Day: November 6, 2017

Read Our Lips: No More Bushes


The only Republican President since World War II not to get elected to a second term, George Herbert Walker Bush, has broken President Ronald Reagan’s  11th commandment to speak ill of another Republican, President Donald Trump, in his new book, The Last Republicans. Perhaps the book in which Bush whacked Trump should have been called, “The Last RINOs” for in addition to calling Trump a “blowhard” Bush 41 saying he voted for Hillary Clinton:

The new book, by author Mark K. Undegrove, consists mostly of interviews looking back at the Republican Party over the past few decades and explores the connection between the elder Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush.


The younger Bush told Undegrove that he voted for “none of the above.”


The father and son each raise concerns that Trump has essentially blown up the GOP to the extent that the New York businessman and first-time politician could be the party’s last president for a long while, according to The Times review.

In a sense, one can understand if both Bushes don’t feel like sending President Trump a Christmas card. As a candidate Trump trashed Jeb Bush mercilessly as a low-energy supposed heir to the Bush dynasty. Trump said neither Bush should have gone into Iraq, citing it as a cause for subsequent chaos in the Middle East.

On this Trump is wrong. Bush 43 secured a tremendous victory in Iraq, leaving a stable Iraq backed by a strong U.S. presence. It was President Obama who threw that away by failing to secure a status of forces agreement and then engaging in a precipitous withdrawal that created a void that ISIS filled while Obama looked the other way. But it was Obama that threw away their victory, not Trump, who is stacking ISIS fighters like cordwood in Iraq and Syria. Obama called it the “wrong war”:

Speaking ahead of a visit to the Middle East and Europe, Mr Obama said US president George Bush had squandered opportunities to work with US allies.


“We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan. We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th-century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st,” he said.


“We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.”

Yet the Bushes have no unkind words for Obama, who squandered their victory, and made a career of blaming the Bushes for everything but the common cold. At the unveiling of the White House portrait of Bush 43, Obama made a verbal slap at the mess he inherited from Dubya, noting:

But there was a seemingly out of place moment during the ceremony when Obama seemed to veer into reiterating his frequent trope that he inherited a bad economy from Bush.


“The months before I took the oath of office were a chaotic time,” Obama said, after explaining that the president’s job is isolating, and that he and Bush have a connection since so few have held the job. “We knew our economy was in trouble, our fellow Americans were in pain, but we wouldn’t know until later just how breathtaking the financial crisis had been.”

Obama blamed Bush 43 for the rising deficits, saying it was the result of two wars started under the Bushes and their tax cuts:

Obama said that the country’s budget deficits and big debt were the result of the George W. Bush’s two tax cuts, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 


“They baked all this stuff into the cake with those tax cuts… and the war,” Obama said.


“It’s like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, a martini and all that stuff, then just as you’re sitting down they leave and accuse you of running up the tab,” Obama said.

Obama even blamed Bush 43 for the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal that put high-powered weapons into the hands of Mexican drug lords, resulted in the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata along with hundreds of Mexican nationals. Obama falsely said it was a successor to a Bush program that was closely monitored and resulted in no scandals or deaths:

President Obama claimed that George W. Bush began Operation Fast and Furious, in addition to contradicting his inspector general by claiming that he gave Congress “almost all” of the documents pertaining to the gun walking.


“I think it’s important for us to understand that Fast and Furious was a field operation begun under the previous administration,” Obama said when asked if he will fire Attorney General Eric Holder. Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009. The president was conflating Fast and Furious with Operation Wide Receiver, a law enforcement tactic that began in 2006 and ended in 2007 which was substantially different from Fast and Furious (although some guns did go from the United States to Mexico in Wide Receiver).

Yet through all this criticism both Bushes remained strangely silent. Bush 41 may call Trump a “blowhard,” but what would you call a man who said “Read my lips. No new taxes” at the Republican convention and then made a Faustian deal with the Democrats to do just that and paving the way for President Bill Clinton and the rise of Hillary Clinton?

Was Bush 41 a “blowhard” who lied to the American people? Was he an elitist who looked at his watch during a debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot as if he had better things to do? What words would he use to describe Bill Clinton? Certainly not “Slick Willy” for the man who debated the meaning of the word “is” as he turned the Oval Office into a trysting place. He had no words for the president who through his Clinton Foundation would later go on to plunder disaster-ridden Haiti for fun and profit. As the Washington Free Beacon reported:

Haitian activists protested outside of the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of “billions of dollars” that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake.The activists are claiming the money was stolen through the Haiti Reconstruction Commission that was headed by Bill Clinton. In January 2015, the Clinton Foundation was the target of protests for wasting more than $10 billion and awarding contracts to non-Haitian companies.The activists also said Haiti as a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. They believe that this was done for favors that Hillary was doing for the foreign governments while she was Secretary of State.”We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti,” said Dhoud Andre of the Committee Against Dictatorship in Haiti. 

