Monthly Archives: September 2018

Jumped the Shark

Posted on by
1

The Progressive-Democratic Senator from San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein, has done it.  The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has “released a memo” purported to cast doubt on Judge and Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s character.

This is a memo, too, that she’s been sitting on for the last couple of months, waiting for just the right time to “release” it.  Its source is secret, though, and its contents are not to be revealed to the public.  Her cronies at The New York Times, never fear, claim to have the…skinny…on the content: in a textbook example of projection, that outlet hints that the “memo” is all about sexual misbehavior.

Sadly, Feinstein has only shown her truth with this.  And it’s entirely consistent with her handling of her fellow Committee member Kamala Harris’ outright lie about a thing she claims Kavanaugh said.  She’s chosen to do nothing about that lie, even though she is Harris’ Ranking Member.  She’s also chosen to do nothing about fellow Committee member Corey Booker’s willfully unethical, if not illegal, behavior with Committee documents.  Of course, she’s on less firm ground there, since she earlier unethically released Committee documents (and then claimed that “cold medicine” made her do it).

Unable to disagree with him on his fitness to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, Progressive-Democrats are stooped to trying to smear his good name.

Go figure.

He Didn’t Build That

Posted on by
Reply

Our economy had the awe-uninspiring growth rate of 2% per year during ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) time in office.  Now, the Census Bureau has reported that

  • [r]eal median household incomes rose 1.8% to $61,372 between 2016 and 2017
  • the overall poverty rate dropped 0.4 per centage points to 12.3%
  • poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics fell to 21.2% and 18.3%, respectively, the lowest in more than 45 years
  • the share of people earning less than $15,000 declining 0.3 per centage points

Obama didn’t build that.  Those folks also think they’ve reached the point where they’ve made enough money.

On the other hand, Obama, his Progressive-Democrat cronies, and his regulators did create the very low economic baseline against which those per centages are being measured.

Book or Smear?

Posted on by
Reply

Bob Woodward wrote a book about President Donald Trump, and his “on-the-record” sources are coming out of the…woodwork…to deny they said the things Woodward claims they said or that they were misrepresented in misleading ways (redundancy deliberate).

I have to ask: does Woodward have any “on the record” sources about whom he hasn’t seemed to have lied? He claims to have tapes and transcripts of those conversations and of his claimed conversations with anonymous “sources.”

Regarding the latter, he should explain why we should believe anonymous sources who’ve demonstrated their dishonesty by speaking against their terms of employment if not their oaths of office.

Publish the tapes and transcripts, or there’s no reason to believe they exist.  If they don’t exist, there’s no reason to believe those “on the record” sources were honestly cited or that those anonymous “sources” actually exist.

Sadly, even the Wall Street Journal‘s author of the piece at the link, Rebecca Ballhaus, has chosen to go along with Woodward’s game.  Citing a statement by Rob Porter in which he said he was struck by the selective and often misleading portrait in the book, she wrote,

Mr Porter didn’t dispute any specific elements….

Gary Cohn said in a separate statement that that the book does not accurate[ly] portray my experience at the White House.  Ballhaus again:

He, too, didn’t dispute any specific anecdotes.

This is a cynically misleading over-parsing of their statements, carefully designed to leave the impression that Woodward’s claims are true, just because the two men chose not to enumerate and explicitly deny every jot and tittle of Woodward’s missive.

The PLO and Peace

Posted on by
Reply

The US is cutting off funding for the PLO, and we’re closing the PLO’s delegation office in DC.  Various apologists for the terrorist organization are up in arms over the Trump administration’s sterner stand.

…the administration that appear to be moving away from the 1993-95 Oslo accords before the administration has explained what it thinks should come next.

Walking away from the Oslo peace framework? That framework doesn’t exist; the PLO walked away from it long ago.  See, for instance, PLO leader Yasser Arafat’s intifada after walking away from the historic and generous Israeli peace offer brokered by Bill Clinton in 2000.

Moreover, neither is the Trump administration required to lay out its strategy vis-à-vis the PLO in public—and thereby let the PLO develop its resistance to it—before it has presented its plan to Israel and the PLO nor is it required to negotiate with the PLO through the press.

Palestinians call move “reckless”

Reckless? What’s reckless is the PLO’s support for Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel.  What’s reckless is the PLO’s paying bounties to surviving families of terrorists killed in PLO and PLO-supported terror attacks.  What’s reckless is PLO’s support for Hezbollah.

Aaron David Miller of the Wilson Center:

They [the Trump administration] are dismantling the traditional American architecture to create a two-state solution

That traditional architecture has worked so well over all these years.  No, it’s time to stop wasting time and resources on that obvious failure and try something else.

Beginning with encouraging the PLO to become interested in peace.

A Change in Tone?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the start of President Donald Trump’s response to the People’s Republic of China’s economic conflict with us, when he began imposing tariffs on PRC goods over their continued theft of American companies’ intellectual property.

Vice President Wang warned US business chieftains there would be corporate casualties. President Xi told others that Beijing would “punch back” at the US.

Now we’re getting sweet words.

Liu He, President Xi Jinping’s economic-policy chief, told visiting American business representatives that US companies’ China operations won’t be targeted in Beijing’s trade-brawl counterattacks. “We won’t allow retribution against foreign companies,” Mr Liu said[.]

We promise.

Sure.

No, this is not a change in tone.  It’s smoke-blowing and just a change in tactics.  The PRC still is requiring foreign companies—especially American companies—to take on a majority partner as a condition of doing business in the PRC.  Sure, the government is making noises about only requiring a minority partner (49% ownership), but they’ve enacted nothing.

The PRC still is requiring foreign companies—especially American companies—to install backdoors in their operating system software and their software products so the government can enter and poke around to its heart’s content.

The PRC still is hacking into American businesses and our government facilities to steal our companies’ and government’s secrets.

On the other hand, that last may indicate that the change in tone is serious.  The PRC may have gained enough confidence in its hacking chops that it doesn’t feel the need to demand the surrender of our secrets; it may be confident that it can steal them at will.

Either way, there’s no reason to take Liu at his word.  Actions matter.