Tag: DNC

Cuomo: America was never great

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is in hot water for countering Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan with one of his own: “America was never that great”.  I don’t know how far that’s going to get him with the majority of Americans, but it will play well with the radical Democratic Socialists on the Left.  Just yesterday Bernie Sanders said America is “fundamentally immoral and wrong”.  Andrew Cuomo’s brother and CNN commentator Chris Cuomo recently got himself in trouble suggesting that punching right-wingers was morally justifiable.

Democrat governor says America was never great

Economists are taking Elizabeth Warren to task over her far fetched Accountable Capitalism Act.  Warren, who opposes free market capitalism, came up with the idea of having corporations have to obtain a “Federal charter” to operate.  The license, in addition to the hoops they have to jump through to work in their state, would raise $1 billion in fee taxes.  Warren’s so-called “charter” would require corporate directors to consider not just their stakeholders, but also their employees and communities.

Of course, this is moronic.  Any well run company has to consider the well-being of their employees and communities or the free market will eliminate that company from competition.  In fact, that point was made by none other than BET co-founder Robert Johnson.  The Black Entertainment Television co-founder said “Most companies and most boards look at all of their stakeholders, not only their shareholders. They look at their employees, they look at the community where they reside and do business, they look at even the vendors that they do business with. So I think it’s a solution in search of a problem that’s absolutely not necessary,”

What Warren’s bill, along with the exemptions for friends of the ruling party that we have seen with previous Socialist overreaches, would create a new avenue for crony capitalism.  In other words, to get an exemption for your federal charter or to guarantee you have your charter maintained, you have to stay friendly with the party in power.  We saw the same thing with ACA where Obama’s biggest supporters received exemptions to various new labor rules.

Warren’s new socialist measure to control businesses gets a failing grade

Trump is implementing what Obama failed to do with his new Buy America push.  Trump is planning on using an executive order to create rules to ensure that federal agencies use American made goods and services for their projects.  There are questions about the legality of the executive order and sure to be legal challenges.  There are also issues of increased costs to the taxpayers if the government has to buy more expensive American goods.

Obama tried and failed to pass a buy American provision in 2009 and again in 2011.  He backed off of the provision in 2009 after American companies who sell overseas swayed him away from the influence of the US labor unions with fears of foreign retaliation.  When Obama flopped back to supporting Buy American, the Jobs Act of 2011 was squashed by the GOP.

Our opinion?  It was wrong when Obama tried it, it’s wrong now.  Free trade produces lower prices for consumers and taxpayers, and competition helps American producers to be efficient.  A better way to help American producers is to cut taxes and regulation so that they can compete on the high end of the global scale.  But Trump is doubly wrong by doing this as an executive order rather than through Congress.  Many Democrats support Buy American provisions.  Labor unions love it.  By going it alone, Trump will alienate conservative and free market GOP members, but I doubt he’ll receive any recognition from the left.  Democrats also supported protectionist tariffs, until Trump did it.  All around this is poor strategy and contrary to free market principles.

Trump to accomplish Obama agenda item with Buy American executive order

Advertisements

Both parties have one thing in common: they are running against Nancy Pelosi

Even if Democrats win the House in November, Nancy Pelosi is unlikely to be the next Speaker of the House.  The much anticipated Blue Wave set to hand Democrats control in November has had it’s share of roadbumps.  While Democrats cheer close races in red districts and claim moral victories when they lose, the Blue Wave theory definitely has it’s skeptics.  One reason for the skepticism might be how fast Democrats are running away from themselves.

Democrats breathed a sigh of relief as every candidate Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed last Tuesday lost.  Saturday saw another Democratic Socialist loss as Hawaii chose a so called “fiscal conservative” Democrat Ed Case over rabidly anti-Trump Democratic Socialist Doug Chin.  The battle to beat back the Democratic Socialists in the DNC seems on track.

But Democrats are also running against Nancy Pelosi.  In fact 49% of Democrats want Pelosi out of Democrat leadership.  79% of independents don’t want Pelosi running the party.  Many Democrat candidates for the House have also promised to replace Pelosi.