Hillary, the candidate Bush 41 voted for, would, along with Obama, let four Americans die in a Benghazi terror attack they could have prevented and lied about to the parents later. Bill and Hillary would use their Clinton Foundation as a pay-for-play racketeering scheme to enrich themselves; She would jeopardize America’s national security by putting classified material on a private server and then go on to facilitate the sale of 20 percent of our uranium through Uranium One to the Russians.

And Bush 41 voted for her? Trump saved us from her disastrous clutches. The economy is booming even before his tax cuts. Trump is finally dealing with the North Korea can both Bushes, along with Obama and Bill Clinton, kicked down the road. He has made America energy independent and has made border security, not border compassion, seriously.

Yes, Trump has blown up the GOP, but the only casualties are the RINOs more interested in keeping their job than doing their job. Read our lips: No more Bushes.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

The only Republican President since World War II not to get elected to a second term, George Herbert Walker Bush, has broken President Ronald Reagan’s  11th commandment to speak ill of another Republican, President Donald Trump, in his new book, The Last Republicans. Perhaps the book in which Bush whacked Trump should have been called, “The Last RINOs” for in addition to calling Trump a “blowhard” Bush 41 saying he voted for Hillary Clinton:

The new book, by author Mark K. Undegrove, consists mostly of interviews looking back at the Republican Party over the past few decades and explores the connection between the elder Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush.


The younger Bush told Undegrove that he voted for “none of the above.”


The father and son each raise concerns that Trump has essentially blown up the GOP to the extent that the New York businessman and first-time politician could be the party’s last president for a long while, according to The Times review.

In a sense, one can understand if both Bushes don’t feel like sending President Trump a Christmas card. As a candidate Trump trashed Jeb Bush mercilessly as a low-energy supposed heir to the Bush dynasty. Trump said neither Bush should have gone into Iraq, citing it as a cause for subsequent chaos in the Middle East.

On this Trump is wrong. Bush 43 secured a tremendous victory in Iraq, leaving a stable Iraq backed by a strong U.S. presence. It was President Obama who threw that away by failing to secure a status of forces agreement and then engaging in a precipitous withdrawal that created a void that ISIS filled while Obama looked the other way. But it was Obama that threw away their victory, not Trump, who is stacking ISIS fighters like cordwood in Iraq and Syria. Obama called it the “wrong war”:

Speaking ahead of a visit to the Middle East and Europe, Mr Obama said US president George Bush had squandered opportunities to work with US allies.


“We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan. We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th-century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st,” he said.


“We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.”

Yet the Bushes have no unkind words for Obama, who squandered their victory, and made a career of blaming the Bushes for everything but the common cold. At the unveiling of the White House portrait of Bush 43, Obama made a verbal slap at the mess he inherited from Dubya, noting:

But there was a seemingly out of place moment during the ceremony when Obama seemed to veer into reiterating his frequent trope that he inherited a bad economy from Bush.


“The months before I took the oath of office were a chaotic time,” Obama said, after explaining that the president’s job is isolating, and that he and Bush have a connection since so few have held the job. “We knew our economy was in trouble, our fellow Americans were in pain, but we wouldn’t know until later just how breathtaking the financial crisis had been.”

Obama blamed Bush 43 for the rising deficits, saying it was the result of two wars started under the Bushes and their tax cuts:

Obama said that the country’s budget deficits and big debt were the result of the George W. Bush’s two tax cuts, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 


“They baked all this stuff into the cake with those tax cuts… and the war,” Obama said.


“It’s like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, a martini and all that stuff, then just as you’re sitting down they leave and accuse you of running up the tab,” Obama said.

Obama even blamed Bush 43 for the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal that put high-powered weapons into the hands of Mexican drug lords, resulted in the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata along with hundreds of Mexican nationals. Obama falsely said it was a successor to a Bush program that was closely monitored and resulted in no scandals or deaths:

President Obama claimed that George W. Bush began Operation Fast and Furious, in addition to contradicting his inspector general by claiming that he gave Congress “almost all” of the documents pertaining to the gun walking.


“I think it’s important for us to understand that Fast and Furious was a field operation begun under the previous administration,” Obama said when asked if he will fire Attorney General Eric Holder. Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009. The president was conflating Fast and Furious with Operation Wide Receiver, a law enforcement tactic that began in 2006 and ended in 2007 which was substantially different from Fast and Furious (although some guns did go from the United States to Mexico in Wide Receiver).

Yet through all this criticism both Bushes remained strangely silent. Bush 41 may call Trump a “blowhard,” but what would you call a man who said “Read my lips. No new taxes” at the Republican convention and then made a Faustian deal with the Democrats to do just that and paving the way for President Bill Clinton and the rise of Hillary Clinton?

Was Bush 41 a “blowhard” who lied to the American people? Was he an elitist who looked at his watch during a debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot as if he had better things to do? What words would he use to describe Bill Clinton? Certainly not “Slick Willy” for the man who debated the meaning of the word “is” as he turned the Oval Office into a trysting place. He had no words for the president who through his Clinton Foundation would later go on to plunder disaster-ridden Haiti for fun and profit. As the Washington Free Beacon reported:

Haitian activists protested outside of the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of “billions of dollars” that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake.The activists are claiming the money was stolen through the Haiti Reconstruction Commission that was headed by Bill Clinton. In January 2015, the Clinton Foundation was the target of protests for wasting more than $10 billion and awarding contracts to non-Haitian companies.The activists also said Haiti as a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. They believe that this was done for favors that Hillary was doing for the foreign governments while she was Secretary of State.”We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti,” said Dhoud Andre of the Committee Against Dictatorship in Haiti. 

