On the same day that Venezuela’s “democratically” elected socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, whose once-wealthy nation now has citizens foraging for food, announced he was lopping five zeros off the country’s currency to create a “stable financial and monetary system,” Meghan McCain of “The View” was the target of internet-wide condemnation for having stated some obvious truths about collectivism.
               During the same week we learned that the democratic socialist president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, is accused of massacring hundreds of protesters whose economic futures have been decimated by his economic policies, Soledad O'Brien and writers at outlets ranging from GQ, to BuzzFeed, to the Daily Beast were telling McCain to cool her jets.
               In truth, McCain was being far too calm. After all, socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence. Whether implemented by a mob or a single strongman, collectivism is a poverty generator, an attack on human dignity and a destroyer of individual rights.
               It’s true that not all socialism ends in the tyranny of Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or Castroism or Ba'athism or Chavezism or the Khmer Rouge — only most of it does. And no, New York primary winner commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t intend to set up gulags in Alaska. Most so-called dummycrats-democratic socialists — the qualifier affixed to denote that they live in adummycrats-democratic system and have no choice but to ask for votes — aren’t consciously or explicitly endorsing violence or tyranny. But when they adopt the term “socialism” and the ideas associated with it, they deserve to be treated with the kind of contempt and derision that all those adopting authoritarian philosophies deserve.
               But look: Norway! Socialism is perhaps the only ideology that Americans are asked to judge solely based on its piddling “successes.” Don’t you dare mention Albania or Algeria or Angola or Burma or Congo or Cuba or Ethiopia or Laos or Somalia or Vietnam or Yemen or, well, any other of the dozens of other inconvenient places socialism has been tried. Not when there are a handful of Scandinavian countries operating generous welfare-state programs propped up by underlying vibrant capitalism and natural resources.
               Of course, socialism exists on a spectrum, and even if we accept that the Nordic social-program experiments are the most benign iteration of collectivism, they are certainly not the only version. Pretending otherwise would be like saying, “The police state of Singapore is more successful than Denmark. Let’s give it a spin.”
               It turns out, though, that the “Denmark is awesome!” talking point is only the second most preposterous one used by socialists. It goes something like this: If you’re a fan of “roads, schools, libraries and such,” although you may not even be aware of it, you are also a supporter of socialism.
               This might come as a surprise to some, but every penny of the $21,206 spent in commie-Ocasio-Cortez’s district each year on each student, rich or poor, is provided with the profits derived from capitalism. There is no welfare system, no library that subsists on your good intentions. Having the state take over the entire health care system could rightly be called a socialistic endeavor, but pooling local tax dollars to put books in a building is called local government.
               It should also be noted that today’s socialists get their yucks by pretending collectivist policies only lead to innocuous outcomes like local libraries. But for many years they were also praising the dictators of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders, the nation’s most successful socialist, isn’t merely impressed with the goings-on in Denmark. Not very long ago, he lauded Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as an embodiment of the “American dream,” even more so than the United States.
               Socialists like to blame every inequity, the actions of every greedy criminal, every downturn and every social ill on the injustice of capitalism. But none of them admit that capitalism has been the most effective way to eliminate poverty in history. Today, in former socialist states like India, there have been big reductions in poverty thanks to increased capitalism. In China, where communism sadly still deprives more than a billion people of their basic rights, hundreds of millions benefit from a system that is slowly shedding socialism. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the extreme poverty rate in the world has been cut in half. And it didn’t happen because Southeast Asians were raising the minimum wage.
               In the United States, only 5 percent of people are even aware that poverty has fallen in the world, according to the Gapminder Foundation, which is almost certainly in part due to the left’s obsession with “inequality” and normalization of “socialism.” Nearly half of American millennials would rather live in a socialist society than in a capitalist one, according to a YouGov poll. That said, only 71 percent of those asked were able to properly identify either. We can now see the manifestation of this ignorance in our elections and “The View” co-host Joy Behar.
               But if all you really champion are some higher taxes and more generous social welfare, stop associating yourself with a philosophy that usually brings destitution and death. Call it something else. If not, McCain has every right to associate you with the ideology you embrace.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/57366?mailing_id=3656&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3656&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             This is long overdue. The fact of the matter is that Ergodan has been no friend of the United States, and he certainly seems to have more in common with the bad guys of the world than as a leader committed to securing human rights and freedom — a true NATO ally. When you detain a Christian pastor on trumped up charges of taking part in a coup, maybe you don’t get American F-35s.
               Even without the unjustified detention of pastor Brunson, a reevaluation of America’s relationship with Turkey has long been overdue. Thankfully, President Donald Trump has come around on this, publicly demanding Brunson’s release with the threat of sanctions. If you’re detaining Americans on trumped up charges, you’re not exactly a friend of America.
               We laid out a few markers earlier this year indicating it’s not a good idea to give a fifth-generation multi-role stealth fighter to Turkey. Seriously, would you give a friend of Hamas the F-35, the latest in fighter technology? There may be some international disputes that people can disagree on, but the one between the genocidal maniacs of Hamas over Israel is not one of them. Being a friend of Hamas is clearly a sign on impaired judgement at best.
