Bullet Points August 17, 2019

This is our regular Saturday feature in which we bring you bullet points of the top happenings of the last few days. Feel free to read the short summary. Following each is a link to a complete story expanding the short summary. Feel free to click on the link if you wish more detailed information.

This is good for a Starbucks Saturday morning with a caramel machiotta. Enjoy!

  • Certainly not the most important happening in the U, S. but definitely one of the top attention grabbers. The latest is that the Medical Examiner issued an official cause of death: “Suicide by strangulation.” But that official notification resolved nothing: speculation on the “real” cause of death has morphed into fake news stories that are abundant along with conspiracy theories that run the full gambit from jail-murder to a secret agent type of assassination. You can take a closer look here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/jeffrey-epstein-autopsy/index.html
  • Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) topped the news the last few days regarding her feud with the nation of Israel. A Congressional group is making an official visit to Israel in which Tlaib and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) were both a part of. Both have been very vocal about their personal animus for Israel certainly impacted by the Muslim faith. When their itineraries were delivered to Israeli authorities to make preparations for their various meetings, neither had scheduled any or allotted any time for meetings with Israeli counterparts. They only wanted to go to the West Bank. Their invitations were promptly withdrawn. Tlaib publicly stated her intentions were to visit her ailing grandmother. On “humanitarian” purpose Israel granted her the opportunity to visit her grandmother. Tlaib them promptly denied that invitation. More here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rashida-tlaib-backs-off-plans-for-israel-visit-citing-oppressive-conditions/
  • Friday morning rush hour was altogether halted when two pressure cookers were simply left in two different New York subway stations. A third pressure cooker was found moments later in another subway station. The entire system was shut down while NYPD determined none were bomb threats. Speculation abounds. Although Mayor deBlasio said there were no suspicions of any further threats, many recalling the Boston Marathon bombing that resulted in death and maiming of innocent bystanders are ignoring the Mayor’s consolation and are wanted the extensive investigation to find who “lost” their pressure cookers. More here: https://nypost.com/2019/08/16/pair-of-pressure-cookers-shut-down-lower-manhattan-subway-station/
  • The stock market jumped on the financial merry-go-round this week. Many cry its 800+ point one-day losses foretells a stock market crash. Others say it was simply a correction. But there are many on the right who feel a coordinated medial messaging plan was to convince the nation IS on the path to a recession so as to favor Trump’s opponent — ANY supporter of his — in the 2020 election. The market in the last couple of days has recovered almost all of its earlier losses and seems to be kicking again. More here: https://www.lombardiletter.com/stock-market-crash/20656/20656/
  • In head to head polling in a FOX News presidential poll, Donald Trump loses to the top four Democrat candidates. This and other polls have spurred much speculation — much of which understandably centers around the 2016 dismal polling that even on the morning of Election Day showed Hillary Clinton soundly defeating the now President Donald Trump. Some believe the current massive angst by the Left Media against Mr. Trump has resulted in probable Trump voters to either avoid polling calls or lying with fear of being branded as being one of those “deplorables.” More here: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457645-fox-news-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-biden-warren-sanders-and-harris
  • We pulled almost all of our troops out of Iraq and Syria because “Isis is dead.” Maybe not so. It appears that ISIS is re-tooling in northern Syria. If that’s true, the U.S. and the rest of the West may be in trouble again. More here: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/isil-is-building-a-new-caliphate-from-inside-a-syrian-refugee-camp-and-the-west-has-no-plan-to-combat-it

Whose Truth: Yours or Mine?

As you know, we at TruthNewsNetwork have committed from the very beginning that what you see and hear in our stories and podcasts will be based on 100% truth that we have confirmed and verified. Certainly you understand that making such a commitment means the requirement of significant research, re-research, and multiple confirmations. Why is that required? Because typical news sources today do not share that same commitment.

