Thursday, July 18, 2019

John Paul Stevens' Anti-Second Amendment Hysteria

A chilling reminder of the importance of judicial appointments.

Joseph Klein March 28, 2018 11 

Former Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was a foe of any broad reading of the Second Amendment while he served on the U.S. Supreme Court. He dissented from the 2008 majority decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which held that there was an individual right to bear arms. Mr. Stevens is now going even further in his retirement, writing an op-ed column for the New York Times entitled “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment.”

Mr. Stevens is of the view that the Second Amendment is an artifact with no current beneficial purpose to serve.  “Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states,” he wrote in his op-ed column, “led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that ‘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.’ Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”

In his op-ed column Mr. Steven sharply criticized the Heller decision, which he wrote “has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.” Mr. Stevens added: “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”..........To Read More....

Cartoon of the Day

Abigail Disney's Stunt Against Capitalism

Ultra Rich Leftist Loons Need to Spare Us the Guilt Trip!

By Rich Kozlovich

On July 16, 2109 Nicole Lyn Pesce published an article entitled, Disney heiress 'livid' after going to one of her family's theme parks undercover, saying:
"So much for the “Happiest Place on Earth.” The heiress to the Disney fortune recently went to one of its theme parks undercover and says the visit made her livid."  
"Abigail Disney told the Yahoo News show “Through Her Eyes” that a worker sent her a Facebook message expressing how tragic being employed at the Magic Kingdom has become. So she went to Disneyland to see it for herself."  
“Every single one of these people I talked to were saying, ‘I don’t know how I can maintain this face of joy and warmth when I have to go home and forage for food in other people’s garbage,’” Disney, 59, told Yahoo News host and human rights activist Zainab Salbi in an interview posted Monday.
Apparently she thinks her experience in life, which as far as I can tell means feeling guilty for being worth 120 million dollars she never earned, qualifies her to criticize the CEO, who has 200,000 people employed worldwide.

Now, I will agree that paying anyone a yearly $65 million dollar pay package to be the CEO is “insane”, but that's not germane to the issue at hand. It's a logical fallacy designed to evoke a feeling of outrage about "fairness".  And I keep coming back to the same question.  Who wrote the book of fair? 

Is it fair some live in poverty and others live in luxury? Maybe it is! Fairness isn't about equal outcomes. It's about equal opportunities. If any individual or group of individuals fail to take advantage of the opportunities life offers, why does that become the responsibility of others?

If someone takes a diametrically opposing view of life refusing to get educated; refuses to get and hold a job; live on welfare; live as drunkards or are drug addicted; live irresponsible lives and end up in poverty and misery; why isn't that "fair". Isn't that what we should expect for such behavior?

So then, why is it fair for the rest of us to have to support lazy or irresponsible people?  Now, if you want a definition for what's not fair, that's it! 

Why is it paying employees a "starting" wage of $15 an hour, which is over 31,000 a year based on a 40 hour work week, including a "free education package" to help them get ahead in life "unfair"?

This story leaves out some important information.

If an employee's "starting" wage is $15 an hour, what's the top wage?  What's the average wage?  What's the typical wage?  And how many are in those categories? 

Why didn't the writer address that?  Because it didn't fit the narrative they're pushing.  The average wage at Disney $19.50 an hour.  On a 40 hour week that's over $40 thousand dollars a year.  And this is the average, not the typical wage, or the top wage.  For all we know the typical wage, which is the wage most earn, could easily be over $50 thousand dollars a year, and who knows what the top wage is for non-managerial staff.  And that's unfair? 

Disney pays for their health insurance with the worker's contribution starting at $6 a week.  Companies are paying health insurance costs of ten to fifteen thousand dollars a year, and somehow an employee having to contribute $310 dollars a year is "unfair". 

Does this foolish person know and understand how much Disney pays in health insurance?  Does she know how many people in this country, with company health insurance, are paying a whole lot more than 310 dollars a year? Answer.  I doubt she knows, I doubt she cares, that's not part of the narrative.

Clearly, she's not the brightest pebble in the Disney brook.

A Disney representative responded regarding the education package saying:
Our Disney Aspire initiative is the most comprehensive employee education program in the country, covering 100% of all tuition costs, books and fees so our hourly workers can pursue higher education free of charge, and graduate free of debt.
Is she aware of how big that is?  Is she aware of how much debt Americans are incurring over student loans? That currently totals 1.5 trillion dollars, and she's "livid" over the way Disney employees are treated.  The Disney company is giving these people a huge step up in life if they're willing to work at it.

The Disney response went on to say:
Under Bob Iger’s leadership, Disney has made an initial commitment of $150 million to fund this program in the first five years, and will continue to make significant investments to make Disney Aspire available to as many employees as possible,” the statement continued. “Disney also provides flexible schedules and subsidized childcare to make it easier for employees to take advantage of this opportunity — and we’re proud that more than 40% of our 88,000-plus hourly employees have already signed up to participate.”
And with all that they can't smile for the customers?

Of course Abigail Disney thinks $150 million is chump change.  Well, maybe it is, but it's $150 million dollars they didn't have to commit in the first place.

According to the author:
"nearly three-quarters of full- and part-time employees (73%) said that they didn’t earn enough money working at Disneyland Resort to pay for basic expenses each month. More than half were worried about being evicted, and about one-tenth reported being homeless in the previous two years."
What?  How much does it take a year to live in Florida?  And if conditions at Disney are so bad they can't "act" happy at work; they can't pay their bills; they're homeless; they're losing their homes;  foraging for food from the neighbors garbage; I have to ask: Why don't they quit and get another job?  Or better yet, why don't they get a second job part time?

How about this! Maybe those making these claims, assuming any of that's true, are not able to get other work due to lack of education or skills, and maybe they're lazy, and maybe they're actually being overpaid for what they do?  Is that possible?  I don't know, but Abigail Disney is absolutely clueless, and I don't care what she says about what her grandfather "thought", because I seriously doubt if she really knows what he thought.

Do you really believe he (Roy Disney, not Walt Disney) discussed his business plans and thinking to his granddaughter, who was in no way going to take over the business?  I don't! And I would be shocked if Walt did, and Walt was the boss. 

