Lt. Tom Keefer: Can’t you see what he’s doing? He’s re-enacting his big triumph, the cheese investigation. He wants to be as hot as the young Ensign Queeg.

The Caine Mutiny 1954

Norma Desmond:  All right,Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my closeup.”

Sunset Boulavard 1950

One of the advantages of age is perspective of having gone through things and having the experience of living through events. It’s even better when you study history is you get the perspective of people who have been dead for years, decades or even centuries because in the end, there really is nothing new under the sun.

That’s one of the reasons why the offensive against President Trump doesn’t surprise me, anyone who lived through that era would know the media had the same hatred and contempt for Ronald Reagan. I remember being in college and having my own history professor speak of his fears of Ronald Reagan. The main difference being in those days being that there was no conservative media to push back.  That’s why if you think that the disaster of the Comey hearing for the left would have humbled them, you’d think wrong as Byron York explains:

Fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee marked the full shift of the Trump-Russia investigation from a probe dedicated to discovering collusion to a probe dedicated to proving the president obstructed justice. (See “At this rate, it won’t matter if Trump colluded with Russia.”) Democrats at the Comey hearing barely touched on collusion, which appears to have turned out to be a dry hole. When it did come up in Comey’s appearance, it was during questioning from Republicans, who wanted to highlight their point that collusion — the core of the case and the reason everybody got so excited in the first place — has so far turned out to be nothing.

 

To Democrats, that no longer matters. Now, it’s all about obstruction of justice, or alleged obstruction of justice, or fantasized obstruction of justice, depending on your partisan perspective. Senate Democrats focused almost exclusively on obstruction in their questioning of Comey, and their House counterparts are sure to do the same. As far as the Justice Department investigation of the president is concerned, we know that as of the time Comey was fired on May 9, there was no investigation of the president concerning collusion, which strongly suggests that after 10 months of probing, authorities had nothing against him on that issue. Now, however, after the Comey memos and the Comey firing, it seems safe to predict that special counsel Robert Mueller will investigate Trump for obstruction. So it is a new game, even if Republicans keep trying to play the old one.

When I see the Democrats and their media allies going all Watergate on Trump that I see get what’s goign on.  I know and perhaps they know there is no there there, but it’s not about that,  to some degree it isnt’ even about power.

It’s about glory days., those wonderful days of yesteryear when the Democrats and the media were at their apex of respect and presteege in the eyes of the public, a press that spoke with only one liberal voice supporting a Democrat party that in congress was  practically unchallenged.

Unfortunately for the left the lessons of Watergate don’t apply mainly due the admidded lack of evidence of any crime, which is not a big surprise as there is also the lack of an actual crime to have evidence of unless of course you’re counting, as Don Surber puts it :  “James Comey’s multiple ethics and likely legal violations.”

But all that doesn’t matter, to paraphrase River Song, the Democrats/Media will believe any story that they are the hero of and no matter what the reality, in their minds, they are the heros, as brave or braver than those who marched in Selma or fought in the getto of Warsaw.

After all they don’t call themsevles the resistance for nothing.

 

Of all the topics surrounding President Trump, arguably the least important is how he handles himself on Twitter. On the other hand, a different argument could be made that it’s extremely important. I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m not one of those who believes a President should be expressing himself from a policy perspective in 140-characters or less. Some will argue that it’s him being transparent, but it has proven to be little more than a place for him to vent and rally support occasionally. I can understand pushing for support; short tidbits are enough space to call for his base to react. However, the venting has been an issue at times.

One might hear all of this and assume that I don’t want him to Tweet more, but it’s the opposite. I don’t want him to Tweet at all, but if he’s not going to stop, he needs to do it more. Little bits of information here and there are worthless out of context or without explanation. That’s the point of using Twitter, of course. It allows him to express himself quickly and without the ability to elaborate. The press and public can interpret things the way they choose.

I’ve accepted that the President of these United States will not stop Tweeting. Therefore, I humbly request that he Tweets more. Tweet longer. Use Tweetstorms if he has to in order to get the message out. Don’t leave us hanging, guessing, and wondering what’s next. Just let it all out. Craft several Tweets in a row on a regular basis. He’s done this from time to time. He might as well do it all the time.