And it’s not just news sources. Have you heard the latest from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) discussing her latest examples of racism and police violence? Here it her tweet about the subject:

That tweet ignores the incontrovertible truth of the matter inserting political narrative calling it “the truth.”

First, Michael Brown was NOT murdered. Secondly, there was NO police violence in that instance. Both were confirmed as the result of not some Ferguson rednecks hurriedly convened to reach a pre-determined result based on a racial bias. A Ferguson grand jury after significant and lengthy investigations concluded they could not find justification for charging the Ferguson officer who shot and killed Brown with a crime. Then after a significant Obama Justice Department investigation into the matter, the DOJ too declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting. At the completion of an 86-page DOJ report, Attorney General Eric Holder concluded with these cryptic remarks: “Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown. For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.”

According to that Missouri grand jury and according to the Obama Department of Justice, the Ferguson, Missouri reference point of Warren’s above tweet does not substantiate her allegation. According to those two investigations, Warren’s statement is false. Yet millions in America concur with her statement that Michael Brown WAS murdered and that his death WAS a direct result of police violence. Warren and those millions of Americans “feel” her statements are the truth. But they’re patently false.

But we can’t stop there. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) weighed in saying pretty much the same things as did Warren about the Michael Brown/Ferguson shooting:

Harris too called Brown’s death “a murder,” which exhaustive investigation contradicts.

America’s mainstream media (to no one’s surprise) ramped up their charges against Officer Wilson which not only lighted but continuously fueled the flames of anti-police and anti-racism that sparked riots in Ferguson and other American cities like Baltimore in which tens of millions of dollars of store owners in both cities were destroyed and many were injured. The Black Lives Matter organization was birthed from the Michael Brown incident. All of this happened as the direct result of fake news, and mischaracterization of facts by some and lies by many who purposely  gave their false stories to the media for personal reasons. But none of it happened as the result of police brutality or a murder.

Who is Right?

Were either Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren truthful in their tweets? We’re beginning to more and more hear answers given to different questions that go like this: “MY truth is that…..”

What does “My truth” mean?

I’m a south Louisiana Cajun from a family where when my brother or I decided to lie to a teacher and got caught, it would have been fruitless when confronted by our parents to respond with this: “I didn’t lie about it. I just gave her MY truth.”

It comes to this: there are NOT two or three versions of the truth on any issue. Truth is Absolute.

I befriended a young African American man not long ago who became a REAL activist in our cities. He took extremely aggressive public positions against not just police brutality, but the police — period. He decided to take on City Hall for any number of issues in the Mayor’s Administration and personally attacked other city leaders. He demonstrated, carried protest signs, posted prolifically on Facebook, attended every city council meeting, and even made himself homeless, living on the street. Freddie was quite a spectacle.

Most thought he was trying to do something that would get him arrested so he could somehow through that further his causes. He did just that. But his now two stints in jail still haven’t boosted his cause. They’ve just resulted in a criminal record.

I felt it was incumbent for me to introduce myself to him and take him to lunch. I wanted not to confront him about any of his “stuff,” but I just wanted to let him know there was a local adult who cared about his zeal and fervor and was willing to hear him out.

It was a pleasant lunch: no raised voices, no arguments. Of course I disagreed with some of his causes and certainly his methods, but I could not question his zeal. But the heart of THIS story revealed itself when he asked me about my opinion of racism. I responded to him immediately with my definition. He then replied with this, “I respect your opinion. But that’s not MY truth.” (By the way, Freddie’s back in jail)

There you go! “My truth.” Freddie was simply parroting what millions are hearing every day, so much so that it’s becoming commonplace: “This is MY truth.”

Can there be more than one truth about things? Can you have a truth that’s not the truth to me? Let’s get some thoughts from the pros.

Summary

I think maybe this practice that is becoming more and more prevalent may be a purposeful happening. How so? If we adopt such a philosophy of life, no one can ever be held accountable for any of their actions or things they say. 