But now we come to the heart of the issue:
"Disney, whose own net worth is $120 million, joined a group of 19 ultrawealthy Americans, including George Soros, who signed an open letter to the 2020 presidential candidates last month calling for a moderate wealth tax on the richest 1% to help reduce inequality. She recently told The Cut that she has donated $70 million to charity over the past 30 years. "
First of all, that proposed 1% isn't going to reduce inequality.  It would be wasted in the great bureaucratic wasteland known as the federal bureaucracy.

Secondly, can she explain what inequality means?  Does it mean everyone makes the same amount of money?  That's what it sounds like, and the fact she donated $70 million dollars over the last 30 years is another logical fallacy known as a non sequitur, meaning her contributions have nothing to do with the issue at hand. 

What's far more telling is the fact she signed an open letter to all 2020 Presidential candidates with Soros, a far left wing lunatic who's working to  impose socialism worldwide, is a clear demonstration of just how clueless she is, as she's clearly part and parcel of that insane movement spouting nonsense saying:
"We need to change the way we understand and practice capitalism." She told members of a House committee that companies should deliver returns to shareholders "without trampling on the dignity and rights of their employees."
So, exactly what rights are companies trampling?  No one is forced to work for anyone.  This is America. You can walk out the door and find something that suits your needs and wants.  You can walk out the door and start your own business for that matter. 

This isn't about being paid too little, it's about being paid "equally".  No one ever seems to able to explain to me what that means.  Does inequality mean everyone should be making the same amount of money, no matter their skills, work ethic, education or whether or not they own a business.  A business they started?  A business that became successful by working amazingly long hours, putting their house on the line, going without pay checks to meet payroll.   If a company owner does all of that and his janitor makes the same money, why should he bother?  And if that happened would there be an economy? 

The article goes on to say:
"She also told Yahoo in the new interview that she’d emailed Iger her concerns, telling him he was “a great CEO by any measure, perhaps even the greatest CEO in the country right now,” and urging him to “be known as the guy who led to a better place, because that is what you have the power to do.”
So, what constitutes a better place? What does she think everyone should make? What does she think Iger should offer employees.  She doesn't say, and she doesn't say because she hasn't a clue, and it's no wonder Iger no longer responds to her communications.  She's a loon, and if her name hadn't been Disney, no one would ask for her opinion or care what was her opinion!

I will say this.  Based on Walt Disney's history, who was noted for not overpaying his employees, and the history of his struggle to make Disney enterprises famous and successful, it's my conviction, if he was alive today, he'd have wanted to washed her mouth out with soap.   She and her ultrawealthy friends need to stay home and suffer their wealth guilt without burdening others.

Do you feel guilty you were born in America with all the privileges and rights so many others lack?  Do you feel guilty we have access to the greatest health care system in the world, when others have little or none.  You may reasonably feel sorry for them but there's no reason to feel guilty for the bounty America provides. Bounty that was created by those who actually know what it takes to generate capital.  Capital which created the greatest economic engine the world has ever known. 

That economic engine that created a system so equitable that everyone has a chance to make a good life for themselves and their families, if they're willing to work at it.  It's called American capitalism, and the only economic equality we should be concerned about is that all continue to have an equal chance to go for the brass ring.  All else is nothing more than leftist scams and con jobs by either corrupt leftists or useful idiots. 

Let's face it, this was nothing more than a stunt.  She was undercover?  Really?  Get real, who's kidding who? She's an embarassment. 

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Age of Amnesia

July 15, 2019 by Joel Kotkin

We live, as the Indian essayist Saeed Akhter Mirza has put it, in “an age of amnesia.” Across the world, most notably in the West, we are discarding the knowledge and insights passed down over millennia and replacing it with politically correct bromides cooked up in the media and the academy. In some ways, this process recalls, albeit in digital form, the Middle Ages. Conscious shaping of thought—and the manipulation of the past to serve political purposes—is becoming commonplace and pervasive.

Google’s manipulation of algorithms, recently discussed in American Affairs, favors both their commercial interests and also their ideological predilections. Similarly, we see the systematic “de-platforming” of conservative and other groups who offend the mores of tech oligarchs and their media fellow travellers. Major companies are now distancing themselves from “offensive” reminders of American history, such as the Nike’s recent decision to withdraw a sneaker line featuring the Betsy Ross flag. In authoritarian societies, the situation is already far worse. State efforts to control the past in China are enhanced by America’s tech firms, who are helping to erase from history events like the Tiananmen massacre or the mass starvations produced by Maoist policies. Technology has provided those who wish to shape the past, and the future, tools of which the despots of yesterday could only dream.

Factories of  “Mass Amnesia” ............To Read More....

Trump: Article of Impeachment - He Talks Too Much!

By Rich Kozlovich

(Editor's Note:  I originally published this on December 1, 2017, but with all this impeachment clabber I thought it worthwhile to repost it on August 25, 2018, and I find it seems necessary to post it again with the latest articles of impeachment by Rep. Green, who lacks a few shingles on the top of his roof, and when you read the comments in the above linked article you have to wonder how many of the members of the Congress suffer from the same malady.  RK)

Since President Donald Trump was elected we’ve seen our favorite loon, Mad Maxine Waters, rail against him demanding he be impeached, for among other things – he says things that hurt people’s feelings and he calls people names.  Is that really grounds for impeachment?

Actually – if history means anything – yes! Let’s take a look at the Articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson, where there were 11 Articles – all of which should have been laughed out of Congress, based on what was eventually declared unconstitutional, the Tenure of Office Act. This in effect gave Congress power over cabinet posts and not the President of the United States.

Most of the articles were all about the fact he had the nerve to fire his Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, (Stanton was an ally and tool of the radical Republicans and caused disruption in Lincoln’s cabinet also) without the consent of the Congress, and then appoint someone else to the job. The radical Republicans claimed he couldn’t do that because he didn’t have the right to fire Stanton in the first place therefore the job wasn’t open to be filled.

The real reason for this impeachment action was the radical Republicans in Congress didn’t want the Southern states to return in any way except as conquered territory and if they returned it would be under strict rules. Johnson was merely following President Lincoln’s plan for a lenient restoration of a defeated South.

I know it sounds insane, and I doubt Mad Maxine knows this, but when Andrew Johnson was impeached a part of one of the charges for impeachment was:
That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and propriety thereof ….…….
made and deliver with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces as well against Congress as the laws of the United States….
Which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof ……
Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the united states in to contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens.
In short, he talked too much and in a divisive manner - which they didn’t like - they were the first snowflakes. Wow, is Trump in real trouble now?

