Can we let kids be kids?
With summer just around the corner, it’ll soon be time once again to dig in the sand, gulp from the hose, play at the park, and leap with joy. Unless you’re a kid—in which case, you can’t have fun because it’s too dangerous. In this week’s video, Lenore Skenazy, President of Let Grow, encourages parents to do what parents have always done: follow basic safety rules, and then let kids be kids.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump Trap set before he took office. (See 1 below.)
===================================
Kim writes how Republicans can respond to and negate much of the disastrous Omnibus Bill. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bolton a bolt of lightening that is also a breath of fresh air. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has France thrown in the Islamist towel? https://www.
++++++++++++++++++++I do not know whether Stansberry will prove right or not. Only time will tell. I do, however, have reservations about The Fed ever effectively orchestrating a "soft landing." (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two must repeats because they are spot on and must be read and digested. (See 5 and 5a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) This trap was set well before Trump won
Through a combination of representative democracy and a balancing of state power against federal power, we the people pick our president.
Unless, of course, the president we the people pick turns out to be a grave and odious threat to the powerful established bureaucracy in Washington that — like cancer itself — is entirely dedicated to its own preservation and spread.
And damn the innocent host! The more devastating the cancer is to the very body politic that gives it life, the better!
It is the truest form of injustice. Singular evil. Blind hatred.
So they changed the rules. We can pick our president. But then the powerful established bureaucracy must conduct a massive, sprawling, limitless investigation into any and all aspects of the president we pick.
The basis of this “investigation” is an increasingly debunked frame-up designed and drafted by the Kremlin and paid for by President Trump’s political opponent in the presidential election. And then spread to all four corners of the globe by the oldest creatures of the powerful establishment in Washington.
At the height of the presidential election, the administration of the outgoing president of the United States — Mr. Trump’s most powerful political enemy — handed over the controls of America’s spy apparatus to begin moving against Mr. Trump and his campaign.
They exposed people, spied on people and began setting the trap just in case the stupid people of America picked Mr. Trump to be their president. They lied, conspired and held secret meetings.
So special counsel Robert Mueller’s endless investigation in search of a crime should have been no surprise. It was cooked up long before Mr. Trump even won the election. Of course, these people were going to do this.
It is the new standard for “self-governance” in America. The people can elect any president they want. But then these people will do everything including assassinate their character to hound them from office.
Truly, these people cannot fathom how much innocent taxpayers despise them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)How Trump and the congressional GOP can undo the worst of the omnibus
By Kim Strassel:
Plenty of Republicans remain bitter that their party passed that bloated $1.3 trillion omnibus—almost as bitter as President Trump, who felt pressured to sign it. But this fight doesn’t have to be over.
Across Washington, principled conservatives are noodling with an idea that—if done right—could be a political winner. It’s a chance for Republicans to honor their promises of spending restraint and redeem themselves with a base turned off by the omnibus blowout. It’s an opening for the GOP to highlight the degree to which Democrats used the bill to hold the military hostage to their own domestic boondoggles. And it’s a chance for Mr. Trump to present himself again as an outsider, willing to use unconventional means to change Washington’s spending culture.
It’s called the 1974 Impoundment Act, which allows the president to order the rescission of specific funds, so long as Congress approves those cuts within 45 days. The act hasn’t seen a lot of use in recent decades. Barack Obama never saw a spending bill he didn’t like, and George W. Bush never sent any formal rescission proposals to Congress—likely because he took the position that presidents ought to have a fuller line-item veto power. Many conservatives agree, though Ronald Reagan used rescission where he could and holds the title for most proposals. Even so, the total amount all presidents since 1974 have put forward for rescission ($76 billion) and the amount Congress ultimately approved ($25 billion) remains pathetic.
3) Why We Need John Bolton as NSA The readiness to use force to help our friends — and hurt our enemies. Bruce Thornton
Posted by Ruth King
Last week ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden signed a letter with a “bipartisan group of 115 national security leaders” that counsels the Trump administration and new National Security Advisor John Bolton not to jettison the nuclear deal with Iran. Hayden’s justification for this advice illustrates all the stale ideas and unexamined assumptions about foreign affairs that have brought us to this crisis in the first place––and why we need the return to realism we are likely to see with Bolton at the helm.
