Wednesday, December 25, 2019

W³P Christmas Day OPEN THREAD🎄



Merry Christmas to the W³P community. 

Here's an open thread for holiday music, 
touching or funny videos and comments, 
or really anything you wanna post, 
because OPEN THREAD. 

I'll start things off with this Intellectual Froglegs video:


Durham Looks At Brennan For What Exactly? A Former Federal Prosecutor Explains The Possible Criminal Misconduct



Now that former CIA head John Brennan has become part of the focus in U.S. Attorney John Durham’s criminal probe into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation, speculation begins in earnest as to what exactly, if any, crimes were committed by him or other former heads of the intelligence agencies implicated, such as former FBI head James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Former Federal Prosecutor Robert Ray, in an interview Monday on Fox News, attempts to answer exactly what Durham may be interested in with regard to Brennan, up to and including whether he lied to Congress, what information related to the Steele dossier was shared between intelligence agencies, and whether there was a concerted effort to leak information to the press in a propaganda campaign to build public support for a Russia collusion investigation.

He also alludes to something that was originally reported on favorably when it began around the time of the 2016 election, but has since gained notoriety in the wake of Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony during the impeachment inquiry: a coordinated interagency group that may have been working against the Trump administration.

“There’s always been a divide, and a well-recognized one, between the intel community’s mission, which is to keep us safe; and the law enforcement mission through the FBI to prosecute those who have engaged in criminal misconduct,” Ray said Monday. “The danger is when the two overlap — and the FBI’s mission has changed a bit post- 9/11 to include an intelligence function as well. The problem is that ‘s subject to potential mischief.”

Ray said that Durham may be very interested in if the agencies were sharing information about the now-infamous Steele dossier, and if they knew of the political origins of that document and presumably the problems with its veracity and the reputation of its author, Christopher Steele.

“What did the intelligence community actually know about the Steele dossier, its origins and the potential political bias behind it,” Ray said of the focus of Durham’s probe into Brennan. “And also what were they doing behind the scenes and comparing that with what [Brennan and Clapper’s] public statements were.”

Ray seems to be alluding to cooperation between intelligence agencies in their intent to investigate the Trump campaign, something that was initially touted by left-leaning media outlets such as Vox when Brennan created the “interagency group” in early 2016 (with some reports indicating their work began even earlier).

BBC’s report claims that an interagency group was created when the CIA director last April allegedly received “a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.” The McClatchy report says the interagency group is looking into whether the Kremlin itself funneled money to hackers as part of Russia’s attempt to covertly help Trump win his campaign. And the Times report says that key former Trump advisers are being scrutinized closely for potential links with Moscow.
Crucially, all the reports indicate that this investigation began before the FBI was fed the now-infamous dossier alleging that Russian operatives had sensitive information that would embarrass and undermine Trump, and that there was “a continuing exchange of information during the [presidential] campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”
The new reports offer no insight into the claims made in the dossier, but they do show that many in the US intelligence community are taking claims about Trump’s links to Russia very seriously. And if they were to find concrete evidence of links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, it would have the potential to unravel Trump’s entire presidency.

The claim in the Vox piece that the interagency group was reaching consensus before the Steele dossier crossed their threshold was meant to legitimize the concerns of Russia collusion and downplay the idea that the dossier was a crucial piece of evidence. Now, thanks to Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, we know that the dossier was indeed an integral part of the DOJ’s FISA warrants used to spy on Carter Page and the Trump campaign.

More telling, was Lt. Col. Vindman’s impeachment inquiry testimony referring to an interagency consensus that took issue with the direction of Trump’s foreign policy.

Are there two interagency working groups, or does this one group form a link between the Russia collusion investigation and Trump’s impeachment?

And, as Ray remarks when questioned in Monday’s interview about the media’s role, just how did this formal group or the intelligence agencies informally coordinate to involve the press in their plan?

“That’s the other concern…whether there was an orchestrated campaign to engage in leaks in order to further press and public sentiment in favor of the FBI opening up a criminal [Russia collusion] investigation,” Ray said.

Depending upon what Durham uncovers, several players — including the press — are going to have to do more than dismiss the notion that a Deep State exists. They may end up having to counter evidentiary information that proves it.

Why Democrats Will Never End The Impeachment Show Until Trump Is Gone For Good



Impeachment is propelling Trump support in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, three key battleground states where he now leads every Democratic contender.

The Democrats have made one thing perfectly clear throughout their impeachment crusade: they will not rest as long as Donald Trump is president of the United States.

Their obsession with impeachment has little to do with anything President Trump did, and everything to do with who he is. Democrats never expected to lose the 2016 election—especially not to Donald Trump—and resolved to correct the voters’ unforgiveable “mistake” even before the president took office.

The Democrats have floated the idea of impeachment over demonstrably fake Russian collusion conspiracy theories, tabloid drivel about porn stars, and even the president’s criticism of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.

