Day: January 16, 2018

End Judicial Tyranny with One Single Word


Since the election of President Trump, we have witnessed a series of rulings by Clinton- and Obama-appointed federal judges to block executive orders (E.O.) related to immigration.  In each case, the current system has allowed a single unelected judge to block the actions of a duly elected president who has attempted to exercise the authority conferred upon him by the Constitution and the voters.  Such judicial tyranny cannot be tolerated.

The only court created by the founders of the Constitution is the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), with all other federal courts established by Congress and administered by the Judicial Branch of government.  District courts, appellate courts, and the various circuits are all congressional initiatives.  Federal judges are nominated by the Executive Branch but confirmed by the congressional arm of government.

Throughout the history of the Republic, the appointment of judges by the party in power has been an ongoing effort to seat individuals of their own political philosophy.  When the parties were each more centrist, the process was somewhat less contentious, but as the left drifted farther from the Constitution using the concept of it being a living document, the divides have widened.  We now have a cadre of Obama appointed far-left judges who are prepared to exercise their political ideology over their sworn constitutional duties.  Some of these individuals in fact might have been more suitable for ambassadorships than lifetime judicial appointees, for their primary qualifications appear to be their history of donating or bundling money for a sitting president plus their demonstrated talent in the writing of legal fiction.

Currently, judge-shopping, an action elevated to an art form by advocacy groups and lower government entities in liberal circuits, will most likely engender a ruling devoid of legal merit but coinciding with the philosophy of the plaintiff.  The activist judge delivers a ruling, which then is arrogantly applied to the entire nation and interpreted as blocking the sitting president.  These rulings are most often overturned, but the glacial pace of the courts allows the ruling to stand for an inordinate time, often running out the clock on the original E.O.

There is talk of resolving the situation by appointing strict constitutionalist judges, as Trump is now doing, and “packing” the court.  “Dilution” would be a better term, for the sitting liberals will still enjoy their lifetime appointments, and it is axiomatic that impeachment is all but impossible, requiring two thirds of the Senate to agree.  While appointments are helpful by improving the odds of finding a judge prepared to fulfill his duties honestly, they do nothing to alleviate the judge-shopping or the inordinate delays.

There is a relatively simple answer: Congress can deliver a fix already contained within the Constitution but requires the defining of a single word.  This word is found in Article 3, Section 2, which deals with judicial power and jurisdiction:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The solution is for Congress to define “public Ministers” to include the president and vice president of the United States and all Senate-confirmed Cabinet ministers.  This would allow the Executive Branch to ignore lower-court rulings for E.O.s and various acts of Congress signed by the president and avoid the interests of the nation being held up by a single unelected lawyer of either political persuasion.  Some time limits for appeals should be built in to allow an issue to reach SCOTUS in a reasonable time less than the current two-year hiatus.  If the lawyers have done their research, there is no reason why an initial appeal to the circuit appeals court cannot be done in thirty days and a ruling given in another seven.

If SCOTUS refuses a case, then the lower-court ruling will be moot, and the E.O. or legislation will proceed as promulgated.  Alternatively, if the nine rule on the case, that decision will be considered constitutionally binding on the Executive and Legislative Branches.  Again, a time limit for hearing and ruling should not exceed sixty days.

This will infuriate the left, even though it does not limit leftists’ access to the courts or threaten their appointments, for they have used the legal system to achieve goals they could not attain legislatively or at the ballot box.  It does, however, return the ability of the president to protect the nation and to address issues that Congress must ultimately decide on.  It also removes the ability of the “Resistance” to wait out a sitting president by setting definite time limits for judicial review.

Conversely, if an administration signs an E.O. that is patently unconstitutional, as were many of Obama’s declarations, particularly those relating to immigration, the EPA, and other federal agency regulations, a ruling will be rendered before major harm can be done, or the regulation can be overturned by Congress.

If Congress determines that a solution can be achieved by defining a single word, they might look at other areas where this would be a useful technique.  For example, the definition of “natural born” in the Fourteenth Amendment has already been kicked back to Congress by SCOTUS to define.  It should be defined as an individual born in the USA or territories of at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or of two parents who are both legal residents of the USA.  This will end the concept of “anchor babies” as a means of invading the USA.

The Constitution is a document where definitions have been used to bend society on a political basis.  Defining a single word, “ministers” in Article 3, as suggested here will end the ability of a politicized judiciary to resist the will of the people being exercised by their elected officials.  This can be done without all the bitter and useless efforts to impeach individual judges or to “pack” that branch of government.  Congress would thereby remove delay as a tactic while still giving all groups “their day in court” – and ending the current judicial tyranny.

