Baltimore is Burning

Baltimore IS on fire — and it HAS been for some time. We’ll get into specifics in a moment that bears this out. The last few days have found the President and Baltimore resident Congressman Elijah Cummings going after each other in the press. And it’s ugly.

It’s ugly, not because Democrats and their communications arm — the Mainstream Media — pipe in and all in unison cry “Trump is a racist! His attacks on Rep. Cummings and the city of Baltimore are racist! He’s a racist…..”

Racism is NOT Baltimore’s problem! Or is it?

The “Problem”

Baltimore’s problem is not unique. In fact, large cities across the nation face the exact same problem. The problem is NOT that they need more money. The problem is the money they have that comes in total from taxpayers is NOT being used wisely. AND THERE’S NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE WASTE AND CORRUPTION THAT THOSE DOLLARS FUND!

The Problem’s Source

The source seems to be the plethora of money from the Feds to help Baltimore fix itself: fix its high crime rate, raging unemployment, incorrigible public education, homelessness, corruption in local government, etc. Baltimore’s political leadership can cry “foul” as loud as they want against the Trump Administration, but those cries fall on deaf ears. The federal government has buried Baltimore in free taxpayer dollars. And it began with President Obama.

Free Money

President Barack Obama said, ”Massive investments in urban communities could make a difference right now.” Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings said, “We have to invest in our cities and our children.” And House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who also represents Maryland, said, “But we’re going to have to as a country invest if we’re going to have the kinds of communities we want.”

But the idea that we haven’t been “investing” in Baltimore is nonsense.

Federal and state money poured into the city for decades. From fiscal years 2003 to 2013 (the last year for which these reports are available), Baltimore received at least $2.4 billion in federal assistance and another $1.8 billion in state aid. The city also received roughly $1.8 billion in federal stimulus money. And this doesn’t count the billions of dollars received directly by the people who live in Baltimore through various social welfare programs.

Yet nearly a quarter of the people in the city still live in poverty, 65 percent above the national level. We’ve clearly been throwing a lot of money at poverty in Baltimore with very little (if any) positive results.

Part of the problem, unsurprisingly, is that the city does not make very good use of the money it receives.

Under Obama, Baltimore received $9.5 million in federal funds to deal specifically with the city’s growing homeless problem. But according to an audit by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the city did not properly monitor the homelessness funds, paid providers according to a preset formula rather than actual expenditures, lost track of money in several instances, and paid city staffers based on estimates, not the actual time they spent on grant activities. The city ended up having to repay nearly a third of the money. Not to worry, though: Baltimore expects to receive another $20 million+ in homelessness assistance from the feds this year and EVERY year.

Similarly, the city may end up having to repay a federal education grant designed to help the city’s poorest schools, after an audit by the Department of Education found that much of the money was actually used for dinner cruises, makeovers, and meals.

And a new audit of a city program to help low-income families with heating and energy bills found that nearly 20 percent of payments were unsupported by paperwork, and others had missing or incorrect information. Some bills were paid multiple times, while still other payments were made to families that didn’t live in the city.

But it’s not just a question of waste, fraud, and abuse. Even when the money was spent as intended, it has done little good.

Remember that $1.4 billion in federal stimulus spending? $1.4 Billion: how many thousands of jobs should that have created? Well, according to the government’s official website Recovery.gov, that spending generated just 64 permanent jobs. (you do the math)

The Washington Post reported how the federal and state governments spent more than $130 million rejuvenating the Sandtown area in Baltimore where Freddie Gray was arrested. Barely half of the working-age population is employed, according to a recent report from the Justice Policy Institute and the Prison Policy Initiative. The neighborhood lacks a supermarket or a single restaurant, not even a fast-food outlet. More than 60 percent of people over 25 have less than a high school diploma, and almost half of current high school students are chronically absent. Life expectancy is 10 years lower than the national average.

Baltimore spends $16,578 a year per pupil in schools, roughly 52 percent above the national average, and the fourth most of any major city. The majority of that money comes not from the city itself but from the state and federal governments. Yet more than a quarter of Baltimore students fail to graduate from high school. Fewer than half of Baltimore high school students passed the last Maryland High School Assessment test. SAT scores for Baltimore students are more than 100 points below the national average.

Why do we think it will be any different this time if we simply throw more money at the problem? Worse, the focus on spending more money distracts us from those things we know actually do lift people out of poverty.

There are few better routes out of poverty than a job. Fewer than 3 percent of those working full time live in poverty. Yet Maryland has one of the most anti-business tax and regulatory climates in the nation. And Baltimore adds its own layer of excessive taxes and regulatory bureaucracy.

Education reform is another key to lifting people out of poverty. Drop out of school and you are likely to be poor. Graduate from college and you won’t be. Yet, Maryland radically restricts parental choice and teacher accountability.

And any effective anti-poverty program will try to reduce out-of-wedlock birth and single parenting. Households headed by a single mother are more than five times more likely to be poor compared with married-couple families, but in Baltimore two-thirds of the births in the city are to unmarried mothers, and almost 60 percent of households are headed by single parents. Yet our welfare system continues to discourage family formation.

Of course, we need to do something to lift the people of Baltimore and other struggling cities out of poverty. But that something is not continuing to throw good money after bad.

Baltimore’s Current “Numbers”

Real estate: The median home value in Baltimore is $113,500, according to Zillow. Baltimore home values have declined 3.2 percent over the past year and Zillow predicts they will fall 4.2 percent within the next year. The median list price per square foot in Baltimore is $144, which is lower than the Baltimore-Columbia-Towson Metro average of $190. The median rent price in Baltimore is $1,400, which is lower than the Baltimore-Columbia-Towson Metro median of $1,650.

Jobs: The unemployment rate in Baltimore city was at 5.10 percent in May. Compare that to Maryland state’s 3.8 percent unemployment rate in June, while the national average sits at 3.7 percent.

Income: The typical household income in Baltimore was $46,641 in 2017, while the average family in the U.S. saw annual earnings of $57,652, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Poverty: According to Census Bureau data, the poverty rate in Charm City came in at 22.4 percent in 2017, compared to the national average of 12.3 percent.

City leadership ranking: Baltimore ranked as No. 129 out of 150 — (or 21 spots from the bottom of the list) — in WalletHub’s list of 2019’s best- and worst-run cities in America.

Crime: The city also took the No. 3  spot on 24/7 Wall Street’s recent list of the most dangerous cities in America. The No. 1 spot went to St. Louis, Missouri, while Detroit, Michigan took the No. 2 spot.

Retail sales per capita: In 2012, Baltimore rang in $5,871 in retail sales per capita, compared to the national average of $13,443, according to the Census Bureau.

The Cummings/Trump Feud

It has been brutal! It is no secret that Rep. Cummings as head of the House Oversight Committee has steadily attacked President Trump personally and professionally since 2016. Mr. Trump ratcheted up the feud last week with a series of tweets excoriating the deplorable conditions in Baltimore placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the MD Congressman. It’s not surprising that Cummings has continually fired back in like kind.

But what is shameful is that the allegations made by the President were not original. In fact, Trump’s statements of Baltimore being “rat-infested,” and in “horrible condition” have been previously touted by numerous others in politics — and not Republicans — several of which are Maryland resident politicians. In fact, the Baltimore mayor (who recently resigned) stated herself that the city was rat-infested. Of course, Democrats and members of the Mainstream media immediately turned Trump’s criticism of Baltimore into pure racism. Why? Cummings is African-American, so any criticism of any kind of him professionally, the city of Baltimore or the state of Maryland could certainly be driven only by racism, right?

But here’s a word for Mr. Cummings, all other Democrats, and Baltimore residents and politicians: Baltimore IS burning! It’s on fire with racism, crime, poverty, poor public education, healthcare, much homelessness, and government waste and corruption.

Summary

Let’s end this today with a topic that is political, personal, divisive, and controversial at best: Racism. The cries of “Racist” have been hurled at President Trump nonstop over his very visible public attacks against the conditions in Baltimore. Of course, he has labeled as primarily responsible Baltimore’s leading federal advocate and resident, Representative Elijah Cummings. The Democrat heavyweight wields significant power in D.C. He’s Chairman of the House Oversight Committee which supervises pretty much every department in the Executive Branch of government. And in his gun sights has been this president who Mr. Cummings detests vehemently and never misses an opportunity to tell those on the other end of a network microphone and tv camera. Cummings didn’t just recently start his Trump attacks. And they’ve been extraordinarily crude and derisive since the 2016 election.

Naturally joining Mr. Cummings in his cries of racism against this president are most Democrats in federal and state offices and, of course, the fawning media. And this topic is what we will close this story with today.

Elijah Cummings and the rest of American Democrats are either innocently or purposely missing what’s really going on in this spat between Trump and Cummings. And what’s going on has NOTHING to do with racism. Further, it is beyond disingenuous for Cummings, all these Democrat presidential candidates, House and Senate Democrat leaders, and EVERY Democrat who has joined in the mob cries of racism. Why is that? Pay close attention to what we are saying:

  • First, Mr. Trump is by far not the first to reference the rat infestation in Baltimore. In fact, Baltimore’s mayor — an African American female — stated just months ago she could smell the rats infesting the city;
  • Secondly, Mr. Cummings in all of his hate-filled attacks against President Trump has NEVER sought actual and real and specific federal government assistance. In fact, in the Freddie Gray demonstrations-turned-riots, Baltimore made very clear they did not want federal help. And regarding additional federal financial support, Cummings has been virtually quiet. Why is that?
  • It could be because Department of Housing and Urban Development regional administrator Lynne Patton appeared just days ago on Fox News and took note of just how much federal money has been steered into Cummings’ district, which is nearly 53% percent black.“President Trump has given $16 billion in 2018 alone to Elijah Cummings’ district in federal grants,” Patton explained. “We have given more money in homeless funds to Baltimore than the last administration. We have given more money in ‘community development grants.’”Patton then asked, “What are you actually doing with the money so that it benefits residents in the community for once instead of deep-pocket, crooked politicians?”

It’s blatantly clear that what is being heard from the White House about Baltimore certainly CANNOT be initiated by racism. Say what you want about the President’s tweets, his “in-your-face” response to the myriad of personal and political attacks from all sides, screaming about his insistence for federal law enforcement persons to do exactly what they are supposed to do: enforce the law! By the way, every one of those federal lawmakers — EVERYONE — with one hand raised and one on a Bible pledged to support and defend the Constitution — which is the laws of the United States that members of Congress crafted, agreed to, and were signed into law.