If we’re to accept that this is the President’s preferred method of communication, so be it. Let’s at least get more information from it. It’s not what I would prefer in an ideal world, but it’s the world we’re in so we might as well get the whole story.

The Early Election in England backfired on Theresa May in a big way.

There has been a lot of speculation as to why this is the case, but I think it comes down to one simple thing.

People don’t like their kids blown up or their fellows stabbed when out on the town. Furthermore they really don’t like paying to support the people who do it nor encourage it done.

In fact the only reason why Theresa May’s program of protecting people from Pam Geller and Robert Spencer on the grounds that their warning about those trying to kill them will provide an excuse for people to kill them vs protecting them from those who never needed an excuse to kill them didn’t lead to a Labor’s majority is that Labor is even less likely to do the job then she is.

Update: Today’s British leadership in two tweets

Hulu got some free publicity last week when several costumed “handmaids” showed up in the New Hampshire House gallery to protest a fetal homicide bill, which would allow prosecution for acts of violence causing the death of a preborn child.

“Handmaids” in the N.H. House gallery. Photo by Beth Scaer; used with permission, all rights reserved.

The bonneted “handmaids” were inspired by the Hulu original series The Handmaid’s Tale, based on Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian novel. The story is about “handmaids” used by men for sex and surrogate childbearing in a society where fertility is at a premium. In the story, women are used, sex is coerced, and the government is fine with that: bad situations all around.

So what does The Handmaid’s Tale have to do with a fetal homicide bill?

Following the lead of the ACLU, abortion lobbyists, and perhaps UltraViolet, the bonneted protesters in the House gallery apparently believed that a bill recognizing unborn victims of violence was somehow an attack on women’s rights. New Hampshire’s bill specifies that it would not apply to any decision made by a pregnant woman, including abortion; the protesters nonetheless objected to the bill. The “handmaids” were silent right up to the point when the House passed the bill anyway. That was enough to provoke a handmaid or two to call out “shame!”

I wonder how that “shame” sounded to the man sitting nearby in the gallery whose pregnant daughter had been injured in an auto collision and whose injuries had led to the death of her preborn child, a boy named Griffin. The child was delivered in the aftermath of the crash, but died shortly thereafter. Because his injuries had been sustained in utero, his death could not be considered a homicide under law, regardless of any culpability that the driver may have had for the mother’s injuries. Since then, Griffin’s grandfather has fought for fetal homicide legislation.

In the 2009 Lamy decision, the New Hampshire Supreme Court had to overturn a drunk driver’s homicide conviction. That driver had slammed into a taxi at 100 miles per hour. The taxi driver’s son was delivered by emergency c-section but died two weeks later from injuries sustained in utero as a result of the crash. That was no homicide, ruled the Court, with obvious regret.

The unanimous Lamy decision included this nudge to legislators: “Should the legislature find the result in this case as unfortunate as we do, it should follow the lead of many other states and revisit the homicide statutes as they pertain to a fetus.” Now, in 2017, that nudge just might yield a fetal homicide law. Might. Abortion advocates are fiercely lobbying the Governor to veto the bill, in spite of the Governor’s previously-announced support for the measure. They successfully beat back another fetal homicide bill five years ago when a previous Governor cast a veto.

The women whose losses I’ve described sustained serious physical injuries themselves, and prosecutors had the option (which in the Lamy case was exercised) of filing criminal charges against the party responsible for those injuries. The deaths of their children, though, were not crimes under current New Hampshire law. The women’s childbearing choices were thwarted. Their reproductive rights were compromised in deadly ways, and the law could not recognize that.

Apparently, women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term aren’t exercising the kind of reproductive rights the costumed “handmaids” wanted to promote. Go figure.

The main impact of the bonneted protesters was to bring Hulu’s program to the attention of many people in the State House who hadn’t been aware of it. I hope Hulu appreciated the free promotion.

