It’s no secret that a lot of people suffer from a logic deficiency, but only liberals seem to regard it as a virtue.
For instance, when it’s pointed out to them that of the millions of gun owners in America, only a tiny percentage will ever use them for criminal purposes, they continue to call for the abolition of the Second Amendment. At the same time, they ignore the obvious fact that, as solutions go, that would be as idiotic as dealing with drunk drivers by confiscating all the motor vehicles and turning us into a nation of pedestrians.
Or consider the nutty notion that’s been floating around for a long time called universal basic income. Because it’s so absurd, it should come as no surprise that it is being championed presently by Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders.
Becausecommie-Sanders apparently never took a math class, he believes that the federal government can fund any fantasy he can come up with, whether it’s free college tuition or $15,000-a-year to every American.
When people who still have a connection to reality point out that the amount required to fund his pipedream would be larger than the entire federal budget,commie-Sanders, who sees the world through the eyes of a child, an extremely backward child, would say we can always print more money. After all, that’s what they say over at the Hasbro Corporation when there’s a sudden demand for more Monopoly games.
The basic idea behind the universal basic income scheme is that once you provide a financial floor for people, they will decide to get off their duffs and find a job. That might be the case on Jupiter, but here on earth when you give people money they haven’t worked for, we call it welfare, and there has been no indication over the years that those who receive it suddenly feel motivated to rush out and earn even more by the sweat of their brow. And why would they when the Democrats aka Socialists are always around promising to give them more in exchange for their votes?
The basic failing of socialism even before it morphs into communism is that it requires that the laws governing human nature be repealed.
Whereas there are certain flaws in capitalism that allows villains to use it to cheat and even subjugate their fellow human beings, at least it doesn’t require that we have to act in ways that are totally incompatible with our very nature.
For instance, in demanding that we all share equally, even with those we dislike and those who don’t work as well as we do or who don’t work at all, it’s asking that we behave in a way that would tax even the patience of saints.
Competition is second-nature to most of us. We compete with siblings for our parents’ affection; we compete for grades; we compete on the athletic field; we compete for promotion; some compete for fame, while most compete for mates. But those like Elizabeth dinky-Warren, Chuck clown-Schumer andcommie-Bernie Sanders, who themselves compete for power and influence, would have us believe we shouldn’t even compete for a living wage.
The kindest thing you can say for them is that they’re hopelessly delusional. The truest thing you can say about them is that they’re blankety-blank hypocrites.
⦿ On over 200 college campuses, you will find “bias response teams” to investigate thought crimes perpetrated by those who still don’t understand that campuses these days are not merely gun-free zones but are also First Amendment-free zones.
In these leftist enclaves, students are encouraged to snitch on their schoolmates if they overhear something that offends their infantile ears.
Clearly, these bias response teams are based on similar groups that were encouraged to act as censors in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The chief difference is that the American college students who run afoul of these bullies only face expulsion; in the cesspools ruled by Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, the victims faced death.
⦿ I was sent a cartoon in which President Trump is explaining to a cobra identified as Iran: “America only makes deals it can shake on.”
Speaking of which, when you pause to realize how beneficial Trump has been to the nation’s economy through his tax policies; his de-fanging of the EPA with its oppressive regulations; and his demands that American companies bring their factories and their offshore profits back to the homeland; and couple all of that with the progress he has made in neutering North Korea and Iran, and letting our trading partners understand that we will no longer be played for suckers; one can only imagine how well off we would be if the Democrats hadn’t sworn a blood oath to stop him by all possible means.
Any conservative who fails to vote for the Republican candidates next November because they fail to pass some sort of imaginary litmus test should change his registration to Democrat because he will be helping to ensure that Chuck clown-Schumer and Nancy Pulosi will be calling the shots in 2019.
It’s strictly a numbers game. If the Democrats wind up with 51 members in the Senate and 218 members in the House, Trump would not only have to give up any hope of passing his agenda items, it will mean that if Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, Anthony Kennedy, 81, or Stephen Breyer, 79, retires or dies, Trump will have no chance to replacing them with a juror who actually believes the Constitution means what it says.
