Friday, November 24, 2017

Are paid off reporters protecting Fusion GPS?

By Monica Showalter

Alek Boyd, the investigative reporter most responsible for the exposure of Venezuelan Chavista corruption, and a likely target himself of Fusion GPS's smear ops, has spotted a little discrepancy in the story Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson told Congress in his testimony and what was reported about him a few weeks earlier.

From Fox News on Nov. 7:.........To Read More.......

Endangered Species Act: The Frog That Jumped The Shark

By Hank Campbell — November 17, 2017@ American Council on Science and Health
Mississippi gopher frog. Credit: Wikipedia

The definition of "endangered" is vague but in no dictionary does it mean an animal that does not even live in a state must be placed there, with private landowners footing the bill for $20 million, in order to keep a creature from declining in population.

Yet that is exactly the bizarre case that the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear in January.

Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et. al. (827 F.3d 452; 848 F.3d 635) is, on the surface, about the 2001 designation (66 Fed. Reg. 62993, Dec. 4, 2001) of the "Dusky Gopher Frog" as an endangered species in Louisiana. It's a little bizarre because the Dusky Gopher Frog is really just the rebranded Mississippi Gopher Frog, Fish and Wildlife Service changed the name of it in 2012, and it does not exist in Louisiana. It's slightly more bizarre that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated a tract of land in another state from where it now lives, outside New Orleans, as critical habitat for the frog. What is absolutely bizarre is that the land they said must now be used has never had the frog living there, and it never could.

That simply sounds ridiculous, like yet another "Golden Fleece" government boondoggle, and if that were the extent of it, I would just write a short article about government waste when it comes to pretending to care about environmental issues, like I have in similar cases. (1) Yet this is not a joke. Below the surface is a more important issue, one similar to what courts recently decided by blocking President Obama's expanded definition of "Waters of the United States (40 CFR 230.3(s)) to gain control over almost any body of private water in America. If this case stands as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled, the Fish and Wildlife Service will have demonstrated an ability to hijack any swath of public or private land in the country, exactly what the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government over water. If it fails, the federal government will once again be guilty of incredible overreach, this time under the guise of pretending to save animals, and their longstanding policy of collaborating with environmental groups on prearranged settlements may be over.

Now, no one is against the Endangered Species Act when they hear its vaguely-positive name. It has been with us since 1966 and there is no Big Extinction movement so siding with endangered species is as much of a no-brainer as being for clean water.  There are almost 1,400 species on the list. (2) Other than when squirrels cause science to stop, endangered species rulings don't get much attention so it has gotten a free pass from the public. Less well known is how easily it has been exploited by environmentalists. This frog designation smacks very much of environmental intervention rather than anything that will help our ecology.

There were only 100 of these Mississippi Gopher Frogs known by the time it became endangered, they existed solely in Harrison County, Mississippi. There hadn't even been a known sighting in the entire state of Louisiana since 1965. So this was not government biologists pushing an alarm button in Louisiana because an animal was dying out in its native habitat, the government initially had no interest in Louisiana at all. If we're being ecologically honest, 100 frogs were not making any kind of difference by 2001, it was instead an 'all frog lives matter' publicity stunt that succeeded as part of a "sue and settle" agreement with the activist group Center for Biological Diversity. "Sue and settle" is just what it sounds like, a prearranged lawsuit with a predetermined settlement that can bypass Congress. Because there really aren't many truly endangered critical species now, these designations are obscure and more political than scientific, it takes about 11 years to get listed. The way to circumvent that delay is to get an environmental group to sue. Then lawyers inside government settle the lawsuit under the previously negotiated terms, government or whomever government is sticking with the bill pays the lawyers of the environmental team and they all go out to dinner.

The original settlement, the endangered species listing, was negotiated during the Clinton administration and other than signing off on it not much happened during the Bush years. Suddenly, a few short weeks after President Obama was elected, Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Mississippi Public Land sued again, saying the Department of the Interior had failed to determine a "critical habitat" for this Mississippi frog. Under the new administration, Fish and Wildlife Service quickly complied, saying they would generate what a critical habitat should be. By 2010 they did, saying this frog needs:
  • “Ephemeral ponds” embedded in an open canopy forest for breeding
  •  Open canopy forest upland from the ponds as non-breeding habitat
  • “Abundant native herbaceous species” ground cover
And they had ideal land - where the frog actually lives. Plenty of land. They decreed 1,957 acres in Mississippi as “critical habitat” for the Mississippi Gopher Frog. That's 20 acres per frog, equivalent to giving a human 340 acres to raise a family.

Yet somehow by 2011 that was not enough. That is how we learn about the mysterious activists who are hired as "consultants" and secretly shape environmental law without any public oversight or accountability. In this case the hand-picked team to justify the conclusion was the well-connected, 100-person strong group named Industrial Economics, Inc. of Massachusetts. Fish and Wildlife Service sent them a document that was obviously pre-written to honor a prearranged settlement and Industrial Economics, Inc. dutifully wrote up the kind of thing they are paid to write. You may have seen the famed exhibition basketball team the Harlem Globetrotters, they do tricks and stunts with basketballs that are a delight. Obviously since it is a basketball show they need a team to oppose, and since the 1950s that team has been the Washington Generals, now known as the World All-Stars. The Generals are there to lose and to make the Globetrotters look good doing so. In the 2012 document, the Washington Generals are five tracts of land in the actual state where the frog exists, Mississippi. Listed first, however, is D-1, and that tract of land is the Globetrotters in our example, even though it's in Louisiana. It was guaranteed to win, but why? Who bought a ticket to see that show?

Unless a Freedom of Information Act request is honored we may never know. Fish and Wildlife Service suddenly said that there needed to be 7,015 acres, 60 acres per frog, in order for this creature not to die.  And they needed land in Louisiana, the suburbs of New Orleans, even though the critical habitat guidelines that Fish and Wildlife Service just created a year prior was not possible there.(3)

I will recap. Fish and Wildlife Service had sent a document to their hand-picked consultant who created the ecological equivalent of a sole-source contract - where Louisiana would win even though the state had not even submitted a bid. And then Fish and Wildlife Service pretended their hands were tied by the science finding, even though the land they chose “is not occupied by the species,” and “is not near areas inhabited by the species,” and “cannot sustain the species without substantial alterations and future annual maintenance.”

"Substantial alterations" is where the $20 million that the government refuses to pay comes in, and it could be as high as $34 million.

You read that right. The only way any of this makes sense is if it is part of a prearranged settlement with environmental groups representing a Mississippi frog. Otherwise, landowners in Louisiana would not be told they must pay to tear down their forest and put up another one, suitable for endangered frogs who have never lived there. The Department of the Interior is supposed to exclude creating habitats that are economically punitive but did not do so.