The Democrat blue wave relies on history and political theory.  History says the President usually loses the House in his first midterm.  Political theory says congressional elections are all local.  In other words, people care less about party than they do the individuals who are actually running.  At the same time, the Democrat party is struggling.  Their “abolish ICE” movement exposed their activist wing as idiotic.  But Pelosi has also failed to produce anything other than extreme hatred for Trump as a platform.  The best thing they’ve come up with is how important it is to raise taxes again.

There is no plan B.  Joe Crowley was destined to be Pelosi’s replacement, until he lost to an upstart Democratic Socialist in New York.  For the blue wave to work, Democrats will need to continue to keep it quiet that a Democrat House will be led by Nancy Pelosi or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Politifact bias check: Democrats and Nazis

Politifact has ruled on Don Jr’s claim that the Democrat platform was similar to the Nazi platform of 1930.  Their ruling?  Pants on fire.  How could it be anything else?  Politifact is frequently biased towards the Left.  In this case the result is no different and we give them an 80% bias rating in their analysis.  Let’s examine it.

First, for reference, here is our fact check of Donald Trump, Jr’s claim.  Unlike Politifact who skimmed the Nazi platform, we went point by point and showed the similarities.  Politifact started by restating Don’s claim incorrectly, then pointing out all the ways he was correct, and finally by splitting hairs and using technicalities to get to their rating.

What Donald Trump, Jr said: He didn’t say the Democrat platform was Hitler.  He didn’t say they were identical.  In fact, the points he made are really what Politifact should be looking into.  People keep calling the Republicans Nazis and saying that Trump only won because of Nazi support.  What quoted was this:

“You see the Nazi platform from the early 1930s … look at it compared to the DNC (Democratic Party) platform of today, you’re saying, ‘Man, those things are awfully similar’ to a point where it’s actually scary. It’s the exact opposite of what you’ve been told.”

What he also said was “I’ve been out hearing the left talking about all these things, fascism, Nazism on the right, and when you look at the actual history of how these things evolved, and when you actually look at that platform versus the platform of the modern left, you say wait a minute, those two are really heavily aligned and, frankly, contrary to the right.”

Here’s the actual interview.  Politifact links to it, but it’s worth watching because the context of his statement is that the Left are the ones out there calling Republicans Nazis, and it’s simply not what lines up with the facts.

Politifact then goes on to ironically quote an academic historian who says Democrats have absolutely nothing in common with the Nazi party.  This is at the top of the article, not halfway down where they admit there were many similarities.  But then they make their first huge error.

Politifact argues that Hitler did not run on the Nazi platform and that the platform was a compromise, not what Hitler wanted.  But he didn’t say the Democrats were Hitler.  He said their platform was like the early Nazi platform.  At this point Politifact is no longer factchecking what Donald Trump, Jr actually said.  They are now factchecking a caricature they have created based on their misunderstanding.

“Some points sound similar”

Here’s the funny part of the Politifact article.  They name six points in the Nazi platform that are, just as Donald Trump, Jr said, similar to the DNC platform.  We found more, but Politifact is charitable to the DNC.  In fact, they go on to say they feel that ending war profiteering, nationalizing certain corporations, ending land speculation, and oppression of media that is contrary to the state are not goals of the DNC.  But even if we leave Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez out of this, these were high priorities of the Obama administration.

In fact, many of the new regulations after the 2008 crash were to prevent land speculation, Obama nationalized portions of the auto industry, and Democrats have spent the last 60 years fighting against war profiteering. Dinesh D’Souza who made the film Don Jr went to see was pardoned by the Trump administration after Obama threw him in jail for a slap on the wrist campaign finance crime.

In Politifact’s summation, they admit that there are similarities.  They try to say that of the six similarities they will admit to, they are also in the Republican platform.  Although, according to their article only half of those six are similar to Republican platform points.  Then rather than ruling half true, partly true, or even mostly untrue, they slap a pants on fire rating.  We believe Donald Trump, Jr’s claim deserves a half true rating at the bare minimum.  When you throw in the diversity of DNC candidates who will affect future platforms, including rising star Ocasio-Cortez, this claim would be mostly true if it weren’t for the technicality that this next year’s platform hasn’t been written yet.