Hayden starts by admitting that the deal has problems. Iran was on the economic ropes because of the sanctions, and so should have been the “suppliant,” not us. Hayden’s delicate indirection refers to Obama’s shameful eagerness for a deal, any deal in fact, to burnish his foreign policy “legacy” and please the “international community” with his commitment to “multilateralism” and “smart diplomacy” instead of military power. Hayden also notes Obama’s “bait-and-switch when selling the deal to Congress,” a reference to the post facto concessions to the regime, like “abandoned or altered positions on no notice inspections,” which of course make the whole idea of monitoring Iran’s activities a mere aspiration.
Hayden also knows that Iran is a “bad actor.” But this vague cliché cannot accurately describe a repressive, brutal regime that has for nearly forty years soaked its hands in American blood, and now has replaced the U.S. as the dominant power in the Middle East. And it downplays Iran’s role in destabilizing the region as it creates a Shia crescent from Syria to Yemen, and builds a proxy attack-force on Israel’s borders in order to bring the mullahs closer to fulfilling their eschatological dream of “wiping Israel off the map.”
But the vagueness of “bad actor” allows Hayden to make an astonishing claim like this one: “Still, Iran is further away from a weapon with this agreement than they would be without it.” Apart from the either-or fallacy in believing that total war is the only alternative to a bad deal, what possible information does Hayden have that makes this credible? What empirical evidence can he produce to buttress the certainty of such a claim? By what means are the inspectors able to ascertain that Iran is in fact living up to the deal, or even to know the existence or location of all its nuclear development facilities? And what about the preposterous begged question in the letter’s claim that the “Iran will be prohibited from exceeding severe limits” by “continuing, unprecedented international monitoring”? How does “severe” square with the IAEA’s inability to monitor Iran’s compliance with Section T, which bans “activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device”?
And if cheating is detected––as it already has been–– what “action” will the U.S. “take,” as the letter says it can? What further “cheating” would trigger that action, when prior documented violations haven’t? Getting the EU and Russia to go along with “tough sanctions,” when the Europeans are doing big business with Iran, and Russia is delighted with the status quo, one that empowers its partner in the region and discomfits its rival? Or do they mean military action? That has virtually been off the table for years, which is why the letter avoids bringing it up as an option. The 115 “experts” have nothing specific or convincing to say about how Iran, absent force, can be compelled to abide by the terms of the agreement, let alone how the agreement can prevent Iran from getting nukes.
The fact is, neither Hayden nor any of his fellow “experts” can assure us that in less than a decade Iran will not end up with a nuclear arsenal even with the agreement. Supporters of the deal are making an existential wager without any clue of the odds the agreement will work, or any recognition that they are gambling with our security and interests and those of our regional allies, not to mention even further proliferation.
The lack of specific details and evidence that support the claims of the agreement’s efficacy explains the rest of the letter, which mostly focuses on superficial public relations rather than hard facts. “Direct U.S.-Iran communications” will facilitate “crisis management,” we are assured. That is, when conflicts arise from our clashing interests, talking it out will defuse escalation. Notice the assumption: an apocalyptic fanatic regime that has fomented terrorism, murdered our citizens, helped our enemies kill our soldiers, threatens our most valuable allies in the region, and believes we are the “Great Satan,” will be deterred from acting on its beliefs because we “communicate” with them.
The “experts” seemingly cannot comprehend that for a regime bent on aggression, diplomatic talk is merely a tactic to misdirect its enemy in order to buy time until it’s powerful enough to get what it wants by force. To paraphrase First Lord of the Admiralty Duff Cooper after Chamberlain’s Munich fiasco, the “experts” want to address the mullahs “through the language of sweet reasonableness.” In fact, they are “more open to the language of the mailed fist.”