Since the election of President Trump, we have witnessed a series of rulings by Clinton- and Obama-appointed federal judges to block executive orders (E.O.) related to immigration.  In each case, the current system has allowed a single unelected judge to block the actions of a duly elected president who has attempted to exercise the authority conferred upon him by the Constitution and the voters.  Such judicial tyranny cannot be tolerated.

The only court created by the founders of the Constitution is the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), with all other federal courts established by Congress and administered by the Judicial Branch of government.  District courts, appellate courts, and the various circuits are all congressional initiatives.  Federal judges are nominated by the Executive Branch but confirmed by the congressional arm of government.

Throughout the history of the Republic, the appointment of judges by the party in power has been an ongoing effort to seat individuals of their own political philosophy.  When the parties were each more centrist, the process was somewhat less contentious, but as the left drifted farther from the Constitution using the concept of it being a living document, the divides have widened.  We now have a cadre of Obama appointed far-left judges who are prepared to exercise their political ideology over their sworn constitutional duties.  Some of these individuals in fact might have been more suitable for ambassadorships than lifetime judicial appointees, for their primary qualifications appear to be their history of donating or bundling money for a sitting president plus their demonstrated talent in the writing of legal fiction.

Currently, judge-shopping, an action elevated to an art form by advocacy groups and lower government entities in liberal circuits, will most likely engender a ruling devoid of legal merit but coinciding with the philosophy of the plaintiff.  The activist judge delivers a ruling, which then is arrogantly applied to the entire nation and interpreted as blocking the sitting president.  These rulings are most often overturned, but the glacial pace of the courts allows the ruling to stand for an inordinate time, often running out the clock on the original E.O.

There is talk of resolving the situation by appointing strict constitutionalist judges, as Trump is now doing, and “packing” the court.  “Dilution” would be a better term, for the sitting liberals will still enjoy their lifetime appointments, and it is axiomatic that impeachment is all but impossible, requiring two thirds of the Senate to agree.  While appointments are helpful by improving the odds of finding a judge prepared to fulfill his duties honestly, they do nothing to alleviate the judge-shopping or the inordinate delays.

There is a relatively simple answer: Congress can deliver a fix already contained within the Constitution but requires the defining of a single word.  This word is found in Article 3, Section 2, which deals with judicial power and jurisdiction:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The solution is for Congress to define “public Ministers” to include the president and vice president of the United States and all Senate-confirmed Cabinet ministers.  This would allow the Executive Branch to ignore lower-court rulings for E.O.s and various acts of Congress signed by the president and avoid the interests of the nation being held up by a single unelected lawyer of either political persuasion.  Some time limits for appeals should be built in to allow an issue to reach SCOTUS in a reasonable time less than the current two-year hiatus.  If the lawyers have done their research, there is no reason why an initial appeal to the circuit appeals court cannot be done in thirty days and a ruling given in another seven.

If SCOTUS refuses a case, then the lower-court ruling will be moot, and the E.O. or legislation will proceed as promulgated.  Alternatively, if the nine rule on the case, that decision will be considered constitutionally binding on the Executive and Legislative Branches.  Again, a time limit for hearing and ruling should not exceed sixty days.

This will infuriate the left, even though it does not limit leftists’ access to the courts or threaten their appointments, for they have used the legal system to achieve goals they could not attain legislatively or at the ballot box.  It does, however, return the ability of the president to protect the nation and to address issues that Congress must ultimately decide on.  It also removes the ability of the “Resistance” to wait out a sitting president by setting definite time limits for judicial review.

Conversely, if an administration signs an E.O. that is patently unconstitutional, as were many of Obama’s declarations, particularly those relating to immigration, the EPA, and other federal agency regulations, a ruling will be rendered before major harm can be done, or the regulation can be overturned by Congress.

If Congress determines that a solution can be achieved by defining a single word, they might look at other areas where this would be a useful technique.  For example, the definition of “natural born” in the Fourteenth Amendment has already been kicked back to Congress by SCOTUS to define.  It should be defined as an individual born in the USA or territories of at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or of two parents who are both legal residents of the USA.  This will end the concept of “anchor babies” as a means of invading the USA.

The Constitution is a document where definitions have been used to bend society on a political basis.  Defining a single word, “ministers” in Article 3, as suggested here will end the ability of a politicized judiciary to resist the will of the people being exercised by their elected officials.  This can be done without all the bitter and useless efforts to impeach individual judges or to “pack” that branch of government.  Congress would thereby remove delay as a tactic while still giving all groups “their day in court” – and ending the current judicial tyranny.



Source link

Fake News and Toxic Media Bias Are Nothing New – Just Worse


The mainstream media’s coverage of President Donald Trump is unprecedented in its lack of fairness and its constant negativity.  It represents the ultimate weaponization of big reporting that’s in sync with efforts by the shadow government to mobilize the national security apparatus and the other entrenched Deep State bureaucracies for the purpose of weakening and ultimately taking down the 45th president of the United States.

As bad and biased as the reporting is today, it really is nothing new – just more of the same, only much worse.  It’s become fake news on steroids.

The chart below, by Media Tenor and included in Harvard’s Shorenstein Center May 18, 2017 report “News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days”, measured the “tone of coverage” on President Trump by major mainstream media outlets between Jan. 20 and April 29, 2017. 

Notwithstanding the orders from on high that may be dictating how the media spin their political coverage, the vast majority of working journalists today are hardcore progressives and leftists who vote en masse for Democrats.  One need look no farther than a study by the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity highlighted in an article in the Columbia Journalism Review, published on October 17, 2016, titled “Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash.”

People identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television anchors – as well as other donors known to be working in journalism – have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.


More than 96 percent of that cash has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.


About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump.

Ninety-six percent of journalists’ contributions went to Clinton, four percent to Trump.  These percentages parallel almost exactly the percentage of negative stories about President Trump that were published or broadcast during his first nine months in office.  A study by the Pew Research Center for Journalism & Media, published October 2, 2017, found that news stories about President Trump and his administration through September 2017 were positive only 5% of the time.  This contrasts with coverage of President Obama during his first year in office, which was only 20% negative.  It is obvious that the MSM had a love affair with Barack Obama that lasted for most of his presidency.

The Swift Boat Thing

Leftist media bias goes back even farther than 2016, needless to say.  On August 1, 2004, the New York Times published an article by John Tierney on the overwhelming bias of the media in favor of Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry.  Tierney cited an:

… unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the [Democratic National] convention.  We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington.


When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1.  Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington.  Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

So, almost 14 years ago, journalists based in the nation’s capital supported the Democratic Party candidate by a margin of about twelve to one.  Journalists from flyover country also favored Kerry but by four to one.

The easy transition of top journalists from their comfy and influential reporting jobs and into positions of spinning news on behalf of the federal government is an everyday occurrence, especially in Democrat administrations.  On September 12, 2013, The Atlantic published an article noting:

Time managing editor Rick Stengel is leaving journalism to go work for the State Department, making him at least the 24th reporter to go to work for the Obama administration.

Appearing during the second hour of Sean Hannity’s radio program on January 12, Ari Fleischer, a political commentator and the press secretary during the first term of President George W. Bush, noted that “it’s even worse with President Trump in the White House because the press can’t hide their bias anymore.”

“Extremism in the defense of fake news is no vice”

Media bias favoring Democrats goes way back.  An egregious example of fake news and toxic bias in the MSM occurred in 1964, and the perpetrator, CBS News correspondent Daniel Schorr, went unpunished and emerged with his career unscathed.  Brent Baker reminded us of this sad but still relevant old story in an article at NewsBusters on July 25, 2010 on the occasion of Schorr’s death.  Baker cited an article published nine years earlier in The Weekly Standard by Andrew Ferguson, who was reviewing a book by Schorr.

During the Republican Convention in San Francisco in 1964 that nominated conservative icon Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) for president, Schorr reported a fake news story that aired on the CBS television network during its wall-to-wall coverage of the convention.  Speaking from Germany, where he was based as a prominent foreign correspondent, Schorr said:

It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, center of Germany’s right wing.  It is also known as Hitler’s one-time stomping ground.

The only problem was that the story was completely made up and false.  Goldwater never traveled to Germany after he received his party’s nomination for president in 1964, and he never intended to do so.  With no bills to pay for reporting fake news even back then, Schorr continued to report for CBS News for the next decade and a half and then spent the last 25 years of his life working in high-profile reporting, hosting, and commentating positions for National Public Radio with the title “senior news analyst.”  When he died on July 23, 2010 at age 93, NPR headlined its lead story “Journalism Legend Daniel Schorr Dies At 93.”

These days, poll after poll is confirming, as Gallup headlined one of its reports on the subject published on September 14, 2016, that “Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low.”

Now that “fake news” has entered the popular lexicon, The Hill reported on May 24, 2017 – three months into the Trump administration:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.


According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill, 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.

These recent reports appear to confirm the classic observation by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, first published in France in 1849, that “the more things change, the more they remain the same” (“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose“) – except that the situation regarding the news business is arguably worse now in light of the mainstream media having almost completely lost what was left of their minds, and all of their remaining credibility, in their totally biased coverage of President Donald J. Trump.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  In addition to his writing, Peter has appeared as a guest commentator on NBC; PBS; the CBC; and, on January 4, 2018, the BBC.  For announcements and links to a wide selection of Peter’s published work, follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.

