‘Looks Like a Depreciating Stock’

Townhall

Bill Maher: 

Joe Biden 'Looks Like a Depreciating Stock'

Beth Baumann

Liberal HBO host Bill Maher has, surprisingly, been the voice of reason for the Democrats lately. A couple weeks ago he tore into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, for their swampy behavior in Ukraine. And he finally said what average Americans have been saying all along: Biden has very little chance of beating President Donald Trump next year, assuming he even becomes the Democrats' nominee. 

"I like Joe. He's never been my favorite. If he is the guy to beat Trump, I’m was like, let’s not kill him, because if he is the one. But I must say...my confidence that he can beat Trump is waning," Maher said on Friday night with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). "He looks like a depreciating stock to me."

And Maher brought up another issue with Biden: he is old and white, the very thing Democrats accuse the Republican Party of being. 

"I’m not trying to get Joe out," he told Klobuchar. "We do need someone in the center who is a younger and female."

Democrats continue to defend Biden even though it's obvious that what took place in Ukraine was the definition of political corruption. Hunter was being paid $50,000 a month by a Ukrainian gas company, despite having no natural energy experience. But the real kicker is that Vice President Biden was handling international relations with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration. That's not coincidental.

The Democrats have focused on blaming President Trump for alerting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of the Bidens' corrupt behavior and asking for him to investigate what took place. 

The Democratic Party would be wise to listen to Maher on this one. But they'll probably just write him off as a comedian who has no idea what he's talking about. And that's a win for conservatives.

Democrats ratchet up..

Washington Examiner

Democrats ratchet up impeachment secrecy

by Byron York 

 | October 12, 2019 11:12 PM

A week ago, House Republicans complained that Democrats imposed excessive secrecy on interviews conducted as part of the drive to impeach President Trump. Now, the situation appears to have gotten worse.

Friday's interview of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, marked a new point — a low point, as Republicans see it — in Democratic efforts to keep impeachment information out of public view. 

In this way: The two previous impeachment interviews, with former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, were conducted in the format of what is known as a transcribed interview. Rep. Adam Schiff, who is running the Democratic impeachment effort, decreed that transcripts not be released to the public. At the same time, there were no heavily restrictive rules on what would happen should any member of Congress, acting from memory, reveal things that were said in the interview.

The Yovanovitch session was different. Democrats conducted the interview in the format of a deposition, which is different from a transcribed interview. One key difference is that there are serious penalties for lawmakers who reveal the contents of a deposition. Doing so would almost surely subject the offending member to a House ethics investigation.

All Republicans remember the price paid by Rep. Devin Nunes, who in 2017, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, faced an ethics investigation based on a complaint from a Democratic-allied outside group alleging he leaked classified information. Nunes was later cleared of all the charges, but he had to distance himself from some committee activities as the investigation slowly proceeded.

Now, some Republican lawmakers express fear of Democrats siccing an ethics investigation on them if they reveal what took place in the Yovanovitch interview, even though none of what was discussed was classified. Look at what happened to Nunes, they say.

So Republicans feel tight restrictions on what they can say. What was Yovanovitch asked? What did she answer? Were her answers consistent with what is known about the case? Republicans can't say, fearful that Schiff and Democrats will come after them.

Here is the clever part, from the Democratic perspective. As the Yovanovitch interview began, her 10-page opening statement quickly leaked. In it, Yovanovitch made her case for all the press to read. Headline after headline appeared, all based on the statement:

• Washington Post: "Ousted ambassador Marie Yovanovitch tells Congress Trump pressured State Dept. to remove her."

• Politico: "Marie Yovanovitch says Trump ousted her over 'unfounded and false claims.'"

• CNN: "Former US ambassador to Ukraine says Trump wanted her removed and blames 'unfounded and false claims.'"

• New York Times: "Ukraine Envoy Says She Was Told Trump Wanted Her Out Over Lack of Trust."

• Wall Street Journal: "Trump Pressed for Ukraine Envoy's Removal, She Tells Lawmakers."
• 
  

Democrats and Yovanovitch got their side of the story out without any rebuttal from Republicans. Beyond the leaked written statement, what did she actually say in the deposition? Did Republicans question her about her claims? Did the questioning reveal any facts not included in Yovanovitch's opening statement? Were there any contradictions?