Just look at the examples above by two very prominent leaders in American politics, Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. They obviously know beyond any doubt and it was confirmed by a grand jury in Missouri AND by the Department of Justice that Michael Brown was NOT murdered by Ferguson police office Darren Wilson. Yet here they are years later, both running for president and campaigning, and they tweet that Brown was murdered. They claim that their statements are “their” truth.

As the video stated, in a world in which that could be true, our society could not function: no laws, no rules, no answers, and no accountability. Such an environment DOES exist. It’s called ANARCHY.

When Freddie responded to me about “his” truth, I immediately made it clear that truth IS absolute, that right AND wrong are absolute, that FACTS cannot be facts without being absolute.

Nor can the Truth — period.

Is Some Democrat Waiting For The Right Moment?

There just doesn’t seem to be “THE” right one — the right Democrat running for President. Two dozen-plus seemed like a good number to begin with. After all, look at the 2016 Republican field of eighteen. The weeding-out process worked pretty well. But it just seems that there is not a “surprise” candidate among these Democrats that has the character and mental constitution to put distance between him or her and the field. They all pretty much seem alike. And they all have fallen in line with the “company line:” promise Americans everything for free.
This go-round, there certainly is no Barack Obama among the group. Don’t forget that Obama picked up and carried the Democrat banner for eight years. Say what you will about the former Illinois Senator, but he knew how to bring people together around common causes. And he brought the Democrat Party together in what seemed to be really easy for him. He was magnetic, a really good speaker, and had a smile that made most feel comfortable. Even though Obama’s two-term vice president Joe Biden is currently the favorite, Joe Biden is NO Barack Obama — no matter how hard Biden tries to make that comparison. Rank-and-file Democrats are desperate for an answer: someone who will — for the lack of a better term — provide Democrats “Obama Part II.”
Who could that possibly be?

The Democrat Party “Savior”

Rush Limbaugh thinks Team Obama may be strategizing a Michelle Obama run for president in 2020.  The radio host said Barack and Michelle are so ticked off that Trump won that they “want back in.”  Limbaugh cited Michelle’s extensive, never-ending book tour as a sign that the Obamas’ lust for power could result in the ever vicious and vengeful former first lady announcing her candidacy.

During a Spring 2019 promotional interview for her book at London’s O2 arena, Mrs. Obama sounded an awful lot like what she sounded like in 2008.  Who can forget Mrs. Obama’s inflated and anti-America rhetoric while campaigning for her husband? Eleven years later, she’s still fixated on Barack’s breaking the color barrier at 1600 Pennsylvania.  Michelle even suggested to the packed house in London that if presidents could run for a third term, Barack would have won in 2016.  No matter, she says, what “happened before” should sustain us for the time being.  Not surprisingly, Michelle didn’t mention the Democratic Party’s Spring flavor of the month, Pete Buttigieg, the candidate Joy Behar is calling the “second coming of Obama.”

Here’s what Michelle speaking in London was quoted as saying, according to Breitbart:

“I have to remind people that Barack Obama was elected twice in the United States. That really did happen[.] … That wasn’t make-believe.  The country actually did accomplish it and half the people who voted in the last election, if they could have, they would have voted for him for a third term. We have to remember that what is happening today is true, but what happened before was also true … that should give us some solace at some level.”

“Besides,” she continued, “for anyone who had any problems with Barack Obama, let’s just think about what we were troubled by — there were never any indictments.”

After reminding her British audience of the eight years Barack Obama was able to avoid being indicted (she failed to add because of a fawning press and the color of his skin), Michelle struck at President Trump via a swipe at “divorced dads.”  Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics indicate that nearly 40 percent of all non-custodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.  If Michelle Obama has her way, that number will be much higher.  When she was in the White House, the ex-mom-in-chief used to insult her husband and  lecture men “to be better fathers.”  Now she’s trashing millions of divorced American men in order to attack President Trump.  “America, under President Trump, is a ‘broken family,'” she said.