Ellen Kolb blogs about New Hampshire life-issue policy at Leaven for the Loaf and looks farther afield in ellenkolb.com

In recent months I’ve held my tongue regarding President Trump’s upcoming proposal for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. While it goes against my firm beliefs in reining in the federal government and reducing budgets rather than increasing them, it’s premature to oppose it wholeheartedly. After all, his promise to make private investments the bulk of the funding may not turn out to be another “Mexico is going to pay for it” moment.

The Democrats aren’t waiting before condemning the initiative. They decided to double it with no pretense of shifting burden away from taxpayers. Their plan calls for $200 billion per year for a decade fully funded by the public.

Few would argue the infrastructure doesn’t need improvement and interstate travel falls squarely in line with the federal mandate which is why I’ve held my opposition to Trump’s proposal until we see it. With that said, I don’t need to see a single detail of the Democrats’ proposal beyond the price tag. $2 trillion is so far west of crazyville it’s insane more conservative blogs aren’t up in arms. Between the Paris accords and the London attack, it’s probably just so far down the news food chain. Besides, they couldn’t pull it off, could they?

Actually, yes. If the economy turns south in the next year, it’s very likely this proposal could become one of the rallying cries the Democrats use to gain control of the House and Senate. Dubbed the “21st Century New Deal for Jobs,” they hope to invoke the huge government expansion of FDR to drive support. Like President Obama’s stimulus, they’ll use it to promote the concept of “shovel-ready jobs” to help put Americans back to work.

Here’s the problem. Americans are going back to work already. The economy is looking so much stronger now than it did just a couple of years ago that the Democrats would have to hope for a near-collapse in order to make their case an important one for the 2018 elections. Granted, the economy isn’t as strong as public numbers show, but more people are working today than they were last year and if the GOP’s agenda pans out as expected, we can expect the jobs numbers to stay strong.

There are still many pitfalls the GOP needs to overcome in order to maintain their majorities. Obamacare repeal and tax reform are right there at the top. Jobs are the perennial concern, so if the GOP delivers, the Democrats will have to try to spook voters instead of winning them over with their New Deal. The further we can push away from FDR’s legacy of expansive government, the better.

Illinois Policy Institute caricature of Michael Madigan

By John Ruberry

“I can’t stop the revolution, but until it comes, let’s have some fun.” Prince Felix Yusupov to Rasputin in the film Nicholas and Alexandra.

And with the revolution of course came the collapse of Czarist Russia.

The beleaguered state of Illinois set a couple of futility records last week. It became the first state since at least the Great Depression to go two straight years without passing a budget. In response, Standard & Poors and Moody’s dropped Illinois’ bond rating to one level above junk–the lowest ever recorded for a state. And both agencies alluded that a junk rating may be coming very soon.

The 2017 Illinois General Assembly session ended on Wednesday. It can still pass a budget, but it will require a three-fifths majority to do so. To be fair, the state Senate, which has a supermajority of Democrats, did pass a budget that included a huge income tax release–with no Republican votes. But the real legislative power in Illinois lies with House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), who has held that job for an unprecedented 32 of the last 34 years. Madigan is also the chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party–and if you are a Democrat in office in the Prairie State you almost certainly owe multiple favors to Madigan, who is also a prodigious fundraiser and jobs provider, and of course those jobs include seats on the General Assembly and the state attorney general’s office, which his daughter holds. Madigan, an adept gerrymanderer, draws Illinois’ legislative districts, which is why Democrats have that supermajority in the state Senate and until this year had one in the House.

Nothing gets passed, heck, nothing even gets onto the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives without Madigan’s approval. And if a bill can’t make it out of the House it can’t move on to the Senate, let alone to the governor’s desk.

Illinois’ governor is Bruce Rauner, a Republican who is a first-time public office holder. Rauner is willing to sign a budget bill that includes an income tax increase, but only as part of a grand bargain that also contains reforms such as term limits, a property tax freeze, workers compensation law changes, and tort laws that are more business-friendly. Is Rauner completely blameless? Of course not. Perhaps he should bolster his negotiating chops or remove an item or two from his Bring Back Illinois agenda. But Rauner, who three years ago became the first Illinois governor to win a majority of the vote since 2002, was dispatched to Springfield to battle the status quo of failure.