How is it OK for ANY of them to want laws of the country to NOT be enforced! And should they not expect this president — ANY president — to see to it that those who serve in the Department of Justice do just that: enforce U.S. laws? These 2020 Democrat presidential candidates are to a person advocating for illegal immigrants AND American citizens to violate existing federal laws. And many of them actually serve in the House and Senate where any laws they don’t like and think should NOT be enforced can be changed!

The problem today is not Elijah Cummings and is not Donald Trump. And it’s NOT racism. No, Donald Trump is NOT a racist. He has a fifty + year business reputation that dramatically evidences exactly the opposite. And think about this: one of the certainties in the life of every bigot and racist is that they not only verbally attack people of other races vehemently, but their attacks are also always the denigration of them specifically because of their skin color. Trump has NEVER done that. And for anyone that disagrees, feel free to send me specific examples — quotations and/or video proof — and we’ll certainly post it here with an apology.

So what is the problem?

When people scream that others are racists without citing specific examples that prove their allegations, what they are doing IS the real problem! Racism IS a serious problem. There are many ways to deal with it. And screaming ad nauseum that someone is a racist is NOT one of them.

But it comes to this: “If” Mr. Trump is a racist, why would he authorize his Department of Urban Development to invest $16 billion in Baltimore for its many issues in just one year? Secondly, if he IS a racist, nothing anyone says will change that.

In case you’ve forgotten, here are the 3 Websters definitions of racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others; Discrimination or prejudice based on race; The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.

Go ahead: send some specific examples that prove Mr. Trump is racist.

In the meantime, do you want to know what really is wrong in Baltimore? The cause certainly is not money. The cause is poor planning, poor leadership, and virtually NO accountability for local and state government. How else can a city receive several billion federal dollars specifically to address those issues followed by $16 billion more and achieve NO POSITIVE RESULTS?

Rep. Cummings, other Democrats, and the Media can cry “Racist!” all they want at the President. But they’re saying that does not make it true. And even if it IS true, how does that cause all the crap in Baltimore? It’s been happening for many years before a Trump presidency.

(I apologize: I said “all the crap” and should have said “all the rats” instead. Sorry!)

 

Play

How Much Money Do You Have?

Am I the only one who is past tired of all the insults and allegations being tossed around over and over again, day after day, and hearing and seeing no reason for the noise? Washington D.C. has become a cesspool of corruption. No party, no group, no individual is exempt. There’s plenty of room for the craziness.

Add to that the two dozen Democrats vying for the presidency who seem to daily play the game of “one-up” on their counterparts: “I’m going to promise a new car for every family if I’m elected,” or “I’m going to promise a new car PLUS a new home for every family if I’m elected president.” 

I cannot imagine a world in which any of them — and I mean ANY — could assume residency in the White House. God Help Us!

I know several people who are so concerned about a possible president out of the Democrat Party they have steadily socked away money — “just in case.” It’s amazing that any American would be so concerned about an election. But it’s happening.

But if it does, which would it be? It really doesn’t matter. If anyone of this bunch were to win the White House in 2020, all that money socked away won’t last long. In fact, the plans that all of those candidates share is to take it all! They’d be forced to. Why? To pay for everything they’ve promised.

If we ALL put ALL of our money together, we don’t have enough money!

We’ve heard of high taxes. We even saw a top marginal tax rate of 70% for the calendar year 1979. I bought a home that year. Do you remember the home mortgage rates when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter for the White House? Fifteen percent! And the prime interest rate was 18%!

Even though tax rates were so high, Congress implemented a massive number of deductions which brought the effective rates which people paid way down. But, taxes were high and the nation’s economy reflected that. But if anyone of the Democrat candidates wins the presidency, we are certain to see taxes again at that 70% rate or even higher.

What are they thinking? Do you really want to know?

Here’s the list of what these candidates are collectively offering to the nation if they are elected:

1. Payment of reparations for slavery;
2. A new wealth tax of 3% per year on assets;
3. Late-term abortion – up to the moment of birth;
4. Restoration of voting rights for released felons;
5. Impeachment of President Trump;
6. Raising the top personal income tax rate to 70% (from the present 37%);
7. Refusal to repudiate anti-Semitism by Democrat members of Congress;
8. Free college tuition for all;
9. Medicare for all (Note: It’s not really Medicare; it’s Medicaid.)
10. Raising the corporate tax rate to 35% (from the present 21%);

11. Abolition of the Electoral College;
12. Amnesty for illegal aliens;
13. No gun rights for released felons;
14. Capping interest rates on all credit cards;
15. Packing the Supreme Court by adding up to four new justices;
16. Federal jobs guarantee to everyone;
17. A minimum wage of $15 per hour;
18. Infanticide: “Make the baby comfortable while deciding whether to kill it.”
19. Impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh;
20. Voting rights for felons still incarcerated (including Dzhokhar Tsarnaev);

21. Citizenship (voting rights) for illegal aliens;
22. Voting for 16-year olds;
23. Green New Deal including no air travel or cows and one car per family;
24. Abolish ICE – US Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
25. Deep cuts to defense spending;
26. Abolishing senate filibusters;
27. Single-payer government health care for all;
28. Federal licensing and control of all large corporations;
29. Strict new gun control measures including confiscations;
30. Federalizing all voter registration;

31. Abolishing or changing the method of representation in the US Senate;
32. Ending all private health insurance and health insurance companies;
33. Reinstituting the Iran nuclear deal;
34. Statehood for DC, PR, VI, Guam: 8 new senators; 14 new electoral votes;
35. Tearing down existing walls on our southwest border with Mexico;
36. Raising the estate tax rate to 77% (from the present 40%);
37. Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord;
38. Raising the payroll tax by 2.4 points – equivalent to 15%;
39. Means-testing Social Security;
40. Taxing capital gains as ordinary income;

41. Removing all caps from the payroll tax;
42. Taxing unrealized capital gains each year;
43. Jailing corporate executives for regulatory violations;
44. A cash distribution of $1,000 per month to everyone (UBI);
45. Forgiveness of all student loan debt – $1.5 trillion;
46. Federal payment to teachers of $315 billion over 10 years;
47. Outlawing all state right-to-work laws;
48. Increase fuel economy standards for all cars;
49. Halt all energy leases on federal land;
50. Spending $5 trillion (unspecified) to control emissions;

51. Opposition to nuclear energy (cleanest energy we have);
52. Creation of new Americorps – to plant trees on marginal land;
53. Prohibiting the private practice of medicine (Medicare for America bill);
54. Federal licensing of all firearms – must be renewed every 5 years;
55. Abolition of payday loans – by mandating ultra-low interest rates;
56. Have the USPS (postal service) make low-interest loans to consumers;
57. The imposition of a VAT – value-added tax – on the entire US economy;
58. Added 7% corporate tax on reported income higher than taxable income;
59. Free government-provided health care for all illegal aliens;
60. Legalization of recreational marijuana throughout the United States;

61. Require companies to obtain equal pay certificate from the US EEOC;
62. Dictate national paid leave policy for the entire private sector;
63. Mandate federal preclearance for states to pass any new abortion laws;
64. Federal taxpayer funding of abortions (repeal of Hyde Amendment);
65. Breakup Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon;
66. New exit tax of 40% of assets for any American giving up citizenship;
67. The federal government pays all rent for anyone in excess of 30% of income;
68. Abolishing all private prison management companies;
69. Free childcare, pre-school, college and 100% student loan forgiveness.

Summary

I actually feel like I am really asleep having reoccurring nightmares night after night. And I pray each night that NONE of those nightmares comes true.

Folks, let’s deal with reality: NONE OF THOSE PROMISES, YET ALONE ALL OF THEM, CAN POSSIBLY COME TRUE! The federal government does NOT have enough money!

Forget the social issues promises: none of those are even remotely possible. And when it comes to new social programs, the federal government could confiscate ALL the income of every company and every individual each year and have less than five percent of the funds necessary to pay for even a small portion of these programs!

What is happening to the United States? Who in their right mind just 8 years ago could project that these conversations could even be happening. Those on the Left who propose such programs led by anyone — pick ONE — of those presidential wannabes have either no concept of financial reality at all or believe Americans are so stupid, so uncaring, so intellectually deficient that we would allow any of this to happen.

AOC and Company think environmentally we have just ten years left. If one of these Democrats wins the 2020 election, we won’t last three years!

NOTE: Make sure you come back tomorrow. We’ll peel the onion that’s called “Baltimore” and give the truth of the issues there minus the emotional mantra that’s flooded the nation the last few days. And the “Truth” in Baltimore’s situation is stark, unnerving, and disgusting.

Play

Nadler and Schiff Busted! Nadler Exposed

Today, as promised, we will look closely at the past and present of the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who has released a non-stop barrage of accusations against President Trump on many levels. His attacks have lasted for more than a year. In those attacks, he has accused President Trump of collusion, obstruction of justice, criminal violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, racism, sexism, misogyny, and for being just an all-around horrible person.

Nadler has been joined by many in the Democrat Party, none more vocal than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who has — in addition to his echoes of Nadler’s allegations of the President — claimed non-stop for more than a year that he has uncontroverted proof already of Trump’s multiple acts of obstruction of justice.

We will complete today’s story with the promised information hiding in plain sight about Rep. Nadler. But let’s begin by looking at all these allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia in 2016.

Collusion

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many alleged potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.

Adam Schiff KNOWS Trump is guilty — PERIOD!

“The Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton in writing and sent it to [Donald Trump Jr.],” Schiff stated. “And Don Jr.’s response was in writing and said, ‘As for your offer of foreign illegal help, I would love it.’ He accepted the offer.”

Noting that Team Trump later lied about the meeting and that represented the “personification of collusion,” Schiff added that Mueller had a different question—whether he could prove the crime of conspiracy.

“And as you know, well before the Mueller report, I was pointing out to the public, there is a difference between what we understand is collusion and whether you can prove all the elements of crime,” he said.

Schiff didn’t stop there. Even after the Mueller Report was released and Special Counsel Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and even in answering continual committee questions from Democrats on the alleged Trump crimes and Mueller’s testimony that did NOT formally or informally indict Trump, Schiff doubled down on his “knowledge” of Trump wrongdoing.