               Some observers are making a big deal out of Turkey buying the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system. This is not a friendship-ending move in and of itself. Greece acquired S-300s in the 1990s after Russia made an ill-advised sale during the Yard Sale at the End of History. But Greece has let Israel train against its S-300 battery.
               Turkey can certainly be a huge help to the rest of NATO by allowing the S-400 to hang out at Nellis Air Force Base a few times a year to take part in Red Flag exercises. Giving American and NATO pilots a chance to train against this Russian system is the least a NATO ally that managed to buy it can do.
               Turkey is slated to buy 100 F-35As. While two have been delivered, both are at Luke Air Force Base — and America can easily repossess them. The other 98 are still on order or in the production line — and it’s easy to redirect them to a more deserving country.
               So far, Erdogan’s still being a jerk about all this. He’s going to find that comes with a heavy price. Like maybe seeing Israel get those 100 F-35s on his dime. It would be a better deal for the United States…

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57387?mailing_id=3656&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3656&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             At the time, our Mark Alexander called Kelo a decision that “offended our Constitution.”
               Susette Kelo was the plaintiff in the case. She owned a modest house in New London, Connecticut — a house that stood in the way of a proposed development that backers said would create hundreds of jobs and abundant economic activity. By leveraging a proposed adjacent Pfizer research facility, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) hoped to create a larger mixed-use development on a site that was then a modest working-class residential neighborhood. (Ironically, the plans included new housing, presumably on a more luxurious level than Kelo’s little pink house.)
               When Kelo and other landowners refused to sell, the NLDC, described in the case as “a private nonprofit entity established … to assist the City (of New London) in planning economic development,” took her and the other plaintiffs to court. The case was initially filed nearly three years after Pfizer announced its intentions and 10 months after the NLDC began purchasing properties in the neighborhood, taking more than four years to wind its way through the court system. This was a classic case of a group of working-class Davids vs. the Goliaths of government and special interests, with the libertarian Institute for Justice assisting Kelo and her fellow plaintiffs on a pro bono basis.
               While the iconic house was eventually disassembled and rebuilt by a previous owner in another part of town, the surrounding neighborhood was cleared out — only to remain  mostly undeveloped over a dozen years later as Pfizer backed out and other legal issues surfaced. Meanwhile, Kelo’s story inspired a book, which this past spring became the well-regarded movie “Little Pink House.” Over the years, public outrage from the Kelo  decision also has led to a number of states revamping their laws governing eminent domain.
               With the movie renewing interest in the topic, the Private Property Rights Protection Act unanimously passed the House by a voice vote, marking the fourth time since 2005 that the House has addressed the issue. In this instance, the bill from Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) contains an important “stick”: It “would make any state or locality that uses the economic development justification for eminent domain ineligible from receiving federal economic development funds for two years.”
               While the Senate’s docket is fairly full, there’s reason to believe the PPRPA may make it through before this Congress finishes its work. A bill that’s already popular with Republicans may well pass muster with dummycrats-Democrats just so they can score some political points before the midterm elections. The reason: They can remind voters that, for all his populist platitudes and the roaring economy, Donald Trump has a sordid history on the topic of eminent domain.
               Years ago, developer Trump had no compunction about seizing property when it stood between him and an enhanced limousine parking lot. “You’re talking about … a little group of terrible, terrible tenements; just terrible stuff, tenement housing,” Trump told John Stossel, then of ABC, in the 1990s. But Vera Coking, the owner of this particular “outparcel,” won her court battle against Trump.
               Stossel also notes that Coking turned down a previous million-dollar offer when Trump sought to acquire the land for $251,000 — far from “just compensation,” his lowball offer, said Stossel, made Trump a “manipulative bully.” With Trump’s history, passing a bill limiting eminent domain and daring the president to veto it would provide powerful political ammo for the Left.

              During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump sold his nascent tax plan by promising, “In order to achieve the American dream, [this plan will] let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.” Susette Kelo put her money and sweat equity into a place where she believed she could make a better life for herself, only to see someone with deeper pockets push her out.
               It’s a wrong that should have been righted 13 years ago, and we ought not let the opportunity pass by again. The next Congress, after all, may not be as friendly to private property rights.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57383?mailing_id=3656&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3656&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             One big reason for this is because the insurance companies are for-profit businesses. As such, they try to reduce risks (and thus expenses), increase the effectiveness of every dollar they do have to spend, and still provide enough value to you (the paying customer) that you won’t leave them for a competitor. In this, they are no different from an automaker, or the contractors who build (or renovate) your home, or even your local grocery store.
               Then again, you aren’t mandated to buy any of those things…
               These days, to help reduce risks (or to at least get a handle on the risks), National Public Radio reports that the health insurance companies are buying up social media and purchasing data and linking them to those they insure to get a better picture of the particular risks they face. When it comes to health, some of it is due to hereditary factors (genes), some of it is due to environmental factors (how good or bad the air and water are, among other things), and some of it is due to personal choices (smoking, drinking, what you eat, etc.).