Naturally, a lawsuit was filed opposing it. These may be cozy arrangements between environmental lawyers and Fish and Wildlife Service but they still carry the full-force of the federal government if the owners of the land didn't comply. And the government carries M4 assault rifles. The government wasted no time in letting the landowners know what was going to happen if they didn't do as demanded. Despite conceding they can't "compel" them they asserted that if the owners in Louisiana didn't agree to spend at least $20 million to tear down one forest and put in another for this Mississippi frog, the government would make sure they could never develop any of the land. The broader impact is that all those people who want to move out of New Orleans before the next Katrina would be forced to pay higher costs because there won't be enough housing in the higher-elevation suburbs.

I don't need 340 acres to live much less 1020 and yet a frog can go from needing 20 to needing 60, in another state, with the touch of a consultant's keyboard.  No science study, no validation, just a ruling no one understands, including the people who will be out $20 million.

This isn't a one-off. Though it started with the best of intentions, the Endangered Species Act has been consistently manipulated and abused by lawyers for activist groups. If the Supreme Court hears the case, it could put an end to a lot of the abuse of this law. The Court might set limits on just how much bullying the federal government can do using current broad interpretation of endangered species designation criteria that have no scientific validity.


(1) I have written plenty about other "sue and settle" craziness, such as when the EPA declared water a pollutant as part of a settlement with a canoeing trade group that wanted nature to be nicer to its members on a river. And when that does not work, activist groups pit federal laws against each other so they can sue-and-settle over non-enforcement, such as when the Paiute cutthroat trout had to be restored "to its historical range" by the Endangered Species Act but could not be, because there are no power lines there and they needed an auger to geo-engineer the land. Except the Wilderness Act prevented a gas generator from being used in a designated wilderness. Wilderness Watch and two other activist groups sued to block the trout's restoration, claiming the use of the auger should not be exempted from the Wilderness Act. They eventually settled.

 (2)  The figure our government lists. Analyses have shown it has not helped species much. Despite generous funding (over $1.5 billion in the last reported year, 2015, and that's without land acquisition costs), numerous blockages of human development and awareness campaigns, almost all species listed are either static or still in decline. On the few occasions rebounds have happened, media is sure to gush about it as a win for environmental fiat.  Today, few things proposed as endangered actually are endangered. People are rushing to declare a new species of orangutan endangered even though it has just been discovered and has obviously lived for 200 million years without any government recognition at all. Most of the species that have gone extinct - 99.9999 percent - we have never identified.

(3)   I wrote Michael Donlan, the President of Industrial Economics, Inc., to ask in the interest of public transparency if they would share how their analysis was done and let me speak with the consultant who created the numerical model which determined the Louisiana land was not only essential, but passed government requires stipulating it be achievable without undo hardship, but no one from the company responded.  Fish and Wildlife Service has not ruled on my Freedom of Information Act request.


Hillary’s Turkeys: Thank You For Not Voting

So much to be thankful for, she reminds us.

Jon Cassidy November 21, 2017
“They cannot represent themselves. They must be represented.” — Marx
A year ago, it was Donald Trump refusing to say he would accept the results of an election, it was Hillary Clinton calling that “horrifying,” and it was the Associated Press pronouncing the opinion of mainstream journalism on the matter.

“There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and election officials across the country have denied and denounced Trump’s charges,” the AP wrote, in its strictly factual and in no way tendentious manner that only a paranoid kook would question. “Free and fair elections, with the vanquished peacefully stepping aside for the victor, have been the underpinning of American democracy since its founding 240 years ago.”

Last Friday, it was Clinton who was still refusing to accept the result of the 2016 election, saying in an interview with Mother Jones that “there are lots of questions about its legitimacy.” Trump, for his part, trolled Clinton on Twitter, telling her to get on with her life. Needless to say, there were no sweeping pronouncements about the pillars of democracy in any of the wire service reports on Clinton’s interview...........To Read More.....

Diversity Obsession

Walter E. Williams,, November 22, 2017

Seeing as college presidents and provosts are the main diversity pushers, we might start with their vision of diversity. Ask your average college president or provost whether he even bothers promoting political diversity among faculty. I’ll guarantee that if he is honest — and even bothers to answer the question — he will say no. According to a recent study, professors who are registered Democrats outnumber their Republican counterparts by a 12-1 ratio ( In some departments, such as history, Democratic professors outnumber their Republican counterparts by a 33-1 ratio.

There is one area of college life where administrators demonstrate utter contempt for diversity, and that’s in sports. It is by no means unusual to watch a Saturday afternoon college basketball game and see that the starting five on both teams are black. White players, not to mention Asian players, are underrepresented. Similar underrepresentation is practiced in college football. Where you find whites overrepresented in both sports is on the cheerleading squads, which are mostly composed of white women ........... To Read More.......

Three little Fausts went to market

By Richard Rail November 23, 2017

Kathy Griffin, Hillary Clinton, and Colin Kaepernick go around in despair about how mean the world is to them, how they're getting cheated out of something rightfully theirs, how things just shouldn't be like this. Hatred figures prominently in their respective worldviews.

 Griffin hates Donald Trump.

 Hillary hates deplorables and Jim Comey and the Russians and men and self-hating women. Oh, and Bernie. And Donna.

 Kaep hates America, or anyway America's cops.

All three did this to themselves, but none sees any connection between choices made and present predicament. Now they make themselves pitiful, irritating, and disgusting by whining, crying, complaining, ranting, and blaming........To Read More.....

'Special Counsel' Mueller Is Guilty of Misconduct and Must Resign

By James Lewis November 24, 2017

What's a witch-hunter to do when there's no witch, and witchcraft itself turns out to be imaginary? When even the latest accusation against the biggest scapegoat of the house is a crock?

Alan Dershowitz, a liberal in good standing with occasional fits of constitutional sanity, has called on Bob Mueller, aka "The Special Prosecutor," to resign, 'cause there's no there there.

Professor Dershowitz points out that Trump may be guilty of sins "but not crimes." Well, if POTUS Trump is a sinner, I hope the Lord forgives him, along with the rest of us. But if all sinners went to Hell, there would be no room for the rest of us.

The case against Bob Mueller and his squad of Democrat witch-hunters is much stronger than merely fraud against the taxpayer. Purely politically motivated persecutions under color of law are major violations of the United States Constitution and English Common Law, from which our everyday laws are largely derived.