With time running out before the 2020 presidential race gets into full swing, they seized on the only thing they had left: exaggerated “concerns” with a phone call to the newly elected Ukrainian president, padded with testimony from a slew of disgruntled national security officials upset that the president wanted to make his own foreign policy decisions, and a harebrained theory about how it was all illegal.

By any measure, the charade was a monumental failure. According to Gallup, in October, support for impeachment was 52 percent while opposition was 46 percent. Following the House impeachment hearings, those numbers flipped, with 51 percent opposing and 46 percent supporting.

Over that same period of time, Gallup also has Trump’s job approval increasing 6 percentage points, from 39 percent to 45 percent. Rasmussenhas it increasing from 45 percent to 50 percent. According to Axios, impeachment is propelling Trump support in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, three key battleground states where he now leads every Democratic contender.

In the midst of declining popular support, is it any surprise that this nakedly political grandstanding failed to win over a single elected Republican, including those highly critical of Trump, while a few Democrats broke ranks and voted against impeachment because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for impeachment on such a flimsy basis?

Unfortunately, even this political disaster won’t actually be the end of the Democrats’ impeachment crusade. Trump’s free-market policies have fostered a booming labor market benefitting a broad cross-section of Americans. Trump’s success is an existential challenge to the leftist mantra that that more and more government is the most effective way to improve peoples’ lives. Coming on the heels of the Obama era’s government expansion, Democrats find Trump’s success particularly galling.

As soon as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got most — but not all — of her caucus to approve her articles of impeachment, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stood ready to do his constitutional duty to receive those articles and begin the trial that will inevitably acquit the president of those trumped-up accusations.

That hasn’t happened because Pelosi hasn’t actually transmitted the impeachment articles to the GOP-controlled Senate, where she knows her impeachment folly will be dismissed as the debacle it truly has become. In a hilarious twist, one of the very law professors Democrats invited to testify before the House Judiciary Committee to argue for impeachment is now saying that President Trump hasn’t actually been impeached yet because of Pelosi’s stunt.

But even if President Trump is “officially” impeached, it will not change the significance of Pelosi’s stammering, indefensible explanation for delay. It included the statement, “Frankly, I don’t care what the Republicans say.”

Of course she doesn’t. This entire process has had absolutely nothing to do with upholding constitutional duties or about coming to a bipartisan conclusion in support of impeachment, as Pelosi said was so important mere weeks ago. It was always about putting on a political show for a rabidly partisan audience — and the show must go on.

The current Democrat talking point is that Pelosi is delaying to ensure there are fair procedures in place for a Senate trial. That’s a preposterous claim to make in the wake of a one-sided impeachment inquisition in which the Democrats restricted their Republican colleagues’ meaningful participation and declined to grant President Trump any due process in the name of expedience, which is now apparently unimportant. That won’t happen in the Senate, and Pelosi knows it.

Even if Pelosi does pass the articles of impeachment on to the Senate, that will still not be the end of it. Just as we saw after the special counsel report debunked their Russia collusion conspiracy theory, no setback can ever be enough to put a damper on the Democrats’ impeachment frenzy.

There will always be another “existential threat” or “constitutional crisis,” because in the minds of Democrat extremists, Trump himself is a threat to all they stand for, and removing him from office justifies whatever damage they might do to constitutional norms along the way. The show must go on, and it will.

We Now Know; Devin Nunes Reflects



In the aftermath of the Department of Justice Inspector General report on FISA abuse in the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency, Dan Bongino interviewed Rep. Devin Nunes at length about “the biggest political scandal in US history.” I have not previously heard Nunes speak at such length about the Russia hoax, at least since the release of the Horowitz report on December 9. I will only say that this is worth your time if you seek to understand the scandal. 

I have posted the YouTube version of the interview below. It is also accessible in the various podcast formats here at Bongino’s site and in other podcast formats noted there.


No Need for a Trial in the Senate, Articles of Impeachment ‘On Their Face Are Defective’



According to House Democrats, President Donald Trump was such an urgent threat that he needed be impeached with all haste, without witnesses the Democrats are now claiming they want, without waiting for the Courts’ decisions on pending subpoenas, without giving the Republicans the ability to call any fact witnesses to shoot holes in the already weak case. 

But then they decided to sit on the articles and play hide and seek with them, claiming they wanted a “fair trial” from the Senate and using that as an argument for calling the witnesses they couldn’t be bothered to wait for during the House proceedings. 

Democrats claim Trump is guilty of violating the Constitution or traditional norms. That’s nonsense when you look at how unprecedented this whole impeachment effort has been, especially the playing games with the articles. Even the Democrats’ own expert who they called during the proceedings, Harvard professor Noah Feldman has said if they sit on it beyond a short reasonable time, they are the ones not acting in accordance with the Constitution and denying the president a fair trial. 

But Bradley Blakeman, an adjunct professor of public policy and International affairs at Georgetown says all this game playing has left the Democrats deficient and that Sen Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has multiple possible options to play in response if they get the articles of impeachment, according to The Hill.