Before we summarize and give you the information we uncovered on Nadler, it’s important to emphasize to you the following:

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort have been given.

Remember that while listening to this short interview that Schiff believed was with Russian officials but were on-air radio announcers in the U.S. tricking Schiff. But participating in this interview, Schiff actually committed the exact same acts that he has continually accused Donald Trump Jr. committing, calling them Obstruction of Justice! (THIS AUDIO OF THE SCHIFF RADIO INTERVIEW CAN BE HEARD ONLY ON THE PODCAST)

First, by even taking this phone call from someone Schiff THOUGHT were Russians, he has committed exactly what he accused Don Jr. of doing talking with an accepting a meeting in that famous Trump Tower meeting. Secondly, he accepted their offer of sending to Schiff the “fake” proof of Trump collusion.

According to Schiff’s own words, he was guilty of the same crime he has alleged of Trump!

Jerrold Nadler

Nadler has never seen a camera he didn’t like, a microphone that he did not “know” was specifically for him, and never shunned participating in an interview to bash the President. But Nadler forgets about the documentation of EVERYTHING official committed by members of the federal government — including the Congressional Record.

The same man who once showed clear favoritism for President Clinton, an admitted perjurer, is now hellbent on continuing the witch hunt against President Trump despite the fact that Trump has been cleared by the special counsel. Will the hypocrisy never end with this man?

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Nadler made veiled threats, innuendos, and salacious accusations against President Trump that have since been disproven. “When the full scope of the president’s misconduct has been revealed, when his lies are debunked and his abuses have been laid bare, I believe that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will draft legislation to curb the worst of his offenses,” he wrote. “Put another way: If President Trump’s behavior wasn’t criminal, then perhaps it should have been.”

When the shoe was on the other foot, and Clinton had actually committed a crime, Nadler did his best to cover for him. Now that the fake collusion allegations against President Clinton have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the special counsel, he’s looking for crimes that “should have been.”

Nadler was a young Congressmen during the Clinton White House years. He was there during the impeachment proceedings against President Trump. He voraciously stood with the President defending him against impeachment proceedings and blasting Republicans for taking any actions. What justification did the junior New York Congressman give for his insistence to NOT impeach Mr. Clinton? The exact same things he himself is using in his current demands to impeach Donald Trump!

Don’t take our word for it. Let’s go to the official record: Rep. Nadler’s actual speech before Congress. His speech is lengthy, so we will not put the entire speech in this story. Below in bullet points, we share the salient points of his contentions that will shock all, especially in light of his current rants against the President.

Nadler’s Speech before the House of Representatives regarding Bill Conton’s Impeachement: December 18, 1998

  • “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people.

  • There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.

  • Some members of the House may think the people have chosen badly, but it is the people’s choice and we must respect it absent a threat to our democracy that would justify overturning the repeated expression of their will at the ballot box. Members of Congress have no right to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent that compelling case.

  • This House is not a grand jury. To impeach the President would subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign concerns festered without proper attention. We cannot simply punt the duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere ‘‘probable cause’’ that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of an ‘‘independent’’ counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include exculpatory evidence, and consistently misstated the law.

  • Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law — to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen, whether or not he is impeached. And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third President in U.S. history, and the first since 1848, to be censured by the Congress. But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as a punishment for a President.

  • The case is not there — there is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the Senate. To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this House to the condemnation of history for generations to come.

  • The American people are watching, and they won’t forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but you lack the legitimacy of a national consensus and the Constitution. This partisan coup d’etat will go down in the history of this nation in infamy.”

Summary

What is most amazing to me and many other conservatives is that these Democrats who control the House believe they can lie, again and again, misrepresent acts committed by others they label as “illegal” while doing the same things themselves with impunity, and misrepresent the laws of the United States. What else? They categorically are doing their very best to remove a President that was duly and legally elected by the People of the United States!

This is an egregious moment in American history. If allowed to fulfill this travesty, it will destroy our election system, our trust in government, and send the nation back to the political environment in which it was first birthed — 250 years behind where we are today.

Do you know what’s saddest? They’re doing this with the deference if not full support of millions of Democrats who refuse to ferret out the truth for themselves. And these members of Congress are lying to their followers with no consideration for the Rule of Law, the Constitution, the will of the American voters, all the while trampling on the Truth.

Jerrold Nadler MUST be removed from the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. Adam Schiff MUST be removed fro the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. And Americans who voted constitutionally and elected Donald Trump President of the United States MUST have their will rule over a group of tyrants who have been for 2.5 years attempting what is literally a coup to overthrow the presidency put in place not by members of Congress, but by millions of voters who those in Congress work for.

Wake up America. Or get ready for REAL Mob Rule.

Play

A “Realist” That is Mostly Conservative

Watching Victor Davis Hanson deliver his inspirational and intellectual analysis in a non-partisan way on television sometimes will put you to sleep because of his quiet, non-confrontational delivery. I’ve never seen him deliver anything he says with an “in-your-face” delivery. What’s really amazing is that he never berates anyone. That’s rare today. It seems that political pundits all seem tethered to some specific ideology and their career paths demand their exhibiting specific partisan messages when interviewed on radio or television. Those rules do NOT apply to Mr. Hanson.

Who is he?

Victor Davis Hanson is an American classicist, military historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for National Review, The Washington Times and other media outlets. He is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and was a presidential appointee in 2007–2008 on the American Battle Monuments Commission.

But that’s not all.

Since 2004, Hanson has written a weekly column syndicated by Tribune Content Agency, as well as a weekly column for National Review Online since 2001, and has not missed a weekly column for either venue since he began. He has been published in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, The Daily Telegraph, American Heritage, and The New Criterion, among other publications. He received the  Eric Breindel Prize for opinion journalism (2002), and the William F. Buckley Prize (2015). Hanson was awarded the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award at its annual Churchill Dinner, and the Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in 2008.

We listed his credits so that everyone looking in will not summarily dismiss what he has to say. Part of our purpose in establishing his professional credibility is that he sometimes does special stories on CNN. Although that’s scary, apparently CNN feels obligated to sporadically present to their viewers  somewhat non-confrontational ideas about most of the political issues of the day.

I don’t think he is a Republican. I don’t think he’s a Democrat either. But I KNOW he’s a deep thinker and great reasoner. And his explanations of his opinions in his interviews are never confrontational and always informative.

You get one of those today. Here’s a list for you given to us by Victor Davis Hanson.

“Top 10”

Progressives wonder how in the world could anyone still support President Donald Trump. So here are ten reasons why more than 40% of the electorate probably does — and will.

1. Voters appreciate that the economy is currently experiencing near record-low peacetime unemployment, record-low minority unemployment, and virtual 3% annualized GDP growth. Interest and inflation rates remain low. Workers’ wages increased after years of stagnation. The US is now the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. And gasoline prices remain affordable. The President continues to redress asymmetrical trade with China, as well as with former NAFTA partners and Europe. He jawbones companies to curb offshoring and outsourcing. The current economic recovery and low consumer prices have uplifted millions of middle-class Americans who appreciate the upswing.

2. Trump does not exist in a vacuum. Many supporters turned off by some of his antics are still far more appalled by an emerging radical neo-socialist Democratic agenda. If the alternative to Trump is a disturbing tolerance among some Democrats for anti-Semitism, the Green New Deal, reparations, a permissive approach to abortion even very late in pregnancy, a wealth tax, a 70-90% top income tax rate, the abolition of ICE, open borders, and Medicare for all, Trump’s record between 2017-20 will seem moderate and preferable. Progressives do not fully appreciate how the hysterics and media coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings, the Covington teenagers and the Jussie Smollett psychodrama turned off half the country. Such incidents and their reportage confirmed suspicions of cultural bias, media distortions, and an absence of fair play and reciprocity.

3.Trump can be uncouth and crass. But he has shown an empathy for the hollowed-out interior, lacking from prior Republican and Democratic candidates. His populist agenda explains why millions of once traditional Democratic voters defected in 2016 to him — and may well again in 2020. Some polls counterintuitively suggest that Trump may well win more minority voters than prior Republican presidential candidates.

4. Trump may come across as callous to some, but to others at least genuine. He does not modulate his accent to fit regional crowds, as did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He does not adopt particular outfits at state fairs or visit bowling allies to seek authenticity. Like him or not, his Queens accent, formal attire, odd tan, and wild hair remain the same wherever he goes and speaks. Voters respect that he is at least unadulterated in a way untrue of most politicians. Big Macs convey earthiness in a way arugula does not.

5. Even when Trump has hit an impasse, his supporters mostly continue to believe that he at least keeps trying to meet his promises on taxes, the economy, energy, foreign policy, strict-constructionist judges, and the border. So far his supporters feel Trump has not suffered a “Read my lips” or “You can keep your doctor” moment.

6. Voters are angry over the sustained effort to remove or delegitimize a sitting president. Many of the controversies over Trump result from the inability of Hillary Clinton supporters to accept his shocking victory. Instead they try any means possible to abort his presidency in a way not seen in recent history. Trump voters cringe at such serial but so far unsuccessful efforts to delegitimize the President: the immediate law suits challenging voting machines, the effort to warp the Electoral College voting, initial impeachment efforts, appeals to the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, and the calcified Logan Act, the Mueller investigation that far exceeded and yet may have not met its original mandate to find Russian “collusion,” and the strange Andrew McCabe-Ron Rosenstein failed palace coup. All this comes in addition to a disturbing assassination “chic,” as Madonna, Johnny Depp, Kathy Griffin, Robert DeNiro and dozens of others express openly thoughts of killing, blowing up, or beating up an elected president. The Shorenstein Center at Harvard University has found that mainstream media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in office ranged from 70-90% negative of Trump, depending on the week, an asymmetry never quite seen before seen but one that erodes confidence in the media. Voters are developing a grudging respect for the 72-year-old, less-than-fit Trump who each day weathers unprecedented vitriol and yet does not give up, in the Nietzschean sense of whatever does not kill him, seems to make him stronger.