“We are a little unsettled.  Sometimes you spend the weekend with divorced dad.  That feels like fun but then you get sick. That’s what America is going through right now.  We are living with divorced dad.”

It doesn’t dawn on the Harvard law grad that if we are living with a “divorced dad,” President Trump, it is because “Mommy Dearest Barack” was an abusive and unfit parent.  The Great Divorce of 2016 was the best thing that happened to this country.  How many men does she disparage who lost their jobs and their families because of Obama’s economic policies?  How many despairing dads lost their businesses?

Michelle followed up this veiled contempt for dads who have endured the pain of divorce with praise for London’s diversity as compared to American cities.  It looks as though her “for the first time in my life I am proud of my country” anti-America campaign has begun anew:

“I was looking out over the city, London, a beautiful city, and the thing I love about it is truly representative of true international diversity in ways that you don’t see in cities mostly, in particularly even in the United States.”

Mrs. Obama thinks U.S. cities are not diverse enough. From her speeches and remarks about this “racist” country, we can conclude that Michelle thinks there are just too many white people in urban areas.

In recent weeks, many have wondered why Barack Obama has not come to the aid of his former vice president, Joe Biden. On his own speaking tour in Europe, Obama told a town hall group in Germany he’s worried Democratic presidential contenders are becoming too “rigid” and creating “a circular firing squad.”

What Could Trigger a Michelle Run?

Rush Limbaugh is not the only one who feels there’s a good shot that Michelle Obama will ultimately throw her hat into the ring. But Rush thinks certain things will have to happen before she jumps in:

“They will not pull the trigger and get in if they don’t think it is a lock that she would win,” Limbaugh said. “The last thing the Obamas can afford is for Michelle to get in there and not win.”

“One thing to keep in mind that if Michelle does pull the trigger, whatever she pulls to get in there, the money would immediately shift to her because everybody on that side would think that [Barack] Obama and [former Obama senior adviser] Valerie Jarrett are gonna be back in running things and she’s gonna be a figurehead stand-in. That’s what they want anyway.”

“There are days I think it’s automatic that she’s going to and other days, I can’t explain why, that I don’t. I think that they’re gonna be happy becoming hundred million dollar net worth plus people and living the life which is what leftists actually want to do,” Limbaugh explained. “It’s too soon to say.”

“I am convinced that The One (Barack Obama) wants back in. I think The One is sitting there seething over the dismantling of his agenda and the Trump verbal assault on it every day. But he can’t run again.”

Will Michelle Obama get in the 2020 presidential race? No one but Michelle can truthfully answer that question — and she DID, to Oprah Winfrey:

As the mainstream media go all-in for a different Democrat candidate every other day, the Obamas have stepped up their appearances here and overseas.  In general, neither has shown support for any particular candidate.  With Michelle’s venomous attacks on the rise again, Rush might be right about her.

(Our Summary today is via podcast only: it is a P.S. on yesterday’s mass shooting report and story. It’s short — only about 4-5 minutes. Please take a listen.)

Play

Rhetoric Weaponization: By Democrats

“Rhetoric Weaponization: By Democrats” is only click-bait today! I wanted to make certain you joined us for this conversation.

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. It can also be in a visual form. However, “Rhetoric” certainly IS being weaponized.

Weaponization: How is it Done?

To create a successful weaponization of something, one must first determine what will be used. Example: a kitchen knife can be just a kitchen knife. Or a crazed and angry person can take that kitchen knife and weaponize it to use to cut someone’s throat. A gun is simply a gun when manufactured. But a crazed and angry person can take that gun and weaponize it to use to slaughter a bunch of people at a country concert in Las Vegas. Knives or guns alone are NOT weapons — until “someone” turns them into weapons. The same holds true for “words.” And that’s the meat of this story today.

Rhetoric is not necessarily evil. In fact, most sales presentations are a type of rhetoric because they are used “to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.” A completed sale is the goal.  But sales presentations are rarely weaponized. Why? Because the objective of sales rhetoric is always positive: the close of a sale.