               Now, this acquisition of personal data is legal, but it is going to still have some side effects. For instance, short-term health plans can still deny people coverage if they are sick. Other companies may decide to charge more for plans across the board. Or the data could be used to generalize for an area, hitting those individuals who don’t quite fit the general picture. Some actuarial companies are reportedly trying to figure out how to use the personal data as a pricing tool.
               The so-called “Affordable” Care Act, which will be defended to the death by dummycrats-Democrats, has been causing the price of health insurance to skyrocket for the last few years now. And we have too much red tape tying up health care, and too many regulations and bureaucrats getting between doctors and patients. Now comes this data fiasco, which is inevitably going to lead to calls for more government involvement to stop the collection.
               What is really needed is less red tape and fewer regulations, and a lot more flexibility in the market. But that market has to protect patients and consumers. How to do that is the question.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57353?mailing_id=3653&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3653&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Additional dummycrats-Democrat/sponsored wealth transfers are on the horizon. In Chicago, Alderman Ameya Pawar has proposed legislation that would provide 1,000 families with a universal basic income (UBI) of $500 per month. “Nearly 70 percent of Americans don’t have $1,000 in the bank for an emergency,” Pawar declared. “UBI could be an incredible benefit for people who are working and are having a tough time making ends meet or putting food on the table at the end of the month.”
               UBI is not a new concept. As columnist Nathan Heller  points out, magistrates from the English village of Speenhamland tried a version of it in 1795, spurred by a price rise in grain that was increasing poverty, even among the gainfully employed. By 1834, for a variety of reasons, “everyone agreed” the program had failed.
               In modern day America, the bogey man is automation. Citing companies like Tesla, Amazon, and Uber, Pawar posited that many jobs sustaining middle-class employment will become obsolete, and that more unemployed Americans will fuel political polarization. “We have to start talking about race and class and geography, but also start talking about the future of work as it relates to automation. All of this stuff is intertwined,” Pawar asserts.
               Pawar should also be talking about how a nearly bankrupt Illinois has the worst credit rating in the nation; itsdummycrats- Democrat/led legislature has failed to address retirement-system debt that has skyrocketed to nearly $11,000 for every man, woman, and child in the state; and that Moody’s Investors Service stripped Chicago’s bonds of their investment-grade status — prior to the UBI giveaway Pawar envisions.
               Regardless, Michael Munge, professor of political science, public policy, and economics at Duke University, also foresees chaos, insisting that “we stand on the verge of another wrenching economic revolution, where workers at all levels will once again feel desperately insecure.” He adds that it’s a revolution where “the poor and middle class have many tools to ‘negotiate’ redistribution at gunpoint.”
               Tech titans are also on board. “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” stated Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Tesla founder Elon Musk concurred, tweeting that “will be necessary over time if AI [artificial intelligence] takes over most human jobs.”
               Proponents also point to existing UBI programs as evidence of its potential for success. In Alaska, a state buoyed by oil wealth, eligible residents receive up to $2,000 per year from the Permanent Fund Dividend, and 81% of the recipients say it improves the quality of their lives. Stockton, California, is on the verge of launching a $10 million UBI project backed by Silicon Valley moguls that will pay 100 low-income residents $500 per month in a city that declared bankruptcy in 2012. In Brazil, “Programa Bolsa Familia” has reduced extreme poverty in that nation from 9.7% to 4.3% of the population after 10 years. And a village in Kenya where residents receive$22 a month over 12 years, courtesy of the GiveDirectly charity, is ostensibly disproving the biggest myth about UBI — as in people will stop working and spend the money on vices like alcohol drugs and gambling. “Anecdotal evidence and nearly all empirical research has shown that unconditional cash transfers help people help themselves,” columnist Chris Weller noted in 2017.
               Not always. In April, the Finnish government decided to  discontinue a UBI program initiated in 2017 that gave a random sample of 2,000 unemployed people aged 25 to 58 approximately $650 per month with no strings attached. Why was it ended? Finland finance minister Petteri Orpo insisted the program made people “passive.”
               Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky takes the onus off government sponsorship of UBIs and puts on the tech titans. Why? “Amazon didn’t pay any U.S. federal taxes last year, and it’s been good at minimizing tax payments in Europe, too,” he writes. And because tech companies are the entities working to eliminate routine jobs, there is “something to be said for getting tech billionaires … to put some of their assets into a fund that would finance large-scale UBI experiments in specific counties or even small states,” he adds.
               Yet Bershidsky reveals the ultimate futility of such experiments: a “UBI fund” of $33 trillion — with an annual return of 5.9% interest, no less — would be required if the government paid every American $500 per month.