None of that was known. Yovanovitch's opening statement instantly became the accepted version of the story. Meanwhile, Republicans said nothing.

Take, for example, Rep. Scott Perry, one of the four GOP House members in the room. Appearing on Fox News Friday night, Perry was asked what was said at the deposition. "Unfortunately, in the ever-changing rules situation here, I can't tell you what happened in that room," Perry answered.

In private conversation, other sources were equally reticent. All were silenced by the Democrats' strategic use of House procedures.

"Depositions are governed by very specific House regulations," said a House staffer in a text exchange. "Only one lawyer can ask questions per round, agency counsel is barred from attending, and the testimony is close hold. Transcribed interviews, in comparison, really don't have any hard rules." The only exception, the staffer said, is a closed session of the Intelligence Committee, which is not what the Yovanovitch deposition was.

Finally, the contents of the interview are being kept secret not only from the public but from other lawmakers. Perhaps a dozen members have heard any of the testimony in the impeachment hearings so far. The other 420 or so don't know what went on.

In his much-criticized letter to Congress, White House counsel Pat Cipollone said Democratic handling of the impeachment investigation "violates fundamental fairness." He meant fairness toward the target of the proceeding, President Trump. But there is also the question of fairness toward the American people trying to follow an impeachment process shrouded in secrecy. Don't they have the right to know what the president's accusers say? 

He who must not be named:

The Hill

He who must not be named: 

How Hunter Biden became a conversation-stopper

Hunter Biden: The mere mention of his name seemingly triggers the vapors among cable TV hosts and their guests.

When President Trump turned to the Bidens and Ukraine in a speech, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace cut off the coverage, declaring she had to protect the listeners: “We hate to do this, really, but the president isn't telling the truth.” When Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) tried to answer a question about the Ukraine scandal by referencing the Bidens, “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd angrily told him not to “gaslight” the nation.

The Bidens, simply, are not what well-bred people discuss in polite company, apparently. Indeed, many journalists seem to be channeling not Edward R. Murrow, the fabled CBS newscaster, but Florence Hartley, the author of “The Ladies' Book of Etiquette, and Manual of Politeness” in 1872. Hartley warned her readers to “avoid, at all times, mentioning subjects or incidents that can in any way disgust your hearers.”

For news shows on MSNBC, CNN and other cable networks, nothing is more disgusting than the mention of what Hunter Biden actually was doing in Ukraine.

For those brave enough to read on, I wish to dispense with one threshold issue: I was critical of claims over the last three years of “proven” crimes and impeachable offenses in the Russia investigation. However, the first day that Trump’s Ukraine call was disclosed, I stated that — if a quid pro quo were proved — the alleged self-dealing with military aid would be an impeachable offense. My point: Raising concerns over Hunter Biden does not mean you are excusing Trump’s actions.

What is most remarkable about the paucity of coverage of Hunter Biden’s dealings is the conclusory mantra that “this has all been investigated.” Many TV hosts prefer to focus on President Trump’s dubious claim that former Vice President Joe Biden forced the firing of Ukraine’s chief prosecutor to protect his son. I, too, fail to see compelling evidence to support Trump’s charge.

There is, however, that other problem of Hunter Biden landing a windfall contract with one of Ukraine’s most corrupt figures after his father took charge of potentially billions in U.S. loans and aid for Ukraine. That is what no one seems to want to discuss.

Indeed, the Biden campaign has been remarkably open in demanding that news organizations stop airing interviews or publishing articles about the allegations. Instead of calling it “fake news” (which is virtually copyrighted by Trump), the Biden campaign calls such coverage “conspiracy theories.”

Thus, the campaign wrote to various networks, demanding that they stop airing interviews on the scandal with figures such as Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Kate Bedingfield, deputy manager of the Biden campaign, also denounced The New York Times for publishing an op-ed by author Peter Schweizer on the controversy. The campaign apparently expected the Times and the networks to fall in line and bar others from even expressing a view.