You can complain all you like about RINOs, but as Dan Bongino, appearing on “Life, Liberty & Levin,” pointed out: “A number of Republicans in Congress are actually Democrats, but not a single Democrat in Congress is a Republican.”
That shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting that one might as well vote for someone with a (D) after his name or stay home on Election Day. It means that even a couple of phony Republicans like rino-John McCain and rino-Jeff Flake serve a purpose. If they had jumped to the other side, Chuck clown-Schumer would be the Senate Majority Leader, and the tax reform bill would never have been passed.
⦿ Proving that James Comey, Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and liar-Hillary Clinton, aren’t the only creeps in Washington running around with law degrees, it seems that Michael Avenatti, mouthpiece for the sluttish Stormy Daniels, somehow got his dirty little hands on the bank records of Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, and illegally released them to the media.
If Attorney General Jeff Sessions were doing the job that Americans are paying him to do, a lot more creeps would be indicted and standing trial. I’m glad the Justice Department takes MS-13 seriously, but local police departments can take care of those punks. It doesn’t require the federal government to deal with a bunch of teenage gangbangers, no matter how vicious they are.
Far more lasting damage is being done to America by creeps with federal badges who have the power and authority of the FBI, NSA and the Justice Department, behind them.
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.
Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.
It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.
The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.
For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.
That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.
The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.
This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.
The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”
By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).
They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.
In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.
The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.
That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.
But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”
The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.
It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.
“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”
Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”
A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.
Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”
And that, by definition, is political bias in action.
How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.
TEA PARTY TARGET
Trump Poised To Take Control Of The Federal Reserve
The Fed doesn’t stabilize markets and money — it does the opposite
President Trump sharply criticized the Federal Reserve this week, saying interest rate increases are hurting the economy.
Trump will have the opportunity to fashion the central bank in the image he would like as he has four vacancies to fill on the board of governors.
The result could be a more politicized Fed.
President Donald Trump has multiple reasons as to why he should take control of the Federal Reserve. He will do so both because he can and because his broader policies argue that he should do so. The president is anti-overregulating American industry. The Fed is a leader in pushing stringent regulation on the nation. By raising interest rates and stopping the growth in the money supply it stands in the way of further growth in the American economy.
First, He Can
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump.
The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Other than the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.
Following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act in July 2010, the Fed was given enormous power to regulate the banking industry. It moved quickly to implement a number of new rules. The Fed set up a system that would penalize banks that failed to obey its new rules. These rules included setting limits as to how big an individual bank could be; how much money the banks had to invest in fed funds and Treasurys as a percent of their assets; which loans were desirable and which were not; where the banks had to obtain their funding and many, many, more up to and including how much a bank could pay its investors in dividends.
These rules have meaningfully slowed bank investments in the economy (the Volcker Rule) and they have had a crippling effect on bank lending in the housing markets (other agencies have had an impact here also).
Thus, of all of the government agencies the Fed has been possibly the most restrictive. The president has already moved to correct these excesses by putting in place a new Fed Governor (Randal Quarles) to regulate the banking industry.
Three, Killing Economic Growth
In the second quarter of 2018, the growth in non-seasonally adjusted money supply (M2) has been zero. That’s right, the money supply did not grow at all. This is because the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet ultimately by $50 billion per month. In addition, the Fed has raised interest rates seven times since Q4 2015. Supposedly there are five more rate increases coming.
This is the tightest monetary policy since Paul Volcker headed the institution in the mid-1980s. It will be recalled his policies led to back-to-back recessions. Current Fed monetary policy is directly in conflict with the president’s economic goals.
Moreover, the Treasury is estimating it will pay $415 billion in interest on the federal debt in this fiscal year. A better estimate might be $450 billion if rates keep going up. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels and jobs that could be created with this money.
Then there is inflation. It is likely to rise if the Fed eases its policies. If that happens paying down the federal debt becomes easier. On a less desirable note, higher interest rates lower real estate values. Lower rates that stimulate inflation increase real estate values.
The president can and will take control of the Fed. It may be recalled when the law was written creating the Federal Reserve the secretary of the Treasury was designated as the head of the Federal Reserve. We are going to return to that era. Like it or not the Fed is about to be politicized.