohr testified that Fusion approached his wife for a job and that she began working for the research firm in late 2015. California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa said Ohr testified that his wife was paid $44,000 by Fusion GPS. As TheDCNF has reported, Ohr did not disclose his wife’s Fusion income on his annual ethics disclosure form.

Perkins Coie, the law firm for the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, paid Fusion GPS more than $1 million for the Trump-Russia project. Fusion paid Steele nearly $170,000 for his work. (read more)

The article then gets a bit technical:

We have long suspected that Fusion-GPS was one of the contractors with access to the FBI/NSA database.  The contractors were conducting political opposition research by exploiting the FISA 702(16)(17) process which would be available for counterintelligence purposes; hence the DOJ-National Security Division.

…From November 1, 2015, to May 1st, 2016, thousands of search queries were conducted with a “non-compliance rate of 85%”. That means the “contractors” were massively abusing their access to the database; and a full 85% of their activity was demonstrably unlawful.

It is highly likely, almost certain, all of this unlawful query activity was political opposition research being conducted by political operatives, agents and DOJ/FBI affiliates within the apparatus. Fusion GPS seems like an obvious organization who would be participating in that activity. Adding to this likelihood we now have Nellie Ohr working within this exact timeline.

Further connections to the Mueller investigation are cited in the article:

Sources familiar with Ohr’s testimony before the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Ohr informed Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page about his interactions with Steele and Simpson. He also informed Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann about his dossier-related work.

Weissmann is now serving as right-hand man to Robert Mueller at the special counsel’s office.

Ohr testified that he informed his Justice Department peers, but not his superiors, about his contacts with Steele and Simpson. One of the superiors kept out of the loop was former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Ohr said he was demoted as assistant deputy attorney general in December because he failed to tell Yates and other top officials about his dossier interactions. (more)

The article concludes:

This information pipeline from Fusion to Bruce Ohr to Andrew Weissmann, in combination with the meeting between Weissmann and AP reporters, is essentially another round of same-method of manufacturing evidence; it is a collaborative effort.

In the first example where the Fusion-GPS information circle was exploited, the FBI gained a FISA Title-1 search warrant against Carter Page. In the second example of an almost identical information flow, the result was Special Counsel Robert Mueller gaining Title-III search warrants against Paul Manafort.

I think we are investigating the wrong people for collusion and corruption.

 

The Economic System That Works

We have all heard the expression, “The proof is in the pudding.” In other words, you can judge the value of something by how well it works. Sounds like common sense, but somehow common sense occasionally takes a vacation from our political dialog. Recently, the left wing of the Democrat party has come out in support of socialism. Tom Steyer and George Soros have invested millions of dollars into Democrat candidates who support socialism while many Democrats are trying to play down the fact that the party is flirting with socialist ideas. Capitalism has dropped in approval among the public while socialism is popular in many circles. Yet when you compare the results of the two economic systems, capitalism helps many more people than socialism.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial titled, “The Coming Global Middle-Class Majority: Thank Capitalism, Not Socialism, For The Boom.”

Here are some highlights from the editorial:

…capitalism in the last few decades has had the most revolutionary impact on improving human lives in history.

And yes, that’s a fact, one reaffirmed in a new study by the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution think tank.

The study validates what some have known now for years: Capitalism makes everyone wealthier, even the poor. But it also magically turns hundreds of millions of poor people into the middle class. It’s the greatest economic transformation ever.

The Brookings study, by Homi Kharas, asserts that in just two years — 2020 — the majority of the world’s estimated 7.5 billion people will be “middle class.” Kharas defines middle class as anyone who can pay for food, shelter and clothing, with enough left to supply some luxuries, including TV, a motorbike or car, higher education, home improvements and better food.

The editorial notes the difference between perception and reality:

Put another way, thanks to the free-market revolution that is still reshaping the world, per person global output increased more in the 15 years after the fall of communism than it had in the previous 10,000 years of human civilization.

To say this is an underrecognized, underreported phenomenon is an understatement. Today, in our colleges and universities, our best students learn that the world is bifurcated sharply into haves and have-nots, a result of capitalism run amok. And that capitalism leaves a small handful of people richer but the rest of us poorer.

Simply not true. Indeed, most of the world is getting richer, largely due to free trade, more open investment, and the recognition by many countries that not all regulations are good. And among those who have benefited the most are those who are the poorest.

Socialism didn’t achieve these things. Capitalism, now a dirty word, did. Yet, as we’ve mentioned before, a recent Gallup Poll shows that among those aged 18 to 29, 51% have a positive view of socialism while just 45% have a positive view of capitalism. They’re sadly mistaken.

As left-leaning economist Robert Heilbroner so eloquently wrote in the pages of the New Yorker all the way back in 1989, “Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won … Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism.”

The editorial concludes:

Yes, growth cycles go up, and they go down. But there is no question that the free market policies put in place in the early 1980s under U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have had an enormous effect around the world. The ideas they fostered and that other governments picked up made the world a much wealthier place. They helped pull literally hundreds of millions out of poverty and misery.

Remember that the next time you hear Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren or congresswoman wannabe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez extol the wonders of socialism. Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism creates poverty. And the explosion in the global middle class proves it.

I guess those who support candidates espousing socialism need to study recent economics and history.

Sunshine Is The Best Disinfectant

Today The American Greatness website posted an article by Victor Davis Hanson about the Mueller investigation. The article is a refreshing bit of common sense in a world of spin.

Mr. Hanson observes:

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was star-crossed from the start. His friend and successor as FBI director, James Comey, by his own admission prompted the investigation—with the deliberate leaking of classified memos about his conversations with President Donald Trump to the press.

