Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Tweeting for President Trump?


No tweeting for President Trump
Hot Air » Top Picks by Larry O'Connor  

Donald Trump announced yesterday that he would no longer delight and enrage the universe with his nuggets of wit and wisdom via Twitter once he is elected President.

Politico reports that he made the proclamation at a rally in Rhode Island:

"You know, I tweeted today, @realDonaldTrump. I tweet," Trump said.  He added, "Don't worry, I'll give it up after I'm president. We won't tweet anymore. I don't know. Not presidential."

The remark comes days after wife Melania remarked that she wished her husband would tone down his Twitter habit.

Say it ain't so!

For those who have spent way too much time on Twitter for the past several years, Trump's finest Twitter moments pre-date his announcement for the White House. The world needs Trump on Twitter.  Being Commander-in-Chief should deprive us of these unforgettable gems as compiled by The Mirror:

I never fall for scams. I am the only person who immediately walked out of my 'Ali G' interview

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 30, 2012

My twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012

As everybody knows, but the haters & losers refuse to acknowledge, I do not wear a "wig." My hair may not be perfect but it's mine.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 24, 2013

This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2014

While @BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 28, 2012

And then there are a few of my all-time favorites:

I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2012

I would like to wish everyone, including all haters and losers (of which, sadly, there are many) a truly happy and enjoyable Memorial Day!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 24, 2015

Thanks- many are saying I'm the best 140 character writer in the world. It's easy when it's fun.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2012

It's hard to imagine life without @realDonaldTrump. Maybe cooler heads will prevail and Trump will be given some limited opportunities to spin his 140-character magic. Let's hope so. After all, I think we can all agree that tweeting is not, by definition, "un-presidential."

After all, whatever Trump tweets as president, it will hard to be as embarrassing and divisive as this:

It takes courage to share your story. https://t.co/Q7wWjV9Rxx

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 1, 2015

 

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Re: Markets vs. Economy



"@agentvf: New Jersey Man Joseph Hornick Willing to Go to Jail for Flying Trump Flag - Breitbart http://bit.ly/23iu6BT  @Q102Philly"

3,531 retweets 8,652 likes
24
12916816_1347568805269032_80974610219813556_o
Joseph Hornick / Facebook

by Breitbart News8 Apr 20163,405

WEST LONG BRANCH, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey man is facing a fine for flying flags supporting Donald Trump.

Joseph Hornick thought police on March 25 were responding to his reports that the flags proclaiming "Trump Make America Great Again" flying outside his West Long Branch home had been vandalized. Instead, he was ticketed for violating an ordinance that restricts the display of political signs.

According to the police report, a resident who is a former Democratic councilman questioned why the municipal code enforcement officer had not cited Hornick.

"I'm not a football fan. I'm not a sports fan, but I'm surely a Donald Trump fan," Hornick told New York's WNBC-TV. The Republican said he has a right to express himself.

The town considers the flags supporting the Republican presidential candidate the same as political lawn signs, acting borough administrator Lori Cole said. "The ordinance states no political sign shall be displayed sooner than 30 days prior to the date of the election or the decision of the issue is scheduled," she said.

New Jersey's primary is June 7.

Violators face a minimum fine of $100. The maximum penalty is a fine of $2,000, 90 days in jail or both.

"I'm not taking the flag down, and if I do 90 days in jail, I'll do 90 days in jail," Hornick said.

His court date is April 20.



Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Markets vs. Economy

.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Before Predicting the Future, Take a Closer Look at the Present

Courtesy of ThePeople'sCube, here is the Boston Globe front page that would have been far more appropriate.

Friday, April 08, 2016

Newt Gingrich Nails the Washington Insider Problem

Newt Gingrich Nails the Washington Insider ProblemJeffrey Lord

You can't make it up.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave an interview to reporter Isaac Chotiner of Slate the other day. 

For a vivid illustration of the difference between the elitist, haughty thinking of the American Ruling Class (as unerringly described in Angelo Codevilla's The Ruling Class)and those who, like Newt, have not lost their ability to connect with (Codevilla again) the "Country Class" — i.e., the American people — the interview is priceless. Bravo to Newt!

The interview should be read in totality, but here are a few excerpts to give a flavor:

Isaac Chotiner: You were at a meeting on Monday with other Washington figures and Trump. What did you make of him?

Newt Gingrich: Well, Callista and I were both very impressed. In that kind of a setting he talks in a relatively low tone. He is very much somebody who has been good at business. And he listens well. He outlined the campaign as he saw it. I think he did a good job listening. He occasionally asked clarifying questions. He was very open to critical advice. I am not going to get into details, but I will say my overall impression was that in that setting he was totally under control as a guy who has done a ton of business and knows exactly how to operate in that kind of room.

You seem more sanguine than other people in Washington about Trump's rise. Is that fair to say?

Sure. Remember, I came in as a Reaganite, Kempite when I helped lead the effort in 1994. And I have consistently been in favor of a more aggressive, more active Republican Party that reaches out and expands its base and that is very, very idea-oriented. I think Washington is a city with enormous problems. I think we need somebody — and both Cruz and Trump fit this — who is going to break up the old order and insist on real change. It's not that I am sanguine. This will lead to a period of very real challenges, but I think we need it.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a possible president here.

You are talking about a guy who was smart enough to build Trump Towers, build lots of hotels, build lots of casinos, and own the Miss Universe contest.

He is not stupid. For many people, that seems to be inconceivable because they have a university Ph.D. theory of being smart.

Didn't you write your Ph.D. thesis on the Belgian Congo?

I did, and I wrote my master's thesis on Japanese and Russian railroad construction in the 19th century.

So why are you bashing people with Ph.D.s?

Because I have been in the real world, doing real things, and I understand the limitations of academic knowledge. I think it's greatly overrated.