The Constitution says the President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. What’s that mean?

On Sunday June, 8, 2014 I wrote an article entitled, The Post Constitutional Era! Part XV about executive impeachment saying:

The president must “take care” that federal laws are executed. However, if the president and vice president fail they can be removed from office if they are impeached and convicted of treason, bribery, or other “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There has always been a great deal of discussion as to what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”. I will attempt to outline the historical foundation for that phrase. Jon Roland of the Constitution Society states that it had meaning and understanding to the Framers stating:
“to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.”
He further states:
“Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.”
He notes the same values applies today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where civilians could not be punished, but those with “sworn” duties are held accountable for their failure to perform, and their “offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform”, are punishable.

To the Founding Fathers the word "perjury" – derived from a number of Latin terms including – periurium - meaning “a false oath, perjury, and would have meant a "violation of an oath’". The president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

“He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office because he has assumed an official role and that role is that of a “witness under oath” for the duration of his testimony”’, i.e. his term of office. That’s what perjury a “high crime” as it is a crime of high office. So when the President swears to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", and fails to do so he is guilty of a “high crime”.

The author notes that to hold a “high” office comes to everyone as a privilege” – it isn’t a right, and removal is based on the preponderance of evidence, even if that "high crime or misdemeanor" is “referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.”

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, which truly are high crimes in every sense – and he was guilty as sin – and any normal person would have resigned in disgrace, but not Bill Clinton and the Congress couldn’t bring itself to kick him out of office.  If the Democrats had demanded Clinton's resignation Gore would have been sworn in and then most likely would have won the next election.   

Then we have Obama, who actually refused to enforce laws passed by Congress, a clear violation of his oath of office - as I've shown, perjury by definition - absolutely impeachable and completely provable. Apparently the nation could bear all of those real high crimes and misdemeanors.

But Trump talks too much. That’s unbearable!

The Epstein Case: Far Ranging and Nuclear, Part IV

By Rich Kozlovich

It's being claimed trying Epstein now is a case of double jeopardy, and mostly because of Acosta's handling of the plea agreement.  But that's in federal court. New evidence in the old cases won't cut it.  It will take evidence of new offences, and apparently they don't have that....yet! 

However, in this February 2019 article they state:
Federal prosecutors, under former Miami U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, broke the law when they concealed a plea agreement from more than 30 underage victims who had been sexually abused by wealthy New York hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein, a federal judge ruled Thursday. 
While the decision marks a victory for crime victims, the federal judge, Kenneth A. Marra, stopped short of overturning Epstein’s plea deal, or issuing an order resolving the case. He instead gave federal prosecutors 15 days to confer with Epstein’s victims and their attorneys to come up with a settlement. The victims did not seek money or damages as part of the suit. 
It’s not clear whether the victims, now in their late 20s and early 30s, can, as part of the settlement, demand that the government prosecute Epstein. But others are calling on the Justice Department to take a new look at the case in the wake of the judge’s ruling.

Read more here:
Will that be a factor in this case?  I have to believe it will.  But one thing seems clear to me, and that is none of this prevents local and state prosecutors from taking action.  This is getting too big for the locals to ignore, and someone will have to step up and be counted. 

Cartoon of the Day - Democrats: Racists, Radicals, and Crazies

By Rich Kozlovich

So, now the young "radicals" are calling the older "radicals" racists. And we're supposed to be surprised why?   What exactly did these old leftist loons think was going to happen?  The older loons played the race card as a strategy.  The young loons aren't playing.

As it is with all leftists, these young leftist loons want power, and they're more than willing to sacrifice anyone who stands in their way, including old leftist loons. 

That's the history of socialism!

From the French Revolution, to the Stalinist purges and beyond.  The left has no firm or stable moral foundation.   History has clearly demonstrated the real philosophical moral foundation of socialism is based on greed, envy, hate and violence.  They're more than willing to accept the latest philosophical flavor of the day if it means attaining the power they so irrationally desire.  Even if it means abandoning previously held views.  Even if it means destroying former friends and allies.  Even if it means murdering 100 million innocent people. 

Socialists promise utopia.  They never fail to deliver dystopia.  That's the only thing socialist are consistently good at.  Delivering suffering, disease, misery, starvation and early death.  There can be no denying leftism is evil.  As for those so support leftists and their schemes - they share in the guilt for these leftist crimes against humanity. 

And that history is incontestable

Is This the Moment Where the Revolution Eats Its Own?

July 16, 2019 By Christopher Chantrill

When we racist, sexist homophobes use the word "catfight," we are merely observing — as you are not allowed to observe — that women fight each other differently from how men fight.

It seems to us deplorables that women fight by calling each other names. And so, in the catfight last week between Our Nance and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it ended with Sandy O calling Our Nance a racist.

Of course it did, because that is what Ocasio-Cortez has been carefully taught. When you are caught in a jam, you play the race card. What year did Ocasio-Cortez take Playing the Race Card to Bend the Arc of History toward Justice 101 at Boston U, do you think?

But as usual, President Trump spoiled the fun by weighing in and saying Our Nance is not a racist, and that Rep. Omar should fix her homeland before she fixes ours. Reminds me of how Aussies deal with Brits:

Brit: It's bloomin' hot here in Oz.......To Read More....

A Sophomoric Look at Climate Change

July 16, 2019 By Gordon Wysong

My nephew completed freshman year in college, and he was excited to have qualified for the climate science track. ............On my nephew's first day of Climate 201, the learned professor whetted his appetite by telling him this elite class would develop a climate change model.

He shared with me his list of variables:......... His imagination was running wild, thinking of the complexity he would resolve in only one semester. When he turned in the list, and it was compared to others, he found he had missed forty or so other variables. Not to worry: The class now had a compilation that was certain to lead to an answer. They began the remaining work.

For each variable, the class now began to construct an equation, which would quantify each variable's effect on climate. My nephew chose volcanic activity for his first equation and soon realized that he really needed to analyze undersea versus open-air volcanic activity — so he would need two equations, not one!

A fellow student was working on ocean algae population, and he overheard her say she needed to know the ocean temperature, the different species of algae, where they occurred, and whether their population was affected when undersea volcanoes warmed some region of the ocean. He told her his own equations might be useful, if he could complete them.