In civilized legal codes, persecutions of designated witches under color of law (any law they can find or make up) are strictly forbidden and should be punished by ABA disbarment, imprisonment, and perhaps confiscation of ill gotten gains. This would include every single taxpayer penny spent on this enormous hoax...........Read more

Eminem whines about Trump not paying any attention to him

By Monica Showalter November 23, 2017

Does anyone know anything about someone who calls himself Eminem? At first glance, he's someone who's been in trouble with the law and can't carry a tune, so he practices gangsta rap. He's also a "black" guy, the same way Rachel Dolezal was "black" – because he wanted to be some other way. On all fronts, he's a loser. Wouldn't it be natural to ignore losers? Seems President Trump thinks so. And that's what's got Eminem upset. The leftist crybaby is whining that President Trump never pays any attention to him.............More

Put Lois Lerner in Jail!

By Daniel John Sobieski

Well, isn’t that rich? Lois Lerner, who almost singlehandedly weaponized the IRS, turning into a bludgeon to be used against Tea Party and other groups in the 2012 reelection campaign of Barack Obama, now wants to be protected against threats and intimidation from the groups and people she helped threaten and intimidate:..........Only the lawless Lois Lerner would feel threatened by legal proceedings initiated by her abuse of government power.

Calling her and her IRS co-conspirators “criminal thugs” is not a threat but an understatement. What she fears is not violence but that the truth about her crimes, what she did and what she got away with, will be finally and fully known and that she would no longer be able to hide behind a bogus and fraudulent Fifth Amendment pleading before Congress.............

Based on the available evidence, Lois Lerner should have been measured for an orange jump suit a long time ago..........Certainly the actions Lerner was covering up with the help of others like the former head of the IRS, John Koskinen, warrant prosecution..........Lerner fails to appreciate the irony of invoking her right against self-incrimination while trampling on the rights of others. It was her IRS that demanded to know from Tea Party members what books they read and the text of their prayers............. Indeed it is. Along with mystery of why Lois Lerner is not already in prison is the mystery of why IRS Chief John Koskinen isn’t as well for participating in the cover-up involving destruction or records and emails, conveniently destroyed hard drives and withholding evidence from Congress..............Likely we would be incarcerated and not just impeached. As the Washington Times notes, Koskinen is knee-deep in the IRS corruption and its cover-up..................Lock Lois Lerner up, not her records.
Well, isn’t that rich? Lois Lerner, who almost singlehandedly weaponized the IRS, turning into a bludgeon to be used against Tea Party and other groups in the 2012 reelection campaign of Barack Obama, now wants to be protected against threats and intimidation from the groups and people she helped threaten and intimidate..........................Read more

Thought For the Day

Just one more thing on ObamaCare Repeal - Since only 8 million people have ObamaCare, how will 24 million people die if it is repealed? Will 16 million people be randomly shot?

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

How's This For Nostalgia?

Editor's Note:  As many of you know, my friend Maury Siskel sends me stuff every day.  Some serious, some funny and most of it thought provoking.  He sent this today and I'm republishing this piece (without attribution as I don't know who originated it) for the benefit of all of us old people who actually remember all of this.  And for the amusement of all my younger readers who haven't a clue what most of this is about.  They're as clueless about this as I am about modern cell phones...if they're still properly called that.......and that's clueless.  Please enjoy!  RK
  • All the girls had gym uniforms?
  • It took three minutes for the TV to warm up?
  • Nobody owned a purebred dog?
  • When a quarter was a decent allowance?
  • You'd reach into a muddy gutter for a penny?
  • Your Mom wore nylons that came in two pieces?
  • You got your windshield cleaned, oil checked, and gas pumped, without asking, all for free, every time? And you didn't pay for air?
  • And, you got trading stamps to boot?
  • Laundry detergent had free glasses, dishes or towels hidden inside the box?
  • It was considered a great privilege to be taken out to dinner at a real restaurant with your parents? They threatened to keep kids back a grade if they failed..and they did it!
  • When a 57 Chevy was everyone's dream car.... to cruise, peel out, lay rubber or watch submarine races, and people went steady.
  • No one ever asked where the car keys were because they were always in the car, in the ignition, and the doors were never locked.
  • lying on your back in the grass with your friends and saying, 'That cloud looks like a...'
  • Playing baseball with no adults to help kids with the rules of the game?
  • Stuff from the store came without safety caps and hermetic seals because no one had yet tried to poison a perfect stranger?
  • And with all our progress, don't you just wish, just once, you could slip back in time and savor the slower pace, and share it with the children of today.
  • When being sent to the principal's office was nothing compared to the fate that awaited the student at home?
  • Basically we were in fear for our lives, but it wasn't because of drive-by shootings, drugs, gangs, etc.
  • Our parents and grandparents were a much bigger threat!
But we survived because their love was greater than the threat. well as summers filled with bike rides, Hula Hoops, and visits to the pool, and eating Kool-Aid powder with sugar.

Didn't that feel good, just to go back and say, 'Yeah, I remember that'? I am sharing this with you today because it ended with a Double Dog Dare to pass it on. To remember what a Double Dog Dare is, read on. And remember that the perfect age is somewhere between old enough to know better and too young to care. Send this on to someone who can still remember:
Howdy Doody and The Peanut Gallery, the Lone Ranger, The Shadow knows, Nellie Bell, Roy and Dale, Trigger and Buttermilk. Candy cigarettes Wax Coke-shaped bottles with colored sugar water inside. Soda pop machines that dispensed glass bottles. Coffee shops with Table Side Jukeboxes Blackjack, Clove and Teaberry chewing gum. Home milk delivery in glass bottles with cardboard stoppers. Newsreels before the movie. Telephone numbers with a word prefix..( Yukon 2-601). Party lines. Peashooters. Hi-Fi's 45 RPM records. 78 RPM records! Green Stamps. Mimeograph paper. The Fort Apache Play Set.
Do You Remember a Time When:
  • Decisions were made by going 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe'? 
  • Mistakes were corrected by simply exclaiming, 'Do Over!'?  
  • 'Race issue' meant arguing about who ran the fastest? 
  • Catching The Fireflies Could Happily Occupy An Entire Evening?  
  • It wasn't odd to have two or three 'Best Friends'?
  • Having a Weapon in School meant being caught with a Slingshot?  
  • Saturday morning cartoons weren't 30-minute commercials for action figures?  
  • 'Oly-oly-oxen-free' made perfect sense?  
  • Spinning around, getting dizzy, and falling down was cause for giggles?  
  • The Worst Embarrassment was being picked last for a team?
  • War was a card game?
  • Baseball cards in the spokes transformed any bike into a motorcycle?  
  • Taking drugs meant orange - flavored chewable aspirin?  
  • Water balloons were the ultimate weapon?
If you can remember most or all of these - Then You Have Lived!!!!!!!

Pass this on to anyone who may need a break from their 'Grown-Up' Life . I Double-Dog-Dare-Ya!

