Day: February 13, 2018

Forget Balancing the Budget – Let's Think Big


Okay, so our pal Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has done a budget deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that does not do a thing about moderating spending, let alone balancing the federal budget.

And this, we understand, is a Very Bad Thing.

But how bad is it?  Here is a chart of U.S. deficits since 1950, in percent of GDP.

The worst deficits were incurred after the Crash of 2008.  But that is a Good Thing, because after defense, the most important job for government is to be lender of last resort in a financial meltdown.  Oh, and the reason we had a crash at all is because Gentle Ben Bernanke choked in September 2008 as lender of last resort and decided that he didn’t have the authority to bail out Lehman Brothers.  Ben, oh Ben.  How could you?

Then there were the Reaganite 1980s with deficits of 4 percent of GDP.  But since Reagan was busy winning the Cold War while reviving the U.S. economy and killing inflation, who is to argue with success?

And now, with the deficit now down to about 2 percent of GDP, what’s the problem?

It’s true that the entitlements have trillions in unfunded liabilities; that many blue states are facing ruin from underfunded government employee pension programs; and that if nothing is done, we will come eventually to what Kevin Williamson calls “The Crash.”

Well, maybe.  But maybe not.

Here’s how I think we could beat the rap.  We could have the Trump economy keep going.  We could have Democrats fed to the meat-grinder in the worst U.S. government scandal since Watergate Teapot Dome.  We could have a Trump re-election in 2020 with a 55-45 landslide as ordinary Americans of all races and both sexes come to think that “Trump cares about people like me.”  We could have Supreme Court decisions rolling back the fascist totalitarians at the nation’s elite finishing schools.  We could have middle-class mothers pushing school choice and elite mothers naming and shaming other elite mothers who don’t homeschool.  We could have Steve Bannon’s The Permanent Republican Majority atop the bestseller list for 30 weeks straight in 2021.

You think that is crazy?  How about this?

In the mid-2020s, a Generation Alpha, fed up with the snowflakes and victims of Millennials and GenZ, arises to champion the principle of personal responsibility.  Gen-A will say Social Protection means nothing if it is a government program; real social protection means a web of social individuals saving their own money for all the challenges of life: college, sickness, retirement, end of life.  Of course, Gen-A wants to provide for the less fortunate, but government sucks at that, so Gen-A wants to create a true safety net of people helping people, backed up by a Billionaires Club that only the nine richest self-made men and one self-made woman in America can join; liberal trustafarians need not apply.  There won’t be many schools, except for KIPP-type schools to boost inner-city kids that need a boot camp in bourgeois values and crammers to get the children of liberal trustafarians into Harvard.  Most mothers will home-school alongside the other mothers in the neighborhood.  And we’ll do away with child labor laws, because Gen-A thinkers will insist that kids should work while they learn, and why not have employers subsidize the education of their employees as in the olden time?

Yeah.  Americans can be dreamers, too.

For sure, humans naturally want protection, because there are nasty dangers out there.

Government offers protection.  But so does insurance, and so do savings, and so do families, and so does charity, and so does billionaire philanthropy.  All these different social institutions offer protection for different things, in different ways.  And they do it well.

Government is force, so its protection should be for dangers that can be mitigated only by armies and policemen.  And the occasional regulator that does his job, Ben.

Insurance is protection against unusual dangers; savings is for protection against predictable dangers; families are for protection of those nearest and dearest.  Charity is to rescue people driven into the ditch.  Philanthropy is a good way of keeping rich men out of trouble.

The question is, how much shall we force some Americans to protect other Americans from danger?  Shall we protect American workers from Chinese workers?  Shall we protect employees from employers?  Shall we protect mature industries from startups?  From Walmarts and Amazons?  Shall we protect special snowflakes from haters?  By force?

That’s why we have a budget deficit: because a lot of people want to force the American people to help them, but not quite as many people want to pay for it.

One more thing: no pensions for government employees.  These low-risk lifers should pay for their own bloody retirement.

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.

Okay, so our pal Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has done a budget deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that does not do a thing about moderating spending, let alone balancing the federal budget.

And this, we understand, is a Very Bad Thing.

But how bad is it?  Here is a chart of U.S. deficits since 1950, in percent of GDP.

The worst deficits were incurred after the Crash of 2008.  But that is a Good Thing, because after defense, the most important job for government is to be lender of last resort in a financial meltdown.  Oh, and the reason we had a crash at all is because Gentle Ben Bernanke choked in September 2008 as lender of last resort and decided that he didn’t have the authority to bail out Lehman Brothers.  Ben, oh Ben.  How could you?