Hillary, the candidate Bush 41 voted for, would, along with Obama, let four Americans die in a Benghazi terror attack they could have prevented and lied about to the parents later. Bill and Hillary would use their Clinton Foundation as a pay-for-play racketeering scheme to enrich themselves; She would jeopardize America’s national security by putting classified material on a private server and then go on to facilitate the sale of 20 percent of our uranium through Uranium One to the Russians.

And Bush 41 voted for her? Trump saved us from her disastrous clutches. The economy is booming even before his tax cuts. Trump is finally dealing with the North Korea can both Bushes, along with Obama and Bill Clinton, kicked down the road. He has made America energy independent and has made border security, not border compassion, seriously.

Yes, Trump has blown up the GOP, but the only casualties are the RINOs more interested in keeping their job than doing their job. Read our lips: No more Bushes.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               



Source link

Asymmetric Information in the Age of Trump


Information asymmetry commonly exists in a myriad of markets. From the equities market to professional sports, the seller many times has access to more information about the product that he is selling than does a potential buyer. 

Consider the used-car market or professional baseball. Someone who is trying to sell his car knows very well whether or not his vehicle is a “lemon” or is in good repair, and a major league baseball team’s manager knows far better the health of his star pitcher’s rotator cuff than do other teams’ managers.

As economist George Akerlof demonstrated in “The Market for “Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” if a buyer cannot distinguish between good cars and bad cars, then both good cars and bad cars will sell at the same price. This phenomenon in turn pushes good cars out of the market. After all, who wants to sell their good car at such a discount? Akerlof further posited that it is “quite possible to have the bad driving out the not-so-bad driving out the medium driving out the not-so good driving out the good in such a sequence of events that no market exists at all.”

The collapse of a market would be horrible, and that is why we put safeguards in place to eliminate or at least to reduce asymmetric information and its effects. Such safeguards and tools within various markets may include Carfax, Angie’s List, the Better Business Bureau, credit ratings, Consumer Reports, mandatory disclosure statements, home inspections, and warranties, all of which most importantly are reinforced by a fair and impartial justice system.

If we examine the present political system through such a market lens, we can consider today’s politicians to be both the seller and the product; the electorate is the buyer who “purchases” its candidates with votes through fair and free elections.  In theory, an unbiased press would report the facts, and the justice system would ensure that no laws are broken, all the time providing equal protection under the law. Life would be good.

Today this is not the case, as the very safeguards and institutions designed to reduce information asymmetry in the political market are actually increasing it. The most recent revelation comes from Donna Brazile. She “centered herself” by lighting a candle and listening to Gospel music so that she could then outline to Bernie Sanders how the Clinton campaign took control over the DNC and rigged the Democratic primary. 

However, None of the major networks’ evening newscasts even covered this bombshell report. This shouldn’t come as any surprise as the media is overwhelmingly liberal; only 7% of reporters identify as Republicans, and from Jan. 1, 2015 – Aug 30, 2106, 96% of the political donations of those working in the media went to Hillary Clinton. I foresee a lot of candle lighting in the near future.

Now look at the Justice Department. A staggering 97% of its employees’ donations went to Hillary Clinton. It is no wonder that they couldn’t even bring a case against Lois Lerner who publically acknowledged (we used to call this a confession) that the IRS targeted conservative groups and then pleaded the Fifth about it. I guess law and order can’t win them all…or shall we light another candle?

And then there is the FBI. Then FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe oversaw the Clinton email server investigation after his wife received $700,000 from longtime Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe. James Comey drafted a letter exonerating Clinton months before the investigation ended, before he even interviewed Clinton. No prosecution, but five Hillary Clinton’s staffers did get immunity, so at least we have that.

At least Hollywood is still a beacon of purity and hope.

So, as Comey’s friend, Robert Mueller, now investigates Russia interference into our political system, a skeptic might wager that none of his findings will include anything regarding the Uranium One deal that was approved while Mueller was FBI Director.

Because much of the electorate generally recognizes the effects of asymmetric information in the political market and that this asymmetry has worsened as a result of the very institutions designed to reduce it, more unfavorable news stories against Trump, and not Clinton, have already been anticipated and accounted for. In other words, negative Trump stories, like a Flynn indictment, for example, are already “priced in.” The best expression of a politician’s value or “price” is his approval ratings; no one knows how much negative news is priced in, and only time will tell. However, market forces similar to Akerlof’s “Market for Lemons” are clearly at work. 

Information asymmetry commonly exists in a myriad of markets. From the equities market to professional sports, the seller many times has access to more information about the product that he is selling than does a potential buyer. 