First, Blakeman says that the Senate can entertain a procedural motion to dismiss for failure to meet the constitutional threshold of setting forth “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That could be dismissed by a simple majority vote of 51, according to Blakeman. 
Second, they could hold the trial and ending it quickly, holding a vote, which would require 67 for removal which you’re not going to get. 

Third, they could hold a protracted trial calling witnesses for months, then hold a vote. 

Fourth, they could hold the trial and then have another motion to dismiss for failure by Democrats to prove their case. 

Fifth, is what Blakeman calls the “nuclear option.”

The Senate majority could make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020. That would allow the American people to decide the president’s fate at the ballot box. The Constitution is silent as to when a trial should occur, timewise. A simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary to pass such a motion.

Blakeman argues the articles are on their face defective and a trial is unnecessary.

In my opinion, a trial is unnecessary. The House articles, on their face, are defective. Both fail to meet the constitutional threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This would negate a trial but does not give the president any formal “acquittal,” after a trial on the merits of the articles, which would prove the president’s innocence. While this would be true in a traditional criminal judicial proceeding, it is not the case in a political trial. No matter how the Senate deals with the articles of impeachment, Democrats and Republicans will put their own political spin on the outcome. Since the House articles of impeachment were voted strictly on party lines, and the country is so divided on the whole impeachment process, in my opinion, a trial is less important.

He suggests the avenue that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appears to be pushing, shut it down immediately then go after everyone in separate Senate Judiciary investigation.

I believe the Senate can have its cake and eat it too. The Senate can dismiss the articles of impeachment on a procedural motion. Then, when the dust settles, the Senate Judiciary Committee through its chairman, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), could hold hearings to show what a “witch-hunt” the House process was. He can, in effect, conduct his own trial to “acquit” the president through Senate hearings. This would allow hearings to be conducted at the exact time that Democrats are seeking their party’s nomination for president — one of whom could be called to testify.

That may make the most sense, as long as they actually do it and hold people accountable. That’s the problem, they hold a lot of hearings then nothing happens. But they need to keep on confirming judges, so that the Judiciary is not impeded in any way by this nonsense, because Democrats are going to keep trying, until they get a drubbing in the election and/or they start suffering political and legal consequences for their actions.

‘Honey We Shrunk The Impeachment’: Kimberley Strassel Explains How Dems Narrowed Charges To Protect Themselves

Scott Morefield reporting for DCNF




Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel reasoned that Democrats may have kept the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump narrow in order to protect themselves.

The two articles of impeachment introduced Tuesday against the president, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, notably did not includeDemocrat talking points used throughout the impeachment inquiry, most notably “quid pro quo.”

Guest-host Brian Kilmeade asked Strassel about the curious narrowing of charges on Thursday night’s edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board member told Kilmeade how she and her fellow board members called the articles “honey, we shrunk the impeachment” because for months “we’ve been listening to Democrats use words like ‘extortion,’ ‘quid quo pro.'” 

She then went on to explain that Democrats may have had a reason for doing so:

“Adam Schiff spent six weeks lecturing the country on the proper definition of bribery, which was something removed from all statutes or the history of the country, but it was the way they had to define it in order to pack it in what they say Donald Trump did,” she explained. “And then suddenly it disappears and this is because someone in the Democratic Party realized, if you’re going to expand the definition the way they did and say any time any politician asks for something from another country in a way that might benefit them in some way, that their own party would be implicated.”


The Hellish Legacy of the Dingell Family



A decade ago, Time Magazine unveiled an in-depth article on the death of Detroit. One of the politicians whom the article blamed for Detroit’s woes was Rep. John Dingell.

The Dingell clan has held a congressional seat outside Detroit since 1932. Their 87-year tenure has not coincidentally coincided with the decline of a thriving industrial city into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

But it’s been good for the Dingells, three of whom have sat in their congressional seat since the days of Herbert Hoover, the rise of Hitler, and the radio age, and fattened their pockets on its sinecures.

Dingell Sr. was the son of Polish immigrants who started out in politics as a union boss, jumped into a newly created seat, and kept it through eleven elections before passing it on to his son. Dingell Jr, outdid daddy by becoming the longest serving member of Congress in American history. Before he died, he passed on the seat to his second wife, whom he married when she was 28 and he was 55 years old.

She was a GM lobbyist who married the Congressman from GM. What was good for GM was good for the Dingells.

By 2014, Dingell Jr. was listed as the third richest member of Congress from Michigan with a net worth of $3.5 million. When Debbie took over for him next year, her net worth was up to $3.6 million. The salary for House members was $174,000. The median household income is $57,000 in the 12th.

Not bad for a family whose business was and is the 12th district from western Detroit through Ann Arbor. Much of the Dingell money came through GM. And Rep. John Dingell had vocally fought for the GM bailout. The GM couple, which had millions in GM stock, had a lot riding on taxpayers bailing them out.

Taxpayers spent billions and the Dingells got millions in an arrangement made in the depths of hell.