Most recently, the campaign fired off letters to Facebook, Twitter and Google, demanding that they take down Trump ads referencing the Hunter Biden contracts. This normally would be viewed as unbridled hubris and arrogance — except that many TV news hosts are doing precisely what the campaign has demanded.

When Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) raised the issue on CNN, host Erin Burnett cut him off: “There is no evidence of Joe Biden doing anything wrong, and this is something that has been looked into, and I think — I want to make a point here — I think what we need to talk about right now is what did the president right now do or not do.” Other CNN hosts have repeated the line of “no evidence of wrongdoing” like a virtual incantation.

Whether the energy company involved with Hunter Biden was fully investigated by Ukraine is hardly a measure of culpability. Ukraine is widely considered one of the more corrupt places on Earth, where paying the children and spouses of powerful people is routine. Indeed, it is quite common in this country, too — and I’ve criticized that practice for more than 30 years in Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Yet Ukraine was a virtual gold rush for Washington’s elite. Paul Manafortmade millions working for Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s corrupt former president. Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig and his law firm tapped into Yanukovych, too. Tony Podesta, Democratic powerbroker and brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman, were implicated in Ukraine dealings.

Hunter Biden’s quest for Ukrainian gold took him to one of Yanukovych’s most controversial and corrupt associates, Mykola Zlochevsky, who leveraged his post as minister of ecology and natural resources to build a fortune. Before fleeing Ukraine, Zlochevsky paid Hunter Biden and several other Americans to be directors of his energy company, Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden had no experience in the field — but he did have a notable connection to the vice president, who publicly has bragged about making clear to the Ukrainians that he alone controlled U.S. aid to the country. A stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry also was asked to serve as a director but reportedly declined and warned Hunter Biden not to do it; Biden didn’t listen. He later told The New Yorker that “the decisions that I made were the right decisions for my family and for me.”

His decisions certainly were profitable, but they were not “right” as an ethical matter for himself or his father.

Joe Biden has insisted he never spoke with his son about his foreign dealings — an incredible but categorical statement. The then-vice president flew with his son on Air Force Two on an official trip to China but suggests they never discussed his son’s deal seeking $1.5 billion in investments with the state-backed Bank of China. During the trip, Hunter reportedly introduced his father to Chinese private equity executive Jonathan Li, who was part of that deal. Yet Biden insists he was never told of any business linkage or dealings.

If true, Biden was, at a minimum, willfully blind not to ask his son about potential conflicts or controversies. But it does not appear to be true, at least in part — because Hunter Biden has said he informed his father about the Ukraine deal.

All of this should be of some interest to the media, which has exhaustively — and rightfully — pursued foreign deals by the Trump family. And there is no reason why the media cannot pursue allegations against both the Trumps and the Bidens.

That, however, would counter the narrative that there’s “nothing wrong” with Hunter Biden’s dealings and that it’s all a “lie” that’s best to ignore. As Hartley explained in 1872, good manners dictate that you “never attempt to disparage an absent friend. It is the height of meanness.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and previously represented the House of Representatives and also served as the last lead defense counsel in a Senate impeachment trial. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

President Trump is 100% Correct on Syria Withdrawal – Here’s Why

Eight years ago Zurich Mike penned an analogy of the ‘Islamist Spring’ that still rings true today, when he said: President Obama helped kill the zookeepers and unleashed the big cats…. The Turkish movement into Syria is all part of this continuum.

When President Obama ignited the “Islamist Spring” with his speech in Cairo Egypt, what he really articulated was a shift in U.S. foreign policy to support The Muslim Brotherhood.

Political Islam, writ large, is represented by The Brotherhood.  Turkish President Recep Erdogan sees himself as the modern leader of political Islam using the Brotherhood to recreate the Ottoman Empire.

Ben Ali (Tunis), Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) and Khadaffi (Libya), were the first zookeepers removed.  Obama’s U.S. foreign policy supported Muslim Brotherhood replacements like Mohamed Morsi in Egypt.  However, Obama failed in the effort to remove Bashir Assad in Syria; as a result all extremist factions of the Brotherhood gathered to form ISIS.

Factions like al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and ISIS all fall under the umbrella of The Muslim Brotherhood.  The exiled Brotherhood leaders initially fled Egypt to Qatar until they were further driven-out by the Gulf Cooperation Council and ultimately given safe-harbor in Turkey, by Recep Erdogan.

