"Shifty" Schiff blown out of the water. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
America's military capability has seriously eroded in the past few decades to the point that our vital interests are threatened. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Langone, self made man because of American values and capitalism. (See 3 below.)
And:
Radical Democrats have a weak week. See 3 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a fascinating story about Trump, Mar-A- Lago and the genesis of his political trip to The White House.
How Mar-A-Lago Taught Trump To Play Politics
++
1)
New Evidence Demolished Collusion Theory
;American Action News By AAN StaffPhone records obtained by the Senate Intelligence Committee reveal Donald Trump Jr. did not call his father from a blocked telephone number in the days leading up to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
The Daily Caller's Chuck Ross explains:
The finding, first reported by CNN, undercuts Democrats’ theory Trump Jr. might have told his father in those phone calls about the Trump Tower meeting, which was held June 9, 2016, with a group of Russians who had offered dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Democrats led by California Rep. Adam Schiff long theorized the phone calls were between father and son and that they could have discussed the meeting.
“We wanted to get the phone records to determine, was Donald Trump talking to his son about this meeting,” Schiff told CNN in November 2018.
“It’s an obvious investigative step, but one the Republicans were unwilling to take because they were afraid of where the evidence might lead.”
CNN reported that the phone records obtained by the intelligence committee show Trump Jr. made calls to two business associates in the days and hours before the controversial meeting.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)American Military Superiority ‘Seriously Eroded’
By ClarionProject
American military superiority has eroded seriously in the last decades. This was the conclusion of the latest report by the National Defense Strategy Commission, a bipartisan body charged by Congress to evaluate the U.S.’ defense capabilities.
The commission said the erosion was to such a “dangerous degree” that “America’s ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt.”
The report further stated, “If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting.”
It notes that due to the superiority of American military power in the past, the U.S.:
- has deterred or defeated aggression and preserved stability in key regions around the globe
- ensured freedoms around the globe on which American and international prosperity depends
- given America unrivaled access and influence
- prevented America from being coerced or intimidated
- helped to avert a recurrence of the devastating global wars of the early 20th century, which required repeated interventions at a cost of hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives
“Put simply,” the report states, “U.S. military power has been indispensable to global peace and stability—and to America’s own security, prosperity, and global leadership.”
One of the main reasons America has seen its military edge slip away is budgetary cuts, which have prevented “essential … modernization” that have contributed to shortfalls in readiness.
Analysts say that defense cuts have forced the Pentagon to prioritize the preparedness of units immediately scheduled to deploy over these modernization efforts.
Yet the report also called out the “Pentagon’s culture and its way of doing things” and sharply said it “must be brought into the 21st century.”
Although the last two years have seen an increase in the military’s budget, there is no concrete strategy at the moment to continue this momentum. The lack of such a strategy – in addition to previous cuts, government shutdowns and “the threat of unpredictable and delayed funding” – have all contributed to decreased readiness.
The report specifically notes the threat posed by “authoritarian competitors” such as China and Russia, who both are vying for regional hegemony in various part of the world with an eye on projecting that power globally.
In addition, the report makes mention of “the dangers posed by transnational threat organizations, particularly radical jihadist groups,” and states that these threats have “evolved and intensified.”
A recent example in the Middle East proves the report correct. Russia’s alliance with Iran – and by extension the radical jihadist group Hezbollah — in Syria and Lebanon shows how American power in this regard is waning.
Whereas the financial sanctions enacted against Hezbollah have served to strangle the terror group in many ways, America’s latest efforts to decrease the influence of Hezbollah in the recent parliamentary elections failed.
Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing in the Treasury Department Marshall Billingslea recently traveled to Lebanon ahead of the elections to diminish the power of Hezbollah’s political party and specifically prevent it from gaining the powerful ministry of health (which allows Hezbollah to reap the benefits of the state’s health-care system to care for their wounded fighters).
As the State Department acknowledged, that effort failed.
The report concludes with a chilling forecast:
We wish to be crystal clear about one thing. The costs of failing to meet America’s crisis of national defense and national security will not be measured in abstract concepts like “international stability” and “global order.” They will be measured in American lives, American treasure, and American security and prosperity lost. It will be a tragedy— of unforeseeable but perhaps tremendous magnitude—if the United States allows its national interests and national security to be compromised through an unwillingness or inability to make hard choices and necessary investments. That tragedy will be all the more regrettable because it is within our power to avoid it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Ken Langone: Because socialism is an extremely slippery slope. Like it or not, we’re not all created equal, OK? Look at Sam Walton, if you want a good example. Kmart was a big established company that had all kinds of capital and all kinds of real estate, and you have a guy in northwest Arkansas with four stores, and this guy saw an opportunity—Kmart is gone. Kmart is gone, and Walmart (WMT) is thriving.