Even though Rep. Debbie Dingell ran unopposed in the Democrat primary, and even though she was running for office in one of the most heavily Democrat districts in the country, she still raised over $1 million for that campaign, and another $1.2 million for 2018, and is already up to half a million now.

Even though no one running in the 12th whose last name is Dingell could lose an election to Abe Lincoln.

Where’s the money coming from? Unions, PACs, including the GM PAC, the Ford PAC, Walmart, and, insurance companies. GM, Ford, and Chrysler had also been paying her an undisclosed salary before she took over her husband’s congressional seat. It was a very neat arrangement.

The Dingells take care of them and they take care of the Dingells. Everyone else can go to hell.

Despite Rep. John Dingell’s motorcade pausing at the Capitol, and the gushing tributes to the “longest-serving” member of Congress, even his own party loathed him in life.

In 1996, the New York Times called him a “bully”. Some years earlier, Bloomberg had accused him of the, “bullying of bureaucrats, executives, and colleagues.”

“In the arrogance of his power, he terrorized individuals and institutions that he wanted to humble,” Anthony Lewis wrote in the Times.

"There isn't an industry in the country not touched by our committee,” Rep. John Dingell had bragged.

That includes finance which dragged him into the BCCI scandal through a $10,000 contribution and a mortgage on a home in McLean, Virginia.

After ruling the Committee on Energy and Commerce for 28 years, his own party grew tired of him and unprecedentedly forced him out in 2008. The overthrow of the corrupt "old bull" was the work of none other than Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Despite eventually becoming the longest-serving member of the House, it was his fellow Democrats who conspired to take away the privileges of his seniority.

All that has been forgotten. Dingell’s descriptions of Asians as “little yellow people”, his greed, shameless abuse of power, and arrogance were replaced with empty tributes to his greatness.

President Trump hasn’t forgotten.

And so, at a campaign rally in Michigan, Trump recalled a phone call from Rep. Debbie Dingell on her husband’s funeral. “‘He’s looking down, he’d be so thrilled,’” He recalled her saying. “I said, that’s okay, don’t worry about it. Maybe he’s looking up, I don’t know. I don't know. I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe. But let’s assume he’s looking down."

The locals laughed.

It was impossible to be from Michigan, to have had a front row seat to the antics of the Dingell clan which practically date back to the birth of mass automobile ownership, and imagine “Big John” in heaven. The image of the old crooked thug with wings and a harp is hopelessly laughable.

It’s easy to imagine him looking up, but President Trump generously tried to assume otherwise.

This isn’t the first time that Trump has gotten into trouble for bluntly poking fun at the niceties of a political industry where every crook is “honorable” and everyone pretends to believe it in public.

Does Speaker Pelosi really believe that Rep. John Dingell was a saint? If she does, why did she conspire to take away his chairmanship, against precedent and the seniority rules of the road?

Do the New York Times and Bloomberg want to apologize for calling him a bully?

John Dingell was not a nice guy. Nobody seriously thinks he would have been traumatized by the suggestion that he might not be going to heaven. This was a man who admired a tombstone that read, “He’s done his damnedest.” There’s two ways to read that one. But Dingell never pretended to be a saint. His calling card was hauling pork back to his district and supporting local companies. Like GM.

Nor did he restrain his rhetoric.

"I've read enough of that Steele dossier to know just how risky a ‘used Trump hotel mattress’ can truly be," he tweeted in 2018, referencing a smear by the Clinton campaign.

But Trump reached out to Rep. Debbie Dingell. John got a nice funeral in Washington D.C. And Debbie responded by voting to impeach President Trump for the smears of her fellow Democrats.

Nor is Debbie a nice person. At one point she inveighed against the, "the 13 white boys–sorry to say it that way–that are going to be doing this in the Senate". So much for civility and collegiality.

Was Trump really supposed to pretend that this racist, thieving clan is heavenly?

The D.C. political class throws a fit every time President Trump speaks bluntly about members of the swamp. And Rep. John Dingell wasn’t just part of the swamp. He owned his own mire. In his days ruling the Committee on Energy and Commerce with an iron fist, he would define his jurisdiction by pointing at the planet. These days his ambit, wherever it may be, is a whole lot smaller. And that’s for the best.

There’s a place for civility and collegiality. And had the Dingell clan sailed off into the sunset, maybe we could all remember them fondly the way we do the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, and the Gambinos.

But they’re not going anywhere. That’s what this is all about.

After John Sr, came John Jr, and after John Jr. came Debbie, and after Debbie will come Christopher, currently a Michigan judge, and on and on, endless generations of Dingells, marching through the House, porking, thieving, and procuring, passing the family legacy of taxpayer money on through the ages until the Republic falls. Should President Trump or anyone else really be afraid to say it’s so?

America didn’t need a single Dingell in her House. It certainly didn’t need three.

If the country is to be rid of them, the chattering classes will have to accept hearing that John Dingell Jr. might not, despite his lifetime of good deeds for GM at taxpayer expense, have made it to heaven.