The mainstream media’s coverage of President Donald Trump is unprecedented in its lack of fairness and its constant negativity.  It represents the ultimate weaponization of big reporting that’s in sync with efforts by the shadow government to mobilize the national security apparatus and the other entrenched Deep State bureaucracies for the purpose of weakening and ultimately taking down the 45th president of the United States.

As bad and biased as the reporting is today, it really is nothing new – just more of the same, only much worse.  It’s become fake news on steroids.

The chart below, by Media Tenor and included in Harvard’s Shorenstein Center May 18, 2017 report “News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days”, measured the “tone of coverage” on President Trump by major mainstream media outlets between Jan. 20 and April 29, 2017. 

Notwithstanding the orders from on high that may be dictating how the media spin their political coverage, the vast majority of working journalists today are hardcore progressives and leftists who vote en masse for Democrats.  One need look no farther than a study by the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity highlighted in an article in the Columbia Journalism Review, published on October 17, 2016, titled “Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash.”

People identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television anchors – as well as other donors known to be working in journalism – have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.


More than 96 percent of that cash has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.


About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump.

Ninety-six percent of journalists’ contributions went to Clinton, four percent to Trump.  These percentages parallel almost exactly the percentage of negative stories about President Trump that were published or broadcast during his first nine months in office.  A study by the Pew Research Center for Journalism & Media, published October 2, 2017, found that news stories about President Trump and his administration through September 2017 were positive only 5% of the time.  This contrasts with coverage of President Obama during his first year in office, which was only 20% negative.  It is obvious that the MSM had a love affair with Barack Obama that lasted for most of his presidency.

The Swift Boat Thing

Leftist media bias goes back even farther than 2016, needless to say.  On August 1, 2004, the New York Times published an article by John Tierney on the overwhelming bias of the media in favor of Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry.  Tierney cited an:

… unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the [Democratic National] convention.  We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington.


When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1.  Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington.  Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

So, almost 14 years ago, journalists based in the nation’s capital supported the Democratic Party candidate by a margin of about twelve to one.  Journalists from flyover country also favored Kerry but by four to one.

The easy transition of top journalists from their comfy and influential reporting jobs and into positions of spinning news on behalf of the federal government is an everyday occurrence, especially in Democrat administrations.  On September 12, 2013, The Atlantic published an article noting:

Time managing editor Rick Stengel is leaving journalism to go work for the State Department, making him at least the 24th reporter to go to work for the Obama administration.

Appearing during the second hour of Sean Hannity’s radio program on January 12, Ari Fleischer, a political commentator and the press secretary during the first term of President George W. Bush, noted that “it’s even worse with President Trump in the White House because the press can’t hide their bias anymore.”

“Extremism in the defense of fake news is no vice”

Media bias favoring Democrats goes way back.  An egregious example of fake news and toxic bias in the MSM occurred in 1964, and the perpetrator, CBS News correspondent Daniel Schorr, went unpunished and emerged with his career unscathed.  Brent Baker reminded us of this sad but still relevant old story in an article at NewsBusters on July 25, 2010 on the occasion of Schorr’s death.  Baker cited an article published nine years earlier in The Weekly Standard by Andrew Ferguson, who was reviewing a book by Schorr.

During the Republican Convention in San Francisco in 1964 that nominated conservative icon Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) for president, Schorr reported a fake news story that aired on the CBS television network during its wall-to-wall coverage of the convention.  Speaking from Germany, where he was based as a prominent foreign correspondent, Schorr said:

It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, center of Germany’s right wing.  It is also known as Hitler’s one-time stomping ground.

The only problem was that the story was completely made up and false.  Goldwater never traveled to Germany after he received his party’s nomination for president in 1964, and he never intended to do so.  With no bills to pay for reporting fake news even back then, Schorr continued to report for CBS News for the next decade and a half and then spent the last 25 years of his life working in high-profile reporting, hosting, and commentating positions for National Public Radio with the title “senior news analyst.”  When he died on July 23, 2010 at age 93, NPR headlined its lead story “Journalism Legend Daniel Schorr Dies At 93.”

These days, poll after poll is confirming, as Gallup headlined one of its reports on the subject published on September 14, 2016, that “Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low.”

Now that “fake news” has entered the popular lexicon, The Hill reported on May 24, 2017 – three months into the Trump administration:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.


According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill, 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.

These recent reports appear to confirm the classic observation by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, first published in France in 1849, that “the more things change, the more they remain the same” (“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose“) – except that the situation regarding the news business is arguably worse now in light of the mainstream media having almost completely lost what was left of their minds, and all of their remaining credibility, in their totally biased coverage of President Donald J. Trump.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  In addition to his writing, Peter has appeared as a guest commentator on NBC; PBS; the CBC; and, on January 4, 2018, the BBC.  For announcements and links to a wide selection of Peter’s published work, follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.