A similar doubtful benefit of keeping the agreement, the letter claims, is that North Korea will behave better because it will not be able to say that the U.S. “abrogates agreements without cause,” and so the Norks will be “more likely to negotiate an end to its nuclear program.” Do the letter-writers even know the history of “agreements” with North Korea, the terms of which we kept but that they serially violated? Did those thirty years of broken promises and futile bribes make them more amenable to denuclearizing? What a failure of imagination, to think that the “good faith” of the U.S. regarding a duplicitous Iran will so impress Rocket Man that he will voluntarily give up the only thing keeping him from suffering the fates of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. And don’t forget, the “agreement” with Iran was not ratified by the Senate, and so remains the property of Barack Obama, and is not binding obligation on, or the responsibility of the sovereign people.
The fantasies in this letter keep coming. If we stick with the agreement, the letter says, “other states in the region” will not be as motivated to develop their own nuclear assets because they may suffer the “intense scrutiny and restrictions” put on Iran. What a host of begged questions lurk in this statement––that Iran will not acquire a weapon because of the agreement, that Saudi Arabia doesn’t know the history of proliferation that was not deterred by “sanctions” and “inspections,” or that a country that sees its security and interests under existential threat will patiently wait for an agreement maybe to work before arming itself. Especially when the agreement is being serially violated, and its champions can’t guarantee that it will even work, given the abject failure of similar agreements in the case of North Korea.
The last boon the letter claims for staying the course is the “enhancement” of “U.S. status and leadership.” The Europeans, for example, will be so pleased with us that they will eagerly pitch in when other threats arise. Which in the event means their usual paltry contributions of men and matériel to NATO operations, or blustering rhetoric and meaningless votes in the U.N. Security Council. Here’s the mantra of “multilateralism,” the magical thinking that allies will pursue our interests and security rather than their own because we stuck to a dangerous agreement that they favored. And why shouldn’t they? The business they’re doing with Iran is more important than stopping a genocidal regime threatening a country like Israel they don’t like anyway.
Next, sticking to the agreement will give us the “influence” and “credibility” that will encourage our allies to support us when we have to reimpose punitive sanctions. Again, sovereign nations do not take action unless it serves their own interests, and right now our “partners” find their interests served by a sanctions-free Iran. And “credibility” and “influence” do not flow from putting the interests of other states ahead of our own, but from our willingness to punish our rivals and enemies. Countries bandwagon with a great power because it acts like one, not because they like us or we serve their interests at the expense of our own. Do the “experts” really think that France or Germany, let alone Russia, will eagerly line up to support us if we impose harsh sanctions on Iran that cost Europeans billions of Euros?
Finally, the letter predicts, sticking to the agreement will “deny” Iran the pretext of blaming their development of weapons on our abandonment of a bad deal. Again, international public relations and spin are paramount for the “experts,” as though our prestige depends on whether people like or admire us. Quite the opposite: their liking us usually reflects their satisfaction with our self-abasement and subordination of our interests to theirs. That’s why the “international community” loved Barack Obama so much, and now despise Donald Trump––he puts America’s interests ahead of the mythical “international community.”
As for Iran, it doesn’t need any excuse to keep doing what it already is: arming itself with missiles and nuclear weapons that will catapult them into being the region’s most powerful, and virtually untouchable, hegemon. Sure, they’ll mouth pretexts for their actions based on ideas, like åsigning agreements in good faith, that they know most Western nations endorse. Even Osama bin Laden justified his terrorist murder because the U.S. didn’t sign the Kyoto climate accords favored by the EU. But we shouldn’t take seriously such specious rationalizations, or base our actions on such delusions of shared principles.
This letter is a compendium of the failed assumptions of delusional internationalism. It also explains why John Bolton’s appointment is so necessary. His career has demonstrated a realist understanding of interstate relations, which are based on the diverse, conflicting, and often zero-sum interests of nation-states, rather than on a lofty idealism peculiar to the West. And he recognizes that a prestige based on our willingness to use force to help our friends and hurt our enemies is the necessary precondition of successful diplomacy and negotiations. Bolton’s challenge to the fossilized institutionalist paradigm explains the intense dislike of him. That animus alone is a good enough reason to make him National Security Advisor.
++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Oh boy, did I set off the "boo birds"...