Look, you read a lot of books about how the world works, you are an educated person, you care about policy. When you hear Trump address subjects like NATO, it doesn't worry you —

No. I read what he said about NATO, and I think it has been grossly taken out of context. What he said about NATO was the Bush — Rumsfeld position, which is that the Europeans ought to pick up more of the slack.

… I want to get back to what Trump is doing, and we both know he is playing on impulses —

No, no we don't.

We don't?

What we know is that Trump has had the nerve to raise questions in a clear language because he represents the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of being told that they have to be guilt-ridden and keep their mouth shut.

… You must know a lot of people in Washington like Kristol and Krauthammer and George Will who are horrified by Trump. This isn't just liberal angst.

I think a number of them need to go on vacation.

You think that is all it is?

I think the tension is getting to them.

The tension of what?

Of having to deal with something that they don't understand and don't believe in. It horrifies them. It represents an alternative world they never dreamed of.

… You must notice that Trump has no serious foreign or domestic policy, and that these "intellectuals" who are horrified by this are not just dreaming it up out of nowhere.

They are queueing off something different than the American people are.

Is your job, as a politician, to merely follow the American people?

I am applying the Buckley principle to the Washington intellectuals. They are inbred, they talk to each other, they are treating the American people with contempt. Forget Trump. Seventy percent of Republicans between Trump, Carson, and Cruz have repudiated their world. And they are saying, "Boy, these people are really hicks. They are so stupid they have been taken in." Well maybe, just maybe, those American people know something the guys in Washington don't, and frankly, I am on the side of the American people, not the Washington intellectuals.

Now. What do you see here in this Newt interview with Chotiner? What is on display is a sterling example of exactly what has gone wrong inside the Washington Beltway — and just why so many millions are responding to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. (Ahem: again, ticket material?) 

When, for example, Chotiner says, bold print supplied by me, "…I want to get back to what Trump is doing, and we both know he is playing on impulses," the underlying moral superiority of the Ruling Class is surfaced. What Chotiner is really saying is that Americans are nothing more than… sniff, sniff… a bunch of bigoted rubes. And make no mistake, Chotiner is far from alone here in this all-too typical belief underlying the Ruling Class views of Americans. 

Note as well the belief that to have an academic Ph.D. is a sign of impeccable brilliance. Real word experience is, if considered at all, as the sign of a second or possibly third or fourth-rate mind. Translation in this situation? Donald Trump is not a smart guy. No wonder all those millions of stupid people are voting for him.

Underneath the thin veneer of the ordinary politics involved in choosing candidate A over candidate B this year lies the dark mass of contempt and insiderdom that permeates the culture of Washington. It is this contempt that explains what can only be called the wild hysteria that is coursing so palpably through wild-eyed D.C. elites.

Here is the Washington Post comparing — not for the first time — Trump to Hitler:

First, you don't have to go back to history's most famous example, Adolf Hitler, to understand that authoritarian rulers can achieve power through the ballot box. In the world today, it has become almost commonplace for elected leaders to lock the door behind them once they achieve power. Vladimir Putin in Russia, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Yoweri Museveni in Uganda, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey — all found ways once in power to restrict opposition, muzzle the media and erode checks and balances.

Hitler? Hitler? Really? The man who launched a World War II that killed six million Jews and by historical estimates some 11 million human beings roughly estimated? Well, yes. As in this column yesterday from the Post's "conservative" columnist Kathleen Parker who wrote — amazingly? stunningly? like a certifiable wacko bird? — a column which said this after calling Trump a fascist:

The conundrum for Republicans is that though Trump may be the devil, he's their devil. How can they condemn the guy that a near-majority of their own party prefers? If you're, say, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), how do you say you won't support your party's nominee? Then again, if you're a good man like Ryan, how do you support him?

That is the question of the moment, isn't it? This is what we ask ourselves about the industrialists and "good Germans" who supported Hitler. This is what we ask our Southern grandparents about the time when blacks were being lynched. What we ask the World War II generation about rounding up Japanese Americans. And while we're at it, what was your vote on Vietnam, Iraq? There's a price to pay for silence.

That so few have shown the courage to deny Trump tells us how difficult it is to be brave — and how rare character is. But one can only pretend for so long not to hear the dog whistles of history, a skill at which Republicans have become too well practiced over the decades. Perhaps they're no longer listening. Or they're deluding themselves that Trump's words don't really mean what, you know, they mean.

Wow. Living Outside the Washington Insider Culture of Washington Insider Reich Enthusiasts, one is forced to ask. Who is really the "Good German" here? Paul Ryan — or Kathleen Parker? What disapprobation will Parker face if she supports Trump? Loss of TV and cocktail party invites? What love will come her way by spewing the anti-Semitic spittle that Donald Trump, father of the Judaism-convert Ivanka, father-in-law, in-law. and grandfather to Jews — is really a Hitler wannabe? Does this not serve as just a tiny indicator of how truly disturbing and morally rotted the Washington Insider culture has become? One is compelled to ask of Ms. Parker a gender-revised Joseph Welch question from the Army-McCarthy hearings: "Have you no sense of decency, m'am? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Never mind. Clearly the answer is "no."

Columnist George Will assures darkly that Trump is "appealing entirely to white people." It makes no difference that this is utterly untrue. As Fox News Latinoreported after the Nevada caucuses:

Donald Trump's hardline stance on immigration didn't seem to hurt him with Latinos in Nevada, as the Republican presidential front-runner claimed 45 percent of the Hispanic vote in Tuesday's caucus, according to an entrance poll conducted by Fox News.

All of which translates to Washington Insiders as saying that if Nevada Latinos aren't racist for supporting Trump they are at the very least stupid. And of course, how many Ph.D.s do they have? And when was the last time they dined in Georgetown or thought deeply on foreign policy with the guys and gals over at the AEI? 