Mueller then unnecessarily stocked his team with what the press called his “dream team” of mostly Democratic partisans. One had defended a Hillary Clinton employee. Another had defended the Clinton Foundation.

Mr. Hanson notes that the investigation has been less than transparent, noting that “Mueller at first did not announce to the press why he had dismissed Trump-hating FBI operatives Lisa Page and Peter Strzok from his investigative team. Instead, he staggered their departures to leave the impression they were routine reassignments.”

Mr. Hanson then points out that there is at least an appearance of collusion by the Clinton campaign that Mueller has chosen to ignore:

It is likely that during the 2016 campaign, officials at the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and National Security Agency broke laws to ensure that the outsider Trump lost to Hillary Clinton. FBI and Justice Department officials misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to obtain warrants to surveil Trump associates. National security officials unmasked the names of those being monitored and likely leaked them to the press with the intent to spread unverified rumors detrimental to the Trump campaign.

A spy on the federal payroll was implanted into the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton’s campaign team paid for research done by a former British intelligence officer working with Russian sources to compile a dossier on Trump. Clinton hid her investment in Christopher Steele’s dossier by using intermediaries such as the Perkins Coie law firm and Fusion GPS to wipe away her fingerprints.

As a result of wrongful conduct, more than a dozen officials at the FBI and the Justice Department have resigned or retired, or were fired or reassigned. Yet so far none of these miscreants has been indicted or has faced the same legal scrutiny that Mueller applies to Trump associates.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence when she was being investigated for her private email server, but somehow no one in the Justice Department seems concerned about that. Can you imagine what would happen if you or I destroyed subpoenaed evidence?

Mr. Hanson concludes:

The only way to clear up this messy saga is for Trump to immediately declassify all documents—without redactions—relating to the Mueller investigation, the FISA court warrants, the Clinton email investigation, and CIA and FBI involvement with the dossier, and the use of informants.

Second, there needs to be another special counsel to investigate wrongdoing on the part of senior officials in these now nearly discredited agencies. The mandate should be to discover whether there was serial conflict of interest, chronic lying to federal officials, obstruction of justice, improper unmasking and leaking, misleading of federal courts, and violation of campaign finance laws.

It is past time to stop the stonewalling, the redacting, the suppression, the leaking to the press and the media hysteria. The government must turn over all relevant documents to two special counsels and free each to discover who did what in 2016.

Americans need the whole truth to ensure equality under the law and to thereby set us free from this nearly two-year nightmare.

Let the truth come out.

Don’t Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Political Attack

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about a recent article posted in The Washington Post. The Washington Post article dealt with a government policy choosing not to renew the passports of people born near the border, as they are skeptical that those people were actually born in the country.

The Daily Caller reports:

…It’s not until the ninth paragraph that the article begins to address that the policy began under the Bush administration and continued under Obama.

The article was titled, “U.S. is denying passports to Americans along the border, throwing their citizenship into question” and was written by Kevin Sieff.

The article addressed the problems faced by “a growing number of people whose official birth records show they were born in the United States but who are now being denied passports.”

The fourth paragraph referenced President Trump, saying, “The Trump administration is accusing hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Hispanics along the border of using fraudulent birth certificates since they were babies, and it is undertaking a widespread crackdown.”

The Daily Caller article concludes:

But five paragraphs later, the article clarifies, “The State Department during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations denied passports to people who were delivered by midwives in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley.”

So in spite of the fact that this informal policy began under previous administrations, the article first connects it to President Donald Trump.

If you are a never-Trumper reading this blog (I assume that occasionally happens), this is the kind of reporting that may have shaped your view of President Trump. In this instance, he is simply carrying out the policies of the prior two administrations, but is held responsible for the policy. I suspect that somewhere in The Washington Post article is a quiet accusation that President Trump is racist for carrying out this policy. Well then, what about President Bush and President Obama? Were they racists too?

I would just like to note at this point that during his second term, President George W. Bush was so beaten down by the press that he didn’t stand up to anyone. Because of that, very little was accomplished during his second term. Hopefully, the fact that President Trump seems to be able to ignore the relentless attacks from the media and the political establishment will allow him to accomplish the things that need to be accomplished to bring America back to its economic strength and leadership role in the world.

Submitted by Amy Collett

Tips for starting a home-based business

First-Timer Tips for Getting Your Home-Based Business Off the Ground

It’s easier than ever to start your own home-based business, and this sort of project can not only be fun, interesting, and convenient, but also it can be profitable as well. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because the opportunities are there you don’t have to plan carefully. If this is your first home-based business, you will need to consider what type of work truly suits your lifestyle, what tools you need to get started, how to draw people to your business and how to keep yourself motivated. Here are some essential tips.

What business is right for you?

Sure, you can do anything if you put your mind to it. But why start from square one when you can give yourself a head start? Hobbies can be turned into thriving businesses. Professional skills you’ve learned through other careers can be monetized. Getting a new business off the ground is hard enough, and you will make it significantly harder if you try to do something you either aren’t good at or that you dislike.

So, first step is to do something you love. But that’s not all. The next step has to be evaluating the market potential of your business. Selling a product from home is a great idea for many, and the Internet has made it simple these days. High-tech products such as selfie drones, HIIT equipment and smartwatches are profitable business ideas. You may make the best bird-themed potholders the world has ever seen, but you can’t make a successful business out of it if there’s no market for them. Ask around. Do some research. As Inc.com notes, “What you don’t want to do, however, is base your decision on the opinions of your friends and family.”