Consider the used-car market or professional baseball. Someone who is trying to sell his car knows very well whether or not his vehicle is a “lemon” or is in good repair, and a major league baseball team’s manager knows far better the health of his star pitcher’s rotator cuff than do other teams’ managers.

As economist George Akerlof demonstrated in “The Market for “Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” if a buyer cannot distinguish between good cars and bad cars, then both good cars and bad cars will sell at the same price. This phenomenon in turn pushes good cars out of the market. After all, who wants to sell their good car at such a discount? Akerlof further posited that it is “quite possible to have the bad driving out the not-so-bad driving out the medium driving out the not-so good driving out the good in such a sequence of events that no market exists at all.”

The collapse of a market would be horrible, and that is why we put safeguards in place to eliminate or at least to reduce asymmetric information and its effects. Such safeguards and tools within various markets may include Carfax, Angie’s List, the Better Business Bureau, credit ratings, Consumer Reports, mandatory disclosure statements, home inspections, and warranties, all of which most importantly are reinforced by a fair and impartial justice system.

If we examine the present political system through such a market lens, we can consider today’s politicians to be both the seller and the product; the electorate is the buyer who “purchases” its candidates with votes through fair and free elections.  In theory, an unbiased press would report the facts, and the justice system would ensure that no laws are broken, all the time providing equal protection under the law. Life would be good.

Today this is not the case, as the very safeguards and institutions designed to reduce information asymmetry in the political market are actually increasing it. The most recent revelation comes from Donna Brazile. She “centered herself” by lighting a candle and listening to Gospel music so that she could then outline to Bernie Sanders how the Clinton campaign took control over the DNC and rigged the Democratic primary. 

However, None of the major networks’ evening newscasts even covered this bombshell report. This shouldn’t come as any surprise as the media is overwhelmingly liberal; only 7% of reporters identify as Republicans, and from Jan. 1, 2015 – Aug 30, 2106, 96% of the political donations of those working in the media went to Hillary Clinton. I foresee a lot of candle lighting in the near future.

Now look at the Justice Department. A staggering 97% of its employees’ donations went to Hillary Clinton. It is no wonder that they couldn’t even bring a case against Lois Lerner who publically acknowledged (we used to call this a confession) that the IRS targeted conservative groups and then pleaded the Fifth about it. I guess law and order can’t win them all…or shall we light another candle?

And then there is the FBI. Then FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe oversaw the Clinton email server investigation after his wife received $700,000 from longtime Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe. James Comey drafted a letter exonerating Clinton months before the investigation ended, before he even interviewed Clinton. No prosecution, but five Hillary Clinton’s staffers did get immunity, so at least we have that.

At least Hollywood is still a beacon of purity and hope.

So, as Comey’s friend, Robert Mueller, now investigates Russia interference into our political system, a skeptic might wager that none of his findings will include anything regarding the Uranium One deal that was approved while Mueller was FBI Director.

Because much of the electorate generally recognizes the effects of asymmetric information in the political market and that this asymmetry has worsened as a result of the very institutions designed to reduce it, more unfavorable news stories against Trump, and not Clinton, have already been anticipated and accounted for. In other words, negative Trump stories, like a Flynn indictment, for example, are already “priced in.” The best expression of a politician’s value or “price” is his approval ratings; no one knows how much negative news is priced in, and only time will tell. However, market forces similar to Akerlof’s “Market for Lemons” are clearly at work. 



Source link

Rats Haven't Deserted Democrats' Sinking Ship


Despite being waterlogged by scandal and disagreement, the Democratic Party is far from headed for a shipwreck. Waves of destruction may threaten, but Democrats cling fast to what they regard as their righteous, life-saving superiority. They have always believed their salvation lies in having faith in their own intrinsic goodness. Despite the irony of terms, those on the left view themselves as those in the right. And they take it one leap further to presume that right makes might.

The party may well be floundering, but their diehards recognize the distinction between being at sea and being all washed up — and it keeps them treading water. Who knows what’s going on now behind closed DNC doors — or even cares to! — but despite the disparaging revelations of Donna Brazile, the damning DNC-financed Russian dossier, the Uranium One deal, etc. spokespersons for the Democrat Party are as brazenly determined as ever.

Surely, some of them most have some sense of fear and loathing, since they routinely employ these very elements in attacking their enemies. Still, they also understand how important it is for the party to hold it all together, because they have seen how potent their own attempts have been to divide their opposition.

So let us not rejoice prematurely at the party’s inevitable collapse. Democrats still persist in being as defiant as hell in answering to the charges against them. At best, they hope to be absolved of guilt. At the very least, they intend to level the playing field.

Certain tactics have in the past worked well for the Democrats in deflecting attention and giving their wounds time to heal. It’s only a matter of using the same ploy to fool the same crowd. In the way a crime scene predictably shows carnage, yellow tape, flowers, and candles, the Left has devised its own special scenario to put on display in the aftermath of disaster.