Newt Gingrich wasn't kidding when he said, "I think the tension is getting to them…. Of having to deal with something that they don't understand and don't believe in. It horrifies them. It represents an alternative world they never dreamed of."

Exactly.

Let's suppose for a moment that Donald Trump is now President-elect Trump as of yesterday's election. Now what? What happens in "ordinary" circumstances when a new president arrives in town? The Old Guard braces. There's a new team sweeping in and the old team is on it's way out. All those relationships carefully built over the years with Team Obama — as with Team Bush 43, Team Clinton, Team Bush 41, and Team Reagan before it — is gonzo. Time to get on the Inside with the new people. Problem? Who the hell are the new people? Who is the new chief of staff? Who knows the new guy or at who at least knows somebody who knows the new guy? Who is handling that proposal to handle the President-elect's crazy idea about making insurance companies more competitive? God, you don't think he was serious about that, do you? Has he read the paper from the think tank on the nuclear triad? Who should I invite to lunch? To dinner? 

And on and on the circus goes as the Washington Cartel — to borrow from Senator Cruz — sets to work to grind down the sensibilities of the new Team Trump. And if they don't succeed? Panic. Phone calls aren't being returned. President Trump and his team not only have no idea who Mr. Insider is — and worse they may know exactly — but they don't care. They don't care.

Washington is the Big City that is really a village. Instead of six degrees of separation there are about three. One's neighbors are lobbyists, journalists, congressmen, and senators and Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials. And don't forget the bureaucrats — the unassuming man or woman down the block who has spent the last thirty years in the concrete box that is the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Education. The idea of abolishing the Education Department outright and shipping its functions back to states means a comfy career for your neighbor is now about to come to a screeching halt. This brings, shall we say, concern in concentrated form. 

This doesn't even touch the more delicate areas of foreign policy, where a whole priesthood of think tankers, ex-office holders, and wanna-be office holders labor. How can these people and the world view they are so certain the new president is totally ignorant of ever get their foot in the door at the White House or State or the Pentagon?

Not to be forgotten? How can you actually report a story if you can't develop good sources — because the new President has different ways of operating with his communications team? You can pound away at the new president's image — and that of his staffers — but what if it doesn't work in this instance? What if readers or viewers think you are the problem.

All of this and more is what creates the "tension" of which Newt Gingrich speaks in that Slate article. It is what underlies the hysterical reaction to Trump — that he is Hitler, a bigot, an idiot. That his voters are wannabe Nazis and white supremacists and generally speaking all around uneducated and unsophisticated rubes who think the Four Seasons are times of the year instead of a decent place to talk the intricacies of devaluing the yen while choosing between the A3 Wagyu Beef Tartare and the Siberian Caviar.

In sum? This is the real reason why the Washington Establishment fights. Once upon a time, when they were young, they came, they conquered — and then they stayed. And stayed. Growing fat and prosperous and ever so much more separated from the actual people they once upon a time were so passionate about representing.

It's too bad. But the American people at this point in time have, safe to say, no sympathy with all of this. They are trying to get a job — and keep it. They have a mortgage, kids to educate — and in the case of the aging Baby Boomer generation, senior parents to care for.

Suffice to say, at this point after eight years of the Obama era that was supposedly about "hope and change" there are millions of Americans who have been left with little or no hope — and they damn well are determined to bring change. Big change.

Bravo to Speaker Gingrich for speaking truth to Washington Insider power.

And to hell with the Siberian Caviar.

Thursday, April 07, 2016

GOOGLE Engineer Rips Toxic Working Environment...

GOOGLE Engineer Rips Toxic Working Environment...

'Tony and his goons demand crazy timelines so much that 'crunch time' has basically lost meaning. Just when your labor bears fruit, they swoop in, 180 the specs you just delivered on, then have the gall to call your team 'incompetent' for not reading their mind and delivering on these brand-new specs. I waste most of my time in pointless meetings, or defending my teams so they don't flip their desks and walk out,' he wrote of the supposed Nest office culture.

He went on to say that disheveled employees' lives and marriages are being destroyed and that they are forced to take naps in bathrooms because they are so overworked.

'People fall asleep in corners and cry in the bathrooms, health and marriages are suffering. Already the churn is insane, close to half the company if not more. Skilled engineers can tell the environment is toxic, so we're filling vacancies with mostly sub-par talent,' continued the post.

The anonymous man continued his rant and warned the CEO that he can't hide anything from engineers.

'Tony, you can't hide anything from engineers. We know how many units are actually being sold, how many subscriptions lapse, how many fail or get returned. We know about that time-bomb flaw you ignored so people will have to upgrade. We can see the data in those executive dashboards you think we don't know about,' he said.

'But go ahead, keep trashing us in public. We dare you to tell everyone just how much of that $340M was due to a simple Dropcam rebrand, and not the thermostats and smoke alarms. Good luck shipping that critical new project after restarting it for the umpteenth time. Ah, that feels better. Now off to the other 4 meetings I have today,' he concluded.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Nest/comments/4dbbgh/is_anyone_concerned_about_the_future_of_nest/?sort=top

Full post: After garnering attention from his post he added that despite having issues with the CEO, he is supportive of his fellow employees of the company

Full post: After garnering attention from his post he added that despite having issues with the CEO, he is supportive of his fellow employees of the company


Wednesday, April 06, 2016

London

From space

Prosecutors have too much power. Juries should rein them in. Jury Nullification - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/04/06/prosecutors-have-too-much-power-juries-should-rein-them-in/

Prosecutors have too much power. Juries should rein them in.

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds April 6 at 9:00 AM

Each week, In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week, we're talking about jury nullification. Need a primer? Catch up here.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is the Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

If there's strong evidence that you've committed a crime, there's still hope. Despite the evidence, those responsible for convicting you may choose to let you go, if they think that sending you to jail would result in an injustice.