               As of June 2017, the total net worth of all American households was $94.8 trillion. Moreover, the national debt is $21 trillion, due in large part to automatic spending generated by the nation’s already entrenched redistribution efforts known as Medicare and Social Security. Both programs are already  approaching insolvency, and their unfunded liabilities raise the genuine national debt to nearly $100 trillion.
               What about those disappearing jobs? “The U.S. labor market has kept pace with population growth, adding 80 million net jobs since computers started coming on the scene in the 1960s and more than 25 million since the Internet became mainstream in the 1990s,” columnist Oren Cass wrote in 2016. “Approximately 60 percent of the working-age population remains employed — slightly above the post-war average.”
               What about the idea that UBI is superior to the myriad of existing welfare programs that are badly managed and inefficiently dispersed? There is some merit to that assertion, but unless UBI would replace them, (a heavy political lift at best), it would be unsustainable. Yet there is a far more important consideration, as in whether making giveaways more convenient and stigma-free ultimately undermines dignity and self-sufficiency.
               It already has. “In the 1970s, the government ran four random control experiments across six states to try the negative income tax, a similar policy proposal [to UBI] that was popular at the time. In each test, the work disincentive effect was disastrous. For every $1,000 in added benefits to a family, there was an average reduction in $660 of wages from work,” columnist Mimi Teixeira reveals.
               In other words, people who got checks either worked far less or stopped working altogether.
               Our current moral climate (or lack thereof) suggests UBI would ultimately precipitate a future where working becomes no more or less “noble” than collecting a check. If there is a better disincentive for ambition, self-reliance, and risk-taking, one would be hard-pressed to imagine what it is. Americans skeptical of such a future would be wise to remember a past when most Americans exhausted every other possibility before taking government relief.
               Yet that relief has become a multi-generational “lifestyle choice” in many American households.
               Regardless, many Americans are enamored with having “a cushion to try new ideas.” The irony they would embrace the reality of a Nanny State-on-steroids serfdom for the illusion of freedom is apparently lost on them.
               Pawar hopes that once Chicago implements UBI, “we’ll be able to hopefully scale it.” No doubt they will — until they run out of other peoples’ money to spend.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57351?mailing_id=3653&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3653&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The hackers were members of a group known as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear, which is backed by the Kremlin. The Journal explains that the group “broke into supposedly secure, ‘air-gapped’ or isolated networks owned by utilities with relative ease by first penetrating the networks of key vendors who had trusted relationships with the power companies, said officials at the Department of Homeland Security.” One DHS official even stated that the hackers “got to the point where they could have thrown switches.” Translation: Portions of our nation’s utilities — which were previously flagged for inadequate security measures — were effectively in the hands of foreign enemies.
               DHS began alerting utility executives to the hazards posed by these specific Russian hackers four years ago. By 2016, the Russian incursion on U.S. utilities was underway, though Russia refuses to admit culpability — which is just as believable as that nation’s pleading innocence on election meddling. Investor’s Business Daily suggests“it’s clear the U.S. needs to increase its focus on this threat.” The risk isn’t hyperbole, after all. As IBD goes on to note: “Those who think it can’t happen here need to think again. In December 2015, Russia launched an attack on Ukraine’s power grid that led to electricity outages for hundreds of thousands of people.”
               Yes, election meddling is serious business and requires a forceful response. But hacking into America’s utility companies is an even more pressing and far-reaching concern — particularly when, as IBD points out, “there is no indication that [Russian meddling] had a significant impact on any election here in 2016.” Some dummycrats-Democrats will no doubt remain unconvinced, so in an effort to persuade them, remind them that they won’t be able to keep spewing “Russia stole the election” nonsense on national television if those same Russians end up causing blackouts. That’ll get ‘em moving.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57332?
mailing_id=3653&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3653&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Juncker also expressed a positive conciliatory note after previously having threatened retaliatory measures for Trump’s proposed 25% automobile tariff on all European imports. He noted, “We are close partners — allies, not enemies. We have to work together.”
               News of the agreement sent the markets jumping in relief.  Trump’s repeated talk of zero tariffs and fair trade seems to have encouraged good-faith negotiations and the recognition that the current state of trade is not the level playing field it needs to be. With this initial agreement, the EU will import more U.S. soybeans and liquid natural gas. It’s important to note that the deal on natural gas directly challenges Vladimir Putin by reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian energy.
               Juncker also agreed to pursue badly needed reforms at the World Trade Organization, as Trump has long argued that WTO judges are biased against the U.S. Further, the EU will work to align its regulatory standards to allow for a better and fairer market within Europe for U.S. medical devices. And finally, both Trump and Juncker made a commitment to work toward an eventual zero-tariff trade deal. “The United States and the European Union together count more than 830 million citizens and more than 50 percent of global GDP,” a joint statement noted. “If we team up, we can make our planet a better, more secure, and more prosperous place.”