To begin with, there is rarely an outright denial of charges. Few liberal leaders, talking heads or partisan journalists pass comment on the validity of whatever criticism is leveled at Democrats. They would not, for example, insist that Hillary Clinton knew “nothing” about the Uranium One deal. Such a claim would be going too far, considering her position at the time and her preferred image as a woman in charge. Nor would they deny that the Clinton Foundation got $145 million from the Russians, because that bit of information is on the books.

Instead, their scheming is far more subtle, presenting almost by rote the following talking points to temper or even nullify accusations:

Excuse #1: It’s old news.      

When asked in her interview with the BBC about the criminal accusations of sexual impropriety against her own husband, Hillary Clinton blithely dismissed them as something in the past that had long since been resolved.

In the light of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, Hillary did not need an advance heads-up from Donna Brazile to suspect that an interviewer might throw her that curve ball. She was ready; the “old news” charge would do nicely.

Excuse #2: Others do the same thing in both parties.

This defense is not even presented in the shameless spirit of “two wrongs make a right.” Instead, it is couched in a sort of ho-hum insider understanding of how people routinely operate in the world of politics. If Hillary held the DNC hostage to her inevitable candidacy, well, that’s the way it often is, especially since her personal wealth and influence were able to presumably “salvage” a cash-strapped organization. So her impropriety becomes nothing out of the ordinary — in fact, little more than a quid pro quo.

Excuse #3: Whatever our guys did, yours did worse.

Psychologists would have a field day with this kind of argument. It’s the spouse who, caught carousing, grumbles about what a lousy housekeeper his mate is. But what Democrats routinely do is less innocuous than not running a vacuum. As a diversionary tactic, they run roughshod over any Republicans in the news.

Every GOP-related scandal, real or imagined, is trotted out as a means of insinuating that thieves cannot complain about theft. How George Papadopoulos — who attended a single general meeting with Trump supporters and was neither hired nor paid by the campaign — can nevertheless be represented as a “policy advisor to the president” is, well, Greek to me!

Paul Manafort is routinely referred to as Trump’s “campaign manager,” even though his tenure in that role lasted no more than three months, and the current charges against him have nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

What is sloughed off as “opposition research” by Democrats is scarred as traitorous when attempted by Republicans. Over the fabricated dossier on Trump, Tony Podesta merely resigned from his lobbying firm. Yet in the wake of his Russia dealings, Donald Trump, Jr., had to resign himself to seeing his picture on the cover of Time magazine, above the one-word caption “Treason”.

Excuse #4: Compared to the “disarray” in the GOP, the Democrat Party is strong.

This has been a common refrain whether the Democrats are in or out of office –- or hot water. And it is true that they are generally better than Republicans at keeping their squabbles and dirty laundry out of public view. Despite their claim of “diversity” within the party, Democrats actually prefer to speak in one raucous voice and with a single set of party line talking points, just as their favorite form of resistance is marching, screaming and acting up in unison.

In their tit for tat, Democrats often remind us that the Republicans majority in Congress has done nothing, failing to repeal or replace Obamacare, scrambling in attempts at tax reform, and taking repeated potshots at one another.   

Meanwhile, beyond the array of excuses, the election ground game of the Democrats remains as brutally mean-spirited as ever. If the brand has been battered by scandal or rocked by hypocrisy, you wouldn’t know it from the consistent use of the usual below-the-belt tactics. Obviously, they don’t think their “act” needs cleaning up. In fact, the recent criticism may make them fight even harder and dirtier.

A much-discussed campaign ad against Ed Gillespie in the Virginia gubernatorial race hit a new, disgraceful low in negative political advertising. It showed a Gillespie supporter in his truck, Confederate flag flying, trying to run down and kill alien children. 

It’s not enough that Republicans are routinely portrayed as heartless bigots who would throw granny off the cliff; round up “undocumented workers” — in the middle of the night, of course — and send them packing; allow 40,000 uninsured Americans to die, untreated, on our streets; deny all Muslims their civil rights; close down our public schools; send women to back alleys for abortions; remove all safeguards that protect us from dirty air and water; menace countries like North Korea and Iran into starting a nuclear war… and steal the presidency in order to make all of the above happen.

But the most discouraging thing is that plenty of Democrats believe these charges, and their leaders encourage them to do so. A few liberal voices may have been raised against the Gillespie attack ad, but to a whole bunch of other Americans it represents the truth.

What all of this really demonstrates is the Democrats’ in order to regain control, will willingly spread fear and hate. These have become the ultimate weapons through which they presume to cling to whatever power they still have. In their sea of lies, fear is the flotsam and hate the jetsam, the key elements on which they rely to save them from death by drowning.

There is another “commercial spot” airing on some channels, in which a billionaire proposes to lead the charge for Trump’s impeachment. Though the claims in this ad are false, it serves the purpose of working gullible viewers into a sweat of hate for the president and fear for what will happen if Republicans remain in power.

Democrats are counting on two powerful negative emotions to keep their battered, leaky ship afloat. In the meantime, the rats are still frantically scuttling along the deck and gnawing away at everything this Republican administration puts forward. 