Then there were the Reaganite 1980s with deficits of 4 percent of GDP.  But since Reagan was busy winning the Cold War while reviving the U.S. economy and killing inflation, who is to argue with success?

And now, with the deficit now down to about 2 percent of GDP, what’s the problem?

It’s true that the entitlements have trillions in unfunded liabilities; that many blue states are facing ruin from underfunded government employee pension programs; and that if nothing is done, we will come eventually to what Kevin Williamson calls “The Crash.”

Well, maybe.  But maybe not.

Here’s how I think we could beat the rap.  We could have the Trump economy keep going.  We could have Democrats fed to the meat-grinder in the worst U.S. government scandal since Watergate Teapot Dome.  We could have a Trump re-election in 2020 with a 55-45 landslide as ordinary Americans of all races and both sexes come to think that “Trump cares about people like me.”  We could have Supreme Court decisions rolling back the fascist totalitarians at the nation’s elite finishing schools.  We could have middle-class mothers pushing school choice and elite mothers naming and shaming other elite mothers who don’t homeschool.  We could have Steve Bannon’s The Permanent Republican Majority atop the bestseller list for 30 weeks straight in 2021.

You think that is crazy?  How about this?

In the mid-2020s, a Generation Alpha, fed up with the snowflakes and victims of Millennials and GenZ, arises to champion the principle of personal responsibility.  Gen-A will say Social Protection means nothing if it is a government program; real social protection means a web of social individuals saving their own money for all the challenges of life: college, sickness, retirement, end of life.  Of course, Gen-A wants to provide for the less fortunate, but government sucks at that, so Gen-A wants to create a true safety net of people helping people, backed up by a Billionaires Club that only the nine richest self-made men and one self-made woman in America can join; liberal trustafarians need not apply.  There won’t be many schools, except for KIPP-type schools to boost inner-city kids that need a boot camp in bourgeois values and crammers to get the children of liberal trustafarians into Harvard.  Most mothers will home-school alongside the other mothers in the neighborhood.  And we’ll do away with child labor laws, because Gen-A thinkers will insist that kids should work while they learn, and why not have employers subsidize the education of their employees as in the olden time?

Yeah.  Americans can be dreamers, too.

For sure, humans naturally want protection, because there are nasty dangers out there.

Government offers protection.  But so does insurance, and so do savings, and so do families, and so does charity, and so does billionaire philanthropy.  All these different social institutions offer protection for different things, in different ways.  And they do it well.

Government is force, so its protection should be for dangers that can be mitigated only by armies and policemen.  And the occasional regulator that does his job, Ben.

Insurance is protection against unusual dangers; savings is for protection against predictable dangers; families are for protection of those nearest and dearest.  Charity is to rescue people driven into the ditch.  Philanthropy is a good way of keeping rich men out of trouble.

The question is, how much shall we force some Americans to protect other Americans from danger?  Shall we protect American workers from Chinese workers?  Shall we protect employees from employers?  Shall we protect mature industries from startups?  From Walmarts and Amazons?  Shall we protect special snowflakes from haters?  By force?

That’s why we have a budget deficit: because a lot of people want to force the American people to help them, but not quite as many people want to pay for it.

One more thing: no pensions for government employees.  These low-risk lifers should pay for their own bloody retirement.

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

Media Focus on Mass Shootings Distracts from the Bigger Problem


Last year, we saw yet another knee-jerk reaction by liberals to the supposed “gun problem.”  The Dems seized on the mass killing that occurred in Las Vegas as an opportunity to push for more restrictive gun laws and an outright ban on firearm accessories.

By year’s end, cooler heads had prevailed, and most of this legislation did not make it through.  On the contrary, December of 2017 saw the House approving the concealed carry reciprocity bill that will allow for citizens with concealed carry permits in one state to carry outside that state.

While that might sound like good news for law-abiding gun owners, it’s not all wine and roses just yet.  The bill will have to pass the Senate and then go before the president before it becomes law, and the libs are already wringing their hands, insisting that it violates states’ individual rights to pass and enforce their own laws.

This month, Senate Democrats were at it again, proposing a gun control package that would “build” on the SAFE Act, a New York State regulation that New York’s governor has already called the toughest gun control law in the United States.

These desperate attempts at doing away with the Second Amendment and manipulating the law to suit the liberal agenda are obviously nothing new.  We saw all of it after Sandy Hook; we saw it after Aurora; and we saw it, yet again, after Sutherland Springs.