Madigan of course has the votes to pass a budget in the House. But he is only interested in maintaining his speakership and of course his power–even though Illinois is circling the drain. It currently has over $14 billion in unpaid bills and at least $130 billion in unfunded pension obligations. The Boss doesn’t want his minions in the House to face voters next year after voting for a tax increase. Madigan would rather rule a collapsing Illinois than share power in a prosperous one, which is the same governing philosophy Russia’s last Czar used.

That’s not to say that the General Assembly hasn’t accomplished anything this year. It passed a $15 minimum wage bill that is seen as a jobs killer by businesses. Why do I say that? Because Cook County, where I live, recently passed a $13 minimum wage bill that suburb after suburb–and it’s important to note that suburban Cook is heavily Democratic–is opting out of because of fierce opposition from small business owners. Rauner is expected to the veto minimum wage bill. The GA also passed a bill allowing for an elected Chicago school board. While I normally support more direct democracy, an elected Chicago board of education will quickly, if not immediately, become beholden to the well-organized and hyper-leftist Chicago Teachers Union, which refuses to compromise on issues such as having teachers pay more into their woefully underfunded pension funds. And the General Assembly passed legislation that will make it easier for Illinoisans to change their birth certificate gender if they have not undergone gender re-assignment surgery.

Meanwhile the 800-pound gorilla in the room–Illinois’ dire financial situation–is growing bigger and becoming more malodorous every day.

Illinois has become 1916 Russia. The collapse is coming. Perhaps it has arrived.

John Ruberry, a fifth-generation Illinois resident, regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

There is never a dull moment in the America that has Donald J. Trump as its President. While My Donald is busy doing his job, sourpuss kooks continue to lose their collectivist minds, and even if he did nothing else for the next four years, that alone would be almost too much winning. Almost.

Here is a sampling of the schadenfreudetastic awesomeness that has been unleashed by the power of MAGA in just the past few days:

We are awash in the tears of unhinged leftists.

A moron who thought a that beheaded POTUS would be funny has broken her obnoxious self, and that right there is hilarious.

Crooked Hillary Rotten Clinton, the sore loser, is going to need a bigger basket.

The left has its own circular firing squad.

Media shark jumping with their hair on fire.

Covfefe is a thing.

Democrats are now the Party of Chicken Littles.

Build-A-Burger’s gonna get a taste of MAGA.

Congratulations, President Trump.

President Trump Puts American Jobs First:

Our government rushed to join international agreements where the United States pays the costs and bears the burdens while other countries get the benefit and pay nothing.” – President Donald J. Trump

ALREADY THE WORLD’S ENERGY LEADER: The United States had already become the leader in cutting CO2 emissions while still leading in oil & gas production.

  • In the United States, energy related carbon dioxide emissions have significantly declined since before the Paris Climate Accord was negotiated, and will continue to decline as a share of worldwide emissions, particularly when compared to other nations such as China and India.
    • The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2017 Annual Energy Outlook reports that, from 2005 to 2016, energy related carbon dioxide emissions fell at an average annual rate of 1.4%.
    • Emissions are projected to continue to fall from 2016 to 2040.
    • Meanwhile, the EIA reports that emissions in the developing world are expected to double their 2005 levels by 2040.
  • According to recent U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States remained the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas combined.
  • The United States continues to be a world leader in energy, but increased competition from countries like China demonstrates the need for policies that enable America to compete on a global scale.

HARMFUL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: The Paris Climate Accord could cost the United States economy millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in economic output over the next several decades.

  • According to an analysis by National Economic Research Associates (NERA), meeting President Obama’s commitment under the Paris Climate Accord would cost the United States nearly $3 trillion by 2040.
    • By 2040, the American economy could have 6.5 million fewer industrial sector jobs, including 3.1 million fewer manufacturing jobs.
    • Industries such as cement, iron and steel, coal, natural gas, and petroleum would be forced to cut production under President Obama’s Paris Climate Accord.

SHOULDERING THE BURDEN: Under the Paris Climate Accord, the United States would carry the burden while other countries would get the benefits.