Despite being waterlogged by scandal and disagreement, the Democratic Party is far from headed for a shipwreck. Waves of destruction may threaten, but Democrats cling fast to what they regard as their righteous, life-saving superiority. They have always believed their salvation lies in having faith in their own intrinsic goodness. Despite the irony of terms, those on the left view themselves as those in the right. And they take it one leap further to presume that right makes might.

The party may well be floundering, but their diehards recognize the distinction between being at sea and being all washed up — and it keeps them treading water. Who knows what’s going on now behind closed DNC doors — or even cares to! — but despite the disparaging revelations of Donna Brazile, the damning DNC-financed Russian dossier, the Uranium One deal, etc. spokespersons for the Democrat Party are as brazenly determined as ever.

Surely, some of them most have some sense of fear and loathing, since they routinely employ these very elements in attacking their enemies. Still, they also understand how important it is for the party to hold it all together, because they have seen how potent their own attempts have been to divide their opposition.

So let us not rejoice prematurely at the party’s inevitable collapse. Democrats still persist in being as defiant as hell in answering to the charges against them. At best, they hope to be absolved of guilt. At the very least, they intend to level the playing field.

Certain tactics have in the past worked well for the Democrats in deflecting attention and giving their wounds time to heal. It’s only a matter of using the same ploy to fool the same crowd. In the way a crime scene predictably shows carnage, yellow tape, flowers, and candles, the Left has devised its own special scenario to put on display in the aftermath of disaster.

To begin with, there is rarely an outright denial of charges. Few liberal leaders, talking heads or partisan journalists pass comment on the validity of whatever criticism is leveled at Democrats. They would not, for example, insist that Hillary Clinton knew “nothing” about the Uranium One deal. Such a claim would be going too far, considering her position at the time and her preferred image as a woman in charge. Nor would they deny that the Clinton Foundation got $145 million from the Russians, because that bit of information is on the books.

Instead, their scheming is far more subtle, presenting almost by rote the following talking points to temper or even nullify accusations:

Excuse #1: It’s old news.      

When asked in her interview with the BBC about the criminal accusations of sexual impropriety against her own husband, Hillary Clinton blithely dismissed them as something in the past that had long since been resolved.

In the light of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, Hillary did not need an advance heads-up from Donna Brazile to suspect that an interviewer might throw her that curve ball. She was ready; the “old news” charge would do nicely.

Excuse #2: Others do the same thing in both parties.

This defense is not even presented in the shameless spirit of “two wrongs make a right.” Instead, it is couched in a sort of ho-hum insider understanding of how people routinely operate in the world of politics. If Hillary held the DNC hostage to her inevitable candidacy, well, that’s the way it often is, especially since her personal wealth and influence were able to presumably “salvage” a cash-strapped organization. So her impropriety becomes nothing out of the ordinary — in fact, little more than a quid pro quo.

Excuse #3: Whatever our guys did, yours did worse.

Psychologists would have a field day with this kind of argument. It’s the spouse who, caught carousing, grumbles about what a lousy housekeeper his mate is. But what Democrats routinely do is less innocuous than not running a vacuum. As a diversionary tactic, they run roughshod over any Republicans in the news.

Every GOP-related scandal, real or imagined, is trotted out as a means of insinuating that thieves cannot complain about theft. How George Papadopoulos — who attended a single general meeting with Trump supporters and was neither hired nor paid by the campaign — can nevertheless be represented as a “policy advisor to the president” is, well, Greek to me!

Paul Manafort is routinely referred to as Trump’s “campaign manager,” even though his tenure in that role lasted no more than three months, and the current charges against him have nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

What is sloughed off as “opposition research” by Democrats is scarred as traitorous when attempted by Republicans. Over the fabricated dossier on Trump, Tony Podesta merely resigned from his lobbying firm. Yet in the wake of his Russia dealings, Donald Trump, Jr., had to resign himself to seeing his picture on the cover of Time magazine, above the one-word caption “Treason”.

Excuse #4: Compared to the “disarray” in the GOP, the Democrat Party is strong.

This has been a common refrain whether the Democrats are in or out of office –- or hot water. And it is true that they are generally better than Republicans at keeping their squabbles and dirty laundry out of public view. Despite their claim of “diversity” within the party, Democrats actually prefer to speak in one raucous voice and with a single set of party line talking points, just as their favorite form of resistance is marching, screaming and acting up in unison.

In their tit for tat, Democrats often remind us that the Republicans majority in Congress has done nothing, failing to repeal or replace Obamacare, scrambling in attempts at tax reform, and taking repeated potshots at one another.   

Meanwhile, beyond the array of excuses, the election ground game of the Democrats remains as brutally mean-spirited as ever. If the brand has been battered by scandal or rocked by hypocrisy, you wouldn’t know it from the consistent use of the usual below-the-belt tactics. Obviously, they don’t think their “act” needs cleaning up. In fact, the recent criticism may make them fight even harder and dirtier.

A much-discussed campaign ad against Ed Gillespie in the Virginia gubernatorial race hit a new, disgraceful low in negative political advertising. It showed a Gillespie supporter in his truck, Confederate flag flying, trying to run down and kill alien children. 