To hear liberals speak, you would think mass shootings occurred every day in this country.  Of course, they don’t.  You would also think that by enforcing stronger background checks, we could curb gun-related violence on the streets of our cities.  We can’t.

The reason should be obvious to anyone who doesn’t take a myopic view.  The vast majority of criminal activity involving guns in this country involves guns that were illegally obtained.  These are guns that have not been registered or purchased through legal channels.

Indeed, one of the largest sources of guns used in crimes is unlicensed street dealers who get their guns through illegal transactions with shoddy dealers, “straw purchases,” or gun theft.  In other words, they are bought and sold on the black market.  And it’s all too fitting that the market is black, because that is the one area of gun violence that the Dems refuse to address.

Black Americans are constantly bloodying the streets with illegal guns.  For these urban outlaws, no gun bill will stop them from committing violent acts.  Black homicides soared this past year while black football players took a knee and brayed about black lives mattering, a sentiment that seems backward when one considers that none of them is talking about the far more overwhelming number of black deaths occurring among their own race.

Just this month alone, seven black Americans in the crime-infested city of Chicago have been killed, and 25 have been shot and wounded.  The year has practically just begun, and already Chicago has seen 43 gun deaths.

The statistics speak for themselves: black men are 13 times more likely to be shot and killed with guns than white men.  What is never discussed is who is killing black Americans.  The answer is other black Americans.

When these numbers balloon out of control, the left points its finger at the police officers, lumping all of law enforcement in with the few rotten apples who are guilty of opening fire on unarmed people.  This turns a blind eye to the damage done by our country’s Democratic leaders.

After New York Mayor Bill de Blasio dramatically reduced the NYPD’s ability to stop and frisk, the city saw a significant increase in homicide and gun violence.  These are the facts that are rarely mentioned by the lamestream media, but they are facts nevertheless.

While liberal bureaucrats try their damnedest to ban AR-15 furniture and accessories like the notorious bump stocks used in the Vegas shooting, a larger problem is being ignored.

As world-renowned scholar William Julius Wilson wrote in his blog for Brookings, “[t]he nation’s consciousness has been raised by the repeated acts of police brutality against blacks.  But the problem of public space violence – seen in the extraordinary distress, trauma[,] and pain many poor inner-city families experience following the killing of a family member or close relative – also deserves our special attention.”

This raises the question: if a black man can acknowledge that blacks are killing blacks, why can’t the liberal establishment?

While this question will no doubt go unanswered by political talking heads, the reality remains incontrovertible.  In 2013, firearm deaths accounted for more than 11% of all years of potential life lost among the black population.

Types of gun deaths also vary drastically.  Seventy-seven percent of white gun deaths have been found to be suicides, whereas 82% of black gun deaths are homicides.  By now, it should be obvious that gun control does little to effectively control violent offenders in the black community.

The social justice warriors will speak about social inequality, but there is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that young minorities in impoverished communities have more opportunities than ever before.

In Los Angeles, the Heart of L.A. provides underserved youth with top-notch programs in academics, athletics, and the arts.

New York City offers a wide array of youth services, including college programs and programs through which teenagers can learn valuable job skills.  Still, it’s easier for many in the ghetto to live off government checks or pick up a hot gun than to actually earn an honest wage.

It’s no secret why many black Americans do not have a credit score to speak of.  A whopping 47% of black Americans do not have access to a credit card, either because they don’t own anything or because they simply don’t have a legitimate income to open a bank account.

Again, the real gun problem comes down to lifestyle.  These criminals would rather rob people at gunpoint or join a violent gang than make an honest living.

For this reason alone, we are not likely to see an end to inner-city gun violence any time soon.  And no amount of legislation is going to change that, if for no other reason than that criminals aren’t about to start legally obtaining firearms or registering them in their respective states.

Last year, we saw yet another knee-jerk reaction by liberals to the supposed “gun problem.”  The Dems seized on the mass killing that occurred in Las Vegas as an opportunity to push for more restrictive gun laws and an outright ban on firearm accessories.

By year’s end, cooler heads had prevailed, and most of this legislation did not make it through.  On the contrary, December of 2017 saw the House approving the concealed carry reciprocity bill that will allow for citizens with concealed carry permits in one state to carry outside that state.

While that might sound like good news for law-abiding gun owners, it’s not all wine and roses just yet.  The bill will have to pass the Senate and then go before the president before it becomes law, and the libs are already wringing their hands, insisting that it violates states’ individual rights to pass and enforce their own laws.

This month, Senate Democrats were at it again, proposing a gun control package that would “build” on the SAFE Act, a New York State regulation that New York’s governor has already called the toughest gun control law in the United States.

These desperate attempts at doing away with the Second Amendment and manipulating the law to suit the liberal agenda are obviously nothing new.  We saw all of it after Sandy Hook; we saw it after Aurora; and we saw it, yet again, after Sutherland Springs.

To hear liberals speak, you would think mass shootings occurred every day in this country.  Of course, they don’t.  You would also think that by enforcing stronger background checks, we could curb gun-related violence on the streets of our cities.  We can’t.

The reason should be obvious to anyone who doesn’t take a myopic view.  The vast majority of criminal activity involving guns in this country involves guns that were illegally obtained.  These are guns that have not been registered or purchased through legal channels.

Indeed, one of the largest sources of guns used in crimes is unlicensed street dealers who get their guns through illegal transactions with shoddy dealers, “straw purchases,” or gun theft.  In other words, they are bought and sold on the black market.  And it’s all too fitting that the market is black, because that is the one area of gun violence that the Dems refuse to address.

Black Americans are constantly bloodying the streets with illegal guns.  For these urban outlaws, no gun bill will stop them from committing violent acts.  Black homicides soared this past year while black football players took a knee and brayed about black lives mattering, a sentiment that seems backward when one considers that none of them is talking about the far more overwhelming number of black deaths occurring among their own race.

Just this month alone, seven black Americans in the crime-infested city of Chicago have been killed, and 25 have been shot and wounded.  The year has practically just begun, and already Chicago has seen 43 gun deaths.

The statistics speak for themselves: black men are 13 times more likely to be shot and killed with guns than white men.  What is never discussed is who is killing black Americans.  The answer is other black Americans.

When these numbers balloon out of control, the left points its finger at the police officers, lumping all of law enforcement in with the few rotten apples who are guilty of opening fire on unarmed people.  This turns a blind eye to the damage done by our country’s Democratic leaders.

After New York Mayor Bill de Blasio dramatically reduced the NYPD’s ability to stop and frisk, the city saw a significant increase in homicide and gun violence.  These are the facts that are rarely mentioned by the lamestream media, but they are facts nevertheless.

While liberal bureaucrats try their damnedest to ban AR-15 furniture and accessories like the notorious bump stocks used in the Vegas shooting, a larger problem is being ignored.

As world-renowned scholar William Julius Wilson wrote in his blog for Brookings, “[t]he nation’s consciousness has been raised by the repeated acts of police brutality against blacks.  But the problem of public space violence – seen in the extraordinary distress, trauma[,] and pain many poor inner-city families experience following the killing of a family member or close relative – also deserves our special attention.”

This raises the question: if a black man can acknowledge that blacks are killing blacks, why can’t the liberal establishment?

While this question will no doubt go unanswered by political talking heads, the reality remains incontrovertible.  In 2013, firearm deaths accounted for more than 11% of all years of potential life lost among the black population.

Types of gun deaths also vary drastically.  Seventy-seven percent of white gun deaths have been found to be suicides, whereas 82% of black gun deaths are homicides.  By now, it should be obvious that gun control does little to effectively control violent offenders in the black community.

The social justice warriors will speak about social inequality, but there is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that young minorities in impoverished communities have more opportunities than ever before.

In Los Angeles, the Heart of L.A. provides underserved youth with top-notch programs in academics, athletics, and the arts.

New York City offers a wide array of youth services, including college programs and programs through which teenagers can learn valuable job skills.  Still, it’s easier for many in the ghetto to live off government checks or pick up a hot gun than to actually earn an honest wage.

It’s no secret why many black Americans do not have a credit score to speak of.  A whopping 47% of black Americans do not have access to a credit card, either because they don’t own anything or because they simply don’t have a legitimate income to open a bank account.

Again, the real gun problem comes down to lifestyle.  These criminals would rather rob people at gunpoint or join a violent gang than make an honest living.

For this reason alone, we are not likely to see an end to inner-city gun violence any time soon.  And no amount of legislation is going to change that, if for no other reason than that criminals aren’t about to start legally obtaining firearms or registering them in their respective states.



Source link

FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus


Thanks to the work of smart and hardworking (non-mainstream) journalists, we can peek just a bit over the horizon and see where the story of the weaponization of the FBI via a senior-level cabal is going from here.  I use the word “story” deliberately, because that is the way public opinion forms itself on major political affairs.  The progressives in the media and politics  have long understood this.  The cast of the story is now set, and some dramatic plot points have been identified.  The ending hasn’t been written yet, of course, but the villains are identifying themselves or being exposed, and some of the heroes are emerging.  We are on the cusp of a drama much bigger than Watergate breaking open, and its story elements are compelling.