San Francisco Just Lost $64 Million Because Their Streets Are Covered In 💩



In case you wondering how things are going in California, here’s the latest.

San Francisco just lost the Oracle conference, which was estimated to bring in over $64 million in revenue for the city and local businesses. Instead, the event will now be held in Las Vegas, which apparently ranks higher on the “lack of poo in the streets” scale than the once beautiful west coast city.
“Oracle stated that their attendee feedback was that San Francisco hotel rates are too high,” the email, which was viewed by CNBC, said. “Poor street conditions was another reason why they made this difficult decision.”
The SFTA, a private nonprofit organization that promotes San Francisco tourism, said it’s issuing a cancellation bulletin, covering five days and over 62,000 room nights in October 2020, October 2021 and September 2022.
“The estimated economic impact of each of the above is $64,000,000, a huge loss for our city,” the email said.

Shockingly, allowing one’s city to turn into a 3rd world garbage dump, complete with rampant homeless encampments and people taking dumps on grocery store aisles, hurts the ability of said city to attract events and businesses. San Francisco has lost other conferences due to their lack of sanitary and safe conditions over the last few years, so this isn’t a new problem.


The local and state governments in California have shown no stomach for tackling this problem, instead choosing to pretend it’s simply a housing issue. In reality, most of the homeless on the streets are drug addicts and/or mentally ill. You could hand them an American Express black card and they’d still manage to end up pooping on the sidewalks and assaulting bystanders.

But to admit that and tackle the real issues would mean coming to the conclusion that the predominant social justice narrative is wrong, i.e. that homelessness is just about an unfair system and people down on their luck. We can’t have that, now can we?

Instead, California will keep doing what’s it’s been doing, which is raising taxes and wasting money on overpriced housing “solutions” that do little to nothing to help.

We Need A Cure For Liberalism


Opinions of the contributor do not represent w3p management. 


"Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East."   

~  Barack Hussein Obama

Obama spent 8 years apologising for American exceptualism. He convince too many accepting Islam and her people would show the world how enlightened we are and how wrong most are about Islam.

Sadly, here we are 19 years later and of course Islam is still a cancer spreading through the world. But something much more insidious ishapping now;

Liberalism!  It is sreading through out America likea cancer, weakening American resolve and strengths.

While a simple bullet from an honest man ended Osama Bin Ladin it only slowed Islam's spread. 

Maybe we could use the same simple cure for Liberalism and its followers.

Anyway, Merry Chrismas Everyone.

Noted Russian Agent Donald Trump Slaps Russia Around Again



Worst Russian asset ever.

You didn’t see it reported much outside of right-wing sources, but the President levied new sanctions on Russia last week. This forced the stoppage of a major pipeline that would have boosted revenues to the Kremlin. Here’s CNN’s Jake Tapper tweeting out the news. See if you notice anything.

BERLIN—U.S. sanctions have temporarily stopped the construction of a pipeline that is set to increase the flow of natural gas directly from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
The sanctions would target all businesses and individuals participating in the construction of the pipeline and would effectively cut off those companies from doing business in the U.S. or with U.S.-linked companies. Washington has long opposed the project on grounds that it would increase Germany’s and Europe’s dependence on Russian energy and boost revenues for the Kremlin.
The reason Tapper had to link to the Wall Street Journal is because CNN completely ignored the story. In fact, they spent the very same day pushing two stories that Trump wasn’t going to sanction Russia literally as he was signing new sanctions on Russia, just in case you were wondering how much of a garbage dump that network is.

Per The Blaze.
CNN’s nakedly partisan reporting may have sunk to new lows this week.
The news network ran, not just one, but two stories reporting that President Donald Trump is balking at sanctions targeting Russia for its 2016 election interference and annexation of Crimea. However, what CNN did not report is that the 45th president signed tough sanctions on Friday that target the Kremlin’s expansion into European oil markets.

There’s one other noteworthy aspect of this story. Namely, that our European “allies” were all in on this pipeline and dumping money into Putin’s pockets despite our objections. You’d think the fact that we pay for their defense would earn us a little goodwill in dictating whether they help enrich the very country we are trying to protect them from. But nah, as usual, the Europeans were willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder, or in this case, enter into a deal that might lower energy costs.

It’s amazing how Trump is always expected to bow before these people, never hurting their feelings or making demands of them, yet the Europeans are never expected to return the favor. This is why all the gnashing of teeth about treating our “allies” well is nonsense.

We should do what’s in the interests of the United States and nothing more. Those interests may include NATO at this point, but that shouldn’t preclude us from putting more pressure on the Europeans to stop playing both sides.

It’s been two years since President Trump signed the Tax Cuts


Two years later the data show that

investment has increased, 

with wages and job participation rising.



It’s been two years since President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law. To the delight of supply-siders, the law contained significant marginal tax rate reductions for individuals and corporations. At the time there was lively debate concerning the likely economic impact of the bill, with opponents pointing to analyses that found little effect from the rate reductions. At the White House, where we worked at the time, we produced analyses that suggested economic growth would surge. On the second anniversary of the TCJA, the numbers are in, and our projections have been vindicated.