7. Progressives seemingly do not appreciate historical contexts. By past presidential standards, Trump’s behavior while in the White House has not been characterized by the personal indiscretions of a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. His language has been blunt, but then so was Harry Truman’s. He can be gross, but perhaps not so much as was Lyndon Johnson. The point is not to use such comparisons to excuse Trump’s rough speech and tweets, but to remind that the present media climate and the electronic age of the Internet and social media, along with general historical ignorance about prior presidencies, have warped objective analysis of Trump, the first president without either prior political office or military service.

8. Globalization enriched the two coasts, while America’s interior was hollowed out. Anywhere abroad muscular labor could be duplicated at cheaper rates, it often was — especially in heavy industry and manufacturing. Trump alone sensed that and appealed to constituencies that heretofore had been libeled by presidents and presidential candidates as “crazies,” “clingers,” “deplorables” and “irredeemables.” Fairly or not, half the country feels that elites, a deep state, or just “they” (call them whatever you will) are both condemnatory and yet ignorant of so-called fly-over country. Trump is seen as their payback.

9. For a thrice-married former raconteur, the Trump first family appears remarkably stable, and loyal. The first lady is winsome and gracious. Despite the negative publicity, daughter Ivanka remains poised and conciliatory. The appearance of stability suggests that if Trump may have often been a poor husband, he was nonetheless a good father.

10. Trump is a masterful impromptu speaker. Increasingly he can be self-deprecatory, and his performances are improving. Even his marathon rallies stay entertaining to about half the country. He handles crowds in the fashion of JFK, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama rather than of a flat Bob Dole, Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.”

The Mueller Debacle: Parts 1 and 2

Before the House Judiciary Committee and then before the House Intelligence Committee, Robert Mueller testified (if one can call it that) in Democrat’s pathetic attempt to with their last gasp try to garner support for filing Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. By all accounts, they came away empty-handed.

Sure, there are Democrats that are gloating once again, intimating that Robert Mueller laid out strong evidence from his Report proving that Mr. Trump was/is guilty of obstruction of justice. Honestly, even with a long-arm and a far-reach, I cannot come up with anything at all to support any excitement for the Media. In fact, the few in the Media who have even a shred of credibility remaining sighed sadly to see their already fleeting hope to “get Trump” fade into the sunset as their beacon of justice — Robert Mueller — fumbled to answer most of the questions. Actually, Mr. Mueller proved to many what had been suspected anyway: that he personally performed only minimal investigatory work over the last 2.5 years, relying on those 18 anti-Trump lawyers he made part of his team to do the heavy lifting. That was glaringly apparent as he in both House hearings often looked surprised at several of the questions and simply did not have answers.

I’ll make my prediction right here rather than wait as is normal to release in our summary. Then I’ll get to the point of this writing tonight:

Donald Trump WILL be re-elected in 2020. The only question at this point is how wide will his be margin of victory.

Now that we’ve put that mystery behind us, let’s get to the meat of today’s conversation.

Democrat Party Dysfunction

According to a Gallup poll released in May 2019, here are the top three concerns that will impact registered voters in the 2020 election:

  • Immigration
  • Government Leadership
  • The Economy

Those may change in the next year, but they certainly will play a key factor in the levers voters pull.

Democrats promised voters ahead of the 2018 midterm elections if given control of the House, Democrats would immediately attack EVERY issue important to voters. It is safe to assume their promise included taking care of these three key voter issues.

That has NOT happened.

So what have Democrats done? Rather than simply list their accomplishments, let’s examine first what they have NOT done.

House of Representatives Democrat Control

When a party wins control of either the House or Senate or both, management and control switches to the new party. That applied to the midterm elections: Nancy Pelosi regained her spot as Speaker of the House. Doing so is a REALLY big deal. The Speaker of the House is one of the most powerful individuals in the U.S. government’s legislative branch. The leader of the national House of Representatives and second in the line of succession to the presidency, the speaker sets political agendas and advocates both on Capitol Hill and to the public.

The Speaker of the House’s official role is to lead and represent Congress’s House of Representatives, calling sessions to order and moderating debates on the House floor. However, the speaker spends the majority of her time in meetings and negotiations, planning the chamber’s legislative agenda. The speaker also has the power to appoint the committee and subcommittee chairs. Along with the vice president, the House Speaker is also responsible for signing bills to be presented to the president for signing. For this reason, the speaker often negotiates with the executive branch and can be a powerful force for or against the executive branch’s own political agenda.

Adam Schiff & Jerrold Nadler

In this current Congress amid the current U.S. political issues, the two most powerful House committees are the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was appointed by Speaker Pelosi as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Adam Schiff (D-CA) to chair the House Intelligence Committee. Each chairman schedules committee hearings and sets the agenda for hearings.

Both of these committees have held a large number of 2019 hearings about many different topics. Their hearings have been dominated by Russian interference in the 2016 election and Immigration problems at our Southern border. Of late, their hearing agendas have been dominated by preparations for the Mueller hearings held July 24th.

It is uncontroverted that Russians did, in fact, make concerted efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. It is therefore critical that measures be taken by the U.S. government to stop any existing Russian interference processes and put measures in place to prevent any future Russian election interference from being successful.

Do something for yourself: conduct an internet search for the number of House Judiciary Committee 2019 hearings held specifically to address Russian election hacking and methods for the U.S. government to institute to stop those. Do the same search for the House Intelligence Committee. It probably comes as no surprise to you that NONE of their many hearings was to examine methods to use to stop any future Russian election attempts.

Then conduct the same internet search regarding House Intelligence Committee hearing agendas for 2019. You will see that though there were many hearings in which Russian interference was discussed in detail, NONE of those hearings included interviews with or testimony from experts regarding processes available to use to protect the American election system from future Russian election hacking attempts.

What’s Missing?

House leadership is what’s missing. When it comes to House agendas at every level, Speaker Pelosi and her various committee chairpersons have simply left Americans and their concerns behind. What are the top three concerns of American voters? Immigration, Government Leadership, and the Economy. Those concerns of voters are LOST on these Democrats.

The number one American concern — Immigration — HAD been discussed in House committee hearings, but only for the purpose of demeaning and blaming the entire illegal immigration travesty at the U.S. southern border on the Trump Administration. NO serious legislation has been put forth for House committee hearings and certainly not for House floor debate. In fact, for months House and Senate Democrat Party leadership laughed at President Trump’s constant expressions of horror at the immigration crisis. On numerous occasions, they called the President a liar for making such claims. All the while, they lambasted the President and rushed to liberal courts to file motions against every action the President took to try to get anything positive accomplished at the border. He attempted such actions because Democrats did NOTHING.

Democrats’ mouthpiece — the Leftist media headed by CNN — led in the laughter at the Trump stupidity for claiming a “fake” crisis. And when they FINALLY acknowledged action needed to be taken there to assist illegals that were living in horrible conditions, they never admitted they had been wrong in rebuffing the President’s crisis claims that were echoed by virtually everyone in border security from the Department of Homeland Security — both current employees and serving during the Obama presidency.

After four months of crying “foul” daily about Trump’s crisis claims and his begging for House financial assistance to meet those immigrants’ needs the House conceded and joined the Senate to authorize those funds. To my knowledge, they NEVER admitted being wrong.

Americans’ second stated concern for their 202o votes has been entirely ignored by House Democrats: Leadership in Government. Their ignoring voters’ concerns comes directly from their hearts. They are certain THEY are the only voices in Washington that matter, that THEY are the only ones who know and understand American voters and what all Americans need, and THEY are the only ones with any answers for any existing and future problems Americans face today and will face tomorrow. Further, THEY look at Donald Trump as the epitome of evil.

While Democrats KNOW Donald Trump has done nothing good and cannot do anything good for the U.S. during balance of his presidency, they do so with NO regard for the significant progress in his presidency.  What progress?

  • massive increases in private sector jobs resulting in the lowest unemployment in U.S. history in multiple sectors of American employment;
  • the U.S. for the first time becoming energy independent;
  • pharmacy drug prices for the first time began dropping due to Trump pressure on American drug companies;
  • foreign policy credibility returned that quickly resulted in massive increases in U.S. exports;
  • employee pay is on the rise;
  • Several trillion dollars held overseas for years by American companies were brought back into the U.S. that has spurred U.S. growth;
  • U.S. gross domestic product has steadily grown under Trump and has far exceeded what Obama told Americans could ever happen.

All of these positives that occurred under President Trump resulted with little or NO Democrat Party assistance or support.

Summary

Plain and simple, it was made abundantly clear that Democrats in the House have little or NO concern for what’s best for Americans. Their 2020 presidential candidates — virtually ALL of them — continue to in unison tout economic and political programs that would be impossible for the U.S. to sustain economically even if the American people would ALL want to be put in place. The Green New Deal, free college, the forgiveness of college student debt, Medicare for All, and Reparations along with free healthcare even for illegal immigrants are each being heavily promoted by 2020 Democrat presidential candidates.

Why would they even consider such impossible to implement programs?  For votes!

If everyone was honest, every American would agree that getting something important without any personal cost would be wonderful. That’s what Democrats are doing: telling Americans “The Government is going to pay all the costs for all these ideas and promises detailed above — FREE!”

If they were being honest with Americans, they would NEVER promise ANY of these things. Why? America cannot afford them! In fact, implementing just The Green New Deal would require the government to spend an amount of money each year for the next ten years equal to the total amount of federal revenue currently being received! And where would that money come from? Only one place: taxpayers.

That cannot and will not happen.

Plain and simple, Democrats have lost all sense of reality. House Democrats are consumed by one thing: hatred for Donald Trump. Why is their hatred so intense? Because the cards were all stacked for Hillary Clinton to be living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and to now be ushering in the “new” Socialist concept of governing for the U.S.

Why are Democrats so “in the tank” for Socialism? Socialism always sounds good to the people, but in every case in World history, Socialism works well for only one group of citizens: political elites. And in every example of Socialism in history, they always fall apart when the general populace of those countries are awakened to the erosion of their social and economic infrastructure at the hands of those political elites who pilfer the economic benefits from everyday citizens.

Democrats want a shot at that system. And they are so self-absorbed and consumed by their greed and narcissism, they are convinced THEY could be the first to make it work.

Donald Trump and his absolute belief in everyday Americans and the American ideal have become the only obstacle to their achievement of creating their own Nirvana.

They gnash their teeth when they hear the cries from Americans: “Keep America Great!”