In the calm before the storm breaks, the mainstream media and the Democrat attack squad from the House Intel committee [i] are in the midst of utterly discrediting themselves.  Once the story breaks into the open, indictments will be handed down, and the witnesses, hostile and cooperating, will be heard in hearings and in court.  They have worked together to cover up and distract from the story, but the truth will out, and now it is becoming clear how that will happen.

The fake controversy over the ten-page Schiff memo is keeping the morale of the #resistance crowd up, but Schiff himself will go down in history as the guy who kicked sand in the eyes of the investigators.  All that media effort in pushing the phony narrative of Russia collusion will make them into dupes and laughingstocks, once the solid evidence is brought to light that a conspiracy to push that phony narrative was run with key members of the Clinton machine working hand in glove with the cabal.

Sharyl Attkisson has done us a great favor in identifying the dramatis personae who formed the FBI “secret society” that protected Hillary and spied on Trump.  She has organized a chart depicting the senior-level personnel changes at the Justice Department during the campaign, the Russia probe, and the Clinton email probe, highlighting in yellow the individuals James Comey appointed.

In the space of a year, as the presidential campaigns got rolling in the fall of 2015, James Comey moved his team into top positions in the intelligence and counterintelligence apparatus of the FBI.  That’s where the surveillance capacity exists.  Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intel Committee and Senators Grassley and Graham, we have the basic story already outlined and have received the first installment of the plot: the issuance of the FISA warrants on the basis of a fiction pushed by the Clinton campaign.

Disclosure of some of the lovebird texts of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page already has provided plenty of drama – romance, secrets, hatred, and a break-up text calling off the affair – and there are more texts to come.  Strzok’s firing from the Mueller special counsel’s team was the first manifestation of the cabal being busted, and last week’s flurry of senior-level FBI officials departing is another sign that insiders know that the jig is up.  

Meanwhile, our own Clarice Feldman presents evidence that the guilty plea of General Michael Flynn, the pre-eminent scalp hanging from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s belt, may be thrown out of court when he appears for sentencing by Judge Emmet Sullivan, following the mysterious recusal of Judge Rudolph Contreras and the equally or even more mysterious request by Mueller to delay sentencing.  Something’s up, and it is big.

The forthcoming Department of Justice inspector general’s report, believed to be slated for next month, is a wild card.  With a staff of 250, I.G. Michael Horowitz should have uncovered much, and Horowitz has a sterling reputation.  But then again, so did James Comey at one point.  Lots of people putatively on our side have vouched for Horowitz, but we don’t know the scope of the report, nor do we know what evidence of corruption will be presented.

However, a game-changer is about to drop.  Last Saturday, we got the first indirect, inferential evidence of a major revelation on its way: there is an informant from among the cast of characters Sharyl Attkisson highlighted in yellow, a canary singing to save himself.  

This mystery figure is the man who, a number of observers noticed, has never been mentioned as the information has dripped out of the FBI.  His name is Bill Priestap, and he was brought in by James Comey as assistant director of the FBI, Counterintelligence Division, in December 2015.

Preistap’s identity as the DOJ’s informant was inadvertently and indirectly confirmed Saturday night by Chris Stewart, a member of the Nunes committee, under informed and targeted questioning by Judge Jeanine Pirro, a former prosecutor and skilled courtroom interrogator.  

Watch below as she blindsides Stewart with Priestap’s name, he deflects the question, and then she circles back in, softening him up by saying, “I don’t like that I haven’t heard of him.”  Then she went in for the kill, laying out the way Comey “threw him under the bus” (more on that later from Sundance) and then says, “The fact that we haven’t heard from Priestap tells me that he’s cooperating with someone or…what?”

Poor Stewart, an honest man, then gives away the game by responding, “Well, look, I’m gonna be careful because I’m not sure what we can say on this, and believe me, I don’t want to be the headline when Chris Stewart reveals a bunch of sensitive or classified information[.]”  Okay, he didn’t say, Yes, Priestap’s a cooperating witness, but it’s clear to me that such an inference is justified.

Sundance of Conservative Treehouse has a brilliant analysis that should be read in its entirety laying out why Priestap is the songbird.

His analysis of the moment Comey “threw him under the bus” is persuasive:

On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.


FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*


I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]

… At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.


In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey’s fall guy.  We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way.  The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.


Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations.  Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation[?]