Don’t begin without the ultimate tool for success

The best tool you could have to aid in your new business is a ton of start-up capital. Of course, the vast majority of people don’t have that. So settle for making sure you have the second-best tool for success: a strong online presence. The first step of creating this is in your website. Your website is your portal to growing your local business. It should be well-made, clear, easy-to-navigate and fast. You should focus on reliable hosting and outsource the job of building it if you aren’t experienced in web design.

Optimizing your site for local search (when people search for things “near me”) and having SEO (search engine optimization) in mind is the first step to drawing customers, notes Forbes. Beyond that, getting involved in social media will help you make a name for your business. It’s vital to have well-maintained Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and even Snapchat presences. Blogging can also help, as having good online content associated with your business can boost its ranking in search engines.

Stay productive at home

Working from home poses a unique challenge: How do you stay motivated when you’re surrounded by all that comfort? You have a business to run, but lurking everywhere are distractions such as the TV, kids or your bed.

First things first: Force yourself into normal office hours. Instead of simply working off and on whenever you feel like it make sure to stick to a schedule. Some other great tips include getting up and getting dressed (literally) for success, keeping a separate office space away from everything else and making sure you get some exercise throughout the day.

Starting a business can be scary, but you should know that you have the tools available to you to succeed. Part of the joy of running a business from home is that you don’t have to pay the overhead of a brick and mortar space and you get to be your own boss. While that sounds awesome, it won’t work unless you pick a business that truly suits you, set yourself up to accomplish your goals every single day and utilize the power of an online presence.

Photo by Pexels

 

Economic Growth For The Second Quarter

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about the revised economic figures for the second quarter. It is always amazing to me that under a Republican President when the revisions come, they are higher than the original estimates and under a Democrat President when the revisions come, they are lower than the original estimates, but I guess that’s the way it is.

At any rate, this is the chart of growth from the article:

The article had some further observations about the current economy:

1) The upward revision to nonresidential fixed investment was mostly accounted for by investment in software. (2) Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, were revised down. Within goods, the downward revision was widespread, the largest contributor was petroleum.

In addition to presenting revised estimates for the second quarter, today’s release presents revised estimates of first-quarter wages and salaries, personal taxes, and contributions for government social insurance. Wages and salaries are now estimated to have increased $122.5 billion in the first quarter of 2018, an upward revision of $0.4 billion.  (source data)

The article also notes that President Trump’s economic policies have benefited Main Street as well as Wall Street.

The article concludes:

The economic models of the entire last generation+ are based on the assumptions of continuing globalist economics which advances, and has advanced, the interest of Wall Street over Main Street. They were driving a “service-driven economy” message.

Simultaneous to domestic capital investment inside the U.S., the ability of our nation to provide goods and services to meet the economic expansion, means less reliance on imported materials, goods and/or services. We are making more of our own stuff; exporting at a larger rate; and importing less – specifically due to the energy independence strategy within the larger Trump policy.

Every granular policy is like a small part in a larger machine. Each individual part of the MAGAnomic policy is working to compliment the larger objective.

We needed a businessman in the White House. Our current politicians don’t seem to understand economics.

This Is What Leadership Looks Like

This post is for those of you complaining about the fact that President Trump uses Twitter. It seems that President Trump’s use of Twitter may have actually saved some lives.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the South African government’s policy of taking land away from white farmers without any compensation. On Sunday I posted an article quoting Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters essentially telling President Trump to be quiet about the murders and land grabs that are currently happening in South Africa.

President Trump tweeted:

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported:

On Tuesday the South African ANC led government announced they were withdrawing their land grab legislation for further reconsideration.

President Theodore Roosevelt once quoted an old adage which said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” I don’t think anyone will ever accuse President Trump of speaking softly, but I am glad to see that America is no longer afraid to remind people that we are a powerful nation that will use its power to prevent bloodshed where we can.

Consequences Of Not Following The Rules

On May 21, 2017, the Business Insider reported the following:

China killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 CIA sources from 2010 to 2012, hobbling U.S. spying operations in a massive intelligence breach whose origin has not been identified, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

Yesterday I posted an article that included the following:

  • A Chinese-owned company penetrated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to sources briefed on the matter.
  • The company inserted code that forwarded copies of Clinton’s emails to the Chinese company in real time.
  • The Intelligence Community Inspector General warned of the problem, but the FBI subsequently failed to act, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said during a July hearing.

The article at Business Insider stated:

By 2013, U.S. intelligence concluded China’s ability to identify its agents had been curtailed, the newspaper said, and the CIA has been trying to rebuild its spy network there.

Hillary Clinton set up her private server when she took office as Secretary of State in January 2009; she left that position on February 1, 2013.

The Business Insider further reported:

The Chinese killed at least a dozen people providing information to the CIA from 2010 through 2012, dismantling a network that was years in the making, the newspaper reported.

One was shot and killed in front of a government building in China, three officials told the Times, saying that was designed as a message to others about working with Washington.

The breach was considered particularly damaging, with the number of assets lost rivaling those in the Soviet Union and Russia who perished after information passed to Moscow by spies Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, the report said. Ames was active as a spy in the 1980s and Hanssen from 1979 to 2001.

The CIA declined to comment when asked about the Times report on Saturday.

The Chinese activities began to emerge in 2010, when the American spy agency had been getting high quality information about the Chinese government from sources deep inside the bureaucracy, including Chinese upset by the Beijing government’s corruption, four former officials told the Times.

I think we need some accountability here.

What Are We Teaching Our Children?

Yesterday NBC4 in Ohio posted an article about a recent assignment given to students at Roberts Middle School in Cuyahoga Falls.

The article reports:

Last week, students at Roberts Middle School in Cuyahoga Falls were told to choose who should survive an apocalypse on earth. It was an assignment called “Whom to Leave Behind.”

Students were told to pick 8 out of 12 people to save. Some examples included a homosexual professional athlete and a militant African American medical student, WKYC reported.

Parents say the assignment is insensitive and inappropriate, especially for middle schoolers.

“What does her being Muslim have to do with it,” said Bernadette Hartman, referencing another description on the list. “What does being female have to do with it.”

Hartman says her son received the controversial assignment in an 8th-grade social studies class last week.

What in the world is the purpose of this assignment? How does it advance the learning of the students?

The article further reports:

The Cuyahoga Falls School District’s superintendent said the district is taking this seriously and will conduct an investigation.

For parents, they hope this never happens again.

“I think the whole curriculum needs to be more monitored so opinions of the faculty aren’t injected into the classroom,” said Petron.

The superintendent tells WKYC the teacher met with the school on Thursday and will meet with the district on Monday. He added he’s not sure when the investigation will be complete.

I wonder if the assignment was intended to teach the children that people of all backgrounds have worth. If that was the intention, I don’t think that was the result. To me, the assignment seems to place a value on people according to their race, their religion and their gender. That seems more divisive than unifying. It’s time to teach our children things they can actually use–how to write a resume`, how to balance a checkbook, basic life skills like budgeting, nutrition, basic math, and reading. This assignment seems to be a waste of everyone’s time.

On a lighter note, this assignment reminds me of an old joke:

A lawyer, a doctor, a little boy and a priest were all out on a small plane for an afternoon flight when the plane developed engine trouble. In spite of the pilot’s best efforts, the plane started to go down. Finally, the pilot yelled out to his passengers that they’d better jump, grabbed a parachute and bailed out.
Unfortunately, that left only three remaining parachutes. Grabbing one, the doctor said, “I am a doctor and I save lives, so I must live,” and he jumped.
The lawyer then grabbed a parachute and said, “I am the smartest man in the world. I definitely deserve to live.” Then he jumped.
Looking at the young boy, the priest said, “Son, I have been fortunate to have lived a long and full life. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace.”
Handing the parachute back to the priest, the little boy said, “Don’t worry, Father. The smartest man in the world just jumped out with my backpack!”

The labels we put on people are not always accurate.

Some Things Are Just Weird

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about Lanny Davis. Lanny Davis is the longtime friend of the Clintons who is now Michael Cohen’s lawyer. That in itself defies logic, but then it gets worse.

The article reports:

Michael Cohen’s attorney has acknowledged being an anonymous source for the disputed CNN Trump Tower story and also admitted lying on TV about his involvement.

Lanny Davis told BuzzFeed News on Monday evening that he was a source for the story claiming that President Trump had personal prior knowledge of a controversial Trump Tower meeting with Russians — a story the Cohen camp has since repudiated.

“I made a mistake,” Mr. Davis said.

But the mistake traveled:

But as other news outlets wrote stories “matching” the CNN scoop, which if true would contradict the president’s repeated and public denials of any knowledge of the meeting, Mr. Davis was eagerly confirming the story to those other outlets.

The New York Post and the Washington Post each has publicly named Mr. Davis as their confirming source for their Trump Tower meeting stories, despite initial grants of anonymity.

I am willing to wager that at least half of the people in the country who heard the original statement have not heard the retraction. What Lanny Davis originally said was a lie–not a mistake–intended to make President Trump look bad. The lie traveled, and I suspect the truth has not traveled as far. This sort of lying is one of the reasons for the divisiveness in our country right now–there are an awful lot of Americans walking around believing the lies the mainstream media is telling them every day. When confronted with the truth, they become defensive. The damage to our country that the mainstream media is doing is almost incalculable. As they persist in their biased lies, I believe we will see the alternative media grow stronger (if the alternative media can tell the truth that is not being told). I look forward to the day when we have a media that tells the truth and lets Americans draw their own conclusions.

Quite Often There Is A Reason For Protocols And Procedures

The Hillary Clinton private email server scandal is old news. However, there is a new aspect of this story that has just recently come out.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about the Chinese hacking into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

The article reports:

  • A Chinese-owned company penetrated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to sources briefed on the matter.
  • The company inserted code that forwarded copies of Clinton’s emails to the Chinese company in real time.
  • The Intelligence Community Inspector General warned of the problem, but the FBI subsequently failed to act, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said during a July hearing.

Wow. The Chinese had all of our classified correspondence from the State Department in real time. That is scary.

The article reports the timeline:

Two officials with the ICIG, investigator Frank Rucker and attorney Janette McMillan, met repeatedly with FBI officials to warn them of the Chinese intrusion, according to a former intelligence officer with expertise in cybersecurity issues, who was briefed on the matter. He spoke anonymously, as he was not authorized to publicly address the Chinese’s role with Clinton’s server.

Among those FBI officials was Peter Strzok, who was then the bureau’s top counterintelligence official. Strzok was fired this month following the discovery he sent anti-Trump texts to his mistress and co-worker, Lisa Page. Strzok didn’t act on the information the ICIG provided him, according to Gohmert.

Gohmert mentioned in the Judiciary Committee hearing that ICIG officials told Strzok and three other top FBI officials that they found an “anomaly” on Clinton’s server.

The former intelligence officer TheDCNF spoke with said the ICIG “discovered the anomaly pretty early in 2015.”

“When [the ICIG] did a very deep dive, they found in the actual metadata — the data which is at the header and footer of all the emails — that a copy, a ‘courtesy copy,’ was being sent to a third party and that third party was a known Chinese public company that was involved in collecting intelligence for China,” the former intelligence officer told TheDCNF.

“The [the ICIG] believe that there was some level of phishing. But once they got into the server something was embedded,” he said. “The Chinese are notorious for embedding little surprises like this.”

As if this were not discouraging enough:

London Center for Policy Research’s vice president of operations, retired Col. Anthony Shaffer, told TheDCNF that Clinton’s server was vulnerable to hacking.

“Look, there’s evidence based on the complete lack of security hygiene on the server. Fourteen-year-old hackers from Canada could have probably hacked into her server and left very little trace,” Shaffer said. “Any sophisticated organization is going to be able to essentially get in and then clean up their presence.”

For a list of the federal laws that may have been violated in setting up the private server go here.

It is difficult to create a totally hack proof server, but had Hillary used her proper email address and government servers, it is much less likely that the Chinese would have been able to obtain the classified information that flowed through the State Department during her tenure. The rules and regulations regarding email by government bureaucrats are there for a reason. Although I have my theories as to why she ignored them, by ignoring them she put national security issues of America at risk. That is not acceptable.

Why Are We Still In The United Nations?

The Preamble of the United Nations Charter states:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

That sounds really good. Unfortunately, they have fallen considerably short.

On August 22, CNS News posted an article about a recent statement by Idriss Jazairy, an Algerian national, is the Executive Director of the Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement and Global Dialogue. He has described the leveling of sanctions on Iran by the United States as “unjust and harmful.”

The article reports:

Idriss Jazairy noted that the U.S. itself – during the Obama administration – had supported the U.N. Security Council resolution which unanimously endorsed the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

That underscored the illegitimacy of President Trump’s restoration of sanctions following his decision this year to exit the JCPOA, he said.

Jazairy pointed out that the other permanent members of the Security Council – as well as “all international partners” – were opposed to the U.S. move.

“International sanctions must have a lawful purpose, must be proportional, and must not harm the human rights of ordinary citizens, and none of these criteria is met in this case.”

The article further reports:

Jazairy’s appointment as “special rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights” was controversial not just because of the mandate itself, but because of his own record.

Until 2012 he had served as Algeria’s ambassador to the HRC, representing a government that is designated “not free” by the democracy watchdog, Freedom House.

In that capacity, he led African opposition a decade ago to taking a tough stance towards Sudan’s Islamist regime over the deadly humanitarian crisis in Darfur. (Wearing his later special rapporteur hat, Jazairy blamed the suffering of Sudanese people on U.S. sanctions, rather than on the regime, whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.)

Jazairy has accused Israel of international piracy (after the 2010 Israeli commando raid on a Turkish ship carrying pro-Palestinian activists to Gaza) and praised Libya’s Gaddafi regime in 2010 for its efforts “to promote human rights.”

What about the rights of women in Iran? What about the ‘fashion police’ in Iran who literally beat up women they think are not dressed appropriately? What about free speech in Iran? What about Iran’s violations of the Iran treaty?

It truly is time to leave the United Nations. The building in New York City, after some major repairs, would make wonderful upscale condos that would pay real estate taxes to the City. The lower levels of the UN building could be turned into parking garages, and all diplomats who have not paid their parking tickets could be deported. It would be wonderful.

Good News For American Workers

The Washington Examiner posted an article today stating that a trade deal has been negotiated with Mexico. The deal did not include Canada, President Trump has indicated that he wants to cut a separate deal with Canada.

The article reports:

The main aspect of Monday’s deal with Mexico was raising to 75 percent, up from 62.5 percent, the amount of North American-made parts a car or truck must have to qualify as duty-free under NAFTA. The change will make it less economical for manufacturers to rely on supply chains that extend into Mexico. The Trump administration has long sought to force more manufacturing back into the U.S. Deal also requires at least 40 percent of auto content to be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.

The article concludes:

The deal will likely increase pressure on Canada to agree to U.S. demands when three-way talks resume, mostly likely after López Obrador takes office.

“Progress between Mexico and the United States is a necessary requirement for any renewed NAFTA agreement,” Adam Austen, a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, told Reuters. “We are in regular contact with our negotiating partners, and we will continue to work toward a modernized NAFTA. We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class. Canada’s signature is required.”

America has made some bad trade deals in the past. NAFTA is one of them. It looked good on paper (to some people), but hurt American workers. I applaud President Trump’s efforts to protect the jobs of American workers and bring jobs back to this country.

This Should Make For A Very Entertaining Democratic Primary Season

As we have all come to know (and not appreciate), the campaign for the next presidential election starts the day after the last presidential election. Members of the party that did not win begin jockeying for position, assuring voters that they can beat the incumbent in the next election. It is a good time to watch the candidates and attempt to gauge the direction of the party. All indications within the Democrat party are that the party is moving significantly left, but trying not to be obvious about it. Local Congressional candidates are calling for abolishing ICE, instituting socialism, impeaching President Trump, free college tuition for everyone, etc. Nationally, party leaders are saying those are not priorities. (Well, I can guarantee that if the Democrats take the House of Representatives, one of their first issues will be impeachment, regardless of what they are saying.) Well, the Democrat presidential primary just got more interesting.

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported the following:

The Democratic National Committee voted on Saturday to change the party’s supderdelegate rules for its presidential nominations.

The DNC voted to weaken the role top party officials play in nominating their presidential nominee. A superdelegate is an unelected delegate that has the ability to support any candidate and aren’t beholden to results of a primary or caucus. Most superdelegates are current or former Democratic politicians.

The fight over superdelegates was sparked over the 2016 Democratic primary where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was favored heavily by superdelegates over self-proclaimed democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). Clinton was able to secure the nomination sooner with the help of superdelegates and thus end Sander’s campaign. Sanders and many of his supporters have criticized the use of superdelegates and characterized them as a mechanism that subverted the will of the people.

CNN reports the vote was almost unanimous.

The superdelegates were instituted after the 1972 and 1980 elections, where more Democrats participated in the primary elections, but the candidates were defeated by landslides at the polls. Evidently Democrat primary voters did not represent a majority of the country, so the Democrats rigged the system so that candidates could again be chosen in the traditional smoke-filled rooms. That has seemed to work better for them. Even when they haven’t won, they have at least been in the running.

The article concludes:

Superdelegates will no longer be able to vote on the first ballot at the convention unless the candidate has received the necessary pledged delegates, which are based off primary and caucus results, to secure the nomination.

“Today is a historic day for our party,” said DNC Chair Tom Perez. “We passed major reforms that will not only put our next presidential nominee in the strongest position possible, but will help us elect Democrats up and down the ballot, across the country. These reforms will help grow our party, unite Democrats, and restore voters’ trust by making our 2020 nominating process the most inclusive and transparent in our history.”

The fight over superdelegates has divided Democrats but it appears Saturday’s rule change was a compromise most were willing to accept.

This primary season will definitely be a get-out-the-popcorn moment as the establishment Democrats fight to keep control of their party.

What Happens When People Don’t Forgive

A think more than half of the political and violence problems in today’s world could be solved by simple forgiveness and an effort by both sides to get along. I am not naive enough to think that could happen, but I think it is a great idea. As people, some of us seem to spend a lot of time hating people and holding grudges. The current situation in South Africa is an example of what can happen when vengeance is more important than dialog and compromise.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday about a recent statement by Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters.

The article quotes Mr. Malema:

We want to send a strong message to USA authorities just like we did with the Australian authorities. Stay out of South Africa’s domestic updates. South Africa is a post colonial country – with deep inequalities that were long designed by apartheid and colonialism. Our land appropriations program seeks to realize the idea of equality and human dignity. Through land expropriation we’re pushing the white people to share their land which was gained through a crime against humanity… Be that at it may, we must put it on record that Donald pathological liar Trump we’re not scared of you and your USA or Western imperialist forces… Donald Trump is not saying anything we haven’t heard from white people. In all the years I’ve been on record and said I’ve still to meet a white person who supports expropriation of land without compensation. So why are you shocked?… As for Donald Trump, I don’t have time for this nonsense. I expected this.

So let’s take a look at this statement. He is stating that white people don’t like their land taken from them without compensation. Guess what–no one likes their land taken from them without compensation. The stealing (that’s what it is) of land without compensation will not solve the problem–it will only cause more hatred and division. Why is this man calling the West imperialistic when he is the one stealing land without compensation? It also should be noted that the policy of taking land without compensation eliminates private property rights. Mr. Malema does not understand the private property rights are the key to prosperity for a country (see article here). If he truly wants to see South Africa prosper, he needs to respect private property rights. Negotiating a settlement between white farmers and black South Africans might be a much better path in the long run than the one he is taking now.

It is obvious that this will not end well. Mr. Malema is only continuing a cycle of wrongdoing which will be followed by more wrongdoing. There is a peaceful solution to this problem if only those intent on stealing land would be willing to consider it.

Where Is The Laptop?

On August 22, Real Clear Investigations posted an article about the investigation into material on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. There are some serious questions both about how that investigation was handled and about the current location of the laptop. I strongly suggest that you follow the link to read the entire article, but I will try to point out some of the highlights here.

This is the first curious aspect of the investigation:

When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress that his agency had “reviewed all of the communications” discovered on a personal laptop used by Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the “hundreds of thousands” of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.

Comey later told Congress that “thanks to the wizardry of our technology,” the FBI was able to eliminate the vast majority of messages as “duplicates” of emails they’d previously seen. Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked “night after night after night” to scrutinize the remaining material.

But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.

In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.

“Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The article also notes some basic problems with the investigation:

Although the FBI’s New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the search.

The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or after Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands of emails sought by investigators.

Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them, according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely.

The article then explains much of the background of the irregularities in the investigation and why the investigators need to be investigated.

The article concludes with the obvious question:

A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?

The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was “instructed” by superiors to delete the image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to “wipe” all of the Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.

But he said he believes the FBI “retained” possession of the actual machine, and that the evidence on the device was preserved.

The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.

“If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device,” the document states on its final page, “the government will return the subject laptop.”

Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes — including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice — that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities.

When will we have an honest enough Justice Department to investigate the mishandling of classified information and other crimes that are involved in this case?

Some Things Are Not Partisan

We need to remember to watch what Congress does–not what it says. The Republicans in Congress would have you believe that they are pro-life and for secure borders, but their votes tell a different story. Why? Because unfortunately moneyed interests in Washington have more power than the voice of the voters.

Yesterday One America News reported the following:

Senator Rand Paul criticizes the Republican party’s leadership over its lack of fiscal responsibility. This comes after the GOP blocked a key pro-life measure proposed by the Kentucky senator.

The measure would have blocked funding to Planned Parenthood. I suggest that Congress block funding to any organization that pays Congressional lobbyists, sponsors political PAC’s, or makes campaign contributions. I don’t want to limit their rights, but if they are getting money from Congress, they should not be using that money to lobby Congress or make political contributions. That sounds an awful lot like money laundering.

A Marist poll taken in January 2018 shows the following:

A visit to OpenSecrets,org will provide a few clues as to why Planned Parenthood is still receiving taxpayer money–they make large donations to the political campaigns of some Congressmen.

Another issue where we need to watch actions rather than words is border security. If Congress wanted to build the wall and secure the border, wouldn’t they? The Democrats held the majority in the beginning of President Obama’s term and didn’t deal with illegal immigration, and the Republicans have the majority now and haven’t dealt with illegal immigration. Why? The Democrats want the votes of legalized illegal immigrants and the corporate donors to the Republicans want the cheap labor of illegal immigrants (legalized or not). Neither group represents the interests of the American people.

So what is the answer? Look at the voting records of your Congressmen. Decide if those votes reflect your interests. Look to see what votes were show votes to appease the voters when the Congressman knew that he would not be a deciding vote. Drain the swamp.

Every Vote Counts

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse reported that Trump-backed Ohio republican candidate Troy Balderson was declared the official winner today in Ohio’s 12th Congressional district.

After the absentee and provisional ballots were counted, Balderson received 104,328 votes, or 50.12 percent, and O’Connor had 102,648 votes, or 49.32 percent, according to Franklin County.

The article reports:

According to the Associated Press, after final absentee and provisional ballots were counted, Balderson defeated O’Connor by 1,680 votes. […] The result fell 520 votes outside the window to trigger an automatic recount.

Every vote counts.

When you look at their campaign web pages, there are some clear differences. Danny O’Connor opposed what he called the ‘purging’ of Ohio voting rolls. Most of us would refer to that as removing dead people and people who have moved from the voting rolls. Troy Balderson said that he would work to support the Trump agenda. Obviously the race was very close, but this was not part of the blue wave the Democrats keep promising.

Exactly What Is A Soft Coup

The following video was posted at YouTube on August 21:

The video is 37 minutes long, so in case you don’t want to watch it, here are some of the highlights (courtesy of Zerohedge):

It all started from the fake dossier which led eventually to the appointment of Robert Mueller (Special Prosecutor) and the entire foundation is based on a falsity. . . . I understand the next revocation of security clearance is probably going to be Bruce Ohr because he crafted the fake dossier with Christopher Steele, and he may even have written the thing…

After the FBI supposedly fired Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr had at least 70 communications (with Steele) back and forth talking about the ‘firewall’ is still there to protect us. Recent accounts show that Bruce Ohr either wrote the dossier with Christopher Steele or he wrote it himself in communication with Christopher Steele.” –Kevin Shipp

“Yes. Oh, they coordinated it for sure. There are 70 emails back and forth between Ohr and Steele crafting the dossier. So, the FBI and Department of Justice were intimately involved with the creation and publication of that dossier.”

“They even went further than that. The FBI and CIA counter-intelligence even placed an agent inside the Trump campaign.” -Kevin Shipp

…Shipp concluded that a Civil War in the making right now. “I think we are at the beginning of a civil war. You’ve got the ‘Dark Left’ and you’ve got the Conservative people, the Constitutionalists. In progressivism, one of its tenets is to change the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, and uproot traditional America. Whatever happens in November is going to intensify that. . . . Their attack is against Christians and the Constitution.”

Is it possible to drain the swamp?

Looking For Your Keys Under The Light

There is an old joke about a man who was walking around under a street light and another man asked what he was doing. He explained that he was looking for his car keys which he had dropped across the street next to his car. The other man then asked why he wasn’t looking for the keys where he had dropped them. The first man then answered, “Because the light is better here.” That pretty much describes the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit for investigators on one side that the investigation chooses to ignore. There is no evidence on the other side, so the investigators are chasing rabbit trails.

Yesterday Kimberley Strassel posted an article at The Wall Street Journal about the Mueller investigation.

The article notes some basic inequities:

And they are now witnessing unequal treatment in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. Yes, the former FBI director deserves credit for smoking out the Russian trolls who interfered in 2016. And one can argue he is obliged to pursue any evidence of criminal acts, even those unrelated to Russia. But what cannot be justified is the one-sided nature of his probe.

Consider Mr. Cohen, the former Trump lawyer who this week pleaded guilty to eight felony charges. Six related to his personal business dealings; the other two involved campaign-finance violations arising from payments to women claiming affairs with Donald Trump. The criminal prosecution of campaign-finance offenses is exceptionally rare (most charges are civil), but let’s take Mr. Khuzami’s word for it when he says Mr. Cohen’s crimes are “particularly significant” because he’s a lawyer who should know better, and also because the payments were for the purpose of “influencing an election” and undermining its “integrity.”

If there is only “one set of rules,” where is Mr. Mueller’s referral of a case against Hillary for America? Federal law requires campaigns to disclose the recipient and purpose of any payments. The Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to compile a dossier against Mr. Trump, a document that became the basis of the Russia narrative Mr. Mueller now investigates. But the campaign funneled the money to law firm Perkins Coie, which in turn paid Fusion. The campaign falsely described the money as payment for “legal services.” The Democratic National Committee did the same. A Perkins Coie spokesperson has claimed that neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC was aware that Fusion GPS had been hired to conduct the research, and maybe so. But a lot of lawyers here seemed to have been ignoring a clear statute, presumably with the intent of influencing an election.

The article concludes:

Of the seven U.S. citizens Mr. Mueller has charged, five have been accused of (among other things) making false statements to federal officials. But there have been no charges against the partisans who made repeated abjectly false claims to the FBI and Justice Department about actions of their political opponents. There have been no charges against those who leaked classified information, including the unprecedented release of an unmasked conversation between former national security adviser Mike Flynn and a Russian ambassador. Nothing.

Some of these charges might not stand up in court, but that’s beside the point. Plenty of lawyers would poke holes in the campaign-finance charges against Cohen, or the “lying” charges against Mr. Flynn. Special counsels wield immense power; the mere threat of a charge provokes plea deals. It’s the focus that matters.

Prosecutors can claim all they want that they are applying the law equally, but if they only apply it to half the suspects, justice is not served. Mr. Mueller seems blind to the national need for—the basic expectation of—a thorough look into all parties. That omission is fundamentally undermining any legitimacy in his findings. Lady Justice does not wear a blindfold over only one eye.

I guess it’s okay for the FBI to lie to the FISA Court but not okay for regular people to lie to the FBI. Seems like a double standard to me.

The Subtle Assumptions Of Bias

I won’t be watching the NFL this year. I will miss it. I really enjoy football and up until last year had an online subscription to The Sun Chronicle in Attleboro, Massachusetts so that I could play Beat Fearless with their sports reporter. Beat Fearless was a contest in which you matched your football picks against the sports reporter’s picks. I have t-shirts, coolers, and other items that I won by beating ‘fearless.’ I miss football, but I can’t deal with the lack of respect for the national anthem. I understand that the players have a right to protest, I just don’t think that is the place to do it. I understand that we sometimes have racial problems in this country, but disrespecting the flag does not solve those problems.

The New York Daily News posted an article today about Jim Brown. Jim Brown was a running back for the Cleveland Browns (He also showed up in the movie Mars Attacks! and did a wonderful job.) The title of the article is “Jim Brown, once a hero, maybe never should have been one.”

So what is responsible for Jim Brown’s fall from grace? Possibly the fact that he is a patriot with some common sense (and recognizes how hostile the press has been to President Trump).

The article reminds us that he is not a perfect person:

In 1965, Brown was arrested for assault and battery against an 18-year-old girl before being acquitted.

In 1968, he was charged with assault with intent to commit murder against a model – the charge was later dismissed.

In 1969, assault and battery charges were brought against him from a road rage incident, though he was found not guilty.

In 1985, he was charged with raping a woman, though the charges were dismissed.

In 1986, he was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend, but charges were later dropped.

In 1999, Brown was arrested and charged with making terrorist threats toward his wife. He was found guilty of vandalism later that year for smashing up his wife’s car with a shovel.

I would like to remind The Daily News that we currently have players in football proven guilty of some of these same charges. Some of them are probably the ones kneeling, but they are not being called out because their kneeling is politically correct, their political views are in line with the mainstream media, and their football skills make a lot of money for a lot of people.

One paragraph in the article is particularly notable:

Earlier this month, Brown proved to us that he has no idea what the peaceful protests that are taking place in the NFL are actually about, and has fallen victim to the thinking that this is about disrespecting the flag and not about bringing awareness to racism, inequalities, and police brutality.

What authority has declared that is what the ‘peaceful protests that are taking place in the NFL are actually about’? Is this the same authority that criticized Tim Tebow for praying on the field? Is this the same NFL that would not allow the Dallas Cowboys to wear pro-police decals on their helmets?

Whatever the players believe they are protesting, they are dishonoring the flag, the national anthem, and the many soldiers who have given their lives for this country. They are also dishonoring the team unity they are supposed to represent.  I would be much more sympathetic to their protest if I saw them doing something to remedy some of the problems in areas where they believe people are being mistreated.

This paragraph is one of many examples of bias in the press. It is very subtle, and I suspect many people read the paragraph and simply took it as fact. It is not fact–it is propaganda.

Meanwhile, Jim Brown is still one of the greatest football players ever.

 

Those Nasty Unintended Consequences

On Monday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial detailing the impact of ObamaCare on doctors.

The editorial reports:

A year before ObamaCare became law, an IBD/TIPP Poll warned that it would lead to doctor shortages because many would quit or retire early. New evidence shows that our warnings were dead on.

A recent report from the Association of Medical Colleges projects doctor shortages of up to 121,300 within the next 12 years. That’s a 16% increase from their forecast just last year.

Not only are medical schools having trouble attracting doctors (New York University plans to offer free tuition to its med students), but current physicians are cutting back on patient visits, retiring early or switching careers.

An article in a recent issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings says that nearly one in five doctors plan to switch to part-time clinical hours, 27% plan to leave their current practice, and 9% plan to get an administrative job or switch careers entirely.

The editorial cites one possible reason for the declining number of doctors:

One of the big drivers of doctor exits, by the way, is the Obama administration’s “electronic health records” mandate, which was supposed to vastly improve the quality and efficiency of care.

It’s had the opposite effect. A Mayo Clinic survey found that the EHR mandate is reducing efficiency, increasing costs and paperwork hassles, and pushing more doctors to quit or retire early.

A Harris Poll found that 59% of doctors say the current EHR system foisted on them by the Obama administration needs “a complete overhaul,” and 40% say it imposes more challenges than benefits.

ObamaCare continued what had been a long and sorry trend in health care. Government-imposed rules designed to fix some problem in the system instead generated mountains of new administrative work.

The result has been that while the number of physicians in the country has climbed modestly over the past three decades, the number of health care administrators exploded.

This is an illustration of the consequences of government interference in the free market. The free market isn’t perfect, but it is the best way to keep prices down, innovation up, and industries (and professions) moving forward.