As a gatekeeper between radical Islamist elements and Europe, President Erdogan holds the ultimate leverage and blackmail over his NATO allies.  If Europe does not acquiesce to the whims of Erodogan, he can open the gates and flood the EU with extremists.  Erdogan loves to play this power game against the EU and ultimately against the U.S.

President Obama embraced President Erdogan because ideologically the Obama administration and Erdogan both supported political Islam, The Muslim Brotherhood.

Erdogan’s regional arch nemesis is Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.  As a general al Sisi had to deal with the outcomes of Muslim Brotherhood extremism, and ultimately remove Mohamed Morsi from office.   President Sisi formed the Arab coalition that is now aligned with President Donald Trump against the radical elements of political Islam known as The Muslim Brotherhood.

The U.S. Arab coalition includes Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Yemen.  Additionally the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are aligned against the radical elements within political Islam (The Brotherhood), and the U.S. is supporting the coalition with self-defense military purchases.

Regarding the Northern Syria border with Turkey, many of our U.S. politicians want the U.S. military to continue the role of zookeepers to keep political Islam in check.  In essence the Lindsey Graham position is for the U.S. military to remain in Syria to keep the big cat cages closed.  Graham’s policy viewpoint means no exit from the middle-east, ever.

However, Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan wants to be the biggest cat in the zoo.  His goal is the recreation of the Ottoman Empire and his alignment with The Muslim Brotherhood is purposeful to achieve this goal.

Ultimately the largest stakeholder in this dynamic is Europe, because they stand the greatest risk if Erdogan is successful and then turns his assembly toward Europe.  Remember, Erdogan as President of Turkey is now the gatekeeper; and Erdogan is also a member of NATO.

Unfortunately Europe will not defend itself; will not kick Erdogan out of NATO; will not take their own ISIS fighters back for trial and punishment; and instead, just like Lindsey Graham, the EU demands the U.S. remain as perpetual zookeepers.

Additionally to further provoke antagonism in policy, the EU will not pay for the U.S. to remain as zookeepers and the EU simultaneously fights the U.S. on trade agreements so they can continue their one-way financial benefits.

So what has President Trump decided?  What are the outcomes?

Turkish President Erdogan was going to enter Syria regardless of what the EU, NATO or the U.S. said about it.  Erdogan has the support of political Islam, that’s what is important to his objectives.  The EU is so weak, they won’t kick Turkey out of NATO.

Ultimately President Trump is highlighting the reason why the U.S. should withdraw from NATO by spotlighting the insufferable weakness of the assembly.  NATO won’t even vote to defend their own interests, so why should the U.S. be their crutch?

With Europe refusing to stand-up to defend their own interests, President Trump is removing U.S. forces from the untenable position of guarding all the big cat cages, ad infinitum, to keep the zoo status intact.

Instead, President Trump is going to support the Arab coalition and the GCC that has been assembling a military coalition to protect itself from the Muslim Brotherhood.

That is why President Trump is willing to support Saudi Arabia with more troops, while withdrawing from Syria were the U.S. was having to stand alone to protect the interests of Europeans who will not protect themselves.

In one regional area the U.S. will support and defend Israel, Egypt and Jordan. In the Southern region the U.S. will support the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain and Qatar).

Will political Islam likely have a resurgence in the region, and will Recep Erdogan rise as the head of the Ottoman Empire once again?   The former is likely, the latter is unknown.

President Trump is correctly withdrawing U.S. troops from a position of adversarialism against a NATO member.  Why should the U.S. protect the interests of allies who will not stand-up to protect themselves…

President Trump is correct.

President Trump will use economic weapons against Turkey…. And, in keeping with the doctrine, Europe better watch out.  President Trump will likely use economic weapons against the EU for creating this mess and refusing to defend themselves.

President Trump will use military weapons to protect allies that are: (A) willing to protect themselves, and (B) willing to pay for the support of the U.S. military protection.

It is really a common sense doctrine… Help those who help themselves.