Nearly half of US cancer deaths blamed on unhealthy behavior

Cigarette smoking, over-eating and other unhealthy behaviors can be blamed for nearly half of U.S. cancer deaths each year, according to a new American Cancer Society study released Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2017.

By: AP Medical Writer  Tuesday, November 21, 2017 @ WHIO TV

We thought it was time to redo those estimates," said Dr. Otis Brawley, the cancer society's chief medical officer and one of the study's authors.
Smoking was the leading risk by far, accounting for 29 percent of deaths. Excess body weight was next at 6.5 percent, and alcohol consumption was third at 4 percent.

The authors ran separate calculations for different types of cancer by age group and gender to try to account for how risk factors affect different groups of people, then added them together to understand the national picture.

Among the findings:

— Smoking accounted for 82 percent of lung cancers.
— Excess body weight was associated with 60 percent of uterine cancers and about one-third of liver cancers.
— Alcohol intake was associated with 25 percent of liver cancers in men and 12 percent in women; 17 percent of colorectal cancers in men and 8 percent in women; and 16 percent of breast cancers in women.
— Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or tanning beds was associated with 96 percent of skin cancers in men and 94 percent in women.

Richard Clapp, a professor emeritus of environmental health at Boston University expects the new numbers to be will widely cited and used to make decisions about how to spend money on cancer prevention, just as the influential British study from 1981 by researchers Richard Doll and Richard Peto has been........Read More @ WHIO TV .


The Economic Tragedy of Zimbabwe

November 20, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
When I write about the negative impact of statist policy, I focus on two types of nations.

From the developed world, I highlight countries such as France, Greece, and Italy.

And from the developing world, my favorite examples are places like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.

Given that Zimbabwe is in the news because the nation’s long time dictator may be on the way out, it’s time to add that country to that latter list. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute writes about “Mugabenomics.”
It’s especially compelling when reality makes your economic and and political points vividly clear and intellectually inescapable. Nothing like a natural experiment to drive a message home. …At unification, West German living standards were more than twice those in the communist East… Venezuela shows what happens when full authoritarian populism gets put into action. And who hasn’t seen the stark image of the two Koreas at night, the prosperity of the South glowing brightly. Then there’s the case of Zimbabwe, which just saw a coup removing dictator Robert Mugabe after nearly four decades in power.
Here’s the chart showing how Zimbabwe has fallen behind some peer nations.

Why has Zimbabwe gone downhill?

The answer, you won’t be surprised to learn, is bad policy. They’ve taken the recipe for good policy and done the opposite.

In 1995, Zimbabwe was ranked #70 by Economic Freedom of the World. Not great, but not awful. Now. as you can see from the chart, it’s down to #144. Some of that is due to more nations being added to the rankings and many nations improving their scores, but Mugabe’s statism deserves much of the blame.

Assuming Mugabe is deposed, that’s Step 1.

If the goal is prosperity and opportunity for the people of Zimbabwe, Step 2 is needed. And that’s an agenda of liberalization.

At the very least, Zimbabwe should copy the neighboring nation of Botswana. Ideally, it could go farther and become the Chile or Estonia of Africa.

Why the Democrats Really Turned on Bill Clinton

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 6 Comments Monday, November 20, 2017 @ Sultan Knish Blog
In the winter of ’56, Khrushchev told the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that Stalin may not have been a very nice guy. In the fall of ’17, the media began to concede that maybe Bill Clinton did abuse a whole bunch of women. And maybe those women weren’t really part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to make a bloated piggish progressive hero seem like he might not be a very nice guy.

Why are Democrats turning on the Clintons? Same reason Khrushchev turned on Stalin. They’re purging the Clintons for the same reasons that they defended them. They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reasons that they covered them up. It’s about power and money.

The Democrats smeared Bill Clinton’s accusers then. Now they’ll exploit them to throw the Clintons out.

The #MeToo campaign provided an opening. But if you really want to understand why the left is disavowing Bill Clinton, ignore the hashtags and look at the bigger picture.

Earlier this month, the rollout of Donna Brazile’s book raked Hillary Clinton and her campaign over the coals. The former interim DNC boss made the case that the Clinton campaign had rigged the primaries.

Brazile’s outrage at the rigging is laughable. Not only was she caught passing a debate question to Hillary, but the only reason she was allowed to replace Debbie Wasserman Schultz is that she was a Clintonista who had served as a Clinton adviser and was promoted to head Gore’s campaign.

After Hillary’s collapse, Brazile was left out in the cold. Like Schultz, she was one of Hillary’s fall girls. And unlike Schultz, she didn’t have a cozy congressional district to call her own. Her CNN contract was torn up after the debate question leak. (Though if you think CNN was actually surprised that a Clinton ally leaked it to the Clintons, you’re also shocked that there’s gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americain. CNN had disavow Donna who then had to disavow Hillary. Now the Dems are disavowing the Clintons.)

Brazile’s book tour was Act 1 in purging the Clintons from the Dem establishment. Talking about Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and abuses is Act 2. And the odds are very good that there’s an Act 3.

Why get rid of the Clintons? Let’s look at what the First Grifters have been doing to the Dems.

In May, Hillary rolled out Onward Together. The new SuperPAC was supposed to fundraise for lefty groups. But the groups don’t actually appear to be getting the cash.

Understandable. The flat broke Clintons always have lots of bills to pay and private jets to book. And good chardonnay doesn’t come cheap. A 1787 vintage Chateau d'Yquem runs to $100K a bottle.

Fresh from that success, a paid advisor to Hillary co-launched something being called Party Majority. This wonderful new organization would “act as a parallel structure to Democratic Party committees at the national and state levels”, vacuuming up a whole lot of cash while putting its boot on the DNC.

The Clintons were once again trying to displace the DNC. And that would let them skim a lot of cash from the DNC to fund their political operation and lifestyle. And, even once again, rig the process.

Who’s up for Hillary in 2020?

Party Majority rolled out in early November. Since then the Clintons are suddenly being hit from all sides by their own.

Funny how that works.

If President Hillary Clinton were in the White House, the First Gentleman could work his way through an entire nunnery and every media outlet in the country would praise him as our greatest feminist.

If the Clintons had done the decent thing (for the first time in their miserable grifter lives) and stepped away from politics, Bill could have been a bitter, bigoted and befuddled Democrat elder statesman.

Just like Jimmy Carter.

But the Clintons just wouldn’t stop. And so the circular firing squad has finally been convened. Its members are hypocritically pretending that they’re purging Bill because they suddenly care about the women he had sexually assaulted over the years.

It only took the Dems an entire generation to figure out that rape is wrong.

Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings are terrible. Every time she goes on television, more people are likely to vote Republican. Her entire existence is a reminder of why the Democrats lost so badly in ’16.

Not only won’t Hillary Clinton retire to bake cookies and send anonymous threatening letters to her neighbors because their kids occasionally throw a ball over her mansion’s iron gates, but she insists on sabotaging the 2020 candidates who are her party’s best hope to succeed where she miserably failed.

Hillary Clinton’s book, What Happened, took numerous shots at Bernie Sanders. And her entire book tour appeared designed to sabotage his book tour. Then she began attacking Joe Biden.

Both Bernie and Joe, unlike her, are viable 2020 candidates. (Which says nothing good about the Dems.)

The media doesn’t suddenly “believe Juanita”. Or rather it always knew that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and the other women were telling the truth. It didn’t silence them because it thought they were lying. It silenced them because they were telling the truth about its guy.

Now Bill Clinton isn’t the media’s guy anymore. He’s a problem.

And what the media does “believe” is that the Clintons will continue to be a liability that might cost them victories in 2018 and 2020. The DNC badly needs money. The Clintons are once again posing a threat to the DNC’s financial viability. And the Dems have become less willing to lose House and Senate seats to sate the insatiable greed of the grifters from Hope.

Then there’s 2020. The Dems don’t want to risk their nominee facing passive aggressive attacks by Hillary Clinton. Nor do they even want to see Hillary Clinton on the air for the entire election.

The Clintons could have had a nice retirement. Seats on boards and foundations. Occasional smaller scale speaking gigs. Bill would have been a featured speaker at the next DNC convention.

And maybe even Hillary in a lesser role.

But they wouldn’t go quietly. And now the left is making it a mandatory retirement.

Act 1 blames Hillary for rigging the primaries. Act 2 calls out Bill’s abuse of women. Acts 3, 4 and 5 will delve into some other Clinton scandals that Democrats have been denying for over a generation. If the Clintons don’t get the message, the final act will plant a big red boot in their behinds.

And this won’t even be the first time that the Dems tried to get rid of the Clintons.

After Bill’s time was up, the Dems and the media tried to head off a Hillary political career at the pass. Let’s flip through the pages of the New York Times in 2001 that describes Hillary's “calamitous Senate debut” and cautions that “talk about her presidential prospects has ground to a halt.”

“The man is so thoroughly corrupt it's frightening,” a Times column reads. “The Clintons may or may not be led away in handcuffs someday.”

In AmSoc, history is constantly being rewritten. A few years later, no criticism of the Clintons could be allowed. And everyone forgot that Carter’s chief-of-staff had called them, “The First Grifters.”

Or at least they pretended to forget.

It’s not the first time that the Dems have tried to get rid of the Clintons. But it might be the last.

Like Stalin’s Communist successors, Democrats should not be allowed to pretend that they knew nothing or that their purge of the Clintons is motivated by a sudden attack of integrity.

They’re purging the Clintons for the same reason that they covered up for them.

They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reason that they covered them up.

They did it out of political self-interest then. And they’re doing it out of political self-interest now. There’s nothing clean or honest about what they’re doing. There’s no moral reckoning here. Only a political reckoning. It’s not about the women Bill abused. It’s about DNC cash and the 2020 election.

That’s the dirty, ugly truth. And it’s as dirty and ugly as the Clintons and the Democrats.

(This article previously appeared at Front Page Magazine.)

Hilarious: watch Charlie Rose interview Kevin Spacey on Bill Clinton’s sex accusations

By Thomas Lifson November 22, 2017

Savor the irony, folks. It just doesn’t get much better than this. Except that with all the media figures accustomed to pontificating on air now exposed as harassers themselves, and with all those video recordings archived in the vaults of broadcasters and YouTube, there surely will be more gems like the short video embedded below coming along.

Charlies Rose, after all, has been in the business of condescending to us for decades. Virtue signaling has never been more dangerous than when applied to the sexual behavior of others. Add in the magic of video tape, and you have what must be called Schadenfreude Fest 2017. My favorite Spacey line: 
“I was always there… I was a true friend. I never doubted him. I never stopped believing him.”  
 More Here

Demagoguery Beats Data

Editor's Note: I originally published this on September 4, 2009 and again on Novermber 26, 2014, with the intention of publishing this every year around Thanksgiving, you will see why toward the end of the article. I missed a couple of years, but no matter, it's as noteworthy now as it was then.  Please enjoy, RK

By Rich Kozlovich

“What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way; "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell

The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem. We're constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we're using. We're told we must adopt “least toxic” (whatever that means) pest control programs.


Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely.  This isn’t only from the environmental activists outside of government.  It's also the constant refrain from those environmental activists within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market - are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Actually - yes! We aren’t allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do, whether it's pesticides or automobiles, until it is in common use. With pesticides ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.

In years gone by the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured, liquids only being a part of that percentage. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for use on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured. We've changed what we're using in structural pest control dramatically over the last thirty years, we did so because of efficacy. We shifted to a higher reliance to baits for cockroaches and ants because of their effectiveness.  However we must understand - if a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last.

New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? If these products have been used extensively, and for some time, then the effect on people and the environment must absolutely be known to EPA.

So what then must we conclude from that?  Logically we can only conclude they don’t care what the facts are. They've apparently made up their minds to advocate the same view as the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way.  These "Sue and Settle" lawsuits, which is nothing short of illegal collusion between environmentalists  and government bureaucrats, gives clear evidence of that.   Between regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media,  they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given the completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.

Their answer to any criticism is that we must adopt Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or "green" pest control, which cannot be truly defined. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM! Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an “ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short of neo-pagan mysticism.

If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market, and they have traced the results of use of these products over the years - why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire -  why don’t they do it? It is quite simple - the facts must not support such an action.

Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example along with re-registration requirements) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, organic or green pest control.  And why IPM or green pest control?  Because if there's no alternative there's no problem.  IPM and Green Pest Control are their representations of an alternative.

The public is constantly told by the media that pesticides cause every conceivable malady.  When it is discovered they're wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted - as in the Alar case - it's passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want no matter what the real truth is and no matter who is hurt, and as in the Alar case, refusing to publicly acknowledge their misconduct.

What are the facts regarding pesticides? There is no evidence that pesticides have adversely effected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history or any other nation that has adopted extensive pesticide use. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia; poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation and early death.

There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of chemicals in our waters and land, and even trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what? This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. It's the dose makes the poison, not it's presence, and there are toxic chemicals necessary for good health which appear in detectable trace amounts in our bodies.

Still we have educated individuals teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “all-natural” or “organic”. Whatever those terms mean!  I love the claim that things are "chemical free".  Let's get our heads on right about chemicals.   The universe - including you - is made up of chemicals - if it's chemical free it doesn't exist. 

Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, and "organic" food is pesticide free.  That's blatantly false!  As far as the claim they taste better - taste is subjective and in point of fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.

Dr. Bruce Ames (a biochemistry professor at the University of California) pointed out in 1987 that we ingest in our diet about 1.5 grams per day of {natural} pesticides. Those foods contain 10,000 times more, by weight, of {natural} pesticides than of man-made pesticide residues. More than 90% of the pesticides in plants are produced {naturally} by the plants, which help protect them from insects, mites, nematodes, bacteria, and fungi. Those natural pesticides may make up 5% to 10% of a plant's dry weight, and nearly half of them that were tested on experimental animals were carcinogenic. Americans should therefore feel unconcerned about the harmless, infinitesimal traces of synthetic chemicals to which they may be exposed. The highly publicized traces of synthetic pesticides on fruits and vegetables worried some people so much that they began to favor ``organically produced'' foods, thinking that they would not contain any pesticides. Most people are not aware that organic gardeners can legally use a great many pesticides, so long as they are not man-made. They can use nicotine sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum (derived from plants), or any poisons that occur naturally, such as lime, sulfur, borax, cyanide, arsenic, and fluorine.

This apparently is OK because its “natural”. Chemicals are chemicals and guess what - they all have chemical names. If I presented you the following menu would you eat it? By the way, these foods are known carcinogens.

Cream of Mushroom Soup, Carrots, Cherry Tomatoes, Celery, Mixed Roasted Nuts, Tossed Lettuce and Arugula with Basil-Mustard Vinaigrette, Roast Turkey, Bread Stuffing (with onions, celery, black pepper & mushrooms), Cranberry Sauce, Prime Rib of Beef with Parsley Sauce, Broccoli Spears, Baked Potato, Sweet Potato, Pumpkin Pie, Apple Pie, Fresh Apples, Grapes, Mangos, Pears, Pineapple, Red Wine, White Wine, Coffee, Tea., Jasmine Tea. (Source: American Council on Science and Health)

Here are the chemicals that make up this natural meal.

Hydrazines, aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, caffeic acid, furan derivatives, psoralens, aflatoxin, furfural, allyl isothiocyanate, caffeic acid, estragole, methyl eugenol, heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural, dihydrazines, d-limonene, psoralens, quercetin glycosides, safrole,furan derivatives ,benzene, heterocyclic amines, psoralens,allyl isothiocyanate,ethyl alcohol, caffeic acid,ethyl alcohol, furfural,acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural,benzo(a)pyrene, coumarin, methyl eugenol, safrole,acetaldehyde, caffeic acid, coumarin, estragole, ethyl alcohol, methyl eugenol, quercetin glycosides, safrole,acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, d-limonene, estragole, ethyl acrylate, quercetin glycosides,ethyl alcohol, ethyl carbamate,benzo(a)pyrene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethyl benzene, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol,benzo(a)pyrene, quercetin

For those that read the chemicals listed above you will notice that some of them are repeated a number of times. I deliberately left the list in that way because you are getting a multiple dose in the above Thanksgiving meal.

Does that sound so bad now? It is unfortunate that so many in positions of authority and responsibility continue to allow filtered facts to become the conventional wisdom. More importantly it is impossible for any society to make intelligent long term decisions when preconceived notions are allowed to dictate what “facts” will be allowed to be presented. Then again, facts are confusing and that certainly is the last thing the public needs, after all it is the last thing the environmentalists and their minions want. It might interfere with all those scares they are constantly presenting as eminent disasters. That in turn would foul up contributions and then the greatest disaster of them all would occur. They would have to go out and get real jobs.

All of this is disturbing, but what I find most disturbing is the unwillingness of our industry's information deliverers - the trade journals and trade associations -  to stand up to these people and publish the truth.

When we fail to stand up and be counted we're appeasers and enablers of these misfits.  Eventually that will turn us into traitors to our own industry, the society we're devoted to protect, the nation and the world's poor. We are the Rat Catcher's Child! If we don't stand up, and if we don't speak up - Who will?


Monday, November 20, 2017

Doing Good Business is the Real Fuel For Doing Good

By Rich Kozlovich

On November 13, 2017 Fred L. Smith, Jr. posted an article entitled, "Does a Market Economy Encourage Altruism?", on the Competitive Enterprise Institute web site.  The thrust of the article dealt with the sale of organs for transplant purposes.  He asks: "Are markets inherently altruistic?"

He explains in the article
"under current law, kidneys can be donated in various ways but may not be bought and sold", which he notes this is a system that fails to meet the demand for kidneys." 
The consequence?  Thousands die unnecessarily. 

He goes on to say:
"a compensated organ transfer system would reduce that deficit" and that "markets encourage altruistic behavior by bringing strangers together, breaking down tribal barriers, and fostering cooperation between groups."  "Markets are compatible with the evolved trait of self-interest"......"but more fundamentally, market transfers are inherently moral because they’re voluntary and mutual. The donor is free to decide within his or her range of welfare-enhancing options. The arranger of the donation must get a good read on the potential donor’s values—what would it take for them to agree? Markets involve interactions between buyers and sellers, requiring each to “read each other” better; they bring parties together into a mutual win/win outcome."
He goes on to state that which is a known component of restictions on activity that should be a personal decision, that being:
 "absent a market, we push demand underground, into black markets where consumers and producers lack legal protection and unscrupulous actors often operate with impunity."
Many years ago I watched one of those Fred Friendly's Ethics in America shows entitled The Anatomy of a Hostile Takeover, and one of my favorite parts of that show was watching Sir James Goldsmith stated "we're mixing up the idea of doing business and doing good".  He went on to say, "doing business is the fuel that allows for doing good, and we need to stop mixing them up". He noted bees doesn't make honey to do good,and has no episodes of soul searching to decide if what they're doing is for the common good or not.

Many years ago I was invited to a world premier in New York City of a documentary in which played a vary small part, mostly as an adviser on pesticides.involving DDT entitled 3Billion and Counting.  while there I met a group from Africa and got into a discussion over pharmacuticals, especially antibiotics. 

Antibiotic resistence is becoming a serious threat to the world, and most are oblivious to that - and that - unlike all the fallacious scares being thrown up by the green/left is a legitimate scare. 

UN Climate Pow-Wow Much Ado about Little

 The twenty-third Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-23) concluded in Bonn, Germany on November 17th after hundreds of meetings, events, and briefings over two weeks. I didn’t attend this year, but the news reports I’ve read and the e-mails sent to me broadly agree that it was a lot of time spent on achieving nothing much. Here are a few highlights.
Marc Morano of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Climate Depot welcomed climate hustlers to the Greenpeace boat docked on the Rhine in Bonn.  He pointed out that the boat may have sails, but is actually powered by diesel engines. Watch the video here, and read about it here. ..........To Read More.....