Need to Know 7/27/18

It’s all about the GDP.  Markets are anxiously awaiting this morning’s GDP report, hoping for 4.2% quarterly growth.  If it happens, it’ll be a good indicator that the economy continues to rise at a rapid rate, even after the rapid growth from last year. It would also make the argument against Trump’s tax reform even weaker.

Wall Street awaits GDP report

Speaking of tax reform, Elizabeth Warren bumbled through an interview when she was asked what tax rate is too high.  The poor CNBC journalist tried to help her out.  “Do you feel…that it’s wrong for more than half of somebody’s marginal income to be taken?” “Is 50 percent obviously too high?” Finally, as Warren continued to indicate that 50 percent may actually be too low, John Harwood went for the moon. “…obviously ‘no, 90 percent, that’s ridiculous'”.  Warren finally capitulated.

Warren has the blessing of many Democrats to be the top 2020 DNC Presidential contender.  But they will have to figure out how to deal with her ignorance about what taxes do to families and how the economy works.  When Ocasio-Cortez ignorantly claimed that unemployment was low because people were working two jobs, Warren doubled down on the erroneous claim by saying it was actually because people were working as many as four jobs.  Hopefully she can get some help on the economic front.  When it comes to the economy, Trump is definitely winning.

Warren suggests hypothetical 50% tax rate is too low

On the legal side for Trump, it’s a mixed bag.  While rumors from unnamed sources about the Mueller investigation have turned out to be mostly blowing smoke, there’s a new one out today saying Mueller is going to be looking at Trump’s tweets to see if he obstructed justice.  That would be a stretch.  As Guiliani pointed out, people don’t generally obstruct justice in public for millions to see.  This appears to be grasping for straws.  They would have to prove that Trump was somehow giving instructions to witnesses or intimidating people through Twitter.  That would also mean Mueller would have to take Trump’s 3am Twitter persona more seriously than Peter Strzok’s texts to his mistress.

Even if Trump did try to obstruct justice on Twitter, the Bill Clinton precedent on obstruction would make it very hard to successfully argue for consequences.  Clinton secretly intimidated witnesses, instructed them to lie, matched up stories, then committed perjury himself.  The Senate failed to reach a two thirds majority and ended up acquitting him.

Mueller looking at Trump’s tweets?

Forget Russia, Let’s Talk About Germany

After Comey’s testimony, the Russia Trump collusion story has been downgraded to Birther level controversy.  Comey vindicated Trump, saying in fact that Trump was never even under investigation.  Comey has also said that Russia did not alter a single vote in the US election.  On the administration side, it seems as though the biggest issue is General Mike Flynn’s work with Russia and failure to disclose the payments he received. Yes Trump asked Comey to go easy on Flynn, but Trump also fired Flynn.

What did Russia do then?  Russia did not collude with the administration.  Russia did not change the votes.  They did not hack the electronic voting machines. Apparently it’s possible that Russia released Podesta’s emails, but the incriminating statements there came directly from Podesta and other DNC staffers.  At this point, it appears that Russia’s biggest sin was printing negative press and sometimes fake news about Hillary Clinton.

Russia did not print negative news about Hillary Clinton in order to elect Trump.  Unlike the Clinton’s campaign work to influence the GOP primary and make sure Trump won, Russia simply didn’t like Hillary Clinton.

Russia’s actions have been called an act of war.  Even some on the GOP side have called Russia’s actions an attempt to destroy our constitutional process and democracy.  Is this a valid accusation?  Does foreign media printing negative stories equate to election hacking?  Should we be sanctioning Russia because they printed negative stories about Hillary Clinton?

Let’s talk about Germany.  Harvard recently performed a study on various news outlets to see whether Trump was getting fair coverage.  The result is that Trump is getting more negative coverage than any of his predecessors.  Remember, negative press from foreign sources equals an act of war and destruction of our constitutional process.  So we should probably be concerned about Germany’s ARD news network’s 98% negative reporting rate on Trump.