The most common backdrop today for weaponized rhetoric is politics. And politicians have taken that art-form to an entirely new level. It’s important to know here that Democrats do not hold an exclusive on doing so. There are plenty of openings at the “School of Rhetoric” for enrollees from every different political perspective. But Democrats are on the debate stage now — Republicans I’m certain will join the fray as quickly as they can.

Let’s look at what was the first political term weaponized during the early days of the Donald Trump presidency: “Nationalism.”

Charlottesville

Who can forget the travesty that played out in Charlottesville, Virginia? A group of American history buffs applied for and received a permit from the City of Charlottesville to protest the decision of Charlottesville City Council to order the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from public spaces. Unfortunately, a large group of White Supremacists showed up along with neo-Nazi sympathizers who did NOT apply for permits to legally protest. What ensued was an all-out riot that resulted in several injuries and even one death.

In its aftermath, the use of the term “Nationalism” popped up in numerous political situations. To understand what resulted and remains on the public political stage regarding that word, we must first define “Nationalism:” Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty.” But, unfortunately, the word has been “re-defined” to be a synonym of the term “White Nationalism,” or “White Supremacy.”

There WERE White Supremacists there who initiated the violence — even the Ku Klux Klan. But the term “Nationalism” was NOT the driving force behind those people. They were NOT there to support the fundamentals of the United States of America, rather support and attempt to force their White Supremacist ideology on others.”

Subsequent to that day, “Nationalism” was weaponized by many Democrats who adopted its use to attack non-Black Americans — especially President Trump. In a post-Charlottesville rally, the president famously stated this:

“The term Nationalist is a word that some people do not like. But I AM A NATIONALIST.”

“Nationalism” has been compared to “Patriotism” most often this way: Patriotism is extreme loyalty and allegiance to one’s country. “Nationalism” takes “Patriotism” one step further — allegiance to one’s country OVER all other countries.”

In the wake of Charlottesville and that statement by Mr. Trump, the weaponizers took off! The demonization of the president that was already at a fever-pitch escalated from there. The Mainstream Media relished receiving a new tool with which to attack President Trump — even promoting (without stating it) that Nationalism means the same thing as “White Supremacy.”

As an example of how rhetoric weaponization is stealthily crafted in the marketplace, here’s how Wikipedia weaponized the entire Charlottesville situation with their explanation of Charlottesville:

“The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and various right-wing militias.”

Wikileak’s description explicitly shows the weaponization of language and events for political purposes that had NO correlation to what truly happened. Don’t dare conflate “Patriotism” and “Nationalism” either. To “help” everyone understand how evil “Nationalism” is compared to “Patriotism,” Leftist Media pundits use illustrations like this:

Notice the smooth segue from Patriotism to re-defining Nationalism as White Supremacy. Know this for a certainty: the Left Media doing so is NOT accidental. They weaponize with their own rhetoric anything they can to denigrate every part of Conservatism and to attack Conservatives — especially Donald Trump.

Rhetoric Weaponization Continues After Charlottesville

In the runup to the 2020 presidential race, we are not only inundated with rhetoric from Democrats who want the White House job, but they have also discovered that rhetoric can be weaponized. With that as their objective, they certainly have done a fine job! And what better term is there with which to inundate their rhetoric and weaponize than “Racism” and its derivative “Racist.”

Who better to demonstrate for us the art of Rhetoric Weaponization than 2020 Democrat presidential candidates themselves? Here they are demonstrating to the World how to maximize one’s use of rhetoric in the alliteration of the term “Racism:”

Summary

Do you know what is pivotal in this conversation? It’s not so much the actual terms that are used. It’s the context in which they are used.

Too often — especially in the media who are almost always driven by an agenda — they do NOT include an entire conversation and certainly do not give an explanation of the context in which words are used by politicians who they want to paint into a political perspective to enhance the STORY.