Already, despite the mainstream media’s best effort, half of the public now believes that senior law enforcement officials broke the law to hinder the Trump presidency, according to Rasmussen.  A grand narrative of breathtaking conspiracy and corruption awaits us as the biggest political scandal in American history unfolds.  The story now has a face and a narrator named Priestap, even though his information can’t yet be revealed.  All in good tine, but preferably before November.


[i] Formally, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or HPSCI.

Thanks to the work of smart and hardworking (non-mainstream) journalists, we can peek just a bit over the horizon and see where the story of the weaponization of the FBI via a senior-level cabal is going from here.  I use the word “story” deliberately, because that is the way public opinion forms itself on major political affairs.  The progressives in the media and politics  have long understood this.  The cast of the story is now set, and some dramatic plot points have been identified.  The ending hasn’t been written yet, of course, but the villains are identifying themselves or being exposed, and some of the heroes are emerging.  We are on the cusp of a drama much bigger than Watergate breaking open, and its story elements are compelling.

In the calm before the storm breaks, the mainstream media and the Democrat attack squad from the House Intel committee [i] are in the midst of utterly discrediting themselves.  Once the story breaks into the open, indictments will be handed down, and the witnesses, hostile and cooperating, will be heard in hearings and in court.  They have worked together to cover up and distract from the story, but the truth will out, and now it is becoming clear how that will happen.

The fake controversy over the ten-page Schiff memo is keeping the morale of the #resistance crowd up, but Schiff himself will go down in history as the guy who kicked sand in the eyes of the investigators.  All that media effort in pushing the phony narrative of Russia collusion will make them into dupes and laughingstocks, once the solid evidence is brought to light that a conspiracy to push that phony narrative was run with key members of the Clinton machine working hand in glove with the cabal.

Sharyl Attkisson has done us a great favor in identifying the dramatis personae who formed the FBI “secret society” that protected Hillary and spied on Trump.  She has organized a chart depicting the senior-level personnel changes at the Justice Department during the campaign, the Russia probe, and the Clinton email probe, highlighting in yellow the individuals James Comey appointed.

In the space of a year, as the presidential campaigns got rolling in the fall of 2015, James Comey moved his team into top positions in the intelligence and counterintelligence apparatus of the FBI.  That’s where the surveillance capacity exists.  Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intel Committee and Senators Grassley and Graham, we have the basic story already outlined and have received the first installment of the plot: the issuance of the FISA warrants on the basis of a fiction pushed by the Clinton campaign.

Disclosure of some of the lovebird texts of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page already has provided plenty of drama – romance, secrets, hatred, and a break-up text calling off the affair – and there are more texts to come.  Strzok’s firing from the Mueller special counsel’s team was the first manifestation of the cabal being busted, and last week’s flurry of senior-level FBI officials departing is another sign that insiders know that the jig is up.  

Meanwhile, our own Clarice Feldman presents evidence that the guilty plea of General Michael Flynn, the pre-eminent scalp hanging from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s belt, may be thrown out of court when he appears for sentencing by Judge Emmet Sullivan, following the mysterious recusal of Judge Rudolph Contreras and the equally or even more mysterious request by Mueller to delay sentencing.  Something’s up, and it is big.

The forthcoming Department of Justice inspector general’s report, believed to be slated for next month, is a wild card.  With a staff of 250, I.G. Michael Horowitz should have uncovered much, and Horowitz has a sterling reputation.  But then again, so did James Comey at one point.  Lots of people putatively on our side have vouched for Horowitz, but we don’t know the scope of the report, nor do we know what evidence of corruption will be presented.

However, a game-changer is about to drop.  Last Saturday, we got the first indirect, inferential evidence of a major revelation on its way: there is an informant from among the cast of characters Sharyl Attkisson highlighted in yellow, a canary singing to save himself.  

This mystery figure is the man who, a number of observers noticed, has never been mentioned as the information has dripped out of the FBI.  His name is Bill Priestap, and he was brought in by James Comey as assistant director of the FBI, Counterintelligence Division, in December 2015.

Preistap’s identity as the DOJ’s informant was inadvertently and indirectly confirmed Saturday night by Chris Stewart, a member of the Nunes committee, under informed and targeted questioning by Judge Jeanine Pirro, a former prosecutor and skilled courtroom interrogator.  

Watch below as she blindsides Stewart with Priestap’s name, he deflects the question, and then she circles back in, softening him up by saying, “I don’t like that I haven’t heard of him.”  Then she went in for the kill, laying out the way Comey “threw him under the bus” (more on that later from Sundance) and then says, “The fact that we haven’t heard from Priestap tells me that he’s cooperating with someone or…what?”