Britain is another hacking nation that has declared war on the US through their media outlets.  Financial Times was negative about Trump 84% of the time, BBC 74% of the time.  When it comes to using media to influence US opinion, both Britain and Germany are just as guilty as Russia.

There’s one other problem worth mentioning.  The assault on the US and our constitutional processes is not being led by Russia or Germany.  It’s being led by the US. If unbalanced coverage and fake news equals everything the left and John McCain say it does, then we should be more concerned about CNN and NBC reporting negatively about Trump 93% of the time.  CBS was 91%, New York Times 87%, Washington Post 83%. Comey’s testimony discredited all of these US news outlets, forcing them to print retractions of fake news they had recently reported.

If the whole Russia thing boils down to their state media operations, I hope we can find a way to laugh at ourselves and move on with our lives. And to think, Obama kicked the Russian ambassadors out of our country over this.

The Russian Fiction

Obama complained for months about the Russians tampering with the US election to get Trump elected.  Apparently for all of Trump’s lack of political experience and his apparent intention to start World War III the first time he loses his temper, he is also somehow irresistible to the Russians.  It has nothing to do with Trump’s desire to sell the American uranium industry to the Russians, Hillary already did that.

For some unexplainable reason, Russia is willing to start a cyber war to install Trump.  So much so that they “hacked the election”.  They literally caused you to vote for Trump. The Russians worked intentionally to aide Trump.  I’m not even sure if we can call this America anymore or if we are just a puppet of Russia.  And of course, if Trump doesn’t denounce Russia and concede this sham election, he should be hung for treason, right?

Back to reality.

What does the media mean when they say Russia hacked the election?  Russia did not tamper with voting machines.  Russia did not funnel fake news to the mainstream media who then dutifully reported it.  In fact, the last major example we have of that was when the CIA told the President who told the media that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs.  Russia did not get into your computer and use subliminal messages to make you feel like voting for Trump.  None of that happened.

In fact, it’s not clear that this was a Russian national effort.  Apparently the CIA has identified some Russian officials (unnamed) who might be involved.  But there’s another wrinkle.  The CIA might not even know what they are talking about.

The “hack” of the election wasn’t a hack of the election at all.  It was a hack of the DNC servers.  To be clear, no one invented the Podesta emails.  No one modified them.  Whoever the hackers are, whether Wikileaks who took responsibility for it or Russian officials according to the CIA, all they did was publish real, actual emails written by real, actual Democrat staffers.

According to the CIA, the hackers hit the GOP and DNC, but only released the DNC emails. The FBI disputes that, saying the GOP servers were never hacked.  If the GOP servers were never breached, that eliminates the CIA argument that the Russians were trying to hurt just the DNC.  In fact, the argument was flimsy to begin with.  It’s possible they hacked the GOP and just didn’t find anything incriminating.

So did Trump really win simply because Russia hacked the DNC?  Did people walk into the voting booth thinking to themselves “Gosh, I just can’t vote for a party that let’s their servers get hacked by the Russians”.  It seems like Hillary Clinton’s loss had a little bit more to do with what was on those emails.  Contained in the Podesta emails was evidence of media manipulation, CNN sending debate questions to Hillary ahead of time, racism within the party, Hillary’s health issues, and of all things proof that Team Hillary not only rigged the DNC primary, but also promoted Trump in the GOP primary because they thought they could beat him.

Just to make sure the reader caught that: Hillary Clinton and her team rigged both party’s primaries in 2016.

Problem emails didn’t just come from Wikileaks.  Team Hillary also got in trouble with the emails released by the FBI from her illegal server, and the undercover video of Scott Foval and others by Project Veritas.  Those two sources showed how the DNC bussed people across state lines to vote illegally, and even paid homeless people to go into Trump rallies and cause violence.  One would think the CIA might be interested in that.  At least one might think that had more to do with Hillary’s loss.

Calling on the Russians to hack and rig an election is nothing shockingly new.  Ted Kennedy did it in 1984 to try to get rid of Reagan. But the Russians didn’t decide the US election in 2016. If they are truly involved, all they did was shed light on the treacherous, terrible, racist, and illegal things the DNC was already doing to hack the election.