Source link

Someone Needs to Sort Out the Tech Idiots on Censorship


If you are a conservative, it is easy to believe that the tech giants have it in for conservatives.  But what if that isn’t true?  What if the “Googlers” and the Facebookers and the Twittites are just idiots and don’t know any better?

I was down in the South Bay Area visiting a young Applite, and it just seemed to me that all these tech guys and the tech H.R. and diversity enforcers are just ordinary mortals, reflexively doing what they think they are supposed to.

After all, unless you were an instinctive contrarian, you would have picked up the default educated-class culture as part of your bums-on-seats progress through high school and college like a fish in water.

And if you ask me, the silly Google Girl, Susan Wojciki, involved in the firing of James Damore sounds like the kind of woman who never has a thought in her head.

So I think the tech higher-ups just think they are doing the lord’s work by doing their bit for diversity and inclusion.

The real relationship between politics and government is the gangster relation: nice little business you got here; pity if something should happen to it.  Most conservatives don’t have a gangster bone in their bodies and really don’t want to get in the faces of good honest businessmen.

Problem is, then all the businessmen in America will end up paying protection money only to the Democratic Party, because liberals do care about power and do want to tell business who is boss.

Unless our leaders throw a bit of elbow, these poor innocent businessmen will continue to truckle to the liberal activist agenda as the path of least resistance.  Then one day they will wake up, like the National Football League, to find out that their customers are leaving in droves.  We can’t let this happen to them!

Lately, it seems that Twitter and Google and Facebook are really starting to bite into conservative muscle with, e.g., curation algorithms designed to shut up “s—– people.”  If you ask me, this could really impact the 2018 midterms and the Trump re-election bonanza in 2020, unless someone up at Trump Tower decides to Do Something about It.

The tech war on conservatives and conservative ideas is one thing and one thing only: it is injustice, straight up, and someone needs to teach those persecuting it that censoring conservatives ain’t gonna fly.  It doesn’t matter that conservatives and Alt-Right orcs are monsters.  Too bad.  We have a First Amendment and freedom of the press, and the whole point of freedom of speech is to allow speech you absolutely hate.

So what do we do? Do we send a policy wonk from AEI down to Silicon Valley to explain the deep philosophical reasons for conservatism and the folly of allowing only one point of view on the internet?  Do we send Steve Bannon down there to “larn ’em” on economic nationalism?  Or do we prompt President Trump to go on late-night TV and do a profanity-laced act like the edgy and award-winning Marvelous Mrs. Maisel?

I doubt if any of that would work.  I realized that at an art museum today after viewing an exhibition of political posters.  Do you know that every one of them was left-wing, from angry workers to angry blacks to angry Occupy Wall Street to oh-so-tasteful climate change?  There was not a single poster advertising a Tea Party meeting. Not even a “We All Knew” poster from street artist Sabo.  Imagine!  Well, of course.  The gay SFMOMA associate curator for political art probably never heard of Sabo, or if he did, he would make sure that Sabo would never be exhibited at the MOMA on his watch.

Every day, the reason we have President Trump becomes more and more obvious.  We need someone with the cojones to take on the liberal hegemony and shake it to its foundations.  We need a president who will send someone from the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice over with plenipotentiary powers to negotiate a deal that will avoid the horror of splitting up Google and Apple and Twitter.

If I were a tech billionaire I would know that the one thing I would want to avoid would be the ignominy of facing my buddies after President Trump – Trump! – had cut up my lovely trillion-dollar baby into pieces.

My feeling is that the tech guys are all political naïfs: they have no idea that the identity liberalism they just picked up as kids because they were Good Little Boys is a monstrous and unjust evil.  Hey, Teacher never told me!

It’s time that someone did tell them.  And it needs to be someone with real credibility, straight from Mr. Big.  Otherwise, the old South Bay Area precinct captains will just say: “I don’t talk to nobody what nobody sent.”

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on U.S. government finances, usgovernmentspending.com.  Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

If you are a conservative, it is easy to believe that the tech giants have it in for conservatives.  But what if that isn’t true?  What if the “Googlers” and the Facebookers and the Twittites are just idiots and don’t know any better?

I was down in the South Bay Area visiting a young Applite, and it just seemed to me that all these tech guys and the tech H.R. and diversity enforcers are just ordinary mortals, reflexively doing what they think they are supposed to.

After all, unless you were an instinctive contrarian, you would have picked up the default educated-class culture as part of your bums-on-seats progress through high school and college like a fish in water.

And if you ask me, the silly Google Girl, Susan Wojciki, involved in the firing of James Damore sounds like the kind of woman who never has a thought in her head.

So I think the tech higher-ups just think they are doing the lord’s work by doing their bit for diversity and inclusion.