That can happen through what's called "prosecutorial discretion," where a prosecutor decides not to bring or pursue charges against you because doing so would be unfair, even though the evidence is strong. Or it can happen through "jury nullification," where a jury thinks that the evidence supports conviction but then decides to issue a "not guilty" verdict because it feels that a conviction would be unjust.

[Jurors need to take the law into their own hands]

Strangely, the former is much less controversial than the latter. Prosecutorial discretion is regularly applied and generally regarded as a standard part of criminal justice. Its application may, on rare occasions, create controversy — such as when TV host David Gregory got a pass for what even the prosecutor called a "clear violation" of D.C. gun law when he displayed a high-capacity ammunition magazine on "Meet the Press" or when U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch invoked prosecutorial discretion as a reason for not pursuing charges against disgraced IRS employee Lois Lerner. But the concept of prosecutorial discretion is generally regarded as sound.

So-called jury nullification, on the other hand, gets far less respect. Though it is clearly within the power of juries to refuse to convict whenever they choose, judges and prosecutors tend to view this practice with hostility. They may not be able to stop juries from exercising their power, but they do their best to keep people from telling them that they have this option: Periodically, we see stories of people prosecuted for handing out jury nullification leaflets outside courthouses. Prosecutors in the District have even complained about billboards telling potential jurors about jury nullification.

That may change, however, with New Hampshire's new legislation requiring that juries be informed by the court that they may refuse to convict if they feel a conviction would yield an "unjust result." The New Hampshire legislation is good, but in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. Juries should be empowered to punish the prosecution when they feel the prosecution is abusive or malicious.

[Why do prosecutors go after innocent people?]

In today's system, prosecutors hold almost all the cards. The prosecutor's unreviewable decision whether to charge someone with a crime is, for all practical purposes, the most important part of the criminal justice system, yet it is a decision to which no due process attaches.

In a recent Columbia Law Review essay, titled "Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is A Crime," I noted that "prosecutors count on the fact that when a defendant faces a hundred felony charges, the prospect that a jury might go along with even one of them will be enough to make a plea deal look attractive. Then, of course, there are the reputational damages involved, which may be of greatest importance precisely in cases where political motivations might be in play. Worse, prosecutors have no countervailing incentives not to overcharge. A defendant who makes the wrong choice will wind up in jail; a prosecutor who charges improperly will suffer little, if any, adverse consequence beyond a poor win/loss record. Prosecutors are even absolutely immune from lawsuits over misconduct in their prosecutorial capacity."

So I think we should give prosecutors some skin in the game. Let juries be informed that they may refuse to convict if they think a conviction is unjust — and, if that happens, let the defendants' attorney fees and other costs be billed to the government. Also, let juries be informed that, if they believe the prosecution itself was malicious or unfair, they can make that finding — in which case the defendants' costs should come out of the prosecutor's budget. (If you want to get even tougher, you could provide that the prosecutors involved should be disqualified from law practice for a year or stripped of their immunity from civil suit. But I'm not sure we need to go that far).

Over the past several decades there has been a massive shift of power toward prosecutors, the result of politics, over-criminalization, institutional leverage and judges' failure to provide supervision. It's time to redress the balance. Although it doesn't go far enough, New Hampshire's proposed legislation is an excellent start.

Explore these other perspectives:

Paul Butler: Jurors need to take the law into their own hands

 

Friday, April 01, 2016

Waiters And Bartenders Rise To Record, As Manufacturing Workers Drop Most Since 2009

Waiters And Bartenders Rise To Record, As Manufacturing Workers Drop Most Since 2009
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-01/waiters-and-bartenders-rise-record-manufacturing-workers-drop-most-2009

But not all is lost: as has been the case for virtually every month during the "recovery", virtually every laid off manufacturing worker could find a job as a waiter: in March, the workers in the "Food services and drinking places" category, aka waiters, bartenders and minimum wage line cooks, rose again to a new record high of 11,307,000 workers, an increase of 25K in the month, offsetting virtually all lost manufacturing jobs.

This is how the two job series have looked since the start of 2015: 24k manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past 14 months compared to an increase of 365K food service workers.

null

 

And here is the longer-term, going back to the start of the crisis in December 2007.

null

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Why the Anger? Obamanomics has Failed

President Barack Obama, when asked to name an accomplishment for which he is most proud, said, "I'm proud of saving the American economy." Breathtaking.

Larry_Elder1

Let's examine the facts, using only government, left wing — or, at least, non-conservative — statistics, sources or analyses.

In 2012, the third year of the Obama recovery, the Associated Press wrote: "Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest. … Economic growth has never been weaker in a postwar recovery. Consumer spending has never been so slack. Only once has job growth been slower. More than in any other post-World War II recovery, people who have jobs are hurting: Their paychecks have fallen behind inflation."

PBS' Tavis Smiley, who possesses industrial-style contempt for the economic policies of former President Ronald Reagan, said in January, 2016: "On every leading economic issue, in the leading economic issues black Americans have lost ground in every one of those leading categories. So in the last ten years it hasn't been good for black folk."

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., then the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in 2011, when the official black unemployment stood at 14.1 percent: "As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14 percent (black) unemployment, if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House."

According to the Federal Reserve, while white households' median wealth slightly increased from 2010 to 2013, Hispanic households' net worth dropped 14 percent, while black net worth fell from $16,600 to $11,000 — a three-year drop of 34 percent.

The national "official" rate of unemployment — as released by the U.S. Department of Labor and touted by the media — stands at 4.9 percent, the lowest since 2008. As to this official rate, when, by 2015, it had dropped to 5.6 percent, Gallup CEO Jim Clifton wrote: "None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6 percent. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast 'falling' unemployment. …

"There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie."

OK, some of the above statements are opinions, even if non-conservative, and some of the statistics applied to the state of the economy two to four years ago.

What about now?