The view that the tax cuts would jump-start the economy was based on abundant economic literature examining how tax policy affects decision-making by businesses and individuals. On the corporate side, the tax cut reduced the cost of installing new plant and machinery by about 10%, suggesting that capital spending would jump by the same amount. This would increase the amount of capital per worker and drive up productivity and wages. President Trump emphasized the last point repeatedly, arguing that family incomes would increase by about $4,000 in three to five years, with blue-collar workers benefiting disproportionately.

This predicted increase in capital has materialized, and has translated into additional economic growth. In 2017 our calculations suggested gross domestic product growth would accelerate in response to higher capital spending, with the contribution of nonresidential fixed investment to real GDP growth rising to between 0.8% and 1% in 2018. The contribution of this type of investment to economic growth from the first quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2018 was right on target, at 0.8%. This wasn’t the existing trend. Capital spending was 4.5% higher in 2018 than pre-TCJA blue-chip forecasts, and this trend continued in 2019.

This extra capital improved productivity and wages and, as expected, did so especially for those in lower-paying jobs. The numbers are striking. Over the past year, nominal wages for the lowest 10% of American workers jumped 7%. The growth rate for those without a high-school diploma was 9%. The median worker benefited as well, but much less so, helping to begin closing the income inequality gap. And about that $4,000? Real disposable personal income per household has increased $6,000 since the tax cuts were passed.

On the individual side, we expected that lower marginal tax rates would encourage people to re-engage in the workforce after years of lower or stagnant participation rates. On this the literature is clear as well. When tax rates go up, younger workers don’t respond much, since they must consider the long-run benefit of giving up the future gains from having more experience. But older workers, whose future wages are less important because their careers have less run time, respond by exiting the workforce. 

We saw this exact pattern when President Obama hiked marginal tax rates, with labor-force participation dropping 0.7% after the tax increase for workers 35 to 44, but dropping 1.5% for workers over 55. After passage of the TCJA, the opposite pattern emerged, with labor-force participation for those between 35 and 44 increasing 0.4%, and labor-force participation for those over 55 increasing 1.3%.

Those who say that the strong economy under President Trump is merely a continuation of past trends are in full-scale denial. Before Mr. Trump took office in January 2017, the Congressional Budget Office forecast the creation of only two million jobs by this point. The economy has in fact created seven million jobs since January 2017. At the same time, the Federal Reserve’s median forecast had the unemployment rate inching up toward 5%, almost 1.5 percentage points higher than the current 50-year low.

To be sure, there have been some headwinds over the past year with the Fed’s interest policy, the domestic political environment and trade-policy uncertainty pushing growth to below the 3% target in 2019. Nonetheless, the slowdown is world-wide, and the U.S. is the only Group of Seven country that will post growth above 2% this year.

All of this is a great victory for the American people—and for the latest economics literature. It is therefore disappointing to see Democratic presidential candidates, devoid of alternative explanations for the surging economy, calling for the reversal of the tax cuts while asserting that the TCJA benefited only the wealthy. The data clearly prove otherwise. 

Supply-side economists have long argued that the best way to help lower-income Americans is to create a system in which they have more disposable income by cutting tax rates and creating incentives for more capital investment in American businesses and workers. The 2017 tax reform and the data that continue to come in demonstrate decisively that this approach works.

Ben Shapiro Nails the Argument About Trump and ‘Morality’



Earlier in the week, I wrote an article on Trump, morality, and why beltway preening about the two so often falls on deaf ears. It was largely in response to Christianity Today’s editorial calling for Trump’s impeachment, but was also prompted by some postings I’d seen from a certain conservative who has apparently appointed himself the moral arbiter of conservatism. I’ll let you do the math on that one.

In my piece, I expressed some areas of morality that the D.C. establishment always ignore, such as terrible foreign policy decisions that often lead to massive loss of life with no clear goal. Along the way that same establishment makes millions pushing and advising on the mostly failed excursions.
Let’s also take foreign policy, as that’s another good comparison. There’s a massive blind spot among the D.C. prognosticators on morality when it comes to foreign policy. What’s more immoral? Joe Biden’s pursuit of an ill-advised war in Syria (led by Barack Obama) that led to over half a million people dead? Or Trump making a mean tweet about Justin Trudeau? Is it more immoral to empower the Iranian regime to further fund terrorism and oppress their people? Or for Trump to rant about NATO members not paying their fair share? I’d posit that the former of each of those contrasts is far more immoral than Trump’s inability to control his mouth at times.
I ended with this thought about why so many largely moral people will end up voting for Trump in 2020.
No one is trying to make an argument that Trump himself is an overly moral person. But that’s not the question most will be asking when deciding who to vote for in 2020. The question remains ones of Trump’s policies compared to who he’s running against. While the D.C. establishment ask us to ignore their own immorality, the rest of us will weigh, compare, and make a decision that’s in our own interests. That’s the entire purpose of electing a secular political leader. It’s not to signal one’s virtue or bestow aspects of quazi-salvation via voting.
Furthering that point, Ben Shapiro covered this topic on his show yesterday. I think it’s worth sharing because he succinctly (over the course of about 10 minutes) lays out the case for why you can hold moral objections to politicians but still vote for your interests in the end.

(The relevant part begins @ minute 19:00)


One of the things Shapiro covers the false dichotomy presented by Chistianity Today, which tries to equate voting for Trump with idolatry. Is it possible some take their love of Trump too far? Sure, but that’s true of ever politician that’s ever been in office.

Regardless, it’s still perfectly moral to chose a representative who’s going to enact policies one believes to restore the social fabric and protect liberty. This is especially true with life and death issues like abortion in play.

Shapiro also tackles the hypocrisy involved in these discussions. Does anyone really think the left gives two shakes about Trump’s past affairs or mean tweets? Of course not. The left is all on board with sexual immorality. They not only accept it (see Bill Clinton), but push it as a lifestyle choice. About five minutes ago, the same people trashing Trump now were fist bumping him at his wedding. There’s no actual moral principle at play here. This is all really just about Republican policies and ideology.

How do we know? Just look at how they treat Mike Pence. No honest person believes that if Trump ceased to exist that the left would say “welp, those Republicans are really doing well by having a nice, high character family man as President, let’s lay off.” They be just as, if not more vicious.

Anyway, I’ll leave the rest for the video to cover, so be sure to check it out.

Santa Claus Accused Of Quid Pro Quo For Giving Children Gifts In Exchange For Good Behavior



U.S.—Legislators have begun to hold hearings on impeaching Santa Claus after an overheard conversation seemed to imply he was offering a quid pro quo: gifts in exchange for good behavior.

FBI agents spied on Claus at various malls as he repeatedly said things like, "Sure, I'll get you a pony. But first, I need you to do something for me... be a good little boy!" The FBI was able to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Claus, because it's easier to get a FISA warrant than to get a Costco membership.

"Ho ho noooooo!" Santa Claus cried as investigators leaped out and cuffed him at a Dayton, OH mall. "Not good! Sad!"

"It was a perfect conversation," Claus said, defending himself in a series of fiery tweets. "Absolutely perfect. I was simply talking to little Billy and asked him to keep tabs on his sister, Sally, who has been involved in some corruption. Who doesn't want to stop corruption? Did I offer Billy a new Nintendo Switch in exchange for his good behavior? Possibly. Am I planning on giving Sally coal because she's a little punk? Maybe. Where's my lawyer?"

Unfortunately, he was assigned a public defender, who turned out to be Rudy Giuliani.

This Christmas, We Need a Visit from the Real Saint Nicholas


 Article by Walt Johanson in "The American Thinker":

Saint Nicholas was born in the third century, to an affluent family in Patara, a Greek city in the Roman province of Lycia, in modern-day Turkey.

Nicholas was a priest during the reign of Diocletian (reigned 286-305), an emperor who embarked upon a vigorous persecution of Christians in 305. Diocletian was succeeded in the eastern half of the Empire by Galerius (r. 305-311), who continued the persecution, although he issued an edict of toleration before he died.

It was in this era that Nicholas became bishop of Myra. His name, Nikolaos, is Greek for “Victor of the People,” apt for a time when Christians triumphed over the militantly secular authorities of the Roman state.

Being a man of no little wealth but of far from little charity, it was said that on one occasion, Nicholas tossed three bags of gold coins into the home of a man whose three daughters needed dowries if they were not to be forced into prostitution. It is said that this is the origin of the three gold balls that traditionally were hung over the doors to pawnshops. Another trinity-related story connected to Nicholas was that a butcher, wanting to profit from a famine, killed three men (or boys), then pickled and barreled them for sale. Nicholas saw through the crime, prayed, and the three were returned to life.

Nicholas became the patron saint of sailors. One story has him rescuing a sailor who fell from the rigging when he was on a voyage home from studies in Alexandria. Another has him praying for sailors on a vessel in shoal waters, saving them from being wrecked on the rocks.

Fast forward a dozen centuries and the Dutch were the leading seafaring nation of Europe. Despite their militant Calvinism, they seem to have retained a reverence for the patron saint of seamen. He was brought to New Netherland by colonists who continued to celebrate his feast day of December 6, the anniversary of his death.

The Dutch settlers and their English neighbors had an uneasy coexistence, one problem being communication.  The former, it seems, regarded their New England neighbors as being excessively cheap; they would charge a customer for anything, even cheese in a Bay Colony overstocked with cattle when the English Civil War slowed the migration on which farmers relied for profits. The Dutch nickname for the Puritans came across as something like John (Jan) Cheese, which became “Yankees.” And the Dutch name for St. Nicholas came across to the English as Sant Niklas, to become Santa Claus.

The Puritans may have had little inclination to celebrate the saint, but migrants to the later English province of New York were not similarly disposed. It was there that the gift-giving aspect of Santa took root. In Washington Irving’s partially accurate History of New York (1809), Santa arrives on horseback on the evening of December 6. The image proved popular, leaving Clement Clark Moore, a professor of Greek and Hebrew, to write “A Visit from St. Nicholas” for his family at Christmas, 1822. It was published anonymously shortly afterwards. Moore did not acknowledge his authorship until 1837.

The illustrator Thomas Nast, whose caricatures of drunken Irishmen and Boss Tweed appeared in the pages of Harper’s Weekly between the 1860s and 1880s, has Santa giving out presents to Union Army troops at Christmas, 1862. Nast’s pen produced several dozen images of Santa in this time, in the course of which Santa was given a shop for making toys which seems to have become located at the North Pole.

Fifty years after Nast, 1931 color magazine ads for Coca Cola gave us the image of Santa that we have today. In 1939, Rudolph, the Red-Nosed reindeer was given life by ads for Montgomery Ward.

Through a millennium and a half, then, Saint Nicholas has been transformed from a saintly priest of unknown stature, a charitable man who performed miracles. He has become a bearded, jolly old man in a red coat whose seasonal occupation is to seat little kids on his lap in shopping malls, there to encourage the parents to buy more toys than the little ones could ever need. The only known instance of defiance of this job requirement is that by the character portrayed by Edmund Gwenn in Miracle on 34th Street (1947).

Santa is said to make the toys at a shop that must lie atop Arctic Ocean ice at the location where all meridians converge, and the miracle that he performs is to somehow deliver all the toys to good little girls and boys all over the planet at Midnight on Christmas Eve.

Kids eventually discover that there is no Santa Claus, but it seems that recent generations of them retain the belief that, simply by existing, they will have goodies given to them. Their new benefactor is a different bearded old man, Uncle Sam in this instance.

Over the centuries, the Saint Nicholas who led the faithful when a belligerent, anti-Christian government that punished believers has been forgotten. Perhaps now is time for that aspect of his story to receive renewed attention.
 
 

Dems Are Telling the Truth: The Impeachment Is Not Political – It’s Spiritual

 Article by Clint Fargeau in "RedState":

Don’t tell the Democrats, but they inadvertently let the truth slip out again.

Nancy Pelosi told CNN confabulator Jack Tapper a little while back:

This [impeachment] isn’t about politics at all. This is about patriotism. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about honoring our oath of office.

Quite a few conservatives have characterized these and similar comments from Democratic lawmakers as poorly-concealed misdirection. But I have little doubt Pelosi believes what she’s saying.

The impeachment of President Trump is not about politics. For Democrats, the impeachment amounts to a new-age spiritual crusade, a cleansing of Evil in the White House. Really, Democratic lawmakers are impeaching the president on latter-day pseudo-moral considerations, not legal ones.

To understand how much the United States has changed since the founding, consider what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote when he arrived in 1835 to study our young nation:

The religious atmosphere of the country was the first thing that struck me upon arrival in the United States … In France I had seen the sprits of religion and of freedom almost always marching in opposite directions. In America, I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land … America is still the place where the Christian religion has kept the greatest real power over men’s souls; and nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to man, since the country where it now has widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest.

If you don’t recognize the United States Tocqueville describes … welcome to the party.

Tocqueville thought that the separation between the Christian churches and the state was essential to America’s success. The government was explicitly forbidden from interfering with the churches by establishing an exclusive state religion. Christian religious leaders in the United States for their part refrained from assuming political office or interfering in political matters, content to bolster the morals of their voting congregants.

This separation has broken down in a way the Founders would have found unforeseeable. Progressives in the Legislative and Judicial Branches have conflated the government and pagan spiritualism. They have fought Christian religious observance in schools and government institutions and instead allowed naturism (which they mislabel “science”) and spiritualism (which they mislabel “kindness,” and “reason”) to seize mainstream thought and dictate public decision making.

Thus schools may teach children to believe we are killing Mother Earth and a climate apocalypse is nigh; that white people are born with a guilty aura for the sins of their forefathers; or that a fat spirit and his flying magic deer are going to leave them gifts at the Winter Solstice (called X-miss).

But we may not under pain of administrative obliteration teach them about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; or that the laws of a world to come require them to practice charity and forgiveness of one another.

John Adams wrote: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If Adams’s assertion about the Constitution–which he helped *write*–is correct, then our government must necessarily degrade as Christian religion and morals degrade.

Tocqueville seemed to agree: “Despotism may be able to do without faith; but freedom cannot.” Without a robust religious and moral structure to both unite and restrain them, a freed people will run amok.

And that’s where we are. Americans have lots and lots of laws–probably too many laws–but no moral structure to make those laws meaningful or intelligible. We bicker and obsess about the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “obstruction” to keep from facing the truth: Americans are separated by a chasm when it comes to their moral understanding of the world.

https://www.redstate.com/diary/ClintFargeau/2019/12/24/dems-telling-truth-impeachment-not-political-spiritual/

 Image result for cartoons about dems losing impeachment