What to do? My nephew asked the teacher if he could amend the variable list, since he now had several more unknowns, as did his algae classmate. Suddenly, there was a cacophony of voices from throughout the class. Everyone had more variables — fourteen more from the sunspot guy, nine more from the continental drift girl, and eighteen more from the water vapor team.......

When the din died down, the teacher looked forlorn; the class had not completed one equation yet now had over 100 variables. Some hemming and hawing led to early dismissal, with the promise of a revised assignment the next day.............. His faith was restored the following morning.

Everyone was giddy — except for that one guy who was taking the course merely for grade inflation potential. He asked questions like "What if the effect of the sun caused climate change?" and "Who caused the climate change that caused the last ice age?" and "What if the Earth has a natural ability to balance these variables?".............The next morning started one student short. .........

This led to a secret corollary to mission success. No one will be allowed to dissent from the consensus. As work began, the instructor suddenly announced that he had been recruited to serve a sabbatical with one of his three consultants. Everyone would get an A in the course; all they need do was assert convincingly that fossil fuels increase CO2 emissions and cause global warming. Though there would be no published formula, students would be allowed to assert the theory affirmatively, based on confidential formulas they might someday see.

The Sophomoric Formula that would define success in the climatology would wait, but the entire group of students had now reached the same deep understanding as the wise guy classmate: this was an easy A course ...........To Read More...

Democratic Socialism Newspeak

July 2, 2019 By Benjamin Powell

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders unveiled his vision of “democratic socialism“ during a recent speech at George Washington University. Unfortunately, he did more to confuse the meaning of democratic socialism than to clarify it.

The words capitalism and socialism have meanings, so let’s get things clear up front. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of property coordinated through voluntary exchange in markets.

Socialism is an economic system that abolishes private property in the means of production—the land, capital, and labor used to make everything—and replaces it with some form of collective ownership. Whenever socialism has been implemented at a national level, collective ownership in practice has meant state ownership, and government plans have replaced markets as the primary mechanism to coordinate economic activity...........To Read More....

Wind Power Sources Remain More Fantasy than Reality

June 27, 2019 By William F. Shughart II

At first glance, wind power seems to be the path to a carbon-free energy future. Once harnessed, it’s clean and abundant. Larger turbines have enhanced wind’s power-generating capacity.

But contrary to its supporters, wind energy has grown thanks largely to production tax credits (2.3 cents per kilowatt hour) totaling billions of dollars. However, those credits are being phased out, and without such generous subsidies, wind energy will not make much of a dent in power production or carbon mitigation for at least a decade.

The amount of wind energy has tripled in the past 10 years, growing to 97,223 megawatts in 41 states. Half of that generating capacity is located in five of them: Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, California and Kansas. Because seasonal wind patterns vary considerably across the country, wind’s contribution to the grid represents just 8 percent of power production nationwide.........To Read More....

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Thought For the Day

The Electoral College: A Bastion Against Tyranny!

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently we've seen an concerted effort to eliminate the Elector College by the left, and some states actually bought into it for a while. 

In my youth I too thought the Electoral College should be done away with and the President of the United States should be elected directly by the people. As I grew older and read more, I realized how and why the Founding Fathers chose such a seemingly convoluted system, and recognized the wisdom of the Electoral College.

A friend of mine sent the following information to me. I don’t know who originated it so there’s no accreditation, but I’m going to publish it nonetheless, acknowledging I am not the originator, although I wish I was.
319 Square Miles! 
In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?  The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.  
Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.  
There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Hillary Clinton won 57.  There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Hillary Clinton won 16.  
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Hillary Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond).  Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.  
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.  
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country! And... it’s been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.  
Well worth the 39 seconds to read? Now please pass it!
As I said at the beginning, in my youth I thought the Electoral College should be eliminated. That’s the kind of thinking that’s common of the young, because the young lack knowledge, understanding and experience in life.

If we take the time to find out why the Founding Fathers created a series of checks and balances, we find we can clearly define issues such as this, because  definition leads to clarity. Clarity leads to understanding. Understanding leads to good decision making.

So, let me define this for everyone properly.

This effort to eliminate the Electoral College by the Democrats is callow, self serving and destructive to the nation by undermining the checks and balances of the Constitution. One of their biggest successes in undermining those checks and balances was the 17th Amendment. We need to reject any effort to eliminate the Electoral College, and while were at it, repeal the 17th Amendment.

We also need to make sure American history, especially in primary education, is restored. Especially that history dealing with how and why the Constitution came into being.

We need to get this. Civics education in this nation is in crisis.

In spite of the fact all 50 states require some kind of civics education, only about 25% of American students are "proficient" in the NAEP Civics Assessment standard. Why? Because leftists have completely taken over education in America at all levels, which they've been insidiously working toward since the late 19th century, undermining the foundational values that made this nation great.

Furthermore, they control the teacher unions, which need to be eliminated.  Eliminate the Department of Education, restore control to the local school boards with some state oversight, and create a voucher system where parents can send their kids to schools of their choice. 

How's that for definition, clarity and understanding?  How about some good decision making now?

One last point. 


Norway, Sweden, Socialism, and the Welfare State

July 15, 2019 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
The Nordic nations punch above their weight in global discussions of economic policy.

Advocates of bigger government in the United States, such as Bernie Sanders, claim that those countries are proof that socialism can work.

But there’s a big problem with that claim. The Nordic nations don’t have any of the policies – government ownership, central planning, or price controls – that are characteristics of a socialist economy.

But they do have high taxes and big welfare states. And since some politicians seem to think America should copy those policies, let’s see what we can learn by examining the Nordic nations.

NIma Sanandaji, writing for Foreign Policy, highlights what is good – and not so good – about government policy in the region. He starts by looking specifically at Norway.
Erlend Kvitrud, a member of the Norwegian Green Party, links democratic socialist economic policies and Nordic countries’ prosperity. …the left has for decades showcased the Nordic nations as proof that socialism can work not only in theory but also in practice. …Inconveniently for fans of the Nordic welfare model, though, Norway’s actual economic success rests on its wealth of natural resources. …Norway’s oil fund is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, worth around $200,000 per citizen. It wasn’t Norway’s social democratic economic policies that created the country’s wealth. It was nature. …The other Nordic countries, which lack Norway’s oil and natural gas riches, have lower living standards than the United States.
He’s certainly correct in highlighting the role of oil wealth in Norway.

And he also points out that Norway became a successful and prosperous nation before the welfare state was imposed.
What’s more, the Nordic countries’ social successes predate their high-tax, high-social spending policies. …economists Anthony Barnes Atkinson and Jakob Egholt Sogaard shows that most of the progress toward income inequality in Norway and Sweden happened before 1970, at a time when the two countries had low tax regimes and less redistributive policies. Similarly, the Nordic countries’ social successes were more pronounced in those years. Relative to the rest of the world, for example, they had a greater advantage in life span and child mortality in 1970 than they do today. In other words, the Nordic model arose after those countries were already prosperous and egalitarian.
These are all good points, but I think Nima actually overlooks one very powerful argument.

Yes, per-capita GDP in Norway is very similar to the United States, but gross domestic product is an imperfect measure of living standards. The data in relatively small economies can be misleading if there is a particular sector that distorts national statistics – such as financial services in Luxembourg or corporations in Ireland.

That’s why, if you want to measure the prosperity of households, it’s best to review the OECD’s data on “actual individual consumption.”

I’ve shared that data for all developed nations in the past, and the Council of Economic Advisers recently did a specific comparison of the United States and Nordic nations.
Norway is still impressive, ranked higher than its neighbors, but not in the same league as the United States.

By the way, in another article, this time for National Review, Nima explains that America actually has more women in management than any of the Nordic nations.
Science Daily once bluntly stated that “the Nordic countries are the most gender equal nations in the world.” There is some truth to this. …A common assumption is that the gender-equality progress of the Nordics is due to their social-democratic welfare policies. …The truth is that Nordic countries have a long history of gender equality, stretching back to the time of the Vikings. …One might expect this to translate into many women reaching the top of the business world. But this clearly is not the case. …the share of women among managers, as recorded by the International Labour Organization, is 43 percent in the United States, compared with 36 percent in Sweden and 28 percent in Denmark. …a pattern emerges: Those with more extensive welfare-state policies have fewer women on top. Iceland, which has a moderately sized welfare state, has the most women managers. Second is Sweden, which has opened up welfare services such as education, health care, and elder care for private-sector competition. Denmark, which has the highest taxes and the biggest welfare state in the modern world, has the lowest share of women in managerial positions. …The true lesson, that a large welfare state actually can impede women’s progress.
Let’s return to the big-picture economic comparisons.

Professor Hannes Gissurason of the University of Iceland authored a report on the Nordic model for the Foundation for European Reform.

It’s a very detailed study covering lots of issues.
The five Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland, are rightly regarded as successful societies. They are affluent, but without a wide gap between rich and poor. They provide social security, but without a significant erosion, it seems, of their freedoms. They are small, but they all enjoy a good reputation around the world as peaceful, civilised democracies. The Nordic nations are healthy and well-educated and the crime rate is low. But what is it that other nations can learn from the Nordic success story?
For today, let’s focus on the third chapter, which look at three distinct eras of Swedish economic history.
…a distinction can be made between three Swedish models. The liberal model was developed in the mid-19th century, when liberal principles of free trade and unfettered competition were generally accepted and implemented in Sweden. The years between 1970 and 1990 were the heyday of the social democratic welfare model, although it had of course started its development much earlier and was to last for a few more years. The third model emerged in the 1990s after the experience of the social democratic model: this was the liberal welfare model.
The first era, which was based on classical liberal principles of free markets and limited government, is when Sweden became rich.
It was the liberal model which made Sweden wealthy, as Swedish economist Nima Sanandaji has well documented. Between 1870 and 1936, Sweden enjoyed the highest growth rate in the industrialised world… What produced the astonishing growth after 1870 was the introduction of economic freedom into a relatively poor society, but with strong traditions of self-reliance, hard work, thriftiness, and respect for the law and a high level of education. Money was sound, with the Swedish krona being on the gold standard… The environment was friendly to business and taxes were relatively low, even after the Social Democrats took over. In 1955, for example, tax revenues in Sweden, as a proportion of GDP, were the same as in the US, 24%.
The second era is when Sweden shifted to what some people call democratic socialism, but more accurately should be called the era of big government.

There were high taxes and lots of redistribution programs. And, not surprisingly, this led to economic stagnation.
…In 1975, tax revenues, as a proportion of GDP, had risen to 39% in Sweden, but was still only 25% in the US… In 2004, 38 of the largest companies in Sweden were entrepreneurial which means that they had been started as privately owned enterprises within the country. …Only two had been formed after 1970. While the public sector grew, the private sector stagnated. Between 1950 and 2000, the Swedish population grew from seven to almost nine million. Incredibly, the net job creation in the private sector during this period was close to zero. All the new jobs were in the public sector. …Many entrepreneurs left the country, including the founders of IKEA, Tetra Pak, and H&M.
Big government undermines initiative and weakens economic performance.

The study includes this data on how Swedes get richer in America than they do back home.

All this bad news created the conditions for the third era, which featured market-based reforms – regardless of which party or parties were in control of government.
Reluctantly, the Social Democrats started some reforms, deregulating credit and foreign exchange markets and changing the tax system, lowering marginal income tax from 73% to 51% and the capital gains tax to 30%. In 1991 a non-socialist government was voted in again. Now it was also anti-socialist, and it immediately abolished the wage earner funds… energy, postal, telephone, railway, and airline markets were all deregulated. …The government introduced school vouchers, sold stateowned companies, and carried out reforms in the labour market, especially designed for small businesses and private job agencies. The government also allowed for some choice in health care and assistance to the elderly. …when the Social Democrats returned to power in 1994…welfare benefits were cut; a new pension system was established, partly with self-funded pensions; collective bargaining was reformed; the inheritance tax was abolished. The centre-right government which was in power 2006–2014 continued liberalising the Swedish economy: the wealth tax was abolished, …property rights were strengthened, and the corporate tax was cut to 22%.
In other words, for the past twenty or so years, Sweden has been a leader in pro-market reforms.
Yes, there’s still a big government. But not as big as it used to be.

Yes, there are still high taxes. But not as high as they used to be.

And what’s the lesson we can learn?

This chart is very persuasive. It shows how Swedish prosperity, measured relative to the United States, declined during the era of big government.

But there’s been some convergence ever since policy makers started liberalizing the Swedish economy.

And we see a similar pattern if we compare Sweden to all other industrialized nations.

P.S. A very interesting study suggests that widespread migration to America made Sweden more statist.