Gross Domestic Product: The recession ended in June 2009. Obama's recovery, according to the Joint Economic Committee, averaged an inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 2.2 percent over the next 25 quarters. The average recovery following post-1960 economic slowdowns, which lasted more than 12 months, is 3.9 percent, and under President Ronald Reagan it was 4.8 percent. President Obama will be the first president to reign over a recovery in which not a single year's economy grew at least 3 percent.

Jobs: During this recovery, private-sector jobs grew 11.6 percent. According to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee., the private-sector job growth und

er the average recovery is 17.0 percent. Under Ronald Reagan, average job growth was 23.6 percent.

The national debt: When Obama entered the White House, the federal debt stood at $10 trillion. Federal debt, according to the summary tables in the last budget Obama submitted — which runs through September 30, 2017 — will be over $20 trillion.

The reason the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery are analogous is that, as Tavis Smiley put it, the "leading" economic "categories" were similar.

Under Reagan, unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, under Obama at 10.0 percent. In the early '80s under Reagan, inflation averaged 13.5 percent, under Obama, it's been relatively tame. Under Reagan, prime interest rates hit 20.5 percent. So blaming the tepid Obama recovery on the "unprecedented" harsh numbers of so-called "Great Recession" he inherited won't fly, despite the pass — and frequent praise — Obama gets from the media.

Just days ago, in Argentina, Obama explained that the debate between communism and capitalism was merely an "interesting intellectual argument." He suggested that each state simply "choose from what works."

By that standard, Obamanomics — compared to the Reagan-style policy of reducing taxes, slowing down government spending, and decreasing regulation — simply … hasn't … worked.

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder.

Also see,

Trump vs. Democrats: Who Are the Real 'Racial Arsonists'?

Monday, March 28, 2016

2016 US Presidential Election Voter's Guide

2016 US Presidential Election Voter's Guide
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/2016-us-presidential-election-voters-guide

In this day-and-age of infinitesimally short attention spans, we thought the following flowchart would provide today's Millennial voter a quick-and-dirty solution for making their decision come November...

null

 

Source: The Burning Platform h/t Joe

Judicial Watch: Obama Administration Withholds Draft Whitewater Indictment of Hillary Clinton

Wow!

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obama-administration-withholds-draft-whitewater-indictment-of-hillary-clinton/

Judicial Watch: Obama Administration Withholds Draft Whitewater Indictment of Hillary Clinton

MARCH 28, 2016
Cites 'Privacy' and 'Scintilla' of Public Interest in Material about Potential Clinton Crimes

Judicial Watch: Draft Indictment Bears on 'Mrs. Clinton's honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness … for the position she currently seeks.'

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it is asking a federal court to order the National Archives and Records Administration to release draft criminal indictments of Hillary Clinton.  In its motion for summary judgment, the National Archives claimed that "the drafts involve a significant [Clinton] privacy interest that is not outweighed by any public interest…." In its March 11 opposition brief, Judicial Watch counters that allegedly "making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton's honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness … for the position she currently seeks," rendering the National Archives claim "neither serious nor credible."

These developments stem from an October 20, 2015, Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration (No. 15-cv-01740)) seeking:

All versions of indictments against Hillary Rodham Clinton, including but not limited to, Versions 1, 2, and 3 in box 2250 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, the "HRC/_ Draft Indictment" in box 2256 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, as well as any and all versions written by Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing, Jr. prior to September of 1996.

The draft indictments relate to allegations that Clinton provided false information and withheld evidence from federal investigators to conceal her involvement with the defunct Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, the collapse of which lead to multiple criminal convictions.  Clinton provided legal representation to Madison Guaranty as an attorney at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas.  Clinton's Rose Law Firm billing records, long sought by prosecutors, were found in the private quarters of the White House shortly after an important statute of limitations had expired.

In its motion for summary judgment, the National Archives confirmed that it has located the Clinton draft indictments, stating, "Included among the records of Mr. Starr and his successors are drafts of a proposed indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton." It adds, "Box 2250 contains a folder labeled 'Draft Indictment.'  Box 2256 contains a folder labelled 'Hillary Rodham Clinton/Webster L. Hubbell Draft Indictment.' Multiple drafts of the proposed indictment of Mrs. Clinton were located by NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] within these folders."

The National Archives claims that Clinton's right to privacy supersedes the public interest concerning the draft indictments.  It also claims that the release would violate grand jury secrecy protections and that Mrs. Clinton has 'a strong interest in not being associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity.'

The National Archives asserts:

While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to.

Judicial Watch counters that the public interest in finding what Mrs. Clinton was up to in the White House is paramount:

[A]t the time Mrs. Clinton was being investigated by the independent counsel for making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators, she was First Lady of the United States.  The alleged false statements and withholding of evidence also allegedly occurred while Mrs. Clinton was First Lady of the United States. The D.C. Circuit has found that, as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton was an officer of the United States, at least for purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act….

Obviously, making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton's honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness, not only as First Lady, but also in her subsequent government service as a U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State and for the position she currently seeks … The Archives' assertions to the contrary are neither serious nor credible.

In its opposition brief, Judicial Watch also notes that when it comes to any grand jury secrecy, "there is no secrecy left to protect:"

Finally, enormous amounts of grand jury information about the independent counsel's investigation of the First Lady have already been made public and are widely available. The relevant section of the January 5, 2001 Final Report [by the independent counsel] – which, again, the D.C. Circuit approved for publication and which is readily available on the Government Publishing Office's website – cites to, references, or quotes testimony from at least 25 grand jury appearances by 21 witnesses between 1995 and 1998… Once published, independent counsel reports effectively eliminate grand jury secrecy. Similarly, the 206-page "Summary of Evidence" produced by the Archives to Judicial Watch pursuant to a separate FOIA request also discloses even more grand jury information.