Maybe we should send them a thank you card.

How Trump won and Clinton lost

The question has been asked and answered several times.  In an attempt at self-diagnosis, the media has theorized about why the perfect, most qualified candidate in history lost to a racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic deplorable.  They are still missing the correct answers.  Here are five facts and perceptions the media continues to overlook.

The Black Vote

One of the biggest aspects of Hillary Clinton’s loss that the media is only now recognizing is the million or so African Americans who stayed home.  Barack Obama won 93% of the black vote in 2012, Hillary received 88%.  That was the lowest percent in this demographic since the last white Democrat to run and lose in 2004.  An inconvenient truth for the DNC is that after losing two elections in a row against Bush, about 1 million new African American voters came out to vote for the first African American candidate. Then they disappeared. It was the largest demographic shift from 2012 to 2016. Nothing significant has changed in the DNC platform in 20 years.  Obama successfully played the race card, Clinton had no such luck with the gender card.

A Flawed Candidate

Part of the reason the gender card did not work is that Hillary Clinton was not what many women wanted to be representative of the historical first female President.  Clinton was flawed from the start.  Anyone looking at the email scandal could see that she had violated the law.  Democrats could justify voting for Clinton because the FBI refused to recommend an indictment, but even then Comey’s statement was basically that Clinton was too incompetent to be a criminal or hold a government job.

Clinton was the chosen one.  But unlike Obama, she knew it and ran on it.  Obama at least bothered to have a message.  Even during the debates, Hillary seemed to be scared to stray from memorized platitudes and applause lines.  It didn’t help when she experienced public health issues or lashed out at critics.  Throughout the whole thing she acted as though she was entitled to the Presidency and offended if anyone didn’t agree.

Of course, most people who would be discouraged to vote for her because of her criminality or entitlement were already #neverhillary.  Cheating in the primary, controlling the media, and all of the filth that came out of the Podesta emails swayed independents more than the blind DNC is willing to admit.  Even when Sanders came out and endorsed Clinton, it was not enough to change the fact that she had canceled the revolution.  More people stayed home in 2016 than voted.  The crowds that belonged to Bernie Sanders did not follow Hillary Clinton.

Third Parties Failed

The Clinton campaign has lashed out at third party voters since the end of the campaign. But Gary Johnson voters did not have a significant effect on the election.  If you think Gary Johnson’s 3% was anything significant, I would remind you that third party votes have been 2-3% since the last Clinton era when third parties took 10% in ’96 and almost 20% in ’92.  2016 should have been the best opportunity for a third party to make an impact because nobody liked the two main choices.  Consistently in polls, Gary Johnson pulled from both parties.

Gary Johnson was a flawed candidate.  A liberal Republican pretending to be a Libertarian, Johnson was joined by liberal Republican Bill Weld who spent more time praising and defending Clinton than advancing Johnson.

Gary Johnson himself was a clown who demonstrated often that he had no foreign policy intelligence and was probably high during the entire campaign.  Libertarians selected Johnson and pressed forward with no intention of winning, but hoping and praying that someone would realize they existed.  2020 may change their fortunes, but 2016 can objectively be seen as nothing other than a massive failure.  They gave it a Ralph Nader effort and walked away with the same result.

Not All Republicans Are Alt-Right

When Hillary Clinton labeled a large portion of Republicans as “deplorables”, I called that her “47%” moment.  Democrats made a huge miscalculation when they tried to substitute substance with sectarian attacks.  The problem is most Republicans do not believe that they are racist, sexist, bigoted, and many do not even consider themselves homophobic. That is probably because they aren’t.  Sure, some are.  The KKK, who Trump denounced 14 times, are all those things.  But the vast majority of Republicans view the KKK through the historical lens of their past involvement with the Democrat party.  The vast majority of Republicans feel no connection to the KKK and are offended when they are lumped together.