Exactly which states do the Dems think they will flip in 2020?

July 15, 2019 By John E. Jaggers

The political news is all about the 2020 presidential election. We get daily polls purportedly informing us of who is up, who is down, who's going up, who's going down, and the impact of every comment, either woke or misspoke.

The Beltway and the Acela corridor lock in on this "data" as if it were an NFL championship game between teams led by Payton Manning and Tom Brady. (I'd use a women's soccer analogy, but no one's watching women's soccer, and foul-mouthed think pieces don't age well).

The rest of America, particularly once you are about a 30- to 35-mile radius away (about Purcellville, Va.) from the Capitol, couldn't care less about Beltway blather. Americans outside this circle of largely corrupt grifting are all recovering from the economic devastation of the Bush-Obama years. There were no bread lines, but that doesn't mean people didn't feel the losses of those times........To Read More....

The RNC Just Torched Ocasio-Cortez And Her 'Squad's' Presser By Rehashing All The Things That Back Up What Trump Said About Them

Matt Vespa Jul 15, 2019

 The RNC Just Torched Ocasio-Cortez And Her 'Squad's' Presser By Rehashing All The Things That Back Up What Trump Said About Them

This crew was throwing punches at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but President Trump decided to insert himself into the intra-Democratic Party conflict, telling the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party that they can leave if they’re unhappy with America...........

After hours of simmering, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) said they weren’t going to take Trump’s bait, but then decided to chomp down hook, line, and sinker.............Yes, they peddled the same trash liberal talking points, but impeachment seems to be their main unveiling, which isn’t a shocker, while reaffirming the progressive left that they’re still feisty...........

Oh, and the funny part about this presser is the notion that the president attacked them for no reason other than that they’re women of color. No, from anti-Semitism to Omar pretty much saying that she won’t condemn terrorists, there’s plenty of reasons why this “squad,” this left-wing crew should be raked over the coals. .............To Read More....

Iceberg Ahead for Democrats?

Posted on by

It’s interesting. When MSNBC or CNN releases a poll saying Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren will crush President Trump in 2020 by a 30 point margin — just like Hillary Clinton was supposed to do in 2016 — we’re supposed to automatically and always believe it............

A new internal Democrat poll in swing districts released on Sunday showed that socialist Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) are extremely unpopular and that they may cost the Democratic Party the presidency and the House in 2020.
  • “Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of voters in the poll; 22% had a favorable view"....
  • “Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — another member of The Squad — was recognized by 53% of the voters; 9% (not a typo) had a favorable view.” 
  • “Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%,”
  • “capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable.”...............
If people who normally would vote Democratic — and who did vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 — give President Donald Trump so much as a second look, then there’s indeed a major “Iceberg Ahead” ahead for leftists.............Brace yourselves. If I’m right, leftists in media, the corporate world, entertainment/sports and academia are going to turn even uglier than they are.

It will be the biggest and most pathetic temper tantrum in the history of mankind. And such a sweet victory............To Read More....

Democrat Blue makes me see Red – the Hijacking of America!

July 13, 2019 by

Government Regulations: The Princess and Pea

The “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act” will do nothing of the kind.

by  July 15, 2019

In “The Princess and the Pea,” an old queen proves that a midnight traveler is a true princess by hiding a pea under an almost unbelievable number of mattresses and down bedclothes. Because she is indeed a real princess, she feels the pea and the prince marries her. It is an awful story, one I don’t suggest telling your kids — unless you change the old queen to the old bureaucrat, the prince to the politician, the visiting princess to an entrepreneur, and the ending to a riot from the entrepreneurs after they figure out the pea was put there on purpose.

Then, although it is still an unpleasant tale, it will at least teach your kids a lesson about the way government works. They manufacture a problem, and then they create a regulation to “solve” the problem. When the market reacts negatively, they attempt to make things better by creating even more laws — and entrepreneurs, no matter how close or far away from the manufactured crisis, are affected by the regulation.

We see this in issues ranging from immigration to imports. We see it in wage laws and retirement laws. Most recently, the government has been focusing on technology and pharmaceuticals. Their regulations are doing a pretty good job at making it hard for businesses to build, innovate, and move forward..........To Read More....

WATCH: Barr Compares Anti-Semitism To A Metastasizing Cancer. His Comparison Is Spot On.

Beth Baumann Jul 15, 2019

Attorney General William Barr on Monday talked about the dangers of allowing anti-Semitism to flourish. Barr's remarks were made during a Department of Justice's summit designed to condemn anti-Semitism.

"The most ancient and stubborn form of racism throughout Western history has been anti-Semitism. Hostility or prejudice against the Jewish people has manifested itself in the organized violence of pogroms, expulsions, and massacres. Within living memory, these genocidal acts reached the unimaginable scale and evil of the Holocaust," Barr said.

“In the United States today, we do not see state-organized violence, but increasingly we are seeing hate-inspired violence against the Jewish community perpetrated by individuals and groups," Barr said, referencing the shootings at various synagogues across the country........To Read More....

Kamala's Peak Hypocrisy Centers Around Jeffrey Epstein...And A Fundraiser?

Beth Baumann Jul 15, 2019

 California Sen. Kamala Harris (D) chided Kirkland and Ellis, a Chicago-based law firm, that represented Jeffrey Epstein when he was accused of sexual abuse.

Here's the kicker: the same day Harris went after the law firm, her husband, Douglas Emhoff, headlined a fundraiser in Chicago for his wife's campaign. And guess who the main hosts were? That's right. The six partners of Kirkland and Ellis.

"In our democracy, no one—no matter how powerful or well-connected—is above the law," Harris said in a statement. "Yet Epstein’s deal, secured by his lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis, calls into question the integrity of our legal system and undermines the public’s confidence that justice will be served."...........Naturally, Harris' campaign is attempting to spin what took place. Their argument? Those who support Harris' campaign and hosted the fundraiser weren't partners that worked on Epstein's plea agreement...........Naturally, Harris' campaign is attempting to spin what took place. Their argument? Those who support Harris' campaign and hosted the fundraiser weren't partners that worked on Epstein's plea agreement..............To Read More....

Has It Started? Has What Started?

July 15, 2019 By

I recently wrote that somewhere, sometime, some good citizen, weary to death of being assailed by the hooded Antifa nut cases on the streets of their city, will shoot one of ‘em to death. I didn’t think that would happen a day or so later but, I knew it was bound to happen.