 

The Federal Government Breaking the Law

It happens every day: someone in federal government arbitrarily assumes the responsibility and authority to ignore lawbreaking of every kind. Whether that lawbreaking is the selling or using marijuana, (which doing so is a federal offense) crossing American borders without legal authority, passing along classified government information and/or documents to a media organization, or using open source or unsecured computer or other electronic devices for the dissemination of classified information, each is a violation of a federal law. Apparently, these acts and others are committed daily across the U.S. Yet more often than not, these criminal acts are ignored by authorities.

What has happened to the enforcement of Law in the United States? Aren’t we a nation established on the premise that the United States Constitution was and is a template on which government was established and to function — especially regarding the enforcement of ALL laws passed according to the Constitutional process for doing so? Isn’t that process called “The Rule of Law?”

Rule of Law

In its simplest form, the “Rule of Law” means that “no one is above the law.” It is the foundation for the development of peaceful, equitable and prosperous societies. For the rule of law to be effective, there must be equality under the law, transparency of law, an independent judiciary and access to legal remedy. Yet, about 57% of the world’s population lives outside the shelter of the law. That’s five billion people struggling for basic, human rights on a daily basis.

American citizens and all those who come into our country have access to that “Rule of Law,” even those who cross into the United States illegally. That’s something of a paradox, but it’s true: once here every person Constitutionally is granted certain rights and must adhere to U.S. law.

The rule of law is a critical key to a just society and democracy. It dictates that laws of the land be transparent, known to everyone and applicable to all. No one, regardless of title, position or wealth can be held above the law and government decisions must be predictable because they follow known legal principles and encoded rules known as “laws.”

For most of the 19th century, America was far ahead of the rest of the world in its consistent and thorough efforts to adhere to the rule of law and strive toward equal opportunity for its citizens regardless of class, wealth or title. While politicians and individuals acting in self-interest have frequently violated this key principle (seems to be human nature for some), historically the courts were able to correct back to founding principles. If applying the law of the land results in an amazingly unfair or unjust outcome in a particular set of facts, courts are able to restore balance and respect for the rule of law through the principles of equity.

The “Rub” for Most Americans

What’s the complaint from average Americans about the Law? It’s not enforced equally or it’s not enforced at all!

How many specific instances can you name where lawbreakers — primarily at the federal level — are caught “in the act” but pay NO penalty for their crimes? Can you name a few?

  1. James Comey: fired FBI Director. He transferred classified documents to a member of the media for the express purpose of releasing that information to the public — a felony violation of a federal statute. Comey also lied under oath to Congress which is also a criminal violation.
  2. Hillary Clinton: Ms. Clinton broke multiple laws surrounding her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. First, that server was never tested nor certified by State Department IT personnel to operate for the purpose of sending and receiving emails containing classified information. Subsequent to the FBI’s investigation, Clinton sent numerous emails from that server that the FBI concluded were intercepted and forwarded to a foreign server belonging to an unknown person or persons — all illegal. Her illegal acts did not end there. She or others with her directions destroyed cell phones and other electronic devices that had been used for government business instead of turning those over to authorities.
  3. President Obama: while President, Obama communicated via emails with then-Secretary of State Clinton while knowing he was doing so via her illegal and unauthorized server. The President used a made-up Gmail email account he opened with no one knowing about. All communications of any kind by or with a U.S. President are by law considered “classified.” His doing so violated several federal statutes.
  4. Former NSA Adviser Susan Rice: Ms. Rice using her position in the White House authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to release the names of Trump Associates who were caughtup in communications with foreigners. The NSA legally keeps the names of Americans classified in such circumstances. Rice was discovered giving those names to others. She is the one who (through surveilled telephone conversations) released information regarding General Michael Flynn.

When Americans see and hear the obvious illegal acts committed by those in the highest echelons of U.S. government, it is at least disheartening to know (as an example) ALL four of the above politicians that includes a U.S. president are apparently above the Rule of Law!

A member of the U.S. Navy, Kristian Saucier, 28, of Arlington, Vermont, was convicted of taking photos of classified spaces, instruments and equipment inside the U.S.S. Alexandria, where he was stationed. He sent the photos to show friends where he worked. Those photos were classified. Based on THAT prosecution and his one criminal act, Comey, Clinton, Obama, and Susan Rice should ALL certainly be in prison after being tried and then certain conviction of breaking multiple very serious federal charge and all in federal prison! They would then be receiving (along with Saucier) “Equal Justice Under the Law.”
So why doesn’t this happen? Why are powerful political elites in America give preferential treatment?
  • How does a former U.S. Senator, then Secretary of State and a candidate for President skate by with thumbing her nose at the Rule of Law and accountability for her illegal acts?
  • How does an FBI Director release classified information to the Media and not even be charged for federal law violations?
  • How does a National Security Adviser unilaterally and illegally unmask the name of an American general for the express purpose of digging up dirt on a political candidate?
  • How does a sitting President of the United States over a period of years transfer and receive classified information to his Secretary of State on a non-classified and non-secured email server that transferred every one of his emails to some unknown entity in an unknown foreign country?

How did each do it? In each case there has been NO ACCOUNTABILITY for their acts.

In this short video, notice the fake outrage and demonization by James Comey of Donald Trump, all the while knowing Comey himself had and was breaking numerous laws:

The Rule of Law, Not a Rule of Lawyers

The rule of written law is one of the six pillars of the American republic.

  • One is democracy: We involve the greatest number of people in making government decisions, rather than trust in an elite of “experts.”
  • The second is free markets: We involve the greatest number of people in making economic decisions, rather than trust in central planners.
  • The third is federalism: We put government decisions closer to the people in order to involve a more diverse set of decision-makers who can experiment with different paths for different communities’ needs.
  • The fourth is tradition: We invoke the wisdom of the larger sample of multiple generations by trial and error on matters of common human experience rather than rely on the more limited number of people alive at a particular time.
  • The fifth, which ties together democracy, federalism, and tradition, is deliberation: We have a republic, not a pure democracy, so that government decisions are not the process of hasty panics but are openly debated and resolved with support that is deep, geographically wide, and enduring over a series of elections, so that continuing to enforce today’s laws tomorrow has legitimacy.
  • And sixth, without which the other five are powerless, we have the stable rule of written law so that the democratically enacted decisions reduced to written law by the representatives of the people with due deliberation are honored until overturned by the same process and not easily discarded by a narrow professional elite.

This is not the system designed by Washington, or Jefferson, or Adams, or Hamilton, or Madison, or Franklin, or any of the other Founding Fathers; it’s the system designed by deliberate compromises among all of them, ratified by the people of their day, and changed repeatedly since by the people of the U.S. when the need for changes became apparent. Taken all together, the American system is designed to follow a path down the middle between the self-absorbed elites in Washington and the self-interests of a sometimes dis-enfranchised group of middle-Americans who occasionally act as a populist mob. It is also designed to steer a middle path between the “ancient” rule of the past and the fickle moods of today. The people remain sovereign and can change any law they like — if they act in large enough numbers over a broad enough area across a sustained period of time.

The PEOPLE as represented by the 535 representatives sent to represent each community, district and state have the Constitutional right to change the law in the manner dictated by the U.S. Constitution. But NO ONE has the right to ignore or unilaterally change enforcement of any duly passed law — PERIOD. Least of all are the members of Government.

Play

Pelosi Family: BIG Money Corruption! Part 2

We’re unearthing Pelosi family “questionable” financial dealings that have to do with Speaker Pelosi’s favoritism on the part of those of special interest to her. They often have included her husband, brother-in-law, and very connected political donors. Nancy learned the political process of corruption and watched it work as a girl.

You may not have known this, but when she was younger she was “the mayor’s daughter.” Nancy Pelosi’s father Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. allegedly was a “constant companion” of notorious mobster Benjamin “Benny Trotta” Magliano and other underworld figures during his political years in Baltimore, MD. D’Alesandro was a Congressman for five terms from 1938 to 1947, and Baltimore mayor for three terms from 1947 to 1959. Magliano was identified by the FBI as one of Baltimore’s “top hoodlums,” and he widely was acknowledged as the representative for New York’s Frankie Carbo who made his bones with Murder, Inc. and later became a made guy in the Lucchese family. The allegations are included in D’Alesandro’s recently-released FBI files.

Nancy’s Dad was not the only member of her immediate family who had legal issues. During the summer of 1953, Nancy’s brother, Franklin D’Alesandro, aged twenty, was one of fourteen youths charged with having committed rape of two girls, aged eleven and thirteen, during July of that year. It was reported that Franklin D’Alesandro was the only one of twelve of those tried at that time who was successful in obtaining an acquittal.

A February 27, 1961, FBI memo states that “the consensus of opinion among persons connected with law enforcement that  D’Alesandro (Nancy’s brother) was acquitted of rape because of the brilliant fashion the way his case was handled by his defense attorney.” D’Alesandro was represented by Joseph Sherbow who managed to sever his client from the other defendants and ensured his trial went first so any convictions against the others would not prejudice him. Apparently, D’Alesandro (the “elder”) believed that his son was guilty of the charge, and prior to trial urged him to plead guilty and “take his medicine.”

Nancy grew up quickly in politics learning from one of the all-time best movers and shakers in politics: her father. And she’s developed it into an art. And she uses it prolifically — especially ingratiating family members and close political allies with “business opportunities.”

Yesterday we talked extensively about her husband Paul and his real estate dealings that have netted the pair tens of millions of dollars since the early part of this century. And those real estate ventures are still paying dividends as well as garnering Nancy huge campaign contributions. Let’s look at other financial dealings that have been purposely kept below the Media radar screen.

Green Energy

“Green Energy” has for more than a decade been the buzz in industry that has attracted constant attention and taxpayer dollars from Washington. One of the reasons for its luster is the ability to easily justify taxpayer grants and loan guarantees to startup Green Energy companies to “assist” the U.S. to — through the private sector — quickly head down the path toward energy independence, but, more importantly, “renewable” green energy independence. The Obama Administration saw that opportunity with an open cash register in mind. And the 44th president certainly opened that cash register that started full of taxpayer dollars and loan guarantees that were doled out emptying the taxpayer cash register indiscriminately to Silicon Valley companies in obscene amounts.