“Trump’s Trade Strategy Is Working”

CNBC Finally Gets It

Hat Tip OverTheMoonbat for making sure we didn’t miss this segment from last week.  This video also explains why Larry Kudlow, Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross and Peter Navarro have tended to spend more time discussing economic policy with CNBC analysts than Fox Business.   However, before watching, it is worth revisiting the background.

For three years CTH has explained the challenge in dealing with, or renegotiating with, the Beijing, China ideology.  Encapsulated thus in 2018:

[…] China has no cultural or political space between peace and war; they are a historic nation based on two points of polarity. They see peace and war as coexisting with each other.

China accepts and believes opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. Flowing between these polar states is a natural dynamic to be used -with serious contemplation- in advancing objectives as needed.

Peace or war. Win or lose. Yin and Yang. Culturally there is no middle position in dealings with China; they are not constitutionally capable of understanding or valuing the western philosophy of mutual benefit where concession of terms gains a larger outcome. If it does not benefit China, it is not done. The outlook is simply, a polarity of peace or war. In politics or economics the same perspective is true. It is a zero-sum outlook.

If it does not benefit China, it is not done !

Therefore the economic battle must be carefully waged to deliver a series of alternative thoughts in the mind of Beijing – where they view specific action as their best interest.

Any reversal in the current standard of benefit is viewed as a loss; the Chinese will not cede to any losses.  To challenge those who hold this zero-sum position, you must first change the current standard.

This means China must lose first before the negotiations can begin.  The baseline within the negotiation must be reset.  Once the baseline position is reset, then negotiation can be viewed by the Chinese as a gain.  This is the only way to get the Chinese to agree to any terms.

If the baseline losses to China are not currently firmed, such that Beijing and Xi Jinping see their current position as the standard, then President Trump and Bob Lighthizer need to wait longer before engaging.

Big Panda must see their diminished bamboo forest as the natural, current, and diminishing forecast status.  Only then will Panda engage in negotiations.  China must be in a seemingly perpetual stasis of losing before they will contemplate their need to achieve gains.  (read more)

That 2018 CTH discussion explains the basic issue in dealing with China.  Any financial pundit or Wall Street analyst who does not start their review of President Trump’s trade policy from that foundation would always be lost. This disconnect in basic understanding has been frustrating for years.

However, check out this video segment from Jim Cramer.

For the first time a mainstream analyst is finally starting to “get it”.  In a departure from the customary analysis of President Trump’s trade leverage, Mr. Cramer finally sees the Big Picture. WATCH:

The New Stalinism

The Daily Wire

OCTOBER 13TH, 2019

MENKEN: The New Stalinism

By  Yaakov Menken

A few days ago, a respected rabbi told me that when he heard Greta Thunberg’s speech before the United Nations, he understood how Joseph Stalin had managed to indoctrinate children so thoroughly that they were willing to report their own parents.

For those unfamiliar with the history of Stalin’s demonic rule over the Soviet Union, children were “educated” to believe that loyalty to country was more important than such antiquated, bourgeois concepts as loyalty to family. If a parent harbored ideas that made him or her an “enemy of the state,” children were encouraged and expected to report them to the authorities. This occurred countless times during and after the “Great Purge” of Trotskyites and others during the 1930s.

Thunberg received her own indoctrination regarding her parents’ betrayal: The world is coming to an end, the sky is falling, and the fault lies with the economy they built. Cars must be taken off the road, and carbon dioxide-producing power plants replaced with only solar and wind power — or we will all die. In her words, “entire ecosystems are collapsing,” though neither she nor her handlers can provide evidence of anything but growth. Since “we are in the beginning of a mass extinction,” there is no time for silly things like evidence or sober consideration. We must act, not think!

And she concluded with an implicit threat: “Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.” With rhetoric like that, how far-fetched is it to imagine that CEOs of energy companies might be imprisoned for imagined crimes against humanity?

Yet with all of that said, this is far from the most troubling example of Stalinism’s return. For that, we can look still closer to home: The effort to impeach President Donald Trump.

I must admit, it is troubling to imagine a U.S. head of state strong-arming the leader of a foreign government to do his or her bidding. I am referring, of course, to the possibility that Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor in order to end an investigation of corruption at an energy company that was then paying Hunter Biden $600,000 a year for consulting work (despite his utter lack of experience or knowledge of the energy industry).