Poor Stewart, an honest man, then gives away the game by responding, “Well, look, I’m gonna be careful because I’m not sure what we can say on this, and believe me, I don’t want to be the headline when Chris Stewart reveals a bunch of sensitive or classified information[.]”  Okay, he didn’t say, Yes, Priestap’s a cooperating witness, but it’s clear to me that such an inference is justified.

Sundance of Conservative Treehouse has a brilliant analysis that should be read in its entirety laying out why Priestap is the songbird.

His analysis of the moment Comey “threw him under the bus” is persuasive:

On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.


FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*


I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]

… At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.


In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey’s fall guy.  We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way.  The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.


Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations.  Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation[?]

Already, despite the mainstream media’s best effort, half of the public now believes that senior law enforcement officials broke the law to hinder the Trump presidency, according to Rasmussen.  A grand narrative of breathtaking conspiracy and corruption awaits us as the biggest political scandal in American history unfolds.  The story now has a face and a narrator named Priestap, even though his information can’t yet be revealed.  All in good tine, but preferably before November.


[i] Formally, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or HPSCI.



Source link

Forget Balancing the Budget – Let’s Think Big


Okay, so our pal Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has done a budget deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that does not do a thing about moderating spending, let alone balancing the federal budget.

And this, we understand, is a Very Bad Thing.

But how bad is it?  Here is a chart of U.S. deficits since 1950, in percent of GDP.

The worst deficits were incurred after the Crash of 2008.  But that is a Good Thing, because after defense, the most important job for government is to be lender of last resort in a financial meltdown.  Oh, and the reason we had a crash at all is because Gentle Ben Bernanke choked in September 2008 as lender of last resort and decided that he didn’t have the authority to bail out Lehman Brothers.  Ben, oh Ben.  How could you?

Then there were the Reaganite 1980s with deficits of 4 percent of GDP.  But since Reagan was busy winning the Cold War while reviving the U.S. economy and killing inflation, who is to argue with success?

And now, with the deficit now down to about 2 percent of GDP, what’s the problem?

It’s true that the entitlements have trillions in unfunded liabilities; that many blue states are facing ruin from underfunded government employee pension programs; and that if nothing is done, we will come eventually to what Kevin Williamson calls “The Crash.”

Well, maybe.  But maybe not.

Here’s how I think we could beat the rap.  We could have the Trump economy keep going.  We could have Democrats fed to the meat-grinder in the worst U.S. government scandal since Watergate Teapot Dome.  We could have a Trump re-election in 2020 with a 55-45 landslide as ordinary Americans of all races and both sexes come to think that “Trump cares about people like me.”  We could have Supreme Court decisions rolling back the fascist totalitarians at the nation’s elite finishing schools.  We could have middle-class mothers pushing school choice and elite mothers naming and shaming other elite mothers who don’t homeschool.  We could have Steve Bannon’s The Permanent Republican Majority atop the bestseller list for 30 weeks straight in 2021.

You think that is crazy?  How about this?

In the mid-2020s, a Generation Alpha, fed up with the snowflakes and victims of Millennials and GenZ, arises to champion the principle of personal responsibility.  Gen-A will say Social Protection means nothing if it is a government program; real social protection means a web of social individuals saving their own money for all the challenges of life: college, sickness, retirement, end of life.  Of course, Gen-A wants to provide for the less fortunate, but government sucks at that, so Gen-A wants to create a true safety net of people helping people, backed up by a Billionaires Club that only the nine richest self-made men and one self-made woman in America can join; liberal trustafarians need not apply.  There won’t be many schools, except for KIPP-type schools to boost inner-city kids that need a boot camp in bourgeois values and crammers to get the children of liberal trustafarians into Harvard.  Most mothers will home-school alongside the other mothers in the neighborhood.  And we’ll do away with child labor laws, because Gen-A thinkers will insist that kids should work while they learn, and why not have employers subsidize the education of their employees as in the olden time?

Yeah.  Americans can be dreamers, too.

For sure, humans naturally want protection, because there are nasty dangers out there.

Government offers protection.  But so does insurance, and so do savings, and so do families, and so does charity, and so does billionaire philanthropy.  All these different social institutions offer protection for different things, in different ways.  And they do it well.

Government is force, so its protection should be for dangers that can be mitigated only by armies and policemen.  And the occasional regulator that does his job, Ben.