          Through this latest deal, Trump has deftly set pieces in place and strengthened his hand, effectively ratcheting up pressure on China to come to the negotiation table. There are also positive signs coming out of Mexico as the newly elected president’s chief trade negotiator, Jesus Seade, indicated on Tuesday that Mexico is open to a new deal: “What I see … to be a very feasible expectation is that we’ll be concluding negotiation in the next two months if possible, or in the next few months a bit further down the road.” He added, “President Trump has a very personal style. He likes to appear chaotic. But the last thing he is is chaotic. I think he’s a very intelligent man.”
               Clearly, Trump’s tariff gamble is paying off, and despite wide criticism from both sides of the political aisle, he has steadily maintained the course and is starting to get the results he has been after the whole time — a fair and level playing field for American workers and businesses. Trump’s moves to achieve fair and free trade are actually reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s strategy to force the Soviet Union to the negotiation table via a nuclear arms race — seemingly counterintuitive but effective.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57354?mailing_id=3653&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3653&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

Something has been going on with Robert Mueller’s investigation of people thought to have played significant roles in the Trump-Russia affair. The special counsel, assigned to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” has been farming out seemingly important parts of the investigation to offices outside his own.
               In April, Mueller referred an investigation of close Trump associate Michael Cohen to federal prosecutors in New York. This month, the U.S. attorney in Washington — not Mueller — indicted Maria Butina on charges of being an unregistered Russian agent. And also this month, when Mueller charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking dummycrats-Democratic Party and liar-Hillary Clinton campaign offices, he immediately turned the case over to the Justice Department’s National Security Division for prosecution.
               Cohen is a key figure in theories of Trump-Russia collusion. In former British spy Christopher Steele’s notorious dossier, Cohen was accused of holding secret talks with Russian officials in August 2016 to discuss “how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the liar-CLINTON campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow’s secret liaison with the TRUMP team more generally.”
               If that’s not collusion, nothing is. Such activities, if they occurred, would be at the center of Mueller’s jurisdiction. And yet Mueller handed Cohen off to the Southern District of New York.
               Butina figures in theories that a wealthy Russian banker “illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency,” in the words of a McClatchy report from January.
               Again, such activities, if they actually took place, would clearly be in Mueller’s bailiwick.
               Finally, the indictment of the 12 Russian intelligence agents goes to the very heart of Russian attempts to interfere with the U.S. presidential campaign, the investigation of which is Mueller’s responsibility. Yet once Mueller indicted them, he handed the case over to the Justice Department.
               What is going on? I asked a few former federal prosecutors if they saw any messages in Mueller’s moves. The takeaway: These aren’t encouraging developments for those longing for a big collusion/conspiracy/coordination indictment from Mueller.
               “I think it proves that little, if any, of what Mueller’s team has generated so far is linked to the special counsel’s mandate,” said Former Prosecutor 1. “Everything that is public so far could, should and typically is handled by either United States Attorney offices of jurisdiction, National Security Division attorneys or even Criminal Division attorneys at main Justice.”
               “I think Mueller doesn’t have anything on collusion,” said Former Prosecutor 2. “I think we would have seen it. I don’t see anything that looks like there’s a crime lurking — maybe he’s got eight indictments under seal, but to me, it makes no sense. All of this says to me there is no there there.”
               Former Prosecutor 3 said the investigations passed off indicate the subject matter is “outside (Mueller’s) jurisdiction.”
               Some former prosecutors drew a distinction between the Cohen and Butina cases, in which Mueller handed off the investigation to others, and the 12 Russians case, in which Mueller made the indictment himself and then handed off the prosecution. That could be because Mueller realized that his team, staffed with investigators, could not manage a complex prosecution in the courtroom.
               “They don’t have the bandwidth to handle a highly technical case like that,” said Former Prosecutor 2. From Former Prosecutor 3: “Good investigators aren’t good litigators, and very often the best courtroom lawyers aren’t the best subject matter experts.”
               It has been widely observed that there is no way the 12 Russians — government intelligence officers located in Russia — will ever come to the United States for trial. “There is absolutely no chance any of the Russian officials charged will ever see the inside of an American courtroom,” Andrew McCarthy, another former federal prosecutor, wrote in National Review. “The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation.”
               Other legal types, including yet another Justice Department veteran, said moving the 12 Russians’ case to a highly secretive part of the department is a good way to make the case disappear. “If Mueller kept it in his office, people would ask what’s going on with the case,” said the veteran. “But when he gives it to the National Security Division, it falls off the face of the earth. It’s a way of burying it.”
                Taken together, none of that points to the big collusion/ conspiracy/coordination indictment of Resistance dreams. Such an indictment might still be on the way, of course — no one on the outside has a full picture of what is going on inside Mueller’s office — but the signs don’t seem to be pointing toward it.
               Finally, all the handed-off cases raise questions about whether a special prosecutor was needed at all. Mueller clearly felt there was no need for a special prosecutor to pursue Cohen or Butina — and one could argue that the Butina case, at least, was closer to Mueller’s core mission than the Paul Manafort prosecution. And if the 12 Russians matter, a case that goes to the heart of the Trump-Russia affair, can be fairly tried by DOJ prosecutors, it’s reasonable to ask: Why was a special counsel appointed in the first place?