The difference here is that the poor bugger who was shot to death was done so because he was engaged in an armed assault on an ICE facility in Tacoma, Wa. He was in his black uniform, possessed a rifle and according to news sources, was throwing explosive devices toward the ICE facility.............

Like the Nazis did with Horst Wessel this lot will attempt to make a martyr of him and use his ‘bravery’ as an example for all to emulate. One wonders if he wrote a song. His remains are now in law enforcements hands. He should be cremated and his ashes pitched out of a speeding airplane over a landfill or a sewer treatment plant...........Remember, freedom is the goal, the Constitution is the way. Now, go get ‘em!.........To Read More....

The American Crime Factory

Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, August 1996
The Antisocial Personalities, David Lykken, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, 259 pp.

Why is there so much crime? To this simple question, liberalism has offered so many environmental explanations that are patently inadequate—poverty, racism, unemployment, etc.—that it is tempting to dismiss them all. Increasingly clear evidence for the heritability of criminality makes it easy to suspect that criminals are born more than they are made, and that little can be done about them.
David Lykken, author of The Antisocial Personalities, might have been inclined towards an overwhelmingly hereditarian view. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota and has worked closely with Thomas Bouchard on the famous series of studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and reared apart. The similarities between these twins were so striking that not even the popular press could ignore them. Genes seemed to trump environment every time........

Prof. Lykken explains that there is a small number of people who are likely to become criminals no matter how carefully they are reared. They suffer from a congenital personality disorder, and Prof. Lykken calls them psychopaths. There is a much larger group of people who, depending on how they are brought up, could become either criminals or productive citizens. Prof. Lykken calls the ones who go bad sociopaths, and their behavior is hard to distinguish from that of psychopaths...........To Read More....

My Take - Scary!  Sounds like Margret Sanger and Adolph Hitler and a eugenics program.  But what's even scarier,  he may be right.

Meet AOC’s Brain: Saikat Chakrabarti

Annoyed at AOC? He’s the one to blame.

by David CatronJuly 15, 2019

Nancy Pelosi is obviously having difficulty controlling the increasingly acrimonious infighting between factions of the House Democratic caucus. Most observers assume that the primary cause of this discord is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the cadre of far-left first-termers collectively known as “the Squad.” But its actual source is Saikat Chakrabarti, the prime mover behind a Tennessee-based PAC called the “Justice Democrats,” whose support was largely responsible for getting Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ro Khanna, and Pramila Jayapal elected last November.

Chakrabarti has now set up shop in the House, ostensibly as AOC’s chief of staff.Chakrabarti’s previous HQ was a Knoxville address out of which the Justice Democrats and another PAC operated side by side with a dozen congressional campaign committees.

This arrangement flouted a variety of campaign finance laws and prompted several Federal Election Commission complaints, including one alleging that Chakrabarti set up a $1 million slush fund. But this sort of skullduggery is standard practice among Democrats. What exacerbated the already tense atmosphere in their House caucus was Chakrabarti’s response to the $4.6 billion border aid package passed by Congress last month. On June 27, he took to Twitter and berated the Democratic leadership for its shortcomings:........To Read More

My Take - Please view my post of July 4, 2019, The Brains Behind AOC, showing how big a deal this guy and his crowd are.  AOC interviewed for this job, and this guy is in reality her boss, not the other way around.  How long will that last?  Who knows?  Rahn Emmanuel calls Chakrabarti a "snot nosed punk", which really applies across the board to that whole crowd.   However, the real question is how long will these "snot nosed punks" last in Congress? 

Their weirdness and arrogance kind of reminds me of Dennis Kucinich when he was elected Mayor of Cleveland. That was disastrous for Cleveland and Kucinich, even though he managed to get himself elected some year later to Congress from the only district in Ohio that would elect him.   That was the same district that elected Mary Rose Oakar to the Congress over and over again. 

The Ohio Legislature gerrymandered his district and he was out. 

The lesson to learn.  When you take a shot at the king you had better not miss.  Soon it will be Pelosi and Company's turn. 


Gov. Jay Inslee makes a strong bid to be craziest member of the Democrats’ presidential field

July 15, 2019 By Thomas Lifson

The “clown car” that the Democrats are offering as their presidential field has some actual clowns inside. Washington State Governor Jay Inslee faces some serious competition for the title of nuttiest Democrat candidate for president, but has just made a strong bid for the trophy that ought to be named “The Bozo” and awarded in televised ceremony.

Even with Michael Avenatti and Eric Swalwell out of the race, there is still Marianne Williamson to contend with. But over the weekend at the Netroots convention, Inslee, whose platform mainly consists of economic suicide to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, offered a truly deranged promise. Rachel Frazen reports inThe Hill:
"Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said Saturday that if he is elected president, he will ask soccer player Megan Rapinoe to be his secretary of state". ............To Read More
My Take - I think we all owe Governor Inslee a vote of thanks.  He's stupid, but at least he's honest.  In an odd sort of way. After all, what normal person would say something like that?  And what state would elect someone that stupid? 

Of course, Washington did, but California, New York and Oregon also come to mind.  Then of course, there's Illinois, a state with a penchant for throwing their Governors into jail for corruption.  And then there's Vermount, the state that keeps electing Bernie Sanders to the Senate.  Just how stupid is that? 

Why Muslims never Question their Quran…

July 15, 2019

Why did Muhammad forbid his followers from ever questioning him or his Quran?

As our readers should already know by now, Muhammad had a huge problem regarding truth, veracity, facts and reality. Neither the pagan Quraysh nor the Christian or Judaized Arabs accepted his version of Islam because whenever they questioned him about the differences between the Biblical versions of events and his, he became upset, violently angry and full of asinine and ignorant replies.

His rage was exactly because he could not answer the questions truthfully and simply since his version of events was entirely invented by himself as he went along, as we have previously demonstrated conclusively in several of our earlier articles. It is symptomatic of all liars that they get very agitated, defensive, angry and eventually violent whenever they are found out. This is for exactly the same reasons why his current Muslim followers behave whenever they encounter any non Muslim who knows Muhammad’s Quran better than they do...........To Read More....

American-Hating Americans Are the Ultimate Ingrates and Hypocrites

Once again, Trump stands up for Americans who love their country.