I was in San Jose on business several years ago and drove by a very large building right on the side of the freeway. On it was emblazoned a sign with “Solyndra” proudly displayed for all to see. After all, Solyndra was an Obama federal government and American taxpayer subsidized miracle company. Solyndra WAS subsidized, but Solyndra was far from a miracle.

Deep in the mire of the nearly $1 billion obligations to American taxpayers for Solyndra was another Pelosi family member. Let’s look.

Solyndra

Solyndra, which manufactured unique solar panels based on cylindrical cells that didn’t require silicon, was once a burgeoning clean energy superstar, attracting more than $1 billion from private investors. In 2009, the Obama administration approved a $535 million loan guarantee that helped the company build a new factory in Fremont, Calif. It became a poster child for the president’s stimulus efforts. But in August 2011, the factory suddenly closed, and by September the company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Nancy Pelosi had no direct involvement in the Solyndra loan guarantee, although she side-stepped the normal House budget examination process for all entities seeking federal loan guarantees.

It went downhill in the green energy federal loan business after the Solyndra horror.

Next?

Under Obama, the Department of Energy approved $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies — including a $737 million loan guarantee to a company known as SolarReserve:

Despite the knowledge that Solyndra was tanking, then-Minority Leader Pelosi’s brother-in-law, second in command at the energy investment firm backing the project, somehow secured government funding for the SolarReserve project. PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC, listed as one of the investors in the project was given the staggering loan, which even dwarfs that given to failed company Solyndra. The project was expected to generate enough electricity to power 43,000 homes. That’s it. Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the loan just two days after the doomed $535 million Solyndra disaster was scheduled for completion.

On SolarReserve’s website is a list of “investment partners,” including the “PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC.” As blogger American Glob quickly discovered, PCG’s number two is none other than “Ronald Pelosi, a San Francisco political insider and financial industry polymath who happens to be the brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, then was Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives.”

But wait… there’s more! One of SolarReserve’s other investment partners is Argonaut Private Equity:

“Steve Mitchell and Argonaut Private Equity might have a chance to recoup some of their losses in the Solyndra debacle now that the Department of Energy has given a $737 million dollar loan guarantee to a company backed by Argonaut that also lists Mitchell among its board of directors. Mitchell served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors. He also serves as Managing Director for Argonaut Private Equity, a company that invested in Solyndra through the LLCs parent company. After Solyndra declared bankruptcy, two Democratic members of the U.S. House asked that Mitchell testify about Solyndra. Though he has not appeared before Congress, he has “been asked to provide documents to Congress” pertaining to Solyndra.

At the time, Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns, then-chairman of the investigations subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce warned:

“The administration’s flagship project Solyndra is bankrupt and being investigated by the FBI, the promised jobs never materialized, and now the Department of Energy is preparing to rush out nearly $5 billion in loans in the final 48 hours before stimulus funds expire — that’s nearly $105 million every hour that must be finalized until the deadline.”

Despite the warnings, Energy Secretary Chu said the projects would create 900 construction jobs and, get ready for this, trumpets, please… 52 permanent jobs. Whoopie!

All told, Obama era expenditures, first put in place by Speaker Pelosi, who did away with the usual budgetary process, exceeded revenues by more than $1 Trillion each year. This became the baseline for unquestioned omnibus spending packages that subsequent Republican Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan refused to reign in. This allowed politicians on both sides of the aisle to grow rich, while our children were saddled with a debt burden from which they are not likely to escape.

There’s a reason Nancy Pelosi has a net worth ranging from $120-185 million. She more than likely earned her money the old fashioned way: by stealing it from taxpayers. It’s the same reason Democrats are lining up behind the Green New Deal that reads like a Republican parody of a Democrat program. Now put the “Green New Deal” in perspective. If the Beltway elites grew rich by spending $4 trillion dollars each year, imagine how much can they believe they can skim from doubling or tripling those expenditures.
Asking for a friend.

Pelosi Help From Obama

As the Obama White House rejected charges that the Obama administration was motivated by politics in its decisions on green energy loans, scrutiny increased over the preference given to Democratic donors seeking federal loans. 2011 emails suggested that politics did play a role in administration decisions regarding its energy loan guarantee programs. But beyond the timing of political announcements, the Solyndra investigation churned up questions about the White House’s overall strategy of doling out taxpayer money. The rolls of green energy subsidies show that beyond a few headline-grabbing cases, several well-connected Democrats obtained taxpayer assistance for environmentally friendly projects.

Among the recipients are:

— Solyndra, which received $535 million in loan guarantees and whose chief investor was the George Kaiser Family Foundation. George Kaiser was an Obama campaign bundler.

— Brightsource Energy, which received $1.6 billion and whose senior adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr., an early Obama backer;

— Solar Reserve, which got a $737 million loan, and whose major investor is a company run by Michael Froman, who was a deputy assistant to the president. Froman bundled up to $500,000 for the president’s 2008 campaign;

— Granite Reliable Wind Generation, which received a $168.9 million loan. The company’s majority owner is a firm formerly led by Nancy Ann DeParle, who became  an Obama White House deputy chief of staff and former head of the president’s health care communications team during the reform debate; and

— Abound Solar, which received a loan guarantee worth $400 million. A key investor is billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, who gave $87,000 to Obama’s inauguration committee, and hundreds of thousands more to Democratic causes.

Peter Schweizer, author of the book, “Throw Them All Out,” wrote that at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers took money from administration loan programs.

Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to an audit that suggested the controversial projects would not pay for themselves, as officials had promised.

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration approved and were implemented, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in an audit.

It’s increasingly hard to tell the government’s green jobs subsidies apart from the Democrats’ friends and family rewards program. Funny that Democrats scream that Saudi’s renting out an entire floor of a Trump hotel is an untenable emolument.

What Is Nancy’s Net Worth?

Nancy Pelosi dodged a question from a woman at a town hall event last year regarding the lawmaker’s net worth as Pelosi criticized the GOP tax reform law and the federal budget.

“God never intended one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth while others live in abject deadening poverty,” Pelosi said at the Phoenix, Ariz. event, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., according to a video shared by the Republican National Committee.

Shortly thereafter, a woman from the crowd raised her voice and asked, “How much are you worth, Nancy? Are you in abject poverty?” the woman added.

“We’re not talking about that,” Pelosi said, noting that she has five grown children and can speak “louder than anybody.” Pelosi is considered one of the wealthiest members of Congress and her net worth is estimated to be approximately $143 million.

As House Speaker, Pelosi makes $193,000 a year. We have yesterday and today listed several examples of how the longtime Congresswoman from California has parlayed her personal and business relationships and those of her husband into an amazing net worth — not just for her and her immediate family, but for relatives and even close friends.

What worries many is not that the Speaker (or any other member of Congress, for that matter) is wealthy, it’s that almost to a person they enter Congress with a pile of campaign debt, they make $170,000 or so a year, and live in one of the nation’s most costly cities while maintaining a residence back home in their district for their families. They do all this and somehow become millionaires.

Americans see that and wonder how that happens.

You now know how it happens.

There are unwritten rules for those who enter Congress. They go like this:

  • Take a seat, listen and learn;
  • Don’t question power. Don’t question how party leaders function. Don’t question the rules of Congress;
  • When you’ve proven you are a true part of our party and that you’ll do as told, you’ll begin to get good committee appointments. When that happens you’ll have financial doors open that you never knew existed. And you’ll be able to take advantage of those;
  • Keep your mouth shut about those opportunities. We do not discuss family business outside the family;
  • Democrats and Republicans alike have the same opportunities. We only push so hard against members of the “other side.” Why? They’ll win power and be in control. We do not want to upset these opportunities for them so that when they regain control, they’ll treat us the same;
  • Make certain you always take care of those who put you in the places for you to take advantage of these opportunities. “What goes around comes around;”
  • Never go outside the Congressional family to discuss any of the things you see and hear within our party;
  • If you make a habit of breaking these rules we’ll see to it you are kicked to the curb and sent home. A Representative only has two years, a Senator six. But each of those can be shortened if the Party chooses.

Financial rewards are for sale. What’s the price? Total Compliance.

Play

Pelosi Family BIG Money: Corruption!

It’s curious that members of Congress who live and work in one of the most expensive U.S. cities and make $170,000 a year in pay seem to fight for that job. We’re told by their frequent motions for personal pay increases they cannot afford to work and live in D.C. And they expect us to bow and thank them for their working for government sacrifice for Americans. Yeah, Right!

They all start at the same salary, and they almost all end their Congressional careers as multi-millionaires. 

Their secret? Job “fringe benefits.”

Let’s look at how just one member of the House of Representatives “brings home the bacon:” Nancy Pelosi.

The “Family”

Nancy Pelosi married into bucks. She came from bucks herself. But none of those “bucks” amounted to near what the Pelosi family is worth today. And Nancy opened the door to those big dollars — maybe ALL legally. After all, it seems that Congress is the place to go if one wants to become powerful and enjoy all the perks that go with that job in Congress.

Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of wonderful and honest people who are serving the nation and their constituents honestly in Congress. Then there are plenty of others who maybe don’t cross the line when it comes to the Law, but they certainly get as close to the line as they can without stepping over.

I’ll put Speaker Pelosi in the latter. How so?

Before becoming Speaker, Nancy steered more than a billion dollars in subsidies to a light rail project that benefitted a company run by a high-dollar Democratic donor and in which her husband is a major investor. When cloud computing giant Salesforce sold a large plot of land to the Golden State Warriors, it had House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to thank for helping to swell real estate prices in the area.

Pelosi worked for more than a decade to steer taxpayer funds to a light rail project in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood, where Salesforce had planned a new campus. Experts say the project boosted the value of Mission Bay real estate. The company’s CEO, Marc Benioff, is a high-dollar Democratic donor. Pelosi and her leadership PAC are among the recipients of his generous campaign contributions. Pelosi’s husband is also a major Salesforce investor. Pelosi’s tireless advocacy for federal support for San Francisco’s light rail system has come under scrutiny for potentially enriching another liberal billionaire, hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. (Does that name sound familiar? Like, in the impeachment of Donald Trump)

In Salesforce’s case, Pelosi’s work appears to have financially benefitted not just a Democratic mega-donor, but also a company in which Pelosi’s direct family owns a large stake as well as valuable real estate holdings in her husband’s portfolio. Salesforce paid $278 million for 14 acres in Mission Bay in 2010. It bought the land from a group called Alexandria Real Estate Equities, which had purchased it from FOCIL-MB, a division of Democratic financier Tom Steyer’s hedge fund. The exact dollar figure of its sale to the Warriors was not released. “We paid a very pretty penny,” the team’s co-owner said.