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/57322?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

With his interference in the 2016 election, Russian President Vladimir Putin achieved something that none of his murderous Soviet predecessors were able to accomplish: He has turned dummycrats-Democrats into Russia hawks.
               A few months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan addressed the 1992 Republican National Convention and said: “I heard those speakers at that other convention saying ‘we won the Cold War’ — and I couldn’t help wondering, just who exactly do they mean by ‘we’?” He had a point. Today, dummycrats-Democrats may be deeply concerned about the threat Russia poses to our democracy.
               But during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union posed an existential threat to our democracy, not so much. Most dummycrats-Democrats opposed the Reagan policies that led to the fall of the Soviet empire. They fought the Reagan defense buildup and his Strategic Defense Initiative (which Sen. Edward M. Kennedy dismissed as “Star Wars” and Sen. hanoi-John F. Kerry called “a dream based on illusion”). They supported the Soviet-supported nuclear freeze movement and opposed Reagan’s deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles to Western Europe. They criticized Reagan’s efforts to arm freedom fighters seeking to overthrow Soviet puppet regimes and support to pro-American governments fighting communist insurgencies.
               Not only did dummycrats-Democrats oppose Reagan’s policies, they heaped scorn on his blunt anti-Communist rhetoric. After Reagan called on the Soviets to “tear down” the Berlin Wall, dummycrats-Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright declared he had “utter contempt for Reagan” because he had “spoiled the chance for a dramatic breakthrough in relations between our two countries.” While Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire” and promised to leave it on “the ash-heap of history,” dummycrats-Democrats such as Kennedy criticized Reagan for his “misleading Red-scare tactics.”
               There were exceptions, to be sure. The legendary   dummycrats-Democratic Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson was a fierce anti-Communist. Those like him were known as “Scoop Jackson dummycrats-Democrats.” They were given this name for a reason: to distinguish them from most other   dummycrats-Democrats who did not share Jackson’s hard-line approach.
               Old habits of appeasement die hard, so when the Cold War ended the dummycrats-Democrats continued their soft line toward Moscow. dummycrats-Democratic opposition to President George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was more strident than that of Vladimir Putin. There was virtual silence fromdummycrats-Democrats when President Barack liar-nObama callously threw Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus by canceling our missile defense agreements in an effort to appease Moscow. In 2012, when Mitt Romney called Russia our “number one geopolitical foe,” dummycrats-Democrats mocked him mercilessly. liar-nObama told Romney, “The 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” And Vice President loose lips-Joe Biden said Romney “acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on.” The Republican focus on Russia was considered laughable by most dummycrats-Democrats.
               But now, a quarter century after the fall of the Soviet Union, the dummycrats-Democrats have belatedly decided that Russia is a threat.
               For decades, while the Soviet Union sowed tyranny across the globe, sent millions to rot in the Gulag, and threatened America with nuclear annihilation,dummycrats-Democrats were for detente and peaceful coexistence. Even as Putin continued Russia’s pattern authoritarian aggression, undermining democracy at home and invading his neighbors, they advocated a “reset” of relations. It was only when Russia invaded John Podesta’s privacy that dummycrats-Democrats were finally — finally! — outraged.
               But before Republicans gloat over thedummycrats- Democrats’ hypocrisy, they need to be careful and not to mirror the dummycrats-Democrats’ Russia transformation by becoming Kremlin apologists. The fact that dummycrats-Democrats are suddenly channeling their inner Reagan is no excuse for those on the right to start channeling their inner Kennedy. Conservatives don’t have to take the dummycrats-Democrats’ belated Russia outrage seriously. But they do need to take Russia seriously.
               As for dummycrats-Democrats, let’s hope their newfound antipathy for Russia is not just a convenient way to get President Trump. Russia is a threat not just because it interfered in the 2016 election. Russia is a threat because it assassinates Putin’s critics with chemical weapons, shoots down civilian airliners, arms the Taliban, supports Iran, violates its treaty obligations, targets NATO allies with nuclear missiles and annexes the territory of its neighbors. That threat will still be there when Trump is gone. The question is: Will the dummycrats-Democrats still be Russia hawks then?

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/57309?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Last week, in Clearwater, a man whom ABC News describes as a “gun-toting gadfly” shot and killed another man “who was apparently trying to protect his girlfriend from being hassled over a handicapped parking space.” As ABC goes on to report, “[Markeis] McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britney Jacobs, said … that she was sitting in her car waiting for McGlockton to come out of [a] convenience store when [Michael] Drejka came up and began ‘harassing’ her about being parked in a handicap space. … Surveillance video showed McGlockton exiting the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Drejka then drew a handgun and shot and killed McGlockton, who appeared to be retreating.”
               That last part — “appeared to be retreating” — is particularly significant. In fact, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri opted against charging Drejka with a crime. According to the sheriff, “The law in the state of Florida today is that people have a right to stand their ground and have a right to defend themselves when they believe that they are in harm.” Whatever “in harm” means, the law is actually more meticulous than that. After calling the sheriff’s reasoning “an inexcusably bad misstatement of the law,” National Review’s David French explains:
               The statute contemplates two very different circumstances, one where a person is authorized to use “force, except deadly force” and the other where “deadly force” is authorized. So, no, not every punch, kick, push, shove, or fear of “harm” grants a person the right to pull his gun and shoot. It just grants him the right to punch or push back. That’s it. It would be utterly absurd if every physical altercation immediately granted the victim a license to kill. That’s not the law. … The question isn’t whether Drejka believed he was in imminent danger of death, but rather whether his belief was reasonable.
               As emphasized above, video evidence depicts McGlockton withdrawing once he saw the weapon, which, without knowing what was said by the two men, doesn’t seem to be a reasonable justification to shoot. French also observes, “Compounding the injustice is Drejka’s own absurd conduct. An armed citizen should not be mall-copping his way through life, initiating confrontations. And that’s especially true if you’re a grown man interacting with a young woman. There are many, many men who (quite reasonably, I might add) will react physically if they see a strange man confronting their wife or girlfriend.”
               This entire episode is tragic for all parties concerned — each behaved poorly. But contrary to the Leftmedia narrative, the simple fact is that “stand your ground” laws don’t legalize murder. For example, Jacobs’ attorney Benjamin Crump claims “this is a law that gives people a license to kill black and people of color with no consequences despite having no objective fear or no justification.” That’s not true, even if laws are occasionally abused. Just like most police offers aren’t racist and trigger-happy, most concealed carry permit holders are actually model law-abiding citizens.
               The important thing is holding people accountable and administering justice when necessary, not using incidents to boost a narrative any which way someone chooses — like demonizing every “stand your ground” law. The bottom line is that prosecutors would be wise to reevaluate the sheriff’s questionable decision.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57301?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Hawaii resident George Young sued when he was twice denied a permit required to carry openly in public. In fact,  according to The Washington Free Beacon, “Hawaii did not issue a single gun-carry permit to any civilians in 2017. The same was true in 2016.”
               “We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote in Young v. Hawaii. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” The court should have avoided the politically motivated term “gun violence,” and the “for worse” caveat is largely because gang members selling drugs don’t abide by any laws and commit the lion’s share of crime using guns. But yes, the Second Amendment is indeed clear. The ruling went further: “While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, ‘the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.’”
               Ironically, this is the same court that in 2016 ruled in Peruta v. City of San Diego that “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
               The difference hinges on concealed vs. open carry. We in our humble shop tend to think open carry isn’t ideal in part because it’s unnecessarily provocative, but that isn’t to say citizens don’t have the right to do so. Now the question is whether the full Ninth Circuit will overturn this ruling en banc, as it did in the aforementioned Peruta decision, and, if so, whether the Supreme Court — with a clearer five-vote conservative majority — will then take up the case. The Supremes, much to the dismay of Justice Clarence Thomas, have not taken a Second Amendment case of any kind since 2010, despite numerous conflicting rulings on various elements in lower courts. In fact, the High Court specifically declined to take up Peruta. Perhaps the addition of Brett Kavanaugh will change that pattern.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57320?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The analysts also write, “We find that the average household and the average married couple with two kids in every congressional district in every state benefit from the tax cut, both in 2018 and over the next 10 years. Nationally, average households will save $1,400, and married couples with two children will save $2,918 in 2018.”
               This is indeed excellent news that President Donald Trump and Republicans need to be touting non-stop. And they need to remind voters that not a single dummycrats-Democrat voted for these tax cuts. To recap, liar-nObamaCare, which not a single Republican voted for, has been steadily costing Americans more and more of their hard-earned income, while Republican tax reform, which not a single dummycrats-Democrat voted for, is proving to save Americans across the country thousands of dollars. That’s something to remember come November.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57299?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Most people have been counseled from a young age to accept the fact that life isn’t fair. But for Trump, this reality seems only to have propelled him into action rather than merely stewing in hopeless resignation. One of the biggest problems Trump is working to address is the long-running trade imbalance the U.S. has experienced with various nations, but specifically with China and the European Union. From the very beginning of his campaign, Trump railed against the raw deal the U.S. was getting with many of its biggest trade partners. For one thing, he pointed to increasing trade deficits that he argued hurt American workers in the manufacturing sector.
               Trump’s focus on imbalanced trade deals may have been the primary factor for Rust Belt voters to swing these longtime dummycrats-Democrat strongholds into Trump’s column. He promised to bring jobs back and to make these Rust Belt manufacturing states great again.
               The president’s agenda of deregulation and tax cuts has certainly jump-started the process. The economy is clearly speeding into action after eight years of stagnation. But for Trump, the problem is more than just over regulation and high taxes; he sees unfair trade deals as a major economic problem for the country — a problem he feels compelled to address. And for Trump, this is a problem worth going to war over — a trade war, that is.
               Here is where many conservatives and Republicans part ways with Trump. He’s practicing economics like a dummycrats- Democrat, using the power of the state to pick winners and losers. He’s not acting like a free-market advocate but a protectionist who’s more than willing to intervene in the economy to suit his own agenda. And indeed much of that criticism is legitimate.
               However, the question remains: Is the issue of growing trade imbalances a significant enough problem that it demands addressing? In other words, is doing something better than doing nothing? This is where the legitimate criticisms over Trump’s actions start to get fuzzy. How does one go about addressing and solving the real problem of American workers losing out to foreign trade deals that are intentionally stacked against them?
               On Tuesday, prior to today’s scheduled meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, Trump stated, “I have an idea for them both. Both the U.S. and the EU drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready — but they won’t!” He was right to call them out.
               Why won’t EU leaders agree to actual free trade? Because European nations, to varying degrees, are socialist states where the government provides increasing amounts of welfare for the citizenry. Much of the EU’s economy is fundamentally tied up by income redistribution, and heavy regulations are designed to create an environment where residents are dependent upon the state for their livelihoods.
               Similarly, the Chinese economy uses some capitalist principles but is still ultimately controlled by the communist government. That government has long engaged in currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and other nefarious economic practices in order to tilt the trade landscape in its own favor. Trump’s tariffs are designed to combat these abuses of the American worker and American business. Unfortunately, the consequence — which was not a surprise to Trump — is the inevitable retaliation by China and the EU, which are loathe to give up abusive practices. The Chinese are politically targeting American goods that most hit Trump’s base in an effort to weaken Trump. And one of the biggest Chinese targets is American agriculture.
               Which brings us back to that $12 billion. To mitigate some of the consequences of this battle over trade, Trump announced $12 billion in government aid to American farmers. In so doing, Trump has invited the criticism not just of the Leftmedia but of many conservatives, who rightly view it as welfare and a band-aid for a self-inflicted wound. Yet he is also signaling to both China and the EU that he is serious about getting a level playing field. As Rabobank analyst Michael Every noted, “Trump is making clear with the subsidy that he isn’t going to back off. Rather, he’s settling in for a slug-fest economic war of attrition until he gets the deal he wants.”
               Will Trump’s determination to balance the trade field pay off in the end? The answer to that question may determine his political future come 2020, if not sooner.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57324?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Early on Monday, Paul tweeted about his meeting with Trump, “Just got out of WH meeting with [Trump]. I restated to him what I have said in public: scumbaqg/commie-John Brennan and others partisans should have their security clearances revoked.” He added, “Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees.” Paul was referencing the fact that both  scumbaqg/commie-Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence scumbaqg-James Clapper are currently contributors to NBC/MSNBC and CNN respectively.
               Last week, Paul described scumbaqg/commie-Brennan as unhinged for his history of repeated vitriolic partisan statements against Trump: “scumbaqg/commie-John Brennan has a history of leaking information. Not only for political reasons. … Who in their right mind would want to let him have the power still to look through everybody’s records?”
               Paul also blasted liar-nObama and his intel heads for “ginning up” the whole Russia collusion conspiracy and then lying about it. Paul has even suggested a broader revocation of security clearances for all those leaving sensitive positions within government, saying, “I would probably have it as a universal policy … when you leave.”
               Unsurprisingly, dummycrats-Democrats and the Leftmedia have jumped all over the White House announcement as further evidence of Trump threatening democracy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) bloviated, “As the whole world knows, one week ago, President Trump sold out our democracy in behavior that was damaging, destructive and disgraceful,” while adding that Republicans were “complicit in the President’s betrayal of our democracy.” Clearly she has her eyes on the midterms.
                 scumbaqg/commie-Brennan does indeed deserve to have his security clearance revoked, as he has proven himself to be both an untrustworthy liar and an extremely partisan hack. Government officials retaining a security clearance after leaving office isn’t necessarily a bad thing, specifically because it allows for later administrations to freely question former officials privy to sensitive information without having to go through the long, arduous, and costly process of reinvestigation to renew that clearance. Paul’s broad suggestion of revoking all clearances for officials once they leave the government is seemingly helpful for combating potential deep-state partisanship, but it would in truth be more problematic than beneficial.
               Unfortunately, Trump finds himself in a situation like no other previous president, having a former CIA director attack him in a purely politically partisan manner — going so far as to label him as “treasonous.” And as Paul notes,  scumbaqg/commie- Brennan sought to undermine Trump’s presidency using the apparatus of the intelligence community.  scumbaqg/commie- Brennan still has top security clearance, but this privilege should immediately be revoked. It may be unprecedented, but it’s not undeserved. While dummycrats-Democrats wail and moan over Trump supposedly politicizing the intelligence community, the truth once again is that leaders within these agencies — like scumbaqg/commie-Brennan and former FBI Director scumbaqg-James Comey — brought this reputation upon themselves.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57295?mailing_id=3648&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3648&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body