Lots of you pointed out that I've been bearish for a long time – which isn't exactly true. Plenty of other folks reminded me that our hedging strategy in Stansberry's Big Trade hasn't worked at all – which is certainly true. And virtually everyone wanted me to explain how I could write "start selling" at the same time that my colleague Steve Sjuggerud says the "Melt Up" will continue until 2019 or 2020.
So what's the problem?
But the issue runs deeper...
Our economy hasn't seen any significant increase to capital costs since 2008...
And something bigger is at stake now, too...
So... what happened?
I'm focused on what these obligations will do to our markets and our country in the long term...
You're not getting it...
++++++++++++++++++
5) How do civil wars happen?
4)
Forget a Bear Market... The U.S. Financial System Is About to Be 'Reset'
By Oh boy, did I set off the "boo birds"...
A week ago, I (Porter) discussed a number of troubling warning signs that are emerging and that could emerge next year. I wrote that investors should "start selling."
And that brought out the boo-birds. Here are a few of the more civil replies I received...
|
Lots of you pointed out that I've been bearish for a long time – which isn't exactly true. Plenty of other folks reminded me that our hedging strategy in Stansberry's Big Trade hasn't worked at all – which is certainly true. And virtually everyone wanted me to explain how I could write "start selling" at the same time that my colleague Steve Sjuggerud says the "Melt Up" will continue until 2019 or 2020.
So let me clarify what I wrote and explain what you should do about it right now.
Then let me show you why what happens to your portfolio over the next few years should be the least of your worries. Protecting your portfolio is easy. Protecting everything else won't be.
So what's the problem?
For the first time since 2010, default rates on consumer loans are rising. This credit weakness is accompanying a general decline in transportation stocks.
These two leading indicators suggest weaker economic activity is likely next year. If this weakness continues, it could weaken gross domestic product (GDP) and earnings. Given the high premium on stocks right now, any decline in earnings could trigger a bear market (a decline of 20% or more in average stock prices).
Steve could be right. Stocks could simply continue to rise, despite deteriorating fundamentals. Stranger things have happened before.
Nevertheless, I think it's wise to start planning for your portfolio to survive a decline next year – just in case. Steve doesn't.
So we disagree. That happens frequently when people discuss their opinions about the future. It's not a conspiracy. It's just both of us trying our best to serve our customers.
But the issue runs deeper...
If that were all this issue was about – the fact that I'm cautious about stocks and Steve is bullish – then it wouldn't be a big deal. But the problem goes beyond two guys with different opinions about the stock market.
You see... what's powering Steve's Melt Up is a gigantic credit bubble, the biggest one yet. And I believe that when it finally collapses, the damage will go way beyond economic problems and a bear market in stocks.
The signs of these far bigger problems haven't emerged – yet. As I wrote a week ago, I believe they will emerge next year. I'm talking about an inverted yield curve (if the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates) and soaring borrowing costs for the federal government.
These two factors are incredibly important for investors to consider carefully because they will have a profound impact on the amount of credit that's available and the cost of that credit.
As interest rates on the government's bonds increase, that debt will become more expensive, taking a larger and larger share of the government's spending. That will reduce what the government can spend elsewhere. And even more important, it will make government debt progressively more competitive with other kinds of credit, like consumer debt and corporate debt. That will make capital more expensive to borrow across our entire economy.
Our economy hasn't seen any significant increase to capital costs since 2008...
Even the briefest increase to capital costs in late 2015 saw yields on junk bonds soar to more than 10% and caused the stock market to decline by almost 10%.
If that happens again next year, I'm absolutely certain the damage will be much, much worse.
Why? Because we're much further along in the credit cycle. An enormous amount of credit comes due in the corporate bond market between 2018 and 2020 – more than $1 trillion in speculative-grade credit alone.
And something bigger is at stake now, too...
Our entire financial system (and our way of life) has become addicted to cheap and ever-expanding credit.
Since September 2010, when nonmortgage consumer credit bottomed at $2.5 trillion, it has rebounded at its fastest pace ever. Today, Americans owe $3.7 trillion in outstanding consumer credit. That's $1.2 trillion of additional consumer spending, created out of thin air (not savings) in just eight years.