And it is also troubling that Trump may have asked that Biden be investigated, not because of genuine suspicion of wrongdoing, but because it is politically expedient. Two wrongs do not make a right, and even in the immediate wake of the failed Mueller investigation, it was inappropriate.

But that doesn’t make Trump’s actions dangerous to democracy. It certainly doesn’t make his conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky worthy of the Constitution’s prescribed “high crimes and misdemeanors” impeachment criterion. That would require conclusive proof that Trump withheld aid to force Zelensky to settle a personal score. Everything we were assured would prove this true has been found false, from the transcript on down. Zelensky himself has volunteered that that their phone conversation was as friendly and unthreatening as the transcript appears to indicate.

Neither is this new. I referred earlier to the “failed” Mueller investigation, but by what measure was it a failure? Mueller executed his mission precisely. It merely failed to produce the results that Democrats, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in particular, assured us would emerge.

Democrats set their target in 2016, immediately following the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump: Impeachment. The goal came first and the search for evidence came later. And this is where the comparison to Stalinism is not merely appropriate, but frightening in its precision.

From 1936 to 1938, a series of large trials were held in Moscow of senior Communist leaders accused of treason against Stalin’s government. Most of them even confessed to their alleged crimes. Yet in 1937, an American commission led by John Dewey proved that many of the specific charges made during the trials could not have been true.

These were Stalin’s “Show Trials.” The “guilt” of the accused was predetermined, and evidence, whether true, distorted, or fabricated from whole cloth, came later — and only then in service of the predetermined conclusion.

During the middle of Mueller’s work, Democrats took control of Congress with a new “squad” of loud leftists demanding they “impeach the mother******.” And time and again they have tried and failed to find a way to justify their predetermined conclusion. When Mueller produced the “nothingburger” that Van Jones of CNN predicted, the calls for impeachment only grew louder.

This is why Democrats now refuse to vote for a formal impeachment inquiry — because doing so would permit Republicans to subpoena witnesses that would bring the full truth to light. As another prominent rabbi once told me in a different context: “When you are searching for the law, you find the law. When you’re searching for a place to hang your hat, you find a nail.”

The Democrats are now using Ukraine as the nail upon which to hang their predetermined conclusion. It is the very opposite of justice — and incredibly dangerous for the future of our democracy.

Rabbi Yaakov Menken is the Managing Director of the Coalition for Jewish Values.

Today’s liberals are not...

American Thinker

Today's liberals are not Progressives, 

but Regressives

The time between 1890 and 1920 was known as the Progressive Era.  It was a time when Americans demanded responses to a number of economic and social problems.  These problems were brought about by the transformative Industrial Revolution (I.R.).

The I.R. propelled the U.S. to have the world's largest and most prosperous economy.  It was remarkable, since the U.S. went from the birth of the nation to the most prosperous in less than 150 years.  Other countries were hundreds or even thousands of years older.

But with the prosperity and a much higher quality standard of living came some economic and social problems.

Prior to the I.R., there were no factory jobs.  As a result, the labor force was generally employed in agriculture, ranching, or a skilled trade.  Many families simply produced enough to sustain the family, usually with a minimum of tools.  This resulted in a lifestyle where there was little extra income earned.

The I.R. changed that.

Machines were built in factories that could efficiently produce many goods.  Factory jobs began to appear.  Because of these factories, workers became very productive.  As such, they could earn much higher wages.  But every time a new factory opened, thousands of workers applied for just hundreds of jobs.  That resulted in low wages.

Still, the workers reasoned, the wages were higher than they could earn elsewhere.  In some instances, labor market conditions were such that the wage was extremely low — so low that only children would work those jobs.  In addition, working conditions were poor, and children were mistreated.

Americans reacted to this by demanding that the country progress forward to cure these social injustices.  According to the History Department at The George Washington University, these progressives "were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace."

Essentially, this was when decisions had to be made about the role of government in regulating big business.  Also, since the country was so prosperous, what public goods should the government offer?

By the time the Progressive Era ended around 1920, the Progressives' goals were on their way to being met.  Workers were gaining protections in the workplace, and the role of government was being expanded.