My Take - For those who aren't aware, Myron Ebell was among the group that headed up the EPA transition team to find the new EPA director, Pruitt.  I've not met him, but I've friends who know him and have worked with him, and I've been told his views are identical to my own.  I've also been told by a friend who worked with him no matter how conservative they became - Myron could always be more conservative.   I've not met him but I like him.

Lyndon Johnson's Terrible Legacy

11/18/2017 Mises Wire

Recently my wife and I spent a morning at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas. The damage done by this big bully is incalculable. His library reminds us of the start of the blizzard of government expansion during Johnson's presidential term, which lasted from the Kennedy assassination in October 1963 to his decision not to run for a full second term in 1968, which usually is attributed to his failure to end the war in Vietnam.

Johnson was an admirer of FDR and was determined to revive and complete what he believed should have been integral parts to FDR's New Deal. Johnson called his program The Great Society. As if ignorance of the consequences of this socialist expansion of domestic control by government was not enough, LBJ expanded the war in Vietnam, promising America both Guns and Butter. Even today we live with this expansion of government domestic programs and seemingly never-ending wars as the modern Welfare/Warfare state.

Johnson's political philosophy is alive and well today. The US government spends freely on welfare programs at home, and on unwinnable wars abroad...............To Read More

One Hundred Years After the Bolshevik Revolution

By PaweĊ‚ Piotr Styrna, November 13, 2017

In part, this recharacterization of communism is a transparent attempt to shift the blame for the undeniable crimes and atrocities committed by the Reds from Marxism/socialism onto somebody/something else – preferably nationalism or anything that can be labelled right-wing.  However, it also demonstrates that the modern-day neo-Marxist radical left, such as Antifa, believes the chief problem with the communists was that they weren’t sufficiently radical!

One hundred years ago this fall – on October 25 (Old Style)/November 7 (New Style), to be exact – the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, an anniversary which communists throughout the world have been celebrating.   Since then, communism has subjected large swaths of the globe – from Europe to Asia, and from Latin America to Africa – to terror, mass murder, famine, and repression – all in the name of a supposedly noble ideal.

The death toll surpassed even that of the German Nazis: over the decades, according to The Black Book of Communism, the Marxists-Leninists murdered or led to the deaths of 100 million human beings.  Other estimates (some lower, some higher) exist as well, but, in any case, we are talking about millions of human lives brutally snuffed out; not to mention additional millions of lives destroyed and entire countries economically ruined.   And yet, since then, the radical left has learned nothing and forgotten nothing..........Bernie Sanders – a radical socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and defended Castro and communist food lines during the 1980s – almost won the Democratic presidential nomination and continues to be extremely popular among millennials. ............Read More

Palestinians Threaten to ‘Put on Hold’ All Communications With Trump Administration

By Patrick Goodenough | November 20, 2017

( – Two months after Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas called publicly for Israeli officials to be tried by the International Criminal Court, the Trump administration, in line with U.S. law, is threatening to close the Palestinian mission in Washington – and the P.A. is furious.

The move is in striking contrast to the previous administration’s dealing with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in D.C., which in 2010 President Obama allowed to upgrade its name to PLO Delegation to the United States and to fly the Palestinian flag there.  A waiver has enabled the PLO to maintain an office in Washington for the past 23 years.

When a group of Republican lawmakers in 2015 urged the administration to revoke the waiver over P.A. incitement of violence against Israelis, the John Kerry State Department refused, saying that “we believe closing the PLO office would be detrimental to our ongoing efforts to calm current tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, advance a two-state solution, and strengthen the U.S.-Palestinian partnership.”

But now the waiver appears to be in jeopardy, and the two most visible Palestinian figures, chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi, are leading the condemnation.........To Read More.....

My Take - So the PLO is threatening the administration and the United States to stop talking to us if they can't have their way?   And they demanding their way or the United States will not be allowed to be a part of the Peace Process?  Did I understand all of that properly? 

Let's start with saying this as clearly as possible.  There is no peace process, it's just a lot of talk funded by leftists in western governments, with the money of taxpayers who recognize the PLO is a violent, lying, terrorist organization that should not only be condemned, it should be attacked.  As for their threat about not talking to us any longer: Is this all it took to shut them up?   

Millennials: Ya Gotta Luv Em

The End of White Celebrity

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, November 17, 2017
Whiteness is a birth defect.  For the mainstream media, it was a bona fide crisis. Blake Shelton, a European-American country singer and a host of The Voice, whom I had never heard of until yesterday morning, was named People Magazine’s “Sexiest Man In The World.” The result was outrage. Marlow Stern at the Daily Beast declared grandly that “people” are in a “justifiable uproar given Mr. Shelton’s history of homophobic and racist comments.” “Many on social media are blasting the magazine’s decision, calling upon Mr. Shelton’s past tweets that have been labeled as racist, misogynistic and homophobic,” sniffed Fox News. “Some are disheartened by Mr. Shelton’s history of making jokes at the expense of gays, lesbians, women and minorities,” wrote Libby Hill at the Los Angeles Times, in one of the more restrained reactions.
The decision by journalists to broadcast random leftists complaining about the decision of a supermarket tabloid is idiotic, but not surprising. Isn’t People telling us who’s sexy; not who’s slavishly conformist? But what was truly remarkable was how criticism of Mr. Shleton focused on his race. Gabriel Bell at Salon called it a “problematic pick” because it was a “reinforcement and celebration of sometimes-toxic cisgender male sexuality, the elevation of an underwhelming white man to a position of popular acclaim, the ignoring of people of color” and various other perceived sins. Fast Company echoed the complaints of many others when it wrote that Mr. Shelton was an “uninspired choice” because “in its 32-year history, the list has largely been dominated by white men.” Vox, being Vox, also complained about Mr. Shelton being white and his supposed support for Donald Trump...........To Read More.........

Good Riddance to Finance Regulator Richard Cordray

John Berlau  Novermber 16, 2017 @ The Spectator
Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) may have had the best response to yesterday’s resignation announcement by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray. The statement, sent to reporters and posted on her website consisted of just two words: “Good riddance.”
Wagner provided links to give some context, and no example shows Cordray’s general arrogance better than his answer to a basic question Wagner asked about CFPB spending and priorities. When she asked him in a hearing about the CFPB’s renovations of its new building that so far has cost $215 million, Cordray replied, “Why does that matter to you?”

The resignation of Cordray — appointed by President Obama to the CFPB first as a likely illegal “recess” appointment in 2012 and then confirmed for a five-year term in 2013, when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for nominees — is long overdue. The CFPB under Cordray’s tenure has failed consumers, as it has issued massively expensive regulations that have crushed Main Street banks and credit unions while ignoring the misdeeds at Wells Fargo even as state agencies were tackling it.

If Cordray had not resigned, or if for some reason he changes his mind, President Trump should not hesitate to fire him. I have argued repeatedly — including in an open letter to President Trump earlier this month — that there are many grounds to fire Cordray even under the strict conditions of Dodd-Frank. As I pointed out recently in The American Spectator, Cordray “has violated the due process right of the firms and individuals he regulates, approved excessive spending on renovations for the CFPB’s office building, and ignored Congressional subpoenas for information on the CFPB’s operations.”

Tellingly, even two staunch GOP critics of President Trump, Sens. Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Mike Lee (R-UT), still urged the president to fire Cordray.

And members of both parties have expressed concern about the harmful effects of the multitude of CFPB regulations on community banks and credit unions. A letter to Mr. Cordray from the Credit Union National Association and several state credit union associations called the CFPB’s regulatory approach “terribly troubling” and “baffling,” and noted that the cost of the regulatory burden on credit unions has increased from $4 billion in 2010 to $7 billion in 2014, due largely to CFPB red tape.

Cordray’s CFPB long escaped accountability because of the defective and unconstitutional structure of the CFPB. Congress and the courts must strengthen the CFPB’s accountability by making it subject to appropriations from Congress and giving the president the power to remove the director “at will,” as in the case of a Cabinet secretary.

President Trump must also immediately nominate and the Senate must swiftly confirm a new director who will begin the process of removing the red tape harming consumers and Main Street financial institutions and focusing the CFPB’s resources on combating genuine fraud and malfeasance. Consumers, entrepreneurs, small banks and credit unions need relief now from the CFPB’s stifling red tape.

What's Holding the Arab World Back?

My Take - Although I agree with what the speaker is saying - this is only a part of the answer. This, and all else that impacts the Muslim world and keeps it from advancing is - they're Muslims. Islam breeds and nourishes the worst traits in humanity.

 Winston Chruchill noted:
 "Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity."

The Muslim world is a world of violent Medieval tribal societies with modern weapons, communications and transportation. No one trusts anyone else, and no one in their leadership ever wants anyone else to ever get an advantage because it may diminish them. 

The Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon

By Clyde Ward November 20, 2017

If you're not familiar with the term "Perfumed Prince," take a look at Air Force LTG Jay Silveria, Commander of the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs. Silveria achieved the national spotlight by chewing out the entire class over racial slurs posted on five cadets' quarters. Months later, it turned out that one of the targets was actually the perpetrator................

Colonel David Hackworth coined the term "Perfumed Princes"to describe the leaders who sidestepped the Vietnam disaster and infested the senior ranks, playing the academic or business manager while they squeezed out soldiers on the soggy end.......... "Eau de Diversity" is the fab fragrance of the Perfumed Princes as required by the political elite...........

Marine staff sergeant Joseph Chamblin was punished for having urinated on a Taliban corpse five years ago.  The conviction was overturned this November, after discovering that then-general Amos had interfered in the judicial proceeding.  Amos wanted this sort of thing "crushed."..... This is right out of Brigadier General John Pershing's successful tactics in the Philippines, 1909-1913.....

Chamblin is luckier than Lt. Clint Lorance, who is serving a twenty-year sentence for opening fire on suspected Taliban scouts when they ran his check point. Lorance is one of the Leavenworth 10, referring to a fluctuating number of U.S. servicemen serving time while known terrorists are released from GITMO........Bowe Bergdahl walks on a dishonorable discharge.  Clint Lorence remains in jail.......... Bradley Manning received counseling regarding his sexual problems as required by regulation and cognizant authority.  The problem here is that cognizant authority is a Perfumed Prince.  It took a full-blown act of treason and espionage to reach the proper diagnosis. American elites are killing America...............To Read More...

My Take - Is it any wonder why I hated the officers when I served?  It is any wonder why I still despise them?

There are two groups we associate with being real leaders.  Ph.D's and military officers.  Both of those assumptions are wrong.   Give them a task and they will perform it admirably.  But that's not what real leadership is about.  That's merely good management skills.  

You show me a Ph.D candidate who tells everyone at his oral dissertation all their views are wrong and proves it - and I will show you a Ph.D candidate with a career Master's degree.

The same is true of officers.  Show me an officer who stands up to his superiors and proves them wrong and I will show you a career junior officer, if he's even allowed to remain in the service.

In most of these cases it's my belief this go along to get along mentality is intrinsic to the character of those who remain in these fields.  Reality merely forces this mentality to become a habit of a lifetime.   The fact of the matter is they learn early in life that to get along you gotta go along. 

In science grant money has now become the holy grail of science, not truth.  In the military "diversity and inclusion" is the holy grail of the officer corp.  It's high time the grant money was stripped away and these officers sent into retirement.  Preferrable some should be fired.  Hard to do?  Really? Put me in charge of that and I will show you just how easy it is.   

Robert Mueller Is the Cover-Up

By James Lewis November 19, 2017

Now don't get me wrong: I'm sure all these brave men (or persons, I should say) made great contributions to the safety and welfare of all of us. But here they are at the peak of their careers, each one of them, and Democrat candidate Hillary is suddenly exposed to the world with her email fiasco as SecState. Violating the very first rule of intelligence and statecraft, to protect your country's secrets. And she obviously sold secret and sensitive information to Clinton Foundation "donors" around the world, including old friend Vladimir Putin (who now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium, or possibly more), the Muslim Brotherhood (friends of Huma), the Iranians (who sponsor half the terror attacks in the world), the Chinese (who want more of our secret high tech), and probably the French (who understand bribery and just wanted to get access to Hillary as POTUS).

We've seen how Bill sold U.S. rocket-launching secrets to the Chinese for campaign money...or personal money. It's so hard to tell the difference............. So Hillary has violated any number of laws all of her adult life........yet the Axis of NYT-WaPo tells us that Donald Trump is just suspected of nefarious dealings with the Russians, which presumably caused the Russians to break into Hillary's ridiculous emails and the DNC file system, sending truthful (but wicked) information to WikiLeaks, to be dumped at strategic moments of the election campaign.

Notice well that nobody claims that the Hillary dumps were false. They were true enough. That's why they hate Trump and his imaginary Russian sources. It's the truth that hurt Hillary............. The obvious kicker in all this is that Robert Mueller is part and parcel of the Hillary Cover-Up...............Read more

Clinton Foundation Financial Report Exposes Harsh Reality of Hillary Hate