During the same period, the federal government increased its debt from $14 trillion to more than $20 trillion. Just think about that number... Our government borrowed an additional $6 trillion in less than a decade.
Does that seem wise?
Does that seem sustainable?
What do you think will happen when these debts come due?
What do you think will happen when the people who depend on government transfer payments realize there's nothing behind the "curtain" except for a bankrupt old wizard?
And how long do you think those tax cuts are going to last (if they are even passed) if our government's borrowing costs soar?
Finally, while individuals and our government have been on an unprecedented borrowing and spending binge, corporations, which have been offered unlimited amounts of essentially free capital, have also been borrowing and spending like never before. Total outstanding nonfinancial corporate debt has doubled since 2005, from around $3 trillion to more than $6 trillion, with most of the growth coming from noninvestment-grade borrowers.
Like our government, corporations have borrowed more in the last decade than ever before – more than a 100 years' worth of debt has been issued. And almost all of it went to either buying other companies or buying back shares.
Does that seem wise?
When you put all of these numbers together, you'll see that we've borrowed something on the order of $20 trillion in just the last eight years. That's more than our entire GDP!
So... what happened?
Stocks have gone way up. (Shocker.) Look at how much borrowed money was used to fund share buybacks.
Bonds have gone way up. (Shocker.) The Federal Reserve printed $3 trillion and manipulated interest rates to essentially zero. Other central banks around the world followed... pushing rates lower and lower... and in some cases, below zero.
All of this debt and manipulation caused demand for financial assets to go bonkers. This demand has reached a never-seen-before level so high that an unknown computer programmer successfully created a new financial asset: cryptocurrency.
It's a currency without an issuing country and a tax base. It offers investors precisely nothing. It's like paper money, without the paper. It's not an "IOU nothing" like the dollar, the pound, or the euro. It's a "who owes you nothing"... And this cryptocurrency asset class is now worth almost $200 billion.
Does that seem wise?
But what about real economic growth? What about real increases to wages? What about gains in our standard of living?
Well, despite this enormous tidal wave of debt and spending, Barack Obama was the first president to ever witness a complete term in office without even a single year of growth in excess of 3%. Wages, in real terms, haven't budged.
And you know why that didn't happen: The money wasn't earned. It's not real. And it wasn't invested in expanding our productive capacity (in most cases). It was spent on financial assets. It was spent on consumer items and wars.
Some of our subscribers are upset or confused because they believe we're not offering them a consistent view of the world. It has never occurred to them that the forces driving Steve's Melt Up thesis are the same exact forces that I'm writing about here.
Steve sees the massive boom all of this new money and credit has created. He has done a brilliant job showing our subscribers how to take advantage of it.
I'm focused on what these obligations will do to our markets and our country in the long term...
But that doesn't mean I haven't helped a lot of people do well during the bubble, too. Folks who say I'm bearish must not have read any of my newsletters over the last decade. I've been 90% long and have recommended a slew of our biggest winners, including both e-commerce firm Shopify (SHOP) and online retailer Overstock (OSTK).
So please... don't pretend that you can't both consider the risks we face and make money while the sun shines.
Anyone who wants a universal, coherent view of how to order their affairs in light of these risks and opportunities can simply review The Total Portfolio in our Stansberry Portfolio Solutions product.
I manage The Total Portfolio. Look there and you can see exactly what "start selling" means for investors.
We've put a lot of capital into precious metals and short positions. We've increased our cash position. And we own a lot of safe, "ride the storm out," fixed-income investments. We've also sold down some of our big winners.
This has cost us a little bit in terms of total return. We're now trailing the stock market by maybe a percentage point. But we're still making great returns for investors, with far, far less risk and volatility.
So if you're looking for a solution, there it is. It's all right there in black and white.
But heck, what fun is that?
If we told you exactly what to do, down to the number of shares to buy in each position – and if that portfolio kept pace with a roaring bull market, while keeping about 40% of the portfolio in either fixed income, hedges, or outright short positions – then what could you complain about when I write such scary warnings about the future?
You'd think of something, I'm sure.
You're not getting it...