The challenge is for capitalists to make sure we bring as many people to the party as we can. When we don’t do that, then we’re asking for trouble. But there should be enough to go around; the tent should be big enough. There are a lot of people, frankly, who don’t want to make the effort. I’m not talking about guys starting companies; I’m talking about the number of people who if they could get away with not having a job, they’d do it. I don’t know why they are put together that way, but they are. I’m 83, and I’m still looking for my next deal, not because I need more money; I like the hunt.
In a recent episode of The Readback, Alex Eule is joined by senior writer Mary Childs, who has closely followed the rollout of ‘qualified opportunity zones’ and what it could mean for America’s towns. You cansign up for the podcast in iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Capitalism has flaws, and it’s up to us as capitalists to make sure that the tide does indeed lift all boats. That’s our challenge, and that’s our responsibility. I love to point out about Home Depot that we have 3,000 people in the company today who started with us at entry level—entry level is pushing carts in the parking lot and helping customers load up their cars—who are today multimillionaires. When we created Home Depot, one of the goals we had was to make sure the tent was big enough for everybody who wanted to be in it, everybody who wanted to make the effort. That’s our social responsibility, frankly; that’s our ethical responsibility. Bernie, Arthur [Home Depot co-founders Bernard Marcus and Arthur Blank], and I never owned more than 15% of the company. Why? Because we felt a strong commitment. Because the more people own things, the more they are inclined to take care of them. It works.
So how do you get people in the tent?
For selfish reasons, we’ve got to do something about closing the gap on income inequality. People should not be punished for being paid lots of money, provided they deliver. In America, you’ve got many people running corporations making lots of money but not doing a very good job—without naming names. That’s where the system is flawed.
But look at what [Bill] Gates created; Jeff Bezos, the guy from Google, Home Depot, Walmart. Hey, we didn’t just get rich; we helped a lot of other people live better lives. Home Depot to this day has never once hired a person at minimum wage—not one time. We always paid. Why? Because we feel a social responsibility. How could a guy come to our store and work for us with his mind focused on helping us give the customers a better experience when at the same time he’s worried about feeding his children, or buying milk for his kid?
Imagine there is a young Ken or Kathy Langone out there who has that entrepreneurial spirit but has to fret about rent and food. Maybe they can’t take that same risk. Doesn’t society lose out on their great idea, and all those would-be jobs?
Bernie [Marcus] was 49 years old with three children and no net worth. No net worth. He had a house in California that was worth about $200,000 and maybe he had $70,000 or $80,000 in his net worth. He was 49, and he took a chance on a start-up. It’s called risk/reward. He could be extremely successful for taking risks and chances. If you’re right, you win. If you’re wrong, guess what? I’ve been on the wrong side of a lot of deals. That’s the price, that’s how capitalism is supposed to work. There are winners, and there are losers. There is no guarantee.
In fact, one of the companies I went to for an investment [in Home Depot] was Kroger (KR)—I wanted to sell them 10% of Home Depot for $2 million. They said, well, you can’t have low margins, high service levels, and a wide selection of inventory and be successful. They looked at our proposal as a conventional retailer would. They didn’t see the enormity of the leverage of how much more business we did per store. And that’s what happened. There’s nothing certain in life. I’m in a car with my driver, I’m not sure I’m going to get home tomorrow night, but I’m going to take a chance.
How do you reconcile that with children in Flint, Mich., who don’t have drinkable water?
I grant you, capitalism is flawed, but I think it’s less flawed than the alternative. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—she’s going to give the world all these things? Good for her. She’s on every television show, 70% taxes...
Marginal tax rate.
She’s the youngest person ever elected to Congress. You turn on the television, she’s on every 15 minutes, every show you want to watch. All this sounds good on paper. How do you make it work? Nobody in America, not one person, is turned away for health care, in need. There isn’t one hospital in New York City, if you go in there with an emergency, if you step in without an insurance card, you have to leave—that’s nonsense. It’s melodramatic, and it ain’t so. Bring me one person who went in with an emergency and the hospital said you don’t have the money to pay, you’re out of here. You fight over who’s going to pay after you provide the care, but you get the care.
I’m not sure—
All of these people with these highfalutin’ ideas—be careful you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. But what we’re hearing today is draconian. Know what would happen with a 70% tax rate? Watch how things turn away from you; people will do things because 70% of what they make will be taken away from them. Why take the risk?
It’s a marginal tax rate affecting only income over $10 million.
That isn’t the point. If I have a chance to make an investment and, if it works, 70% of it is going to go to the government, I’m not going to make the deal.