Donald Trump in the context of his 50+ years of which almost all were very public shows NO propensity for White Supremacy. In fact, his life illustrates the exact opposite of that. But showing that fact does not play into the narrative the Left portray of Mr. Trump. They must weaponize the term “Nationalist” to be a negative connotation and not what Mr. Trump’s use actually was for.

“Racism” is far too often used in the same way. Senator Warren in her alliteration in the previous video segment used HER weaponization of the term to demean Mr. Trump in every way she could.

Adopting this practice is unspeakably dangerous. Why? Because the constant bashing of people by the Left actually crushes Americans’ understanding and belief in the seriousness of true racism and also Nationalism. Both terms represent critically important ideas. And taking them and weaponizing them to be used to attack someone for political purposes destroys in peoples’ minds the importance of what the words really represent. Literally, calling everyone with which one disagrees a racist or White Supremacist is the political weaponization that waters down the travesties of both.

If our leaders, many of whom have already been on presidential debate stages, are so callous to the certain results of their doing so, how can Americans trust that their intentions are honest? It’s much like the child’s story of the little boy that cried, “Wolf!” When a real wolf came along and was about to attack and eat him, his cries were ignored by those around him.

God forbid that Americans would ever become numb to Racism and White Supremacy!

But that could certainly happen — and may have already. Politicians need to learn this lesson: Hold allegations against anyone and everyone unless and until all the facts are known and that those facts are real and applicable to the situation in which they are referencing.

They too need to remember: that practice cuts both ways. I would be horrified if in this election cycle the weaponization of rhetoric would occur on both sides of the political aisle. If that happens, you can be sure Americans will quickly tune out. And we know ALL Americans engaged in seeing, hearing, and processing all the facts about political candidates running for office. That cannot happen if Americans tire of back-and-forth rhetoric and simply turn a deaf ear.

Honestly, I’m pretty sure that many Americans already have. But maybe some politicians are glad that has happened!

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

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!”

 

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

Who Is Going to be the 2020 Presidential Democrat Nominee? Part II

In Part I of this story we eliminated most of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates and revealed who we think will represent Democrats in the 2020 race for President: Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). I probably don’t need to say this, but I will: we don’t “know” she will be the pick. But based on our investigations of her personally, her political and private records, and her actions in her campaigning so far and the public’s reception of her and her ideals, she seems to be the cookie-cutter perfect choice for Democrats.

None of what we do here will be politically partisan. All know that TruthNewsNetwork is NOT representative of the Republican Party. I am NOT a registered Republican. Both TruthNewsNetwork collectively and I personally am conservative. Our representations in our writings and podcasts show that political perspective: sometimes I actually agree with some thoughts of those less conservative than I and relate those here. And, certainly, I don’t represent the political positions for anyone other than me. I just know many share the same thoughts and positions. Most importantly, they must, like me, have discovered over the last decade or so that few in the sector someone termed “Mainstream” present similar thoughts, ideas, and political positions as those with which I identify. That applies to many TruthNewsNetwork partners.

Today and in subsequent offerings here, we will give you truths about Senator Harris’ stances on particular issues that HAVE impacted Americans in dramatic ways in her political past and certainly WILL impact Americans going forward should she win the 2020 Democrat Party primary and the general election. Please note: there are MANY alarming things about the Senator. She’s been before the public in numerous settings in numerous ways for years now. She has a record. Fortunately, her record is much more readily available than some other candidates for us to examination. Examine her record we have — exhaustively — for months.

Let’s get right to the second ten (numbers 11 – 20) of the top issues surrounding the past of Senator Harris when serving in various capacities in her home state: California. Then join me for the summary to follow and thoughts about the race going forward.

Senator Kamala Harris: Her Past

11. Some have asked tough questions about whether Harris, as San Francisco district attorney, did everything she could to root out abuse in the local Catholic churches. Prosecutors had obtained personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco dealing with sexual abuse going back decades. But her office did not prosecute any priests, and she argued that those records were not subject to public-records laws:

In 2005, while she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris rebuffed a public-records request by SF Weekly to release personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. (Her predecessor had planned to make them public after prosecuting criminal priests, but the California Supreme Court stopped those cases when it declared unconstitutional a 2002 law that lifted the criminal statute of limitations.) Similar archives in Boston had exposed the scope of the scandal there. “We’re not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper,” Harris told SF Weekly in a statement — this, even though many of those victims pleaded with her to release the documents.

12. In 2004, San Francisco Police officer Isaac Espinoza was shot and killed by David Hill, a young gang member with an AK-47. Hill also shot another officer in the leg. Days after Hill’s arrest, then-district attorney Harris announced that her office would not seek the death penalty. This prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein to declare while speaking at Espinoza’s funeral, “This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death-penalty law.” The comment drew a standing ovation from the crowd of mostly police. Hill was ultimately sentenced to life without parole. Feinstein later told reporters that if she’d known Harris was against the death penalty, she probably wouldn’t have endorsed her for D.A. in the first place.

In 2009, Harris again received criticism for refusing to pursue the death penalty against Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant, and member of MS-13 who gunned down a father and two sons. As a teenager, Ramos twice served probation for violent crimes but was not deported. Ramos was sentenced to 183-years-to-life without parole.

13. Harris’s most financially significant decision as state attorney general came in 2012 when she negotiated a $25 billion settlement deal with the nation’s five largest mortgage companies (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, CitiFinancial, GMAC/Ally Financial, and Wells Fargo) after the companies were accused of improper foreclosure practices.

By 2013, the state reported that California homeowners had received $18.4 billion in mortgage relief from the deal. When all was said and done, roughly 33,000 homeowners received an average reduction of $137,280 on their first mortgage. That sounds like a lot until one looks at the scale of the problem: More than 600,000 Californians received a foreclosure notice in 2009, and in 2012, when the agreement was struck, more than 30 percent of California homeowners with mortgages owed more than their houses were worth.

14. One bank that was not part of Harris’s settlement was California-based OneWest. A 2013 internal memo from the California attorney general’s office, first published by The Intercept, alleged that OneWest and its CEO, Steven Mnuchin, violated state foreclosure laws and recommended filing charges against him. Prosecutors claimed they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” and “identified over a thousand legal violations.” But Harris, the state attorney general, did not pursue charges. She later told The Hill, “We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made. We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.” In 2016, Mnuchin — who would soon be President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of the treasury — donated $2,000 to Harris’s Senate campaign. She voted against his confirmation anyway.

15. For nearly ninety years, California state law prohibited images of handguns from being used in signs for gun stores. In 2014, after Harris’s office cited several gun shops, they sued, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment. Harris’s office argued that the law was needed to prevent handgun-related crime and suicide. Last year a federal judge ruled “the government has provided no evidence directly linking [the law] to reduced handgun suicide or crime,” concluded that the law was a “highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech,” and declared it “unconstitutional on its face.”

16. Starting in 1993, Harris began dating Willie Brown, then the speaker of the California Assembly and later a candidate for mayor of San Francisco — a relationship that brought her in contact with many of the city’s political and financial movers and shakers. Early in 1994, Brown named her as his appointee to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a job that paid $97,088 a year. Six months later, he named her to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a post which paid $72,000 a year.

In 1994, press accounts described Harris as Brown’s girlfriend. He was still married, and in his early 60s; she had just turned 30. The relationship had a surprising and tumultuous end, as James Richardson describes in Willie Brown: A Biography:

Columnist Herb Caen all but predicted two days after the election that Brown would wed Kamala Harris, his constant companion throughout the campaign. “Keep an eye on these two,” Caen wrote. No mention was made of what Brown would do about Blanche, to whom he was still married. But the day after Christmas, Brown stunned his friends by announcing that he was breaking up with Kamala. Brown invited Blanche to appear with him on stage for his swearing-in and to hold the Bible. A television reporter from KPIX caught up to Blanche, who had kept a low profile throughout the campaign, and asked her what it was like to live with the future mayor.