  • Under the Obama Administration, which signed an agreement without having to deal with the economic repercussions, the United States was committed to reducing CO2 emissions by between 26 and 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
    • Meanwhile China can continue to increase emissions for the next 13 years.
  • The United States already contributed $1 billion to a UN Green Climate Fund. This would increase to $3 billion under pledges made by the previous Administration.

INEFFECTIVE: Even if every nation fully complied with the Paris Climate Accord, it would barely impact the climate.

  • According to researchers from MIT, if every nation that signed the Paris Climate Accord met all of their commitments until the end of the century, the impact on the climate would be negligible.

PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: President Trump is fulfilling his promise to the American people to stop international agreements that disadvantage the United States.

  • May 26, 2016, then-candidate Trump:
    • “President Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accords— unilaterally, and without the permission of Congress.”
    • “So foreign bureaucrats are going to be controlling what we are using and what we are doing on our land in our country. No way.”

Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, Americans are indeed getting put ahead of foreign moochers, and America is finally winning again, and winning bigly. The fact that America haters are going mad with the agony of their numerous defeats is really just the sweetest icing on a schadenfreudelicious cake.  Mmmm mmm mmm….

 

 

*******

MJ Stevenson, AKA Zilla, is best known on the web as Zilla at MareZilla.com. She lives in a woodland shack near a creek, in one of those rural parts of New York State that nobody knows or cares about, with her family and a large pack of guardian companion animals. 

What would Americans do if other countries and the United Nations told us our actual capital was Los Angeles? We can say it’s Washington DC all we want, but shouldn’t we just accept it if the international community decides they want Los Angeles to be the capital? Of course not.

This idea seems to be lost on those who refuse to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now, President Trump can be counted as one of those people who, despite very clear campaign promises, has decided to do what every U.S. President has done for years. He’s proactively not moving the U.S. Embassy there.

It’s important to note that this is an active decision. If he had done nothing, it would have been on the State Department to make the move immediately or lose funding. Instead, the President waived a law requiring the move. This doesn’t jibe with a simple campaign promise.

“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem,” he told an extremely excited crowd.

As Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, and others in his administration would note, any such move would do damage to America’s relationship with Muslim nations in the Middle East. They claim East Jerusalem as theirs, often claiming that it’s part of their religious history. What they won’t tell you is that it isn’t mentioned in the Quran. Not once. They also aren’t interested in the fact that it was claimed as the Jewish capital over a millennium-and-a-half before Islam was even established.

None of that’s important when feathers might be ruffled, right?

The notion that this is a temporary move is ridiculous. There’s never going to be a good time to keep this campaign promise. Never.

Some might throw up a silly argument that we don’t need to mess with international affairs, that Trump’s “America First” pledge supersedes all other promises. They might even say we can’t afford it (though we can somehow afford everything under the sun in the spending agreement DC just passed), but that’s even sillier. Trump could say, “We’re going to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Israel’s going to pay for it.”

They would. In a heartbeat.

The list of broken promises is already piling up almost as quickly as President Obama’s did when he took office in 2009. The difference is that President Trump is passing on some of the easiest. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a layup. Whether it’s his advisers, some backroom deals he made with Muslim countries, or influence from “the orb” that’s making him backtrack, this is not what we were promised when we put him in the White House.

I’m sure very few people were actually at Kathy Griffin attempt at attention via the Trump beheading photo shoot.  After all it’s the logical conclusion of the continual attacks since November and the media narrative that the election of Trump is the greatest crisis the nation has ever faced.

Since nobody would notice Kathy Griffin under normal circumstances it is natural that both her and the folks setting up the photo shoot would use such a method to get her out there and generate clicks and views

Furthermore as demonstrated by the campus left there there are plenty of folks for whom this type of thing is only going to make her more popular.  You can make a good living out of that niche market.  I can see the campus leftist’s now:  Of Course Suggesting Beheading the President is OK, He’s Hitler you know.  

What might surprise some are  prominent members of the left from Chelsea Clinton to Keith Olbermann falling over themselves to denounce her actions.  You might think this is just virtue signaling but no, their reactions are very calculated.

Consider, the left has just lost another special election in Montana and GA 6 election is coming up in a few weeks.

How would the left like to see Karen Handel running ads linking her Democrat opponent to Kathy Griffin, perhaps using the CNN segment of Molly Ball of the Atlantic dismissing it to show the MSM’s indifference to this kind of thing?

Given the reaction of voters in Montana the last thing the press wants is to give normal Americans already dismissing them as fiction another reason to tune them out.

Of course a campaign on that is on the ball would already have an add out linking Griffin and Ball to Jon Ossoff and demanding he denounce them.  If he fails to then it can be played up, if he does then I’m sure that might lose him some fans with the more fanatical Trump haters that the left needs to turn out.  The Handel campaign or one of the PACS supporting her should get on this at once.

And after they do then can send a card to Kathy noting how kind it was of her to give such a gift to their election effort.

Update:  DaTechGuy gets results

A Republican Super PAC has found a new way to target Democratic candidates: Kathy Griffin.

A new ad uses the controversial comedian to criticize Democrat Jon Ossoff, saying her recent controversial actions are part of a pattern of behavior from “liberal extremists” who now support the House candidate running in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.

Via Ed Driscoll at Insty

Following a good showing on his first overseas trip, President Trump returned to the states and called for something that has some on the right scratching their heads. He’s wanting more dollars put towards health care.

One of the things that got the AHCA passed in the House was the decrease in spending on health care. The conservative Freedom Caucus pushed for several additions before voting for it, including the ability for states to opt-out of some of the more liberal points such as pre-existing conditions. However, the reason some gave for finally backing the bill is that it reduces overall spending on health care. What is the President asking for now?

Regardless of whether this was just a Tweet that can be disregarded as rhetoric in 140-characters-or-less or if its a sign that he really wants more money put into health care, the overarching theme is the same. Many in the GOP (and pretty much every Democrat), including the President, are missing the fundamental point that health care can only truly be fixed if the federal government systematically removes itself from the equation.

Obamacare isn’t failing because of subtle details or nuances. It’s failing because the concept behind government-mandated health care is fatally flawed. The differences between the ACA and the AHCA are so small that their cores are essentially the same. Both insert DC into an area where it simply doesn’t belong. By doing so, either will fail whether it has the letter (R) or (D) on its stamp of approval.

We don’t need more money plugged into health care. We need the massive amounts of money that are already pumped into health care focused by a consumer-driven free market. Businesses operate based upon the demands of three forces: government, consumers, and market conditions. Today, government has primacy in the equation by forcing the other two factors to be secondary. Consumers have very little impact in the equation because of mandates in both Obamacare and the current Trumpcare replacement being worked on in the Senate. As for market conditions, they are artificial because of government intervention. They will continue to be artificial if Obamacare is repealed and replaced with a variation of the AHCA.

Nearly everyone on Capitol Hill fears a full repeal for the same basic reason. They know that if it’s done right, it will work in the long term. The Democrats don’t want that because it exposes the long-con they’ve been working in DC for decades, the concept that more government is better. The Republicans don’t want that because they fear it won’t work quickly enough for them to retain power in the midterm elections. The AHCA isn’t designed to fix health care. It’s designed to pretend to fix it while mitigating fallout until election day.

As I stated in a different post:

If we systematically repeal Obamacare, we can have privatized health care once again. A replacement plan that tries to predict what will happen is foolish. Instead, we should repeal, then monitor and analyze the market. Over time, we’ll find the holes that need to be plugged. States, charities, and other organizations can fill most of these holes. Whatever is left, if anything, can fall to the federal government. This way, DC becomes the final safety net instead of being the first line of defense. That’s the way it should be in health care and a plethora of other areas.

The last thing this nation needs is more dollars redirected into health care. Those of us watching our premiums rise despite higher deductibles and worse coverage (which is a vast majority) know that there’s already “more dollars” in health care. It needs to be allocated properly through competition and the push for innovation. We can’t have the best health care in the world as the President hopes unless DC is willing to remove itself from the equation. Until then, the math will continue to fail miserably.