Wouldn’t that be capital gains?
Whatever you want—she wasn’t specific for a reason. She didn’t know what the hell she was talking about—take it at face value. Over $10 million, you pay 70% tax. Why would I want to put up a dollar? I won’t do it. Chill investment in America and watch what happens. That’s what happened in Venezuela: People stop investing.
These all sound good. They’re all meant to appeal to the masses. Regrettably, the masses don’t understand how the system works until it’s too late. Venezuelans truly believed that in following [Hugo] Chávez they were going to the promised land; look at these poor people today. Who’s starving? The poorest of the poor, the most ignorant of the most ignorant. These are the people who are being punished. People leave.
You’re saying that if we don’t address inequality in the U.S., we risk experimenting with something drastically different.
What you can take to the bank from me is we have to do everything we can to address income inequality. But income inequality is only unequal when two people do the same thing and one person gets paid less. We don’t want to destroy incentives. We don’t want to destroy a system that encourages people to do more, because if they do more they’ll do better.
You reference Venezuela. What about the Nordic model, where health care and school are universal and the quality of life is higher by some measures than here in the U.S.?
I don’t know where socialism does work. Take Sweden—Sweden gave it a shot and moved away as fast as they could go. Talk to people in Sweden, they tried! How much credit will you give to the development of America because over its entire history it was capitalistic?
But—
I would say we have the best health-care system in the world. No doubt about that.
Better than Canada?
Best outcomes. We have the best university system in the world, no doubt about that. They all want to come here. We have the best tech—go to Europe, as I do once, twice a year, and see what they have on television. In some countries, it’s all government-owned channels, all they want to show you, nothing more. Freedom of the press in America, freedom of speech. A free press is to me one of the most critical fundamentals of democracy.
Does everyone have a fair shot in our system? How do you account for discrimination and bias?
Editors' Choice
I think discrimination is horrible. I was a poor kid from Long Island, rough around the edges, a poor Italian guy—of Italian extraction, I should say. When I tried to go to Wall Street, I felt the sting of discrimination because of my background. This was the late ’50s. I went all over Wall Street looking for a job and couldn’t get one. I remember having a wonderful man sitting me down one day. He said, “Kid, let me give you the lay of the land.” This was a man trying to encourage me, motivate me. “We got WASP firms for WASP kids, and Jewish firms for Jewish kids. The Irish kids we put on the floor of the exchange, and the Italian kids we make clerks in the back office.” He said, “You’re better than that. You go out and learn the investment business as best you can, and I’ll bet one day you’re going to be a huge success.”
Discrimination is a horrible thing. Horrible. Bigotry, horrible. I saw a movie—Green Book—go see it. It will make you sick about racial discrimination. It will make you absolutely sick.
How do you know when something is discriminatory, and what should employers do?
When you feel certain that’s the way it is, you take action and make sure it stops, that’s what you do. Because, guess what, a business that’s run on that basis will not have a successful future. Listen, the lady who runs all 2,300 Home Depot stores is a black woman. She started with us as a part-time cashier; her family’s from Jamaica, and she’s not good, she’s spectacular. We’re a better company because Ann-Marie [Campbell] has that job, and I’m a richer man because she has that job. That’s capitalism!
Thanks, Ken.
3a) An Extreme Week for Democrats
In a week that began with a liberal panic attack over ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz possibly running for president as an independent, prominent Democrats laid out a series of extreme positions keeping the party in a sprint to the left.
Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) called for the elimination of private insurance plans in her version of "Medicare for all" before walking it back and saying she was open to other pathways that preserve that industry.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) had already flip-flopped on her support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and apologized for a 2012 tweet saying Israel had "hypnotized the world." Then, this week, she said the idea Israel was the Middle East's sole democracy almost made her "chuckle" because of its Jewish nation-state law, and she compared it to Iran.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), not long after saying the world would end by 2031 because of climate change, said the existence of billionaires in America was "wrong."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), after pitching an "ultra-millionaire" flat tax on people with fortunes of at least $50 million, sternly called for capitalism with "serious rules."
Finally, in Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) defended a failed abortion bill in the state house that would allow for third-trimester abortions up to the point of birth. He laid out a scenario where a deformed or nonviable baby could be born, kept comfortable, resuscitated, and then euthanized after the mother and physician had a "discussion." He strongly denied embracing infanticide with his remarks.
Delegate Kathy Tran (D.) admitted her bill, which loosens restrictions for third-trimester abortions in Virginia, allowed for abortions up to the point of birth. One of the reasons would have been if a physician agreed the mother's "mental" health would be impaired by the birth of the child.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment