ANOTHER ARAB SPRING?
by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com


         I would probably be more excited about the uprising in Iran if, one, I thought there was any chance that the mullahs and the Ayatollah Khamenei would be ousted; or, two, if the impossible actually took place, it would turn out any better than any of those other uprisings in the Middle East.

         We in America tend to be starry-eyed about revolutions because ours turned out so well. But those who took up arms against King George were a group of extraordinary men who, in retrospect, appear to have been divinely inspired.  What’s more, they weren’t Arabs and Muslims, they were mainly religiously-observant Christians.

         Revolutions and civil wars won by atheists or Muslims, such as occurred in France, Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Egypt and Syria, tend to result in tyrannies as bad or worse than those they replaced.

         At the time of the highly-touted Arab Spring, I predicted that it would quickly evolve into an Arab Winter. I didn’t regard it as one of my bolder predictions; it seemed obvious to me that people who haven’t shown any particular interest, through the millennium, in freedom for themselves or for others weren’t going to come up with the likes of Washington, Adams, Madison or Jefferson.

         * Some elitists are soiling their diapers because President Trump refuses to mollycoddle North Korea, Pakistan or the U.N. What a welcome change from Barack liar-nObama, a weak sister who, I’m guessing, spent his early years coughing up his milk money to schoolyard bullies and being given swirlies in the boys’ bathroom!

         While the rest of us regard Trump as a breath of fresh air, the likes of clown-Schumer, Pulosi, scum-Durbin and scum-Blumenthal, are smelling swamp gas. They are so afraid of an American leader who places the concerns of Americans ahead of what the chiselers at the U.N. or the bumbling bureaucrats in the EU insist should be our agenda, they can barely give voice to their outrage. Instead, they wind up sounding like a barnyard of squawking chickens.

         Personally, I hope Trump doesn’t just stop sending Pakistan $250 million a year; I would like to see him cut the Pakis loose altogether. Those double-dealers have been far more welcoming to terrorists fighting us in Afghanistan than they’ve been to us, often shutting down our supply routes, while simultaneously offering rest and refuge to the Taliban.

          For the life of me, it has never made any sense why we have chosen to cozy up to the folks who provided Osama bin Laden with a hiding place for years. Why on earth would we choose to marry the Islamic Pakistan, when Hindu India is right next door, just waiting for us to sweep her off her feet?

          India, by the way, has seven times as many people as Pakistan, and, what’s more, is a democracy.

          * I was sorry to hear that Orrin Hatch will be retiring from the Senate this year. At his age, he certainly deserves a few years out of the rat race, but it means he will be replaced by Mitt Romney. Admittedly, when the choice was Romney or liar-nObama in 2012, I was one of Romney’s most ardent supporters. But, over the past two years, he has consistently added his voice to the chorus of Never-Trumpers or at least Hardly-Ever-Trumpers, that includes Karl Rove, Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg.

          These are the prep boys of the GOP who prize style over content. They don’t even necessarily think Trump’s agenda is wrong, they simply think Trump is boorish. They wouldn’t invite this brash kid to their parties and they certainly wouldn’t let him sit at their lunch table, although I’m sure they wouldn’t mind it if the rich boy picked up the check.

          * The once proud city of Chicago has seen Baltimore pass it in per-capita murders this past year. The Windy City, which could point with pride to 771 homicides in 2016, saw the number tumble to 650 in 2017. One can only hope that the three murders that took place in the first 24 hours of the new year is a sign of things to come. I realize that no city, not even Chicago, could be expected to keep up a pace that would see 1,095 of its citizens bite the dust in 2018, but is 800, all of them registered Democrats, too much to ask?

          Speaking of which, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago’s City Council have determined that August 4th will hereafter be celebrated as Barack liar-nObama Day. I guess they’ve forgiven him for not moving back to his old stomping grounds, as he had promised to do. But, then, what’s one more lie in a life and political career that was built on them?

          * Some unidentified prankster has been busy, adding a second sign reading “Felons, Illegals & MS-13 Welcome!” to the official highway signs welcoming tourists and transplants to California.

          * The author Isaac Asimov once wrote: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

          Perhaps because Asimov died 26 years ago, he didn’t survive long enough to discover that it is among those who regard themselves as intellectuals and culture mavens – college professors, authors, New York critics, journalists and even those alleged “scientists” who have taken up such causes as man-made global warming – who have been the major purveyors of ignorance, partisan propaganda and blatant lies.

          * We’ll close with a joke, set appropriately on a college campus.  In a crowded library, to be specific.

A young male student looking for a place to settle asked a coed if he might share her table. The girl, in a very loud voice, replied: “No, I don’t wish to have sex with you!”

Everyone in the library immediately turned and stared at the young man, who blushed and hurried away to find a spot at the far end of the room.

After a few minutes, the girl quietly approached him and said with a laugh: “I study psychology, and I know what a man is thinking. I guess you were pretty embarrassed; right?”

The man responded in a loud voice: “A thousand dollars for a single night?!  Are you insane?!”

Everyone in the library turned and stared in shock at the coed.

The young man whispered: “I study law, and I know how to screw people.”

In a certain kind of movie these days, that would serve as a meet-cute, and the two bratty liberals would go on to fall in love and get married.

If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com

Views: 7

Reply to This

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

ALERT ALERT

FBI Text Should Alarm Every American

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.

Second, Regulation

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.

Bottom Line

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.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service