The vast majority of Republicans are also smarter than the media thought.  When Trump said Mexico was sending rapists and murderers, Republicans understood that he was talking about illegal immigrants and simply making the point that scientists, doctors and engineers are not crossing our border illegally.  Republicans also read through his poor communication skills to understand that he was talking about illegal immigrants and not Mexicans in general.  When celebrities called Trump Hitler, many Republicans rolled their eyes remembering they said the same thing about Romney, Bush, and others.  Trump was the beneficiary of generation so over inundated by superlatives and hyperbole that it has lost any affect.

When Democrats even today toss out insane metaphors and analogies, most recently how Trump’s cabinet selection has been Stalin-esque, sane people roll their eyes.  That is a big part of why Trump won.

The “Alt-Left” and Right Anger

What do you call it when someone refuses services to a particular group based on their beliefs?  What do you call it when one group that hates another group takes to the streets and destroys private property whenever they don’t get their way?  What do you call it when it is OK for one group to discriminate, but not the other?  These are the perceptions that drove the angry vote.  When celebrities, professors, and Wall Street try to marginalize conservatives or label them as dangerous, that drives conservatives to the polls.

The anger vote has been a narrative in the media since Trump won the primary.  The anger vote was significant, but the causes have been misdiagnosed.  The media narrative seemed to equate the anger vote with white supremacists and fringe members of the Right.  Even now, leftists like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore are correcting the Left’s perception on what drove rightwing anger.  It wasn’t simply a case of a bunch of racists not wanting a black or female President.  It had very little to do with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage.  It had far more to do with reaction to destructive policies hurting our country and the “Alt-Left”, AKA SJWs.

Republicans voted for Trump mainly because of failed policies.  Obamacare drove insurance rates through the roof.  After 8 years of reported national recovery, people were still waiting for their own recovery.  Hillary Clinton listed two litmus tests for Supreme Court justices. They amounted to invalidating the 2nd amendment and legalizing all forms of abortion at all stages of a pregnancy.  We lost ground in every foreign engagement we involved ourselves in, including making ridiculous deals and ransom payments to Iran, consistently being embarrassed by Russia and China, losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rushing head first into messy entanglements in Syria, Libya, Egypt, and wherever else we could arm terrorists.

Perhaps the most Republican anger came at SJWs (Social Justice Warriors).  Again, these are just observations of the sentiments that were expressed by the Right.  The feeling was that professors created safe spaces to protect primarily liberal students from primarily conservatives students.  Conservative views were oppressed in Universities in demonstrable ways.  Anyone who disagreed with Obama or Clinton were too quickly labeled racist.  Eventually, the term “Alt-Right” was coined and used as a catch all to quickly dismiss anyone who was angry at the Left.

For every 100 sincere Black Lives Matters protesters attempting to bring light to police brutality, there were another 100 paid by George Soros to smash windows and set cars on fire.  In fact, many BLM protesters turned out to be Occupy Wall Street protesters recycled.

It seemed as though the entire race war was scripted.  While black protesters hugged police officers in the streets and people sought healing, bussed in groups of community organizers chanted “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and called for violence against police.  The angry Republicans were the ones sitting in their cars stopped on the highway by Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter protesters.  Angry voters were driven by what should have been a charge of indifference, but was instead over-inflated into a charge of all historical racial and financial injustice.

Occupy Wall Street, the original Soros funded mob, was no better.  Americans across the country who still believe in the American Dream were being accused of hoarding and oppressing these liberal tent dwellers. Yet the movement collapsed in on itself and the DNC put forward a candidate who made $500,000 an hour giving speeches to Wall Street. It is no wonder American workers voted for Trump.

The Result

In the end, the election came down to two candidates who were so scary that neither side could afford to back down.  Trump didn’t win because half the country is racist.  He won because half the country was scared of Hillary Clinton, scared of her policies, and scared of how the SJWs already viewed them.  Desiring everything Hillary Clinton did not represent, and regardless of what Trump did represent, half the country voted #neverhillary and for the only viable alternative they had.  Trump wasn’t a great communicator.  He didn’t have to be.  All he had to say was “I’m going to make America great again, and I’m not Hillary Clinton”.