It’s not enough that Republicans are routinely portrayed as heartless bigots who would throw granny off the cliff; round up “undocumented workers” — in the middle of the night, of course — and send them packing; allow 40,000 uninsured Americans to die, untreated, on our streets; deny all Muslims their civil rights; close down our public schools; send women to back alleys for abortions; remove all safeguards that protect us from dirty air and water; menace countries like North Korea and Iran into starting a nuclear war… and steal the presidency in order to make all of the above happen.

But the most discouraging thing is that plenty of Democrats believe these charges, and their leaders encourage them to do so. A few liberal voices may have been raised against the Gillespie attack ad, but to a whole bunch of other Americans it represents the truth.

What all of this really demonstrates is the Democrats’ in order to regain control, will willingly spread fear and hate. These have become the ultimate weapons through which they presume to cling to whatever power they still have. In their sea of lies, fear is the flotsam and hate the jetsam, the key elements on which they rely to save them from death by drowning.

There is another “commercial spot” airing on some channels, in which a billionaire proposes to lead the charge for Trump’s impeachment. Though the claims in this ad are false, it serves the purpose of working gullible viewers into a sweat of hate for the president and fear for what will happen if Republicans remain in power.

Democrats are counting on two powerful negative emotions to keep their battered, leaky ship afloat. In the meantime, the rats are still frantically scuttling along the deck and gnawing away at everything this Republican administration puts forward. 



Source link

The Fatal Folly of Diversity


Diversity is one of those feel-good, virtual signaling words that the left loves to throw around. Along with tolerance, inclusiveness, and sustainability. Words which make the person using them feel good, functioning as stirrups to keep them firmly perched atop their moral high horse.

Diversity refers not to a variety of ideas, as any conservative speaker trying to deliver a lecture on a college campus can attest, but instead to identity markers of skin color, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, traits which most Americans see through without discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Diversity apparently applies to immigration too, specifically the Diversity Visa Lottery. Something most Americans didn’t even realize existed until last week’s Manhattan terrorist attack. The terrorist entering the U.S. from Uzbekistan via this so-called lottery.

Seeing how this played out suggests that this isn’t a lottery, instead a game of Russian roulette. Spin the cylinder and take your chances as to whether a law-abiding, productive citizen comes out of the gun or a radical Islamic terrorist.

Diversity based on nationality or skin color may be fine for a private college or the board of a newspaper (more on that later) but not for the safety and security of the country. Don’t tell Senator Chuck Schumer, though, as he was a big cheerleader of the Diversity Visa Program, noting the benefits while riding his bike around New York City.

Good thing Schumer wasn’t riding his bike in lower Manhattan when the ISIS flag waving terrorist decided to use his truck for a game of “bowling for Allah.” The only diversity in the terror attack was the nationalities of the victims, five from Argentina, two Americans and one from Belgium.

While the media and the de Blasio administration are perplexed as to the motive of the terrorist, President Trump is echoing the view of many Americans through his tweets. Specifically that the controversial visa program should be scrapped.

Not so for the NY Times. They ran an op-ed piece, “We need the diversity visa lottery.” No surprise. Diversity is a cornerstone of the NY Times belief system. On their “Who we are” webpage, they sing the praises of diversity.

“Great organizations thrive and grow on a diversity of thought and ideas.” This explains why the NY Times is not such a great organization these days. The only thoughts and ideas they embrace are those to the left of Hillary Clinton. How many conservative columnists do they have? When was the last time they took a conservative or pro Trump position on their opinion pages? 

With a straight face, the NYT, “Calls for us to embrace diversity and inclusion.” Then going further, “Only by having a staff as wide as it is deep, broad in perspective, backgrounds and experiences are we able to capture the multitude of voices of America and the world, with true fidelity.”

Let’s see that staff. Their editorial board has 14 members. Five women, nine men, despite women making up just over 50 percent of the population. 12 white faces, one black man and one Indian man. Based on surnames and photos, no East Asians or Hispanics. I can’t discern gender identity based on a headshot so maybe therein lies their diversity.

But clearly, the NYT editorial board is not the epitome of diversity that they preach. I say, so what? Hopefully their diversity lies in their perspectives and political views, but I suspect all are left of center. But that’s their prerogative as a private organization, despite their moralizing.

The reality is that their board looks more like a group of Trump supporters. From another NYT op-ed, “Mr. Trump is catering to his largely middle-aged, white, middle- and working-class base.” Apart from class, this looks much like their editorial board.

What about Congress? Many members of Congress virtue signal over diversity. How diverse are they?

Looking at the current Congress, it turns out 38 percent of House members and 55 percent of senators are lawyers, or at least hold law degrees. In the general population, lawyers comprise only 0.35 percent of the population. Some diversity in Congress. Any carpenters or plumbers? Truck drivers?

So what’s deadly about this lack of diversity in Congress or the NY Times? Congress passing bad legislation and the media defending it, castigating anyone who dare oppose bad progressive policies. Such as the Diversity Visa Lottery, letting anyone into America based on pulling a lucky number out of a hat.

The monolithic view of immigration by Congress and the media was deadly for those run over in Manhattan.