Insurance is protection against unusual dangers; savings is for protection against predictable dangers; families are for protection of those nearest and dearest.  Charity is to rescue people driven into the ditch.  Philanthropy is a good way of keeping rich men out of trouble.

The question is, how much shall we force some Americans to protect other Americans from danger?  Shall we protect American workers from Chinese workers?  Shall we protect employees from employers?  Shall we protect mature industries from startups?  From Walmarts and Amazons?  Shall we protect special snowflakes from haters?  By force?

That’s why we have a budget deficit: because a lot of people want to force the American people to help them, but not quite as many people want to pay for it.

One more thing: no pensions for government employees.  These low-risk lifers should pay for their own bloody retirement.

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.

Okay, so our pal Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has done a budget deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that does not do a thing about moderating spending, let alone balancing the federal budget.

And this, we understand, is a Very Bad Thing.

But how bad is it?  Here is a chart of U.S. deficits since 1950, in percent of GDP.

The worst deficits were incurred after the Crash of 2008.  But that is a Good Thing, because after defense, the most important job for government is to be lender of last resort in a financial meltdown.  Oh, and the reason we had a crash at all is because Gentle Ben Bernanke choked in September 2008 as lender of last resort and decided that he didn’t have the authority to bail out Lehman Brothers.  Ben, oh Ben.  How could you?

Then there were the Reaganite 1980s with deficits of 4 percent of GDP.  But since Reagan was busy winning the Cold War while reviving the U.S. economy and killing inflation, who is to argue with success?

And now, with the deficit now down to about 2 percent of GDP, what’s the problem?

It’s true that the entitlements have trillions in unfunded liabilities; that many blue states are facing ruin from underfunded government employee pension programs; and that if nothing is done, we will come eventually to what Kevin Williamson calls “The Crash.”

Well, maybe.  But maybe not.

Here’s how I think we could beat the rap.  We could have the Trump economy keep going.  We could have Democrats fed to the meat-grinder in the worst U.S. government scandal since Watergate Teapot Dome.  We could have a Trump re-election in 2020 with a 55-45 landslide as ordinary Americans of all races and both sexes come to think that “Trump cares about people like me.”  We could have Supreme Court decisions rolling back the fascist totalitarians at the nation’s elite finishing schools.  We could have middle-class mothers pushing school choice and elite mothers naming and shaming other elite mothers who don’t homeschool.  We could have Steve Bannon’s The Permanent Republican Majority atop the bestseller list for 30 weeks straight in 2021.

You think that is crazy?  How about this?

In the mid-2020s, a Generation Alpha, fed up with the snowflakes and victims of Millennials and GenZ, arises to champion the principle of personal responsibility.  Gen-A will say Social Protection means nothing if it is a government program; real social protection means a web of social individuals saving their own money for all the challenges of life: college, sickness, retirement, end of life.  Of course, Gen-A wants to provide for the less fortunate, but government sucks at that, so Gen-A wants to create a true safety net of people helping people, backed up by a Billionaires Club that only the nine richest self-made men and one self-made woman in America can join; liberal trustafarians need not apply.  There won’t be many schools, except for KIPP-type schools to boost inner-city kids that need a boot camp in bourgeois values and crammers to get the children of liberal trustafarians into Harvard.  Most mothers will home-school alongside the other mothers in the neighborhood.  And we’ll do away with child labor laws, because Gen-A thinkers will insist that kids should work while they learn, and why not have employers subsidize the education of their employees as in the olden time?

Yeah.  Americans can be dreamers, too.

For sure, humans naturally want protection, because there are nasty dangers out there.

Government offers protection.  But so does insurance, and so do savings, and so do families, and so does charity, and so does billionaire philanthropy.  All these different social institutions offer protection for different things, in different ways.  And they do it well.

Government is force, so its protection should be for dangers that can be mitigated only by armies and policemen.  And the occasional regulator that does his job, Ben.

Insurance is protection against unusual dangers; savings is for protection against predictable dangers; families are for protection of those nearest and dearest.  Charity is to rescue people driven into the ditch.  Philanthropy is a good way of keeping rich men out of trouble.

The question is, how much shall we force some Americans to protect other Americans from danger?  Shall we protect American workers from Chinese workers?  Shall we protect employees from employers?  Shall we protect mature industries from startups?  From Walmarts and Amazons?  Shall we protect special snowflakes from haters?  By force?

That’s why we have a budget deficit: because a lot of people want to force the American people to help them, but not quite as many people want to pay for it.

One more thing: no pensions for government employees.  These low-risk lifers should pay for their own bloody retirement.

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