In response to a separate Judicial Watch FOIA investigation, the National Archives released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel internal memos revealing extensive details about the investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton for possible criminal charges involving her involvement with Madison Guaranty, including the infamous Whitewater/Castle Grande land transaction.  The memos are "statements of the case" against Hillary Clinton and Webster Lee "Webb" Hubbell, Hillary Clinton's former law partner and former Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department.  Ultimately, the memos show that prosecutors declined to prosecute Clinton because of the difficulty of persuading a jury to convict a public figure as widely known as Clinton.

"It is absurd for the Obama administration to argue that Hillary Clinton's privacy would keep a draft indictment from the American public," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  "One can't help but conclude that the Obama administration is doing a political favor for Hillary Clinton at the expense of the public's right to know about whether prosecutors believed she may have committed federal crimes."

###


Thursday, March 17, 2016

Feel the Bern: Why get a job when my IRS will steal the money for you

Bernie's waaay ahead on this, though (BTF): »
null
.

Monday, March 14, 2016

Meanwhile in Ohio

.

Tuesday, March 08, 2016

Not photoshopped

Hahaha. Liar Hillary

Sunday, March 06, 2016

An Open Letter to the Conservative Media Explaining Why I Have Left the Movement | Ricochet

https://ricochet.com/an-open-letter-to-the-conservative-media-explaining-why-i-have-left-the-movement/.

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one's country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in "blow back" or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called "conservatives" responded with the usual "How dare he?" Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush "kept us safe." I can assure you that President Bush didn't keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn't our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don't see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America's interests instead of the rest of the world's interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America's interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like "Islam is the religion of peace," or "Our war is not with Islam." Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

Fourth, I really do not care that Donald Trump is vulgar, combative, and uncivil and I would encourage you not to care as well. I would love to have our political discourse be what it was even thirty years ago and something better than what it is today. But the fact is the Democratic Party is never going to return to that and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Over the last 15 years, I have watched the then-chairman of the DNC say the idea that President Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen was a "serious position held by many people," watched the vice president tell a black audience that Republicans would return them to slavery if they could, watched Harry Reid say Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any reason to believe it was true, and seen an endless amount of appalling behavior on the part of the Democrats which is too long to list here and which I am sure you are aware. And now you tell me that I should reject Trump because he is uncivil and mean to his opponents? Is that some kind of a joke? This is not the time for civility or to worry about it in our candidates.

Fifth, I do not care that Donald Trump is in favor of big government. That is certainly not a virtue but it is not a meaningful vice since the same can be said of every single Republican in the race. I am sorry but the "we are just one more Republican victory from small government" card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins. So Trump being big government is a wash.

Sixth, Trump offers at least the chance that he might act in the American interest instead of the world's interest or in the blind pursuit of some fantasy ideological goals. There is more to economic policy than cutting taxes, sham free trade agreements, and hollow appeals to "cutting government" and the free market. Trump may not be good, but he at least understands that. In contrast, the rest of the GOP and everyone in Washington or the media who calls themselves a conservative has no understanding of this.

Rubio would be — as Laura Ingram pointed out this week — nothing but a repeat of the Bush 43 administration with more blood and treasure spent on the fantasy that acting in other people's interests indirectly helps ours. Cruz might be somewhat better, but it is unclear whethe...

Friday, March 04, 2016

Desperation Moves: Romney Plots To Block Trump At Republican Convention

And in tonight's debate (the 23781st we believe), Trump destroys Romney with his response to the first question:

"He was a failed candidate. He should have beaten President Obama very easily,"

 

"He failed miserably. And it was an embarrassment to everybody, including the Republican Party."

"So I don't take that. And I guess obviously he wants to be relevant. He wants to be back in the game."

Visit Website

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Make America Great Again – The Movement !

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/01/make-america-great-again-the-movement/

Make America Great Again – The Movement

Great supporter created grassroots video

Monday, February 22, 2016

We've always been at war with Eastasia

Wow, the media and this administration are like "1984."

"To fix this to conform to the new political reality, the Tsarnaev's were reclassified as "asylees" (asylum seekers) rather than "refugees".

"To make this reclassification work, history had to be re-written. The Winston Smith's of the world had to go backward in time to edit old stories to conform to the new reality."

http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/weve-always-been-at-war-with-eastasia.html

We've always been at war with Eastasia

Our media is surprisingly Orwellian, and it's not always due to government control. People practice "doublethink" at their own volition, without a Thought Police. Social media (Twitter, Facebook) are instituting their own private Thought Police. Online journalism now means that the press is free to edit old articles, to change past reporting to conform to new political realities.

Consider the example in the book 1984 regarding the ongoing war between the three superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia (representing English, Russian, and Chinese empires respectively).

At the start of the book, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia. That's the political consensus, and all historic documents agree. However, Winston Smith (the protagonist) remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. Winston Smith struggles with philosophical idea of "truth". Which is more true, what everyone knows and what's in the newspapers, or the memories within his head?

Then Ocean's allegiance switched back again. On the sixth day of Hate Week, as crowds gathered to denounce Eurasia, the Party switched enemies to Eastasia. In a particularly rousing speech against their enemy, the speaker was handed a slip of paper, and in mid-sentence, without pause, without change in content or tone, he changed the name of the enemy he was speaking against to Eastasia. Eurasia was now their dearest friends. Those holding banners denouncing their enemy were suddenly embarrassed to discover they had unaccountably written the wrong name, and quickly trampled and destroyed them.

This change meant work for Winston in the Ministry of Truth:
Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with
Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now
completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books,
pamphlets, films, sound-tracks, photographs--all had to be rectified at
lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that
the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference
to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in
existence anywhere. 