The real relationship between politics and government is the gangster relation: nice little business you got here; pity if something should happen to it.  Most conservatives don’t have a gangster bone in their bodies and really don’t want to get in the faces of good honest businessmen.

Problem is, then all the businessmen in America will end up paying protection money only to the Democratic Party, because liberals do care about power and do want to tell business who is boss.

Unless our leaders throw a bit of elbow, these poor innocent businessmen will continue to truckle to the liberal activist agenda as the path of least resistance.  Then one day they will wake up, like the National Football League, to find out that their customers are leaving in droves.  We can’t let this happen to them!

Lately, it seems that Twitter and Google and Facebook are really starting to bite into conservative muscle with, e.g., curation algorithms designed to shut up “s—– people.”  If you ask me, this could really impact the 2018 midterms and the Trump re-election bonanza in 2020, unless someone up at Trump Tower decides to Do Something about It.

The tech war on conservatives and conservative ideas is one thing and one thing only: it is injustice, straight up, and someone needs to teach those persecuting it that censoring conservatives ain’t gonna fly.  It doesn’t matter that conservatives and Alt-Right orcs are monsters.  Too bad.  We have a First Amendment and freedom of the press, and the whole point of freedom of speech is to allow speech you absolutely hate.

So what do we do? Do we send a policy wonk from AEI down to Silicon Valley to explain the deep philosophical reasons for conservatism and the folly of allowing only one point of view on the internet?  Do we send Steve Bannon down there to “larn ’em” on economic nationalism?  Or do we prompt President Trump to go on late-night TV and do a profanity-laced act like the edgy and award-winning Marvelous Mrs. Maisel?

I doubt if any of that would work.  I realized that at an art museum today after viewing an exhibition of political posters.  Do you know that every one of them was left-wing, from angry workers to angry blacks to angry Occupy Wall Street to oh-so-tasteful climate change?  There was not a single poster advertising a Tea Party meeting. Not even a “We All Knew” poster from street artist Sabo.  Imagine!  Well, of course.  The gay SFMOMA associate curator for political art probably never heard of Sabo, or if he did, he would make sure that Sabo would never be exhibited at the MOMA on his watch.

Every day, the reason we have President Trump becomes more and more obvious.  We need someone with the cojones to take on the liberal hegemony and shake it to its foundations.  We need a president who will send someone from the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice over with plenipotentiary powers to negotiate a deal that will avoid the horror of splitting up Google and Apple and Twitter.

If I were a tech billionaire I would know that the one thing I would want to avoid would be the ignominy of facing my buddies after President Trump – Trump! – had cut up my lovely trillion-dollar baby into pieces.

My feeling is that the tech guys are all political naïfs: they have no idea that the identity liberalism they just picked up as kids because they were Good Little Boys is a monstrous and unjust evil.  Hey, Teacher never told me!

It’s time that someone did tell them.  And it needs to be someone with real credibility, straight from Mr. Big.  Otherwise, the old South Bay Area precinct captains will just say: “I don’t talk to nobody what nobody sent.”

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on U.S. government finances, usgovernmentspending.com.  Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

Still Looking for Tax Disaster, Democrats Are in for a Surprise


The Democrats and their media allies did everything they could to defeat Trump’s tax cuts and reforms.  They continually lied to the public in a bid to make them believe that less than half of the taxpayers would actually get cuts and that the bill was meant to benefit only big, rich corporations.  Therefore, we got all sorts of articles, obviously fed to journalists by left-wing think-tanks and Democratic politicos, claiming that the tax cuts aren’t good or aren’t performing as promised. 

So, two weeks into a ten-year program, we are now hearing whining that all the promises of the broad-based reform haven’t been fulfilled yet.  (Eight years into Obamacare with nothing close to what was promised hasn’t caught their attention – they’re still telling us how good it is.)

It’s a stupid thing for Democrats to keep holding onto this mythology, because they are about to be swamped by events.

But holding onto the narrative they are.  Here’s one example of a New York Times article whose purpose is to deride bonuses and tax cuts, claiming that the prime beneficiary is solely the greedy rich, particularly the corporations.  It’s a narrative that’s pretty close to what House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has been saying, in her claims that corporations are only handing out crumbs and pretty much keeping all the tax gains for themselves.  The article tries to portray corporations as evil and greedy and keeping too much for themselves, while the bonuses are just dog biscuits to the public.  Naturally, the government is never greedy when Democrats want to take so much money and power for themselves – just corporations.

Somehow, Democrats don’t seem to care that over half Americans in surveys don’t have so much as a small savings nest egg to pay for emergencies, so my guess is that the millions of these same Americans who have gotten bonuses along with the many who have gotten raises (think of how many people Walmart alone employs) are happy that they have gotten these bonuses after eight years of Obama and essentially flat wages.  A bonus of $1,000 is certainly better than zero, which is what they would have gotten had the Democrats gotten their way. 