Look, friends... you're sitting there thinking about your portfolio. You're worried about your money... worried about earning a return... worried about keeping pace with your neighbors... worried about leaving something for your kids.
But you're asking all of the wrong damn questions.
By a mile.
You aren't getting it, even though you just read the essay I wrote a week ago... And even though you're reading this right now. You just aren't getting it.
I didn't write that essay to get you prepared for a bear market. A bear market is nothing. It's no big deal. If you follow your stops and you're hedged at all, you'll be fine. The downturns we saw in 2000-2002 in tech stocks and 2008-2009 in most stocks were as bad as bear markets get.
We survived both, handily, in my newsletter. We made money in 2002 by shorting. And we broke even in 2008 by shorting and buying near the bottom. We can handle a bear market. It's no big deal. A bump in the road for most people, a great buying opportunity for some.
If those bear markets hurt you, it's probably because you were far too concentrated in a few risky stocks. Just don't make that mistake again and you'll learn not to fear bear markets at all.
It's not an eventual bear market in stocks that I'm writing about.
It's something like you've never seen before. You've never seen what happens when millions of people can't possibly pay their bills. When thousands of companies can't refinance their debts. When confidence in our financial system, our government, and our way of life evaporates overnight.
I'm not talking about a bear market. I'm talking about a complete "reset" of our financial system. It's the only way forward – the debts we've racked up over the last decade can't possibly be repaid.
Did you read what I wrote above? We've borrowed $20 trillion in less than a decade.
We've spent the money on a bunch of stupid stuff – wars, share buybacks, worthless college degrees, inflated medical care, and lots and lots of drugs.
The bill is coming due. And there's no way it can be paid back.
So whose pound of flesh is going to be roasted? That's the question you should be asking.
By the way, we'll begin to see all kinds of other warning signs. Rising short-term interest rates and an inverted yield curve? That's nothing compared to what else is going to happen next year.
Think about big defaults on consumer-loan securitizations hitting at the same time the corporate high-yield market freezes up because no credit is available for noninvestment-grade borrowers. That's what's going to happen.
How do I know? Just look at the numbers: U.S. speculative-grade companies owe $1 trillion before 2021. There's zero chance this debt can be paid off or refinanced if there's an inverted yield curve.
And that's why all of those firms are scrambling right now to finance these debts.
Just watch the current efforts by hospital owner Community Health Systems (CYH) to avoid defaulting on its $15 billion debt load. And remember, the company has no significant maturities until late 2019.
Think about that.
When businesses that own assets as highly regulated and noncyclical as hospitals can't get new funding, what will happen to real free-market companies with declining sales and huge debts? Just imagine.
As my friend Grant Williams, who writes the financial newsletter Things That Make You Go Hmmm, did a great job explaining... We've been living in a world of pure imagination.
Just about everything seems great when you're in the midst of spending $20 trillion worth of "funny money." But how do you think it's going to feel when we have to pay it back?
The whole structure will come unraveled because we can't possibly maintain the current value of financial assets.
But you don't have to believe me... Just watch.
Good investing,
Porter Stansberry
5) How do civil wars happen?
By David Vincent Gilbert
An interesting perspective….
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge.
That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.
That's a civil war.
There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election.
When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship. Your very own dictatorship.
The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.
Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.
But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has "discretion" to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the "discretion" to reverse him.
That's how the game is played. That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.
When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.
The Constitution has something to say about that.
Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.
Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.
That's not a free country.
It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an "insurance policy" against Trump winning the election.
It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition.
It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media.
It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win won.
Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3) Museum slammed after hiring white curator for African art exhibit
The Brooklyn Museum has sparked outrage in the black community after tapping a white woman to curate its vast African art collection.
On Monday the museum appointed Kristen Windmuller-Luna, 31, who has a Ph.D. in African art history from Princeton University, lectures in Columbia University’s department of art history and archaeology, and once worked as an educator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where she was “responsible for adult and college gallery tours in the African galleries.”
Despite the stellar résumé, her hiring left some wondering why a qualified person of color did not get the post.