Last November, the Tsarnaev brothers (the "Boston Bombers") were "refugees". News articles from all the mainstream news outlets agreed, such as The Washington Post, the Atlantic, Time magazine, the UN/VOA, Vanity Fair, the Huffington Post, Nobody disputed that description. Even Wikipedia described them as "refugees".

Then terrorists attacked Paris, killing 129 innocents. A Syrian passport was found, making it look like terrorists inserted one of their own into the stream of refugees flowing into Europe. This created political backlash in America, where the House of Representatives passed a bill to hinder Syrian refugees coming into the country.

The other, pro-refugee side, has fought back, claiming that no refugee in American has ever committed a terrorist act. It's at this point that the Tsarnaev's become an embarrassing counter example, since indeed they committed the worst terrorist attack since 9/11.

To fix this to conform to the new political reality, the Tsarnaev's were reclassified as "asylees" (asylum seekers) rather than "refugees".

To make this reclassification work, history had to be re-written. The Winston Smith's of the world had to go backward in time to edit old stories to conform to the new reality.

For example, the Wikipedia page on Tsarnaev changed, purging the word "refugee" and replacing it with "asylee".

Wikipedia is just the start. The mainstream media likewise went back and "fixed" their embarrassing mistakes in news articles. If you search for "tsarnaev refugee" for dates before the Paris attacks, the top result is this article from the Washington Post. The Washington Post edited this article, purging the word "refugee" from both the title and the contents, either replacing it with "asylee" or rewording things. Here's a picture of the original title/lead, followed by the new version. The date of this change was November 19, 2015 -- in other words, specifically in response to the Paris debate.

What unreal about this change is that "refugee" and "asylee" refer to the same people. It's like how "emigrant" (or "emigree")  and "immigrant" refer to the same people, just with a different focus. One (emigrant, refugee) focuses on leaving the original country. The other (immigrant, asylee) focuses on arriving in a new country. But to arrive in one country is to leave another -- it's the same person doing both.

They are saying the Tsarnaev's are no longer Chechen emigrants/refugees, but now American immigrants/asylees. This reclassification is technically correct, because they arrived in American first, then applied for asylum status, unlike those applying from refugee camps in and around Syria. But this technicality doesn't change who they are. Being American immigrants/asylees doesn't change the fact that they are also refugees/emigrants fleeing strife in Chechnya.

In English, the word "asylee" isn't really used. Sure, it's technically a word, but used so seldomly that it's not included in spellcheck dictionaries. That's why I enabled spellcheck when creating the above picture, to demonstrate this issue -- spellcheck underlines the word in red. Most people have never heard of the word "asylee". Go to the local bar and ask random people what the word means. They'll just look at you funny. Indeed, your first hurdle will be the fact that you aren't sure how to pronounce it right yourself. According to Google's Ngrame, "refugee" is preferred over "asylee" by a 250:1 ratio in the English language.



For journalists, since both words are valid, but one is rare and confusing, the correct word to use is "refugee". This is especially true when it's the emigration side being stressed, as in the above Washington Post article. While you can make a case for discussing "asylees in America", the correct word in the article would be "refugees fleeing war". I just verified that the AP Stylebook has a reference for "refugee" but no entry for "asylee".

This post isn't about refugees, but Orwelianism. What's shown here is retroactive changing of history to conform to the new political consensus. It's doublethink, as people strive to change their own thinking. It's newspeek, as people try to change what others believe by changing the words used to express those ideas. It's also about the mainstream press, which has become part of the corrupt establishment, obviously violating every principle of journalism in order to exercise power.

Robert Graham

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Bert + Ernie = Bernie

!

Friday, February 19, 2016

Trump deftly navigates CNN setup question

I doubt you could ever find another candidate capable of navigating his/her way through the gauntlet of organized media opposition as Donald Trump.

He possesses a skillset that will become even more valuable when the primary enemy is Hillary and the media assisted Clinton Machine.  Hence, the increasingly obvious reasoning why they hate the thought of facing him one-on-one.

https://t.co/WG5a9Cc9HY

Monday, February 15, 2016

It Feels Good to Be a Clinton - YouTube

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY&feature=youtu.be

Friday, February 05, 2016

Sanders Slams Hillary As Wall Street Puppet

Feel the BERN!

The success of Bernie Sanders (whose campaign boasts that the average donation is just $27, reflecting the grassroots nature of his support) and Donald Trump (who is self funding his campaign and repeatedly reminds voters that no one "owns" him) reflect the electorate's growing frustration with what Americans see as a corrupt political system that's ultimately controlled by lobbyists and entrenched special interests that spend millions to ensure that their agenda gets pushed on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Jeb Bush's abysmal poll numbers also reflect this frustration (Bush's super PAC has taken the most money from Wall Street of any candidate).

At issue is the $14.3 million Clinton has raised from Wall Street through her super PAC and the numerous paid speeches both her and her husband have made for Wall Street firms. Those speeches pay nearly a quarter of a million each and as you can see, there are quite a few of them.

"Since Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton entered national politics in the early 1990s, Wall Street has contributed more than $100 million to their political campaigns, charitable foundation and personal finances," WSJ wrote late on Thursday. "Financial-services firms accounted for about 12% of the total amount raised by the Clintons during their more than two decades in politics."

Sanders' suggestion that Clinton's ties to the financial industry mean she can't be trusted to fight for Main Street is "an artful smear," the former First Lady insisted during Thursday's debate. "You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received," she insisted.
Sanders Slams Hillary As Wall Street Puppet Ahead Of Critical New Hampshire Primary
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-05/sanders-slams-hillary-wall-street-puppet-ahead-critical-new-hampshire-primary

Sunday, January 31, 2016

300 Scientists Sign Letter Opposing Federal Data Fudging Regarding Global Warming

300 Scientists Sign Letter Opposing Federal Data Fudging Regarding Global Warming

Dave Blount Jan 31, 2016
Again and again we are fed the lie that 97% of scientists are going along with the global warming dogma leftists have been using as a device to achieve higher taxes and more centralized control. Why don't they claim that 100% of scientists have been bullied and/or bribed into compliance? Because some scientists are sounding off:

Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year "hiatus" in global warming from the temperature record.