I am actually amazed at how fast the money from the tax cuts is trickling through.  We’re talking about millions in bonuses and raises in less than two weeks into a ten-year plan, and these are only the ones that have been announced.

Here’s another article complaining about the tax cuts.  From the Associated Press, we read: “Less than meets the eye, bonuses are not raises.”  (Isn’t it great that they use the word “less” in the headline?)

The bonuses are one-time payouts, not the permanent pay raises that Trump and congressional Republicans have said will eventually result from the corporate tax cuts.  Over time, bonuses are far less valuable to employees than wage increases.


So far, most companies haven’t said whether any permanent pay increases are in the works.  Economists caution that the corporate income tax cut’s effect on average pay, if any, might not become apparent for several years.


“As a worker, it’s great to get a one-off bonus, but that doesn’t guarantee anything for the next year,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont.  “You’d rather have the raise, because next year you’re working off the higher base.”


“The bulk of the corporate tax cuts should accrue to people who hold stock in companies,” said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.  “Workers benefit much more from a cut in taxes on ordinary income.  In other words, better to get a direct cut than a spillover from cuts to others.”


In some cases, the companies are sharing only a sliver of their tax-cut windfalls.  Bank of America’s bonuses will cost it roughly $145 million – only about 4 percent of the $3.5 billion that Goldman Sachs estimates Bank of America will receive from the tax cut.

I believe that it is great for the economy that close to 100% of Americans got a cut in their actual tax rates, but I believe that the even bigger benefit to the economy is in the large permanent tax cuts to corporations and other businesses.  I am thinking of small businesses and their owners, who create the jobs.  Under the previous tax law, corporations were parking trillions of dollars of profits overseas while politicians were pretending they would eventually get 35% of that money because of double-taxation.  It didn’t pan out as they had planned, because Democrats just don’t get human nature, including how humans respond to incentives.  Now, with the new tax regime, companies will bring a significant amount of that missing money back because of new rates up to 15.5%.  As a result, the government will now get hundreds of billions of actual dollars instead of pretending it will eventually get the overseas cash in the end, which in reality has yielded zero. 

With the lower rates and the money brought back, businesses will now spend, invest, raise dividends, buy back stock, or save the money.  All of these uses are more efficient and effective in making the economy grow than the government taking a larger share and redistributing some.  The multiplier effect will be astonishing and, as is always the case, much greater than economists are predicting.  Minorities and the young will certainly have more opportunities to move up the economic ladder.

After that, we will see companies choosing to stay in the U.S., with many more coming to the U.S. because of the new 21% corporate rate, which is finally competitive by global standards, with the added benefit of no threat of double-taxation.  In addition, there will be fewer regulations, which will cause expansion and more startups in the U.S.  The business climate is now good compared to when government was seeking to step on the throat of businesses and its leaders continually badmouthed them. 

It is a shame that the Democrats wouldn’t go along with the cuts and reform, which is why the individual rates can’t be permanent, but at least the corporate rates are permanent.  Corporations need permanent rates to be competitive and make long-term decisions. 

Something I wish everyone would learn is that when stock prices go up, they help 100% of us, whether we directly have investments or not.  This is because all of us have a stake in how much government pension funds earn on their investments.  This generation and future generations will not be taxed so much if the public pensions and entitlements such as Social Security earn more and the government has more to spend on human needs.  Capitalism is what built this country, not government. 

We will see the media continually, on behalf of Democrats, diminish the effects of tax reform and cuts on economic growth, because, after all, there is always an election coming up.  People and businesses doing well do not help the Democrats win.  That is the goal: power for the Democrats instead of the people. 

I can’t think of any other government program where the results of such a revolutionary reform have been challenged within two weeks of inception.  Democrats are in for a surprise.

Jack Hellner is a certified public accountant who works on individual and corporate taxes.

The Democrats and their media allies did everything they could to defeat Trump’s tax cuts and reforms.  They continually lied to the public in a bid to make them believe that less than half of the taxpayers would actually get cuts and that the bill was meant to benefit only big, rich corporations.  Therefore, we got all sorts of articles, obviously fed to journalists by left-wing think-tanks and Democratic politicos, claiming that the tax cuts aren’t good or aren’t performing as promised. 

So, two weeks into a ten-year program, we are now hearing whining that all the promises of the broad-based reform haven’t been fulfilled yet.  (Eight years into Obamacare with nothing close to what was promised hasn’t caught their attention – they’re still telling us how good it is.)

It’s a stupid thing for Democrats to keep holding onto this mythology, because they are about to be swamped by events.