“Seriously, @brooklynmuseum? There goes the neighborhood for good,” opined Philadelphia journalist Ernest Owens on Twitter.
“People from the African Diaspora are frustrated w/white people being gatekeepers of our narrative,” tweeted Kimberly Seldon.
The museum defended its decision.
“Kristen is the perfect choice to build upon the Brooklyn Museum’s track record as an innovator in the collection and exhibition of the arts of Africa,” said Jennifer Chi, the museum’s chief curator, in a statement.
The museum said it was “committed to equity” but would not discuss the hiring process with The Post.
Following days of criticism on social media, the museum tweeted Thursday: “We have been listening closely to the debate about our recent appointments to our curatorial team. We’re listening and we hear you. As we think about ways to engage in this conversation with the care it deserves, we want to assure you that you can count on us, as ever, to continue working deeply on equity within our institution and beyond.”African-Americans make up just 4 percent of all “curators, conservators, educators, and leadership,” according to a Mellon Foundation demographic study in 2015. The same report said that people of color occupied 42 percent of “intellectual leadership” positions at the Brooklyn Museum.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5a)Balance of Evidence Is Starting to Flow Against Trump’s Foes
By CONRAD BLACK
No one following the Russian-collusion and related dramas should be in any doubt about the steady flow of the balance of damaging evidence away from Trump and on to his accusers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It is clear that the hierarchy of the FBI and analogues in the Justice Department and intelligence services, horrified at the thought of a Trump victory though confident it would not occur, took liberties — in the soft treatment of Hillary Clinton’s email and uranium problems, and in abetting the Clinton campaign’s effort to smear Mr. Trump with the Russian-collusion argument.
As the parallel investigations and diluvian leaking have unfolded, the anti-Trump Resistance has received a series of gradually suppurating mortal wounds. The Steele dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign; over a hundred FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers expected Hillary Clinton to be charged criminally, and President Trump was correct in saying conversations by his campaign officials had been tapped, a claim that was much ridiculed at the time.
Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe testified that the Steele dossier was essential to obtaining a FISA warrant on a junior Trump aide (Carter Page), and Mr. McCabe and former director James Comey’s rabidly partisan helper Peter Strzok, and his FBI girlfriend Lisa Page, texted suggestions for influencing the FISA judge in the case. The judge recused himself, voluntarily or otherwise, after granting the warrant.
Mr. Mueller set up his “dream team” of entirely partisan Democrats; McCabe failed to identify to the Bureau his wife as a member and beneficiary of the Clinton entourage and political candidate in Virginia; and the fourth person in the Justice Department, Bruce Ohr, met with Steele, and Mrs. Ohr helped compose the Steele dossier.
The Justice Department inspector general, Michael Horowitz, whose report is expected imminently, showed the FBI director, Christopher Wray, findings about Andrew McCabe’s conduct that caused him to retire Mr. McCabe prematurely. The Office of Professional Responsibility, one of the few centers of unquestionably ethical and nonpartisan conduct in Washington, advised the attorney general to fire Mr. McCabe.
Mr. McCabe himself was reduced to mind-reading in his attack on the president on Friday night, claiming Mr. Trump’s real motive was to weaken the Mueller inquiry. Mr. Trump didn’t fire Mr. McCabe. Mr. McCabe scuttled his own credibility.
Former CIA director John Brennan’s outburst on Saturday indicates that the Resistance is cracking up. He tweeted to the world, but specifically the president: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.”
It was seemly that someone who voted for Gus Hall, the American Communist leader, for president in 1976 would invoke Marx. But he went on to accuse Mr. Trump of trying to destroy America. Former National Intelligence director James Clapper has been routinely announcing, at home and abroad, since shortly after Inauguration Day, that the Russian-collusion story was a greater scandal than Watergate.
Mr. Brennan didn’t mention treason in his tweet — he seems to have given up on collusion and to be focused on Stormy Daniels and Trump’s financial career. (Anthony Scaramucci, in his drunken interview with the New Yorker, was more rational than Mr. Brennan.) Messrs. Brennan and Clapper were improperly leaking partisan information for months, and Mr. Clapper lied to a congressional committee.
The immolation of Mr. McCabe has resulted in a moving of the focus to Mr. Mueller by both pro- and anti-Trump forces, for different reasons. The Democrats and their press allies desperately want Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller, to keep the impeachment canard alive. The president will not oblige them, though he has made the point that there was no excuse for this inquiry, as there was no prior crime nor any evidence of collusion, and that it was weakly and reflexively created by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a mistaken answer on a small Russia-related question at his confirmation hearings and recused himself on anything to do with Russia.
Mr. Mueller is there only because James Comey, after he was fired, illegally leaked a contested memo of a conversation with the president, as he acknowledged without embarrassment at a congressional hearing, to force the appointment of a special counsel on Russian matters (this despite his and Mr. McCabe’s assertions that there had never been government interference in the Russian investigation).
Although Mr. Comey disparaged the Steele dossier, he and Mr. McCabe were complicit in allowing that dossier to be used as the basis for an illegally obtained and renewed FISA warrant against Carter Page, and for precipitating the Mueller inquiry. It is a reasonable supposition that what is terrifying the Resistance now is that the real scandal (as a number of us have been laboriously reciting at intervals for more than a year) is the corruption of the FBI and the Justice Department.
All now awaits the inspector general’s report on the internal functioning of the FBI and the Justice Department. If, as Senators Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham and others have urged, he says he needs a special counsel or the powers of one, to get to the bottom of all this, he will have it, as the monstrous fraud that these people can be relied on to monitor themselves won’t wash even with the press.
If his report is damning enough, and it is unlikely to be pleasant reading for Mr. Comey and his claque, there will be an irresistible public and congressional demand to clean the stable and prosecute the apparently guilty, including in the intelligence services and the State Department.Senator Mark Warner and Representative Adam Schiff will be talking to themselves, without the presence of the television camera that incites their logorrhea every day. If Mr. Mueller is as dedicated and incorruptible as his champions claim, he will produce an honest debunking of the collusion charade and make serious suggestions about lobbyists for foreign interests and about foreign meddling in U.S. elections. (He shouldn’t get too exercised, given the wanton historic disposition of the U.S. to interfere in the elections of other countries.)
The best possible outcomes of this controversy would be the reform of criminal procedure and the end of the criminalization of political differences. The entire U.S. criminal-justice system is an anthill of oppressive fraud where prosecutors win 99% of their cases, at least in part, 97% without a trial, as Mr. Mueller is proving by throwing monstrous charges against his victims and settling for guilty pleas to trivial and technical counts to extract catechized and rehearsed inculpatory testimony with immunity for perjury.
No one should imagine that General Flynn is the sole victim of this. Mr. Mueller was there for the shameful persecution of Senator Ted Stevens, and has been in the vanguard of the mass-destructive weaponization of the American prosecutocracy. (The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its incarcerated people.)
The immediate problem is not draconian severity but the capricious abuse of the practically unlimited power of prosecutors — and especially the pandemic of partisan infection of the federal law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus.
There had been no discussion of the impeachment of a president for over a century until Watergate. Richard Nixon had the authoritarian Truman-Eisenhower view of what a president could do under the cloak of national security, and by the time his overzealous aides had propelled the White House into the crosshairs of heavy Democratic artillery, he suddenly froze and had no idea how to get through it.
Reagan blundered for reasons of compassion for the American hostages in Lebanon into the Iran-Contra mess, but it was never an impeachable offense — just the Congress trying to run foreign policy. Reagan was popular and near the end of his term, and his national-security adviser, Admiral Poindexter, took the bullet. (He was acquitted on appeal.)
Bill Clinton didn’t commit impeachable offenses either, and was shafted by Republican congressional majorities, but he waged a skillful-public relations campaign, and enough Democratic senators supported him so he could finish his term.
Donald Trump saw it coming. His tweets may sometimes be imprudent, but his domination of social media has countered the press’s firing squad, which, in trying to depose him, has largely missed the real story and savaged its own credibility. Mr. Trump will win this epic struggle, and both parties should get the message that trying to impeach your opponent without legal cause can lead to unpleasant surprises.
No comments:
Post a Comment