“Difficult,” was her one-word answer.

17. Late last year, Los Angeles city officials asked why “armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events.” LAPD officers traveled with Harris to San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and San Diego. Los Angeles taxpayers covered about $28,000 of the cost for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals in an arrangement that retired law enforcement officers called “unprecedented.”

18. In 2009 and 2010, Harris contributed to the liberal blog Daily Kos, where she characterized the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as “bigotry and narrow-mindedness,” warned that Texas oil companies were “invading” California by funding efforts to repeal an initiative requiring reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and opposed Arizona’s since-struck-down immigration law, declaring that we “can’t afford to divert scarce local law-enforcement resources to enforcing federal immigration laws.” 

19. Harris has proposed a sweeping tax reform that would create a refundable tax credit for all workers, peaking at $3,000 for single adults and $6,000 for married couples — meaning that taxpayers could collect cash even if they don’t actually owe any taxes. The worth of the credit would decline the higher a taxpayer’s income, eventually reaching zero for childless single adults making more than $50,000 a year, single adults with children making more than $80,000 a year, and married couples with children making more than $100,000 a year. The plan would repeal all of the 2017 tax cuts for earners making more than $100,000, would cost roughly $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion over ten years, would constitute a serious marriage penalty, according to experts.

20. In April, Harris made an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, where the hostess asked, “If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?” Harris replied, “Does one of us have to come out alive?”

Summary

Partisanship and identity politics may be sufficient to propel a candidate to a win in a party primary today. But will it be sufficient to score a victory in a general election? Obviously, the heavyweights at the Democrat National Committee think they can be successful with that philosophy. So far, EVERY candidate on both Democrat debate stages has espoused the most radical views on all-things American of any previous group of Democrat presidential candidates.

We have all heard “Democrats must campaign further left to win their primaries. Once named the Democrat Party nominee, they move to the center for the general election.” Doesn’t that seem quite hypocritical? What message do they send to Democrat primary voters? “I’m going to give free everything to everybody: healthcare, college tuition, reparations to descendants of American slaves, and a guaranteed income,” only to tell voters in the general election “I was just kidding. Everyone knows if elected, I’ll govern from the center to center-left?”

God forbid that in America, truth and actual policy issues as supported or rejected by candidates would mean less than talking points and political mantra from candidates for office. Democrats simply don’t get it: Americans are NOT stupid. We all watch, read, and listen to what candidates say and promise during primary AND general election seasons!

Or do these Democrat candidates think Americans — especially those in their own party — ARE stupid? That’s one WE cannot answer.

What do you think? Weigh-in by dropping me an email to Dan@TruthNewsNet.org. I’d like to hear your opinion.

A closing VERY important note: tomorrow we are sharing a critical analysis of what is REALLY going on regarding illegal immigration. I say “critical” because we now have a responsibility to make sure everyone in our circles of influence understands exactly what is happening regarding illegal immigration and exactly what and how Democrats are doing (or NOT doing) about it. You may have seen or heard the caustic remarks, derisive statements, and the outright lies that the 4 freshmen far-left Democrat Congresswomen had to say in their press conference regarding their stances on immigration while simultaneously denigrating President Trump. Much more about that tomorrow.

This is a shout-out to the nearly 1000 Russian students who are reading and listening to this story right now and today’s podcast as required by the Department Head of International Political Science at Moscow University. Tomorrow you can hear and read a genuine and specific analysis of the TRUTH of U.S. immigration. For everyone else, make sure to come back and read or listen (or both). You will want to share the story AND the podcast with those you know who may still be sitting on that “party fence” between Republican and Democrat parties. This is NOT a party election: it is an AMERICAN election.

You can download both the story and podcast for free and share as you like.

I’ll see you tomorrow!

Play