But holding onto the narrative they are.  Here’s one example of a New York Times article whose purpose is to deride bonuses and tax cuts, claiming that the prime beneficiary is solely the greedy rich, particularly the corporations.  It’s a narrative that’s pretty close to what House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has been saying, in her claims that corporations are only handing out crumbs and pretty much keeping all the tax gains for themselves.  The article tries to portray corporations as evil and greedy and keeping too much for themselves, while the bonuses are just dog biscuits to the public.  Naturally, the government is never greedy when Democrats want to take so much money and power for themselves – just corporations.

Somehow, Democrats don’t seem to care that over half Americans in surveys don’t have so much as a small savings nest egg to pay for emergencies, so my guess is that the millions of these same Americans who have gotten bonuses along with the many who have gotten raises (think of how many people Walmart alone employs) are happy that they have gotten these bonuses after eight years of Obama and essentially flat wages.  A bonus of $1,000 is certainly better than zero, which is what they would have gotten had the Democrats gotten their way. 

I am actually amazed at how fast the money from the tax cuts is trickling through.  We’re talking about millions in bonuses and raises in less than two weeks into a ten-year plan, and these are only the ones that have been announced.

Here’s another article complaining about the tax cuts.  From the Associated Press, we read: “Less than meets the eye, bonuses are not raises.”  (Isn’t it great that they use the word “less” in the headline?)

The bonuses are one-time payouts, not the permanent pay raises that Trump and congressional Republicans have said will eventually result from the corporate tax cuts.  Over time, bonuses are far less valuable to employees than wage increases.


So far, most companies haven’t said whether any permanent pay increases are in the works.  Economists caution that the corporate income tax cut’s effect on average pay, if any, might not become apparent for several years.


“As a worker, it’s great to get a one-off bonus, but that doesn’t guarantee anything for the next year,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont.  “You’d rather have the raise, because next year you’re working off the higher base.”


“The bulk of the corporate tax cuts should accrue to people who hold stock in companies,” said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.  “Workers benefit much more from a cut in taxes on ordinary income.  In other words, better to get a direct cut than a spillover from cuts to others.”


In some cases, the companies are sharing only a sliver of their tax-cut windfalls.  Bank of America’s bonuses will cost it roughly $145 million – only about 4 percent of the $3.5 billion that Goldman Sachs estimates Bank of America will receive from the tax cut.

I believe that it is great for the economy that close to 100% of Americans got a cut in their actual tax rates, but I believe that the even bigger benefit to the economy is in the large permanent tax cuts to corporations and other businesses.  I am thinking of small businesses and their owners, who create the jobs.  Under the previous tax law, corporations were parking trillions of dollars of profits overseas while politicians were pretending they would eventually get 35% of that money because of double-taxation.  It didn’t pan out as they had planned, because Democrats just don’t get human nature, including how humans respond to incentives.  Now, with the new tax regime, companies will bring a significant amount of that missing money back because of new rates up to 15.5%.  As a result, the government will now get hundreds of billions of actual dollars instead of pretending it will eventually get the overseas cash in the end, which in reality has yielded zero. 

With the lower rates and the money brought back, businesses will now spend, invest, raise dividends, buy back stock, or save the money.  All of these uses are more efficient and effective in making the economy grow than the government taking a larger share and redistributing some.  The multiplier effect will be astonishing and, as is always the case, much greater than economists are predicting.  Minorities and the young will certainly have more opportunities to move up the economic ladder.

After that, we will see companies choosing to stay in the U.S., with many more coming to the U.S. because of the new 21% corporate rate, which is finally competitive by global standards, with the added benefit of no threat of double-taxation.  In addition, there will be fewer regulations, which will cause expansion and more startups in the U.S.  The business climate is now good compared to when government was seeking to step on the throat of businesses and its leaders continually badmouthed them. 

It is a shame that the Democrats wouldn’t go along with the cuts and reform, which is why the individual rates can’t be permanent, but at least the corporate rates are permanent.  Corporations need permanent rates to be competitive and make long-term decisions. 

Something I wish everyone would learn is that when stock prices go up, they help 100% of us, whether we directly have investments or not.  This is because all of us have a stake in how much government pension funds earn on their investments.  This generation and future generations will not be taxed so much if the public pensions and entitlements such as Social Security earn more and the government has more to spend on human needs.  Capitalism is what built this country, not government. 

We will see the media continually, on behalf of Democrats, diminish the effects of tax reform and cuts on economic growth, because, after all, there is always an election coming up.  People and businesses doing well do not help the Democrats win.  That is the goal: power for the Democrats instead of the people. 

I can’t think of any other government program where the results of such a revolutionary reform have been challenged within two weeks of inception.  Democrats are in for a surprise.

Jack Hellner is a certified public accountant who works on individual and corporate taxes.



Source link