"We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act," some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

"In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act."

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to "ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information."

What kind of climate criminals signed this letter?

Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

The scientific malfeasance is too outrageous to let pass.

The NOAA study in dispute claims the scientists found a solution to the 15-year "pause" in global warming. They "adjusted" the hiatus in warming [in] the temperature record from 1998 to 2012 [so that the] "new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale."

As climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts write,

It's the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise.

Their intent and methods are so obvious they're laughable.

Kudos to scientists with the integrity to stand up for reality in the face of tremendous pressure to endorse fiction.

300 Scientists Sign Letter Opposing Federal Data Fudging Regarding Global Warming

http://tinyurl.com/hltuc26

Friday, January 29, 2016

Helicopter Money Arrives: Switzerland To Hand Out $2500 Monthly To All Citizens | Zero Hedge

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/helicopter-money-arrives-switzerland-hand-out-2500-monthly-all-citizens

With Citi's chief economist proclaiming "only helicopter money can save the world now," and the Bank of England pre-empting paradropping money concerns, it appears that Australia's largest investment bank's forecast that money-drops were 12-18 months away was too conservative. While The Finns consider a "basic monthly income" for the entire population, Swiss residents are to vote on a countrywide referendum about a radical plan to pay every single adult a guaranteed income of around $2500 per month, with authorities insisting that people will still want to find a job.

The plan, as The Daily Mail reports, proposed by a group of intellectuals, could make the country the first in the world to pay all of its citizens a monthly basic income regardless if they work or not.  But the initiative has not gained much traction among politicians from left and right despite the fact that a referendum on it was approved by the federal government for the ballot box on June 5.

Under the proposed initiative, each adult would receive $2,500 per months, and each child would also receive 625 francs ($750) a month.
 
The federal government estimates the cost of the proposal at 208 billion francs ($215 billion) a year.
 
Around 153 billion francs ($155 bn) would have to be levied from taxes, while 55 billion francs ($60 bn) would be transferred from social insurance and social assistance spending.
That is 30% of GDP!!!

The action committee pushing the initiative consists of artists, writers and intellectuals, including publicist Daniel Straub, former federal government spokesman Oswald Sigg and Zurich rapper Franziska Schläpfer (known as "Big Zis"), the SDA news agency reported. Personalities supporting the bid include writers Adolf Muschg and Ruth Schweikert, philosopher Hans Saner and communications expert Beatrice Tschanz. The group said a new survey showed that the majority of Swiss residents would continue working if the guaranteed income proposal was approved.

'The argument of opponents that a guaranteed income would reduce the incentive of people to work is therefore largely contradicted,' it said in a statement quoted by The Local.
 
However, a third of the 1,076 people interviewed for the survey by the Demoscope Institute believed that 'others would stop working'.
 
And more than half of those surveyed (56 percent) believe the guaranteed income proposal will never see the light of day.
The initiative's backers say it aims to break the link between employment and income, with people entitled to guaranteed income regardless of whether they work.

Or put another way - break the link between actually having to work for anything ever again... but maybe this "group of itellentuals" should hark Margaret Thatcher's words that "eventually you run out of other people's money!!"

*  *  *

As we previously detailed, support is growing around the world for such spending to be funded by "People's QE." The idea behind "People's QE" is that central banks would directly fund government spending… and even inject money directly into household bank accounts, if need be. And the idea is catching on.

Already the European Central Bank is buying bonds of the European Investment Bank, an E.U. institution that finances infrastructure projects. And the new leader of Britain's Labor Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is backing a British version of this scheme.
 
That's the monster coming to towns and villages near you! Call it "overt monetary financing." Call it "money from helicopters." Call it "insane." 
 
But it won't be unpopular. Who will protest when the feds begin handing our money to "mid- and low-income households"?
Simply put, The Keynesian Endgame is here... as  the only way to avoid secular stagnation (which, for the uninitiated, is just another complicated-sounding, economist buzzword for the more colloquial "everything grinds to a halt") is for central bankers to call in the Krugman Kraken and go full-Keynes.

Rather than buying assets, central banks drop money on the street. Or even better, in a more modern and civilised fashion, credit our bank accounts! That, after all, may be more effective than buying assets, and would not imply the same transfer of wealth as previous or current forms of QE. Indeed, 'helicopter money' can be seen as permanent QE, where the central bank commits to making the increase in the monetary base permanent.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right

Well said!

Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right

And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault.
By TUCKER CARLSON

About 15 years ago, I said something nasty on CNN about Donald Trump's hair. I can't now remember the context, assuming there was one. In any case, Trump saw it and left a message the next day.

"It's true you have better hair than I do," Trump said matter-of-factly. "But I get more pussy than you do." Click.

At the time, I'd never met Trump and I remember feeling amused but also surprised he'd say something like that. Now the pattern seems entirely familiar. The message had all the hallmarks of a Trump attack: shocking, vulgar and indisputably true.

Not everyone finds it funny. On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there's never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he's a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park.

I understand it of course. And, except in those moments when the self-righteous silliness of rich people overwhelms me and I feel like moving to Maine, I can see their points, some of them anyway. Trump might not be my first choice for president. I'm not even convinced he really wants the job. He's smart enough to know it would be tough for him to govern.

But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn't mean his candidacy can't be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here's some of what they might learn:

He Exists Because You Failed

American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."

Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.

It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.

Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals — these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump's political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it's thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he's wrong. It's especially exciting when you suspect he's right.

A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven't assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What's our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He's so obviously faking it.

They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they're looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How'd that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Tucker Carlson is editor in chief of the Daily Caller.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572