No diversity of ideas including the extreme vetting or merit based immigration advocated by President Trump and practiced by most developed countries. When the front door is left wide open in the name of diversity and virtue, you never know who will walk in and what they will do.

Perhaps if Congress and major media outlets were truly diverse, reflecting the country they supposedly represent, a common-sense voice would be heard, rather than liberal orthodoxy. Opening a door for debate rather than shutting out opposing ideas. Not only on immigration but also a host of other controversial issues.

Events in Manhattan this week serve as a sober reminder that feeling good and feeling safe may not go hand in hand, and as these events increase in frequency and severity, may actually be mutually exclusive. Fortunately, the President understands this, even though he is one of few within the halls of power who does.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Diversity is one of those feel-good, virtual signaling words that the left loves to throw around. Along with tolerance, inclusiveness, and sustainability. Words which make the person using them feel good, functioning as stirrups to keep them firmly perched atop their moral high horse.

Diversity refers not to a variety of ideas, as any conservative speaker trying to deliver a lecture on a college campus can attest, but instead to identity markers of skin color, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, traits which most Americans see through without discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Diversity apparently applies to immigration too, specifically the Diversity Visa Lottery. Something most Americans didn’t even realize existed until last week’s Manhattan terrorist attack. The terrorist entering the U.S. from Uzbekistan via this so-called lottery.

Seeing how this played out suggests that this isn’t a lottery, instead a game of Russian roulette. Spin the cylinder and take your chances as to whether a law-abiding, productive citizen comes out of the gun or a radical Islamic terrorist.

Diversity based on nationality or skin color may be fine for a private college or the board of a newspaper (more on that later) but not for the safety and security of the country. Don’t tell Senator Chuck Schumer, though, as he was a big cheerleader of the Diversity Visa Program, noting the benefits while riding his bike around New York City.

Good thing Schumer wasn’t riding his bike in lower Manhattan when the ISIS flag waving terrorist decided to use his truck for a game of “bowling for Allah.” The only diversity in the terror attack was the nationalities of the victims, five from Argentina, two Americans and one from Belgium.

While the media and the de Blasio administration are perplexed as to the motive of the terrorist, President Trump is echoing the view of many Americans through his tweets. Specifically that the controversial visa program should be scrapped.

Not so for the NY Times. They ran an op-ed piece, “We need the diversity visa lottery.” No surprise. Diversity is a cornerstone of the NY Times belief system. On their “Who we are” webpage, they sing the praises of diversity.

“Great organizations thrive and grow on a diversity of thought and ideas.” This explains why the NY Times is not such a great organization these days. The only thoughts and ideas they embrace are those to the left of Hillary Clinton. How many conservative columnists do they have? When was the last time they took a conservative or pro Trump position on their opinion pages? 

With a straight face, the NYT, “Calls for us to embrace diversity and inclusion.” Then going further, “Only by having a staff as wide as it is deep, broad in perspective, backgrounds and experiences are we able to capture the multitude of voices of America and the world, with true fidelity.”

Let’s see that staff. Their editorial board has 14 members. Five women, nine men, despite women making up just over 50 percent of the population. 12 white faces, one black man and one Indian man. Based on surnames and photos, no East Asians or Hispanics. I can’t discern gender identity based on a headshot so maybe therein lies their diversity.

But clearly, the NYT editorial board is not the epitome of diversity that they preach. I say, so what? Hopefully their diversity lies in their perspectives and political views, but I suspect all are left of center. But that’s their prerogative as a private organization, despite their moralizing.

The reality is that their board looks more like a group of Trump supporters. From another NYT op-ed, “Mr. Trump is catering to his largely middle-aged, white, middle- and working-class base.” Apart from class, this looks much like their editorial board.

What about Congress? Many members of Congress virtue signal over diversity. How diverse are they?

Looking at the current Congress, it turns out 38 percent of House members and 55 percent of senators are lawyers, or at least hold law degrees. In the general population, lawyers comprise only 0.35 percent of the population. Some diversity in Congress. Any carpenters or plumbers? Truck drivers?

So what’s deadly about this lack of diversity in Congress or the NY Times? Congress passing bad legislation and the media defending it, castigating anyone who dare oppose bad progressive policies. Such as the Diversity Visa Lottery, letting anyone into America based on pulling a lucky number out of a hat.

The monolithic view of immigration by Congress and the media was deadly for those run over in Manhattan.

No diversity of ideas including the extreme vetting or merit based immigration advocated by President Trump and practiced by most developed countries. When the front door is left wide open in the name of diversity and virtue, you never know who will walk in and what they will do.

Perhaps if Congress and major media outlets were truly diverse, reflecting the country they supposedly represent, a common-sense voice would be heard, rather than liberal orthodoxy. Opening a door for debate rather than shutting out opposing ideas. Not only on immigration but also a host of other controversial issues.

Events in Manhattan this week serve as a sober reminder that feeling good and feeling safe may not go hand in hand, and as these events increase in frequency and severity, may actually be mutually exclusive. Fortunately, the President understands this, even though he is one of few within the halls of power who does.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.



Source link