Real estate values in Mission Bay have skyrocketed over the past decade as the city works to transform the former industrial neighborhood. “From a decrepit and seemingly abandoned old rail yard 15 years ago, Mission Bay has sprouted into San Francisco’s fastest-growing neighborhood,” the San Francisco Business Times reported. San Francisco real estate is some of the most expensive in the nation, and Mission Bay has seen some of the fastest-growing property values in the city in recent years.

Contributing to that rise has been the expansion of the city’s Third Street Light Rail line. Studies on the financial effects of public transit projects, including one that looked specifically at the Third Street expansion, have found that they increase property values in surrounding areas. Pelosi has been the expansion’s champion at the federal level. Starting in 2003 and since, she has secured well over a billion dollars for the project in the form of earmarks, federal funding agreements, and stimulus disbursements. That work has come under scrutiny since it was revealed that Farallon was a major landholder in Mission Bay as Pelosi, a recipient of Steyer campaign contributions and an ally of the billionaire environmentalist, steered taxpayer money to the light rail extension.

A 2004 real estate deal gave Farallon ownership of roughly two million square feet of commercial space in Mission Bay. Salesforce’s planned campus in the area was a bit smaller but still significant: according to documents submitted to the San Francisco Planning Department, its four buildings would have comprised nearly 1.5 million square feet. An increase in the value of Salesforce’s real estate from 2010 to its sale would mean a financial gain for the company and its investors, one of whom is Pelosi’s husband. According to her most recent personal financial disclosures, filed in May of this year, Paul Pelosi owns a stake in Salesforce worth between $500,000 and $1 million. Pelosi first invested in the company in 2000, when he purchased between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock. According to financial news service Motley Fool, “Pelosi seems to have acquired shares in a private offering” prior to the company’s 2004 initial public offering. Its stock has soared since then. It debuted at $3.75 a share on June 23, 2004. As of last Thursday, July 18, 2019, it was trading near $153!

Does that sound at all to you like a bit of a conflict of interest? The Democratic leader’s investments in companies with business before the House came under intense scrutiny in 2011 and 2012 when Congress debated measures governing “insider trading” by members of Congress. An eventual law imposing stricter regulations on members’ financial activities even included language informally dubbed the “Pelosi provision” due to her and her husband’s participation in IPOs of companies actively lobbying for or against federal legislation.

Much of the information and Pelosi’s and other members’ “insider trading” came to light in Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer’s book Throw Them All Out, which investigated cronyism and self-serving financial deals by members of Congress. In addition to his reporting on Pelosi’s IPO participation, Schweizer revealed that her husband owns property in San Francisco that will likely benefit from the Third Street light rail extension. Two stops on the extended light rail line are about three blocks from a four-story office building owned by Paul Pelosi. According to disclosure forms, the property, at 45 Belden Place, is worth between $1 million and $5 million. He made between $100,000 and $1 million in rent from the property last year.

“The National Association of Realtors says that high-quality mass transit (like [the Third Street light rail]) can increase property values by ‘over 150 percent,’” Schweizer noted. “There’s a sweet spot for obtaining the maximum transit premium: two to four blocks away is ideal.”

That was roughly the distance from Salesforce’s planned campus to a Mission Bay stop on the light rail line as well.

In addition to the potential financial benefits of that “transit premium” for investors such as Pelosi, the light rail extension worked to the advantage of Salesforce itself. The company, which would not say whether it realized a gain on its sale to the Warriors, is aided financially by several high-dollar Democratic donors.

CEO Marc Benioff bundled half-a-million dollars for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. He donated an additional $300,000 to Democratic candidates according to data compiled by CQ Moneyline. Benioff is more bipartisan in his contributions than many prominent Obama supporters, but his Democratic donations dwarf the $62,000 he’s given to Republicans. One of Benioff contributions before the 2012 election was Pelosi, to whom the Salesforce CEO maxed out with two $2,500 payments. He gave another $5,000 to Pelosi’s leadership PAC and $15,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee the same day.

Those contributions came just four months after Pelosi secured $967 million in federal funding for the Third Street light rail project.

Summary

This all sounds amazingly secretive and certainly disingenuous. Think about it: those who work for us and have the exclusive right to craft and implement every federal law in existence are very obviously stretching the parameters of their own regulations — like “conflict of interest” — to personally enrich themselves using that power. All the while they are preaching to Americans the government needs more and more tax revenue to “take care of the business and personal needs of ALL Americans.”

Don’t think this story is complete. There are several more instances of Pelosi led financial wrongdoing that we have uncovered. We’re going to come back to you with one you’ve heard of on a broader scale, but I bet you didn’t know Pelosi and her family were right in the middle of it. Do you remember that $792 Billion Obama stimulus? It was actually called  the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” It should have been called instead the “American 2009 Porkulous Investment Act for Political Elites.” (Yes, I invented the word Porkulous)

By the way, it probably comes as no surprise to you that we reached out to the House Speaker’s office for comment on this story — four phone calls over two weeks and no response. Are you shocked!?

The meat of the exposed Pelosi conflicts is far too extensive to restrict to this one story. We’ll have a second part tomorrow. If you think today’s story was a really deep narrative about things that most Americans have expected for decades but had never been revealed, wait until you see Part II of this! It’s worse. Don’t miss it!

Play

Stock Market “Only Rich People:” Want the Truth?

We hear it every day from President Trump: the stock market is at its highest value ever. The stock market continues to climb to record levels with stock prices soaring and those who own those stocks are making millions in the market. But then we see headlines like these:

“The Top 10% Own 80% of the Stock Market,” “The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks,” and “Dow Hits 21,000, Trump Touts StockMarket Success.” I’m certain it comes as no surprise to you that the experts stood in line in the Fall of 2016 making horrific predictions of what the election of Donald Trump would turn United States economics into if he were to be elected.

It might come as a surprise to you that these numbers are NOT factual. (Who would think Mainstream Media would report to Americans fake news?) Let’s look at some “Dire predictions” and actual stock market results. Then will tell you who really invest in markets — and it ain’t just the Rich!

Predictions: Experts Aren’t Always Right

Remember the dire predictions from stock market experts during the 2016 campaign warning us all that the Stock Market would tank if Donald Trump won the White House? Actual REAL experts jumped into the fray with everything they had, foretelling the Trump gloom and doom:

  • Mark Cuban. “I can say with 100 percent certainty that there is a really good chance we could see a huge, huge correction,” Cuban told CNN. “That uncertainty potentially as the president of the United States — that’s the last thing Wall Street wants to hear.”
  • Erik Jones. “You would see incredible pressure on stock prices if Trump wins and everyone flooding into rare metals like gold and into bonds” in the U.S., Germany and the United Kingdom, Erik Jones, professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, told Politico’s Ben White.
  • Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz. “Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%,” University of Michigan professor Wolfers and Dartmouth professor Zitzewitz wrote in a report that supposedly scientifically forecast the market’s reaction to Trump’s victory
  • Andrew Ross Sorkin. The New York Times columnist and CNBC anchor wrote: “In all likelihood, a Trump victory would lead to a swift, knee-jerk sell-off. Many investors will choose to sell stocks and ask questions later.” In fairness to Sorkin he hedged his belief in the sell-off by writing: In truth, it’s impossible to predict how the markets would settle into a Trump presidency, despite the speculation on all sides. In all likelihood, it will take time for investors to truly make sense and “math out” how his policies would affect the economy.
  • Lawrence G. McDonald of ACG Analytics hedged also, predicting a massive sell-off followed by a relief rally. “Trump will create a colossal panic, but the relief rally will be outstanding,” he told Sorkin. Well, he got the rally right, anyway.
  • Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-founder of a leading economics blog, The Baseline Scenario had perhaps the most panicked reaction, in keeping with his status as America’s most authoritative economists. “With the United States’ presidential election on November 8, and a series of elections and other political decisions fast approaching in Europe, now is a good time to ask whether the global economy is in good enough shape to withstand another major negative shock. The answer, unfortunately, is that growth and employment around the world look fragile. A big adverse surprise – like the election of Donald Trump in the US – would likely cause the stock market to crash and plunge the world into recession,” Johnson wrote on October 29, 2016.
  • Ian Winer, Bridgewater Associates, Tobia Levkovich, Macroeconomics Advisors are all proven stock market experts who each projected dire economic happenings in U.S. and World financial markets if Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Would you like the “Rest of the Story?” Here are the results that ALL of the experts failed miserably to predict that certainly cost many Americans opportunities to pocket huge stock market profits:

Dow Close 11/7/2016: 17,888.28
Dow Close 7/18/2019: 27,222.97

In the midst of all the pessimistic projections by the above experts and many others, let’s compare the Dow numbers close the day before the 2016 election with today’s numbers. I’ll warn you: They’re not quite what the experts told Americans the results of a Trump victory would look like. Trump’s election instigated a Dow Jones increase of 9334.69 points or 52.2%.

How does that interpret into real dollars? a $50,000 investment in the market the day before the election — 11/7/2016 — would be worth $76,000 on 7/18/2019.

With all of this success the U.S. stock market has had, why is it only the rich and super-rich in the United States that can invest in stock markets? After all, 2020 presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Joe Biden, and others have made demeaning all those rich white millionaires and billionaires a fundamental in their campaigns. It’s just not fair! They have presented to Americans multiple promises to make multiple important parts of Americans’ lives free: free college, free healthcare, government payoff of all college tuition loans. Free, Free, Free!

How can the government pay for all of these programs? Simple: just tax those super-rich Americans who get richer and richer simply by having investments in the stock market.

Guess what: that will not work. The super-rich collectively don’t make enough money that if all was confiscated by the federal government would pay for these programs. Besides that, the money pot to which those billionaires owe their financial success to — the stock market — is NOT a party-place of the super-wealthy. What 2020 Democrat candidates are preaching to America about the stock market and the evil rich is not the truth! The wealthy don’t fly solo when it comes to stock market investing. There are others who benefit from market investments if not to the same level as the wealthy stockholders, almost the same.

So If Not Just Millionaires Who Invests in Stocks?