There was, however, some resistance to expanding the role of government.  Some argued that our economy was able to prosper because Americans were free to pursue their interests without government intervention.  They also feared that once the government intervened, more control and regulation would follow.  That will tend to slow economic growth.

There was also some concern about the government providing more services to the public.  That's because the extra services had to be paid for by income-earners.  The resulting higher taxes tend to reduce economic growth.  The Progressives said they did not agree with that assessment, since expenditures for public goods like education are really investments.

Over time, a balance was found where social injustices were held to a minimum and the economy prospered.  That balance reflected the need for social justice and adherence to the principles that fuel economic prosperity.  Those principles emphasize individual freedom, individual responsibility, low rates of taxation, and a limited role for government.

It is critical that the balance is kept.  Leaning too far to either side causes significant problems.  While Americans today tend to have a strong social conscience, this country was founded mainly because of our forefathers' quest for a less dominant government, lower taxes, and more individual freedom.

Today's liberals want to dramatically upset the balance.  From 2008 to 2016, liberals were successful in "fundamentally transforming America."  During that period, they heavily regulated health care and almost turned it into a public good.  They also severely regulated both the business sector and the banking industry.  That resulted in very slow economic growth and no prosperity.

Now they want to make health care a fully public good, paid for by higher taxes.  They also want to make higher education a public good, paid for by higher taxes.  And they want to regulate heavily, which will be paid for by higher taxes or higher prices for goods and services.  Often it seems as if they want to regulate everything.

This would not move the country forward.  This would result in the economy stagnating and  never seeing true economic prosperity again.  Why?  Simply because the increase in public goods leads to increases in taxes.  That results in less overall demand from consumers.  That means less growth.

Since the wealthy would end up paying way more in taxes, there would be way less capital going into markets.  In a capital-intensive economy, that means slow growth.

This would not be progressive; this would be regressive.  We would go back to the time before our independence, when taxes were high, the government was heavy-handed, and there was less individual freedom.

Today's liberals really are Regressives.

Michael Busler, Ph.D. is a public policy analyst and a professor of finance at Stockton University, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in finance and economics.

Sent from my iPad

Sunday Talks: Defense Secretary Mark Esper -vs- Chris Wallace (VIDEO)

Debate Turkey, Syria, Kurds and Ultimately The Ottoman Empire and The Muslim Brotherhood

Defense Secretary Mark Esper discusses and defends President Trump’s smart decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Northern Syria in advance of Turkish forces launching an assault into Syria against Kurdish forces and the SDF.

The background here goes back to Turkish President Recep Ergodan, a gatekeeper between the middle-east and Europe; and his intention to use his ideological alignment with political Islam, via the Muslim Brotherhood, to recreate the Ottoman Empire.

Kaddaffi (Libya), Hosni Mubarak (Egypt), Abdullah Salah, and Ben Ali (Tunisia). 

“The Islamist Spring” Gatekeepers. 

ICYMI: NYT Admits Obama Admin Deployed Multiple Spies Against Trump Campaign In 2016

May 2, 2019 - The Federalist

The New York Times admitted on Thursday that the Obama administration deployed multiple spies against the Trump campaign in 2016, confirming recent comments by Attorney General William Barr that 'spying did occur' during the campaign.

Following months of angry claims by journalists and Democratic operatives that the Obama administration never spied on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times admitted Thursday that multiple overseas intelligence assets were deployed against associates of the Republican nominee. It is not the first time the Times has revealed widespread spying operations against the campaign.

In addition to noting that long-time informant Stefan Halper was tasked with collecting intelligence on the Trump campaign, the Times story details how a woman was sent overseas under a fake name and occupation to oversee the spy operation. The woman’s real name is not mentioned in the article, though the Times says she went by “Azra Turk” and has a relationship with an unidentified federal intelligence agency.

Halper was handpicked by a seasoned FBI counterintelligence agent out of the New York office, according to the article. While the Times does not identify the agent by name, the paper says the FBI agent spoke at a conference organized by Halper about a 2010 case involving Russians posing as Americans. The public schedule for a 2011 conference hosted by Halper about the exact same case shows that three FBI counterintelligence agents were invited to speak on the topic.