July 16, 2019 Bruce Thornton 

With his usual flair for hyperbole and indifference to factual details, Donald Trump last week tweet-blasted the so-called “Squad” of female freshman Congressmen “of color” for slandering America as racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, and numerous other empty epithets.

Though Trump was careless for suggesting, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”––since only one, Ilhan Omar, was born abroad––his sentiment is still valid, and has been shared for decades by millions of Americans angry over their homeland being demonized by immigrants and fellow citizens alike.

This sentiment was memorably captured by country singer Merle Haggard in his hit “Fightin’ Side of Me.” Released in December 1969, the song expressed the anger of the “Silent Majority” that had just put Richard Nixon in the White House. And the lyrics identified who Americans were angry at: the free, comfortable New Leftists, college students, bougie hippies, and liberal elite fellow-travelers who burned the American Flag, slandered our soldiers as baby-killers, and called their country “AmeriKKKa.”

Haggard especially targeted the antiwar activists who insulted our troops even as they were fighting and dying, and who “love our milk and honey” but “preach about some other way of livin’.” Sound familiar? ........To Read More....

My Take - Trump has been criticized for his inaccuracies regarding the national orgin of this group, but in this case, the details are immaterial to the narrative.  I would think leftists would understand that, since that's their modus operandi. He made his point.  Whether they’re foreign born or not Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution says:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Do they really act like their loyalty is to the United States and the Constitution, or do they act like foreign agents working to undermine America? That’s why the details aren’t as important as the narrative. And that narrative resonated with America.

George Will finds his presidential candidate

I’m so old that I remember when George Will’s opinion mattered to Republicans. Apparently, the Bezos Bulletin scribe realizes he’s lost his influence on the Grand Old Party and now offers advice to the Democrats on their nominee, in hopes that someone out there still cares about his opinions.

His disgust at President Trump – who has the support of roughly 90% of Republicans – is such that he has now taken to telling (fellow?) Democrats whom they should nominate in 2020, in order to defeat the man who has restored the American economy to growth rates exceeding population growth ( a task his predecessor assured us required a “magic wand”), nominated conservatives to the federal bench in numbers that matter, and exposed a nefarious plot among the federal intelligence and law enforcement apparatus to reverse a presidential election.

All that matters less than George Will’s animus toward Trump............To Read More....

My Take - What I can't understand is why?  What is wrong with this man?  One thing that is clear though.  With Trump the old guard isn't liked, isn't respected and have lost all ability to influence their own party.  George Will has always been a bit of an odd duck with his views, but his positions in the past are all the things Trump actually is doing.  There's something wrong with people like him and Jonah Goldberg.  People who have the education and ability to write about the disastrous left, and yet they would have supported Hillary Clinton over Trump.  What's wrong with their minds? 

Citing higher minimum wages in Seattle, Portland, and SF, West Coast restaurant chain files for bankruptcy

July 15, 2019 By Thomas Lifson

Progressives never learn.  Even as Democrats running for president line up behind a national $15/hour minimum wage, on the West Coast, where cities like Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco all have implemented this demand, a restaurant chain with over 2,000 employees has filed for bankruptcy, citing the high minimum wages that have increased its costs.
Jeremy Hill reports for Bloomberg (hat tip: Legal Insurrection):
Progressive wage policies helped force upscale eatery operator Restaurants Unlimited Inc. into bankruptcy, according to court documents filed Sunday.
The company, which operates 35 restaurants ranging from fine dining to "polished casual" eateries, including Henry's TavernStanford's, and Kincaid's, filed for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware on Sunday.  Minimum wage hikes, two disappointing restaurant openings, and consumers shunning casual dining are to blame for the bankruptcy filing, chief restructuring officer David Bagley said in court papers.

The impact of minimum wage–driven higher labor costs was substantial.......To Read More....

Monday, July 15, 2019

Cartoon of the Day

Pakistan: A Case Study of IMF Malfeasance

July 14, 2019 by Dan Mitchell  @ International Liberty

I’ve labeled the International Monetary Fund as the “dumpster fire” of the world economy.
I’ve also called the bureaucracy the “Dr. Kevorkian” of international economic policy, though that reference many not mean anything to younger readers.

My main complaint is that the IMF is always urging – or even extorting – nations to impose higher tax burdens.

Let’s look at a fresh example of this odious practice.

According to a Reuters report, IMF-supported tax increases are provoking economic strife in Pakistan.
Markets and wholesale merchants across Pakistan closed on Saturday in a strike by businesses against measures demanded by the International Monetary Fund… Markets and wholesale merchants across Pakistan closed on Saturday in a strike by businesses against measures demanded by the International Monetary Fund. …Prime Minister Imran Khan’s having to impose tough austerity measures having been forced to turn to the IMF for Pakistan’s 13th bailout since the late 1980s. …Under the IMF bailout, signed this month, Pakistan is under heavy pressure to boost its tax revenues.
I’m not surprised the private sector is protesting against IMF-instigated tax hikes.
We see similar stories from all over the world.

But what really grabbed my attention was the reference to 13 bailouts. Good grief, you would think the IMF bureaucrats would learn after five or six attempts that they shouldn’t throw good money after bad.

That being said, I wondered if the IMF was pushing for big tax hikes because they had demanded – and received – big spending cuts in exchange for the previous 12 bailouts.

So I went to the IMF’s World Economic Outlook Database to peruse the numbers…and I discovered that the IMF’s repeated bailouts actually led to big increases in the burden of spending.
The IMF’s numbers, which go back to 1993, show that outlays have tripled. And that’s after adjusting for inflation!

Looking closely at the chart, I suppose one could argue that Pakistan was semi-responsible up until the turn of the century. Yes, the spending burden increased, but at a relatively mild rate.

But the brakes definitely came off this century. Enabled by endless bailouts from the IMF, Pakistan’s politicians definitely aren’t complying with my Golden Rule.

I’ll close with one final point.

The IMF types, as well as others on the left, actually want people to believe that Pakistan should have a bigger burden of government spending.

According to this novel theory, the public sector in the country, which currently consumes more than 20 percent of GDP, is too small to finance the “investments” that are needed to enable more prosperity.

Yet if this theory is accurate, why is Pakistan’s economy stagnant when there are prosperous jurisdictions with smaller spending burdens, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan?

And if the theory is accurate, why did the United States and Western Europe become rich in the 1800s, back when governments only consumed about 10 percent of economic output?

This video tells you everything you need to know.