In 2018, 55 percent of adults in the United States invested in the stock market. While that is a slight increase from the last two years, it remains below the levels before the Financial Crisis, having peaked at 65 percent in 2007.

It’s easy to think that the stock market is the playground of hedge funds and day traders, but in reality, most of the stock market is owned by the average joe. In fact, the largest chunk is doing one thing: helping people retire. In a white paper, Steven Rosenthal and Lydia Austin of the Tax Policy Center have broken out exactly which kind of investors own the stock market. They found that a majority of corporate stock is owned by different types of retirement plans, the largest being IRAs and defined-benefit plans. Of the $22.8 trillion in stock outstanding (not including US ownership of foreign stock and stock owned by “pass-through entities” such as exchange-traded funds), retirement accounts owned roughly 37%, the most of any type of holder.

Labor Unions

If the stock market is so risky, then why does virtually every union pension fund in America invest the bulk of their assets in the “risky” stock market? Gone are the days when America’s major union pension funds invested most of their money in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. They are doing the smart thing by investing workers’ pension funds in real assets that will grow in value over time and be there when its time to pay workers’ retirement benefits.

According to the Federal Reserve, state and local government employee pension funds alone have nearly $3 trillion in assets, 66 percent of which is invested in corporate equities (i.e.: stocks). Indeed, 30 of the nation’s 50 largest pension funds are public employee pension funds. According to Pensions and Investment Magazine Online, these 30 funds have $1.5 trillion in assets, 60 percent of which is invested in the stock market. Remarkably, 13 percent of their assets are invested in foreign stocks. So much for “buy American.”

Most of the trade unions have made similar investment decisions:

  • The Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust has 40 percent of its $22 billion in assets invested in domestic stocks.
  • The United Mine Workers Retirement Fund has more than 44 percent of its $7.5 billion in assets invested in domestic stock and 8 percent invested in foreign stocks.
  • The Bakery and Confectionery Union Pension Fund has 57 percent of its $5.2 billion in assets invested in domestic stocks and 7 percent invested in foreign stocks.

How about federal employees, who can choose where to invest their money through the Federal Thrift Savings Plan – the government workers’ version of a 401(k)? The TSP now has more than $85 billion in assets, 59 percent of which is invested in the stock market. Although federal employees can also choose to invest in government bonds, they’ve chosen to invest only 5 percent of their TSP funds in government bonds. Meaning, when given the choice between the stock market and government bonds, federal employees overwhelmingly choose the market.

The value of U.S. pension funds at the end of 2015 was $21.7 trillion. The funds’ managers prudently manage assets in a method meant to ensure that retirees receive promised benefits. For many years this meant that funds were limited to investing primarily in government securities, investment-grade bonds, and a small amount placed in blue-chip stocks. Changing market conditions and the need to maintain a high rate of return have resulted in pension plan rules that allow investments in most asset classes.

Summary

Facts matter, don’t they? All of these facts take us to the point we surely are asking collectively, “Why are Democrats telling the nation over and over that the super-rich ‘OWN’ the stock market and that average Americans have no part of the investment products those billionaires are using to get rich?” The answer is simple: Democrats for all the freebies they have previously, are now, and will in the future promise to those who vote Democrat require massive amounts of new money not from just Democrat voters, but ALL Americans to fund. How does that funding occur? Through tax revenue to the federal government. How does the government get that revenue? Confiscation from Americans and American companies. So they target the most wealthy, painting wealthy Americans as “evil” Americans who are greedy, selfish, and oblivious to the lives of average Americans.

The truth? Democrats in Congress are oblivious to the needs of average Americans!

Democrats during every election cycle concentrate on two things: the demonization of conservativism and conservatives, and the best way to find voters who will give them power so as to maintain control of as much of government as possible.

Democrats all know how important the stock market is to Americans in every financial classification. They know most Americans have stock market investments through their employers on which they rely for retirement. They spin the lie to denigrate wealthy Americans so as to justify increasing taxes.

How good and fair is the stock market? How evil are Democrats for screaming that Americans who make money through stock market investments? I close today with a tidbit of factual information that illustrates Democrat Party lies. Read this and decide for yourself:

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) invested as much as $100,000 in the stock market the day after billionaire Republican Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election.
Warren, a progressive standard bearer who recently held a town hall on income inequality in America, purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard 500 Index Admiral (VFIAX) fund on November 9, 2016, according to financial disclosures filed with the Senate Clerk. At the time of Warren’s investment, VFIAX shares were trading around $200 a share; at publication time of this story, those shares were trading for more than $250 a share.  Warren’s capital gain on the investment could have been as much as $25,000.

During the campaign, Warren sharply criticized Trump’s economic plans as unfair to the poor and overly favorable to the wealthy.

Hypocrisy in the Worst Way!

 

Play

How Much Hatred Does the NY TIMES Have For Trump? A Bunch!

So much so that their leading columnist — David Leonhardt — wrote an actual article purportedly that was published the day AFTER Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Elizabeth Warren!

I’m not kidding folks. “Trump Derangement” of which the world has heard incessantly manifested from the entire journalist staff at the New York Times for 2.5 years is now planning — and apparently even dreaming about — what THEY can write to gleefully report details of the Trump defeat. There’s no better way to prove just how much they hate this president than to publish the Leonhardt “fake” story for you right now!

Get ready…you’re going to love this!

“How Trump Lost the 2020 Election”

NYTimes David Leonhardt

In the end, it was a lot simpler than it often seemed.

Donald J. Trump, who spent much of the past four years as a historically unpopular president, lost his bid for re-election Tuesday. His approval rating hasn’t approached 50 percent since he took office, and neither did his share of the vote this year.

In an era of deep national anxiety — with stagnant wages, rickety health insurance and aggressive challenges from China and Russia — voters punished an incumbent president who failed on his central promise: “I alone can fix it.”

Since he rode down the Trump Tower escalator to announce his candidacy five years ago, Trump has frequently looked like a man for whom the normal rules of politics did not apply. He won a shocking upset in 2016, which lent him an aura of invincibility. Pundits started to doubt much of what they had previously believed.

But as Trump seethed — and tweeted — in defeat late Tuesday and President-elect Elizabeth Warren celebrated, the arc of the Trump story is starting to make more sense than it has for much of his chaotic presidency: The normal rules of politics do apply to Donald Trump, after all.

Four years ago, he became the fifth man to win the presidency while losing the popular vote. Now he becomes the fourth of those five — along with John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison — to serve only a single term and to be unpopular during most of it. The exception is George W. Bush, who benefited from being a wartime president.

In hindsight, the extraordinary nature of the circumstances that propelled Trump in 2016 has become obvious: the unpopularity of his opponent, Hillary Clinton; the help from Russia; the late involvement of James Comey, the then-F.B.I. director who now hosts an ABC talk show; and Trump’s razor-thin victories in several states. Without that good fortune this year, Trump still won roughly 90 percent of self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning voters. Yet it was not nearly enough.

“Trump said he was going to fix things, and he didn’t,” said Kevin O’Reilly, 54, of Manchester, N.H., who voted for Barack Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016 and Warren this year. “I don’t think he really cares about the middle class. He cares about himself.”

Exit polls showed disillusionment across the swing states that Trump won four years ago and lost this year, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In a sign of the country’s changing political map, he held on to Ohio and Iowa, two relatively old and white states — but became the first Republican since 1992 to lose Georgia.

Huge margins among women were central to the victory of Warren, who will become the country’s first female president. “I’m just tired of him,” said Jennifer Diaz, a 47-year-old from Cobb County, Ga., outside Atlanta.

Heading into the campaign, Trump’s advisers believed they had two major advantages: the economic growth of the past four years and the undeniable liberalism of Warren and her running mate, former Attorney General Eric Holder. Neither panned out as the Trump campaign had hoped.
For one thing, solid G.D.P. growth — similar to the rate during Obama’s second term — has not translated into middle-class income gains. Average income growth, post-inflation, has hovered near zero since early 2018.

(In August, Trump became the first president since Richard Nixon to force out the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, accusing the agency of releasing “fake news” on wages. Outside economists said the charge was false.)

Warren’s liberalism, meanwhile, did make some voters anxious, exit polls showed. But most swing voters do not follow the minutiae of policy debates, and many simply decided that she understood their problems better than Trump. She and Holder consciously borrowed from the populist strategy of Obama’s 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney. Rather than emphasize Trump’s personal behavior, as the 2016 Clinton campaign did, they cast him as a greedy billionaire who corruptly used the presidency to enrich himself further. They also largely ignored Trump’s repeated criticisms of the ongoing N.F.L. national anthem protests.

The Democrats paired their message with broadly popular economic proposals: tax increases on the rich, expanded Medicare and childcare, free community college and — highlighting an unfulfilled Trump promise — an infrastructure program. Budget watchdogs said the Warren agenda would increase the deficit. Many voters, evidently, did not care.

A final vote tally will not be available for weeks, but The New York Times’s “election needle” currently projects Trump to win 46.1 percent of the popular vote. If that holds, it would be nearly identical to his share in 2016. This year, however, third-party candidates won fewer votes, and Warren is on pace to clear 50 percent.

From the start of Trump’s meteoric political career to the end, he never enjoyed the support of most Americans.

Summary

Can you believe that a journalist at one of the nation’s largest and most reputable newspapers would be so ditsy as to create a story — a column — celebrating a Donald Trump loss in 2020 at the hands of Elizabeth Warren! This speaks a lot to just how much hate and anguish there is from the Left for this Donald Trump presidency.

I have mentioned numerous times how distasteful the columns written by David Leonhardt of the New York Time are. Now you can see for yourself how lost this guy is. He hates the President so much that he meticulously created and shared every detail of Warren’s “dream” victory in the upcoming general election!

But, after all, very few these days consider the New York Times a premier newspaper. It and its buddy-paper in D.C., The Washington Post, have long been in the tank for Democrats and abandoned real journalism years ago. I thought the Britts had mastered the rights to and therefore had a monopoly on tabloid journalism. But I guess Leonhardt and the Times negotiated a license to denigrate real news just as the Britts have done for years.

One thing is for sure: I doubt President Trump will lose that election. But even if he does, it certainly will not be to the Native American wannabe Elizabeth Warren. That would certainly not be a dream — it’d be a nightmare!

Play