The three agents publicly identified as speaking at that conference on the topic are George J. Ennis, Jr., Alan E. Kohler, Jr., and Stephen M. Somma. Ennis currently serves as the special agent in charge in the FBI’s New York office, according to his LinkedIn profile, and worked closely with Preet Bharara, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a virulent anti-Trump activist whom the president fired in 2017.

The public schedule for a 2014 conference led by Halper shows that Kohler also spoke to the same group about the same Russian case on May 9, 2014.

“Alan Kohler the FBI representative at the United States Embassy in London will talk about the challenges of modern counter espionage: including the case of Anna Chapman and other Russian illegals,” the schedule noted.

A representative for the FBI’s office in Norfolk, where Kohler worked as of March 2017, said he is no longer with that office. The representative, who refused to provide her name, did not say when or why Kohler left that office or whether he was still employed by the FBI. The FBI’s New York office did not respond to queries about the current employment status of Kohler, Ennis, or Somma.

Real estate records show Kohler relocated to the Washington, D.C. area from Norfolk in July of 2017, shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate alleged connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. When asked whether Kohler had been transferred to the FBI’s Washington field office, an FBI representative for that office directed the questions to the FBI headquarters in D.C. The FBI refused to comment when asked whether Kohler had been detailed to work on Mueller’s investigation of Trump or whether he was the agent responsible for deploying Halper against the Trump campaign in 2016.

“Turk,” the U.S. intelligence operative who claimed to work as Halper’s assistant, had previously been identified to George Papadopoulos, whom she targeted, as a spy who rather blatantly tried to plumb him for information about Russia and other topics. After the Times published its article on “Turk,” Papadopolous wrote on Twitter that she “clearly was not FBI” and instead “was CIA and affiliated with Turkish intel.”

“She could hardly speak English and was tasked to meet me about my work in the energy sector offshore Israel/Cyprus which Turkey was competing with,” Papadopoulos wrote.

The NYT also admits in its article that the aggressive and unprecedented action of deploying spies and luring American targets overseas to collect intelligence on a rival political campaign “yielded no fruitful information.” It is not clear whether information collected by Halper and “Turk” was used to justify formal spy warrants against any U.S. citizens.

Why Leak This News Now?

The New York Times has repeatedly been used by FBI officials who ran the anti-Trump spy operation to launder damaging information that reflects poorly on the agency. Nearly a year ago, the Times confirmed that the U.S. intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

While that article included explosive revelations, it downplayed their significance and later curiously denied that any spying had ever occurred:

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said …

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.

In that case, the ostensible purpose of the leak was to get ahead of what congressional investigators had figured out: the Obama administration targeted the Trump campaign with secret informants.

The leak that fueled the Thursday NYT bombshell was likely placed in anticipation of the formal release of even more damaging information about how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies potentially abused their authority to punish the government’s political enemies. The article specifically references the forthcoming release of an extensive inspector general review of potential improprieties at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

By leaking the information to the friendliest of friendly reporters, including Michael Schmidt at the Times, the individuals who ran the anti-Trump operation are likely hoping to spin the news in their favor.

This Explains the Anti-Barr Freakout

So long as anti-Trump operatives controlled the FBI and DOJ, this type of leaking and concealing of information worked well. Most major media outlets have chosen to ignore the spying scandal in favor of non-stop anti-Trump advocacy. That left actual fact-finding and truth-seeking to a small group of media outlets and a handful of elected lawmakers tasked with oversight of the nation’s spy agencies.

When William Barr took over as attorney general, it was the first time in years the agency had any real political accountability. Trump’s first attorney general recused himself from overseeing anything related to the 2016 campaign, and his deputy who took over is alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to oust the president.

While Barr was adamant that Mueller’s special counsel probe be unimpeded and his report fully published, he scared the anti-Trump forces in and out of government when he said spying on opposing political campaigns is inappropriate. His public vow to examine whether the widespread spying operation against Trump and his affiliates was lawful and appropriate sent shockwaves through an organized anti-Trump political operation that had completely controlled the narrative until recently.

Sean Davis contributed to this report.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. 

She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor.