This is a “YUUUUUGE” story, to borrow a phrase, so I will write more about it in tomorrow morning’s newsletter. In the meantime, you must read about former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s interview with “60 Minutes” in which he – intentionally or not – knocks over the house of cards and admits there was a conspiracy within the FBI to undo the 2016 election and invoke the 25th Amendment (“unfit for office”) to remove President Trump before he could even get his Administration started.
Judging from his tone in the preview of the interview, and the fact that he’s promoting a book with the self-aggrandizing title of “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” I assume he wants us to believe that Trump is a threat to America on par with ISIS, and therefore, it’s the FBI’s responsibility to do anything possible to destroy him. This is on the pretext of it being vitally important to protect an investigation of alleged Russian collusion that we now know was launched using unverified Hillary Clinton oppo research dirt to obtain fraudulent FISA warrants. Is that really how the FBI protects us?
Do not let him flimflam you into forgetting that Trump is the duly-elected President of the United States and the FBI is supposed to work under him, not work to undermine him. It is their job to investigate crimes, not to invent crimes, conspire against elected officials or subvert our electoral process, and certainly not to act as a secret star chamber of judge, jury and executioner. That is the genuine threat to America.
Also worth a reminder: while McCabe no doubt hopes to wrap himself in the mantle of America’s heroic defender, just doing what he has to do, he is no more heroic or patriotic than Benedict Arnold, who no doubt saw his actions as heroic as well. McCabe was fired for being dishonest with the DOJ inspector general, a federal official, and unauthorized leaking. Yet he’s not been subjected to pre-dawn armed raids and multiple felony charges, as anyone associated with Trump’s campaign would be. Instead, McCabe got a lucrative book deal.
And considering current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein denies as “inaccurate and factually incorrect” McCabe’s claim that he seriously and repeatedly offered to wear a wire to try to entrap Trump, someone must be lying. One of those someones is a former top FBI official who’s asking you to swallow his book about what a hero he is for conspiring against a duly-elected President, and the other someone is still, for some unfathomable reason, a top FBI official in charge of the very investigation that was set into motion by the incredibly tainted actions of both of these someones and their corrupt colleagues.
More on this tomorrow, in the meantime, here’s your homework for tonight:
The left’s argument against voter ID laws has always seemed like their argument that Trump won via Russian collusion or because his supporters are all racist Nazis – like a feeble attempt to avoid confronting the reality that a majority of American voters reject failed leftist policies. For some people, it’s easier and more comforting to blame your own failings on there being something fundamentally wrong with everyone else than to consider that the fault might lie in yourself.
So when Republicans propose simple measures to insure that elections are legitimate, such as asking voters to show ID (one of many types that are free and easily available), the cry always goes up that they are trying to suppress the minority vote. This is predicated on the offensively racist premise that minorities are somehow unable to attain an ID. And it flies in the face of polls showing that large majorities of minority voters also favor voter ID laws.
This argument against voter ID laws has gone on for so long that two economics professors from Harvard and the University of Bologna decided to test it scientifically in a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. They looked at ten states with voter ID laws and used statistics from Catalyst, a research firm that provides data to progressive groups and academics. The sample size was massive, over 50,000 people, both registered and unregistered to vote, along with demographic info on each voter. Here’s what they found:
“Strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation…Most importantly,” strict voter ID laws “do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. The laws’ overall effects remain close to zero and non-significant, whether the election is a midterm or presidential election, and whether the laws are the more restrictive type that stipulate photo IDs.”
However, proponents of voter ID laws should note that the researchers also found virtually no difference in the amount of voter fraud before and after they were implemented. They suggested more effective measures for fighting fraud might be considered. But that could just mean they were implemented in places where there wasn’t as much voter fraud to begin with. And it doesn’t take millions of fraudulent votes to swing the balance of power; just a handful targeted in the right districts can do it.
Perhaps the most important effect of voter ID laws would be in discouraging anyone from trying to pull any vote fraud, and in giving Americans the peace of mind of knowing that the election results were trustworthy and their voice wasn’t canceled out by a fraudulent vote. The most important effect of this study should be to put to bed the notion that simply asking for the same ID anyone has to show to cash a check or get on a plane or into a government building somehow imposes an impossible, racist burden when it comes to protecting the integrity of the most important civic duty any American can perform.
The Gateway Pundit blog has obtained a government document that suggests that CNN's knowing to camp out on Trump adviser Roger Stone’s lawn one hour before the Osama-like FBI raid might have been due to more than CNN just having a great “nose for news.” If this is true, would anyone be surprised? And will anyone be held accountable?
Here’s how you know you’re getting old: when you remember going from a time when Presidential candidates denied ever smoking pot because dopeheads can’t be trusted with public office, to admitting they did it but “didn’t inhale,” to admitting they did it but claiming they don’t anymore, to bragging that they did it but then getting in trouble because they lied about which rap albums they were listening to when they got high. Someone who’d do that can’t be trusted with public office.
On the plus side, Kamala Harris can always claim she got the albums or the timeline wrong because she was just so wasted at the time.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” calls for replacing planes and cars with trains. But an examination of her campaign expense report for the FEC found that she spent seven times as much on airfare as on Amtrak tickets, and there were 534 charges for car services.
It’s easy to point out the hypocrisy, but believe it or not, I’ll cut her some slack on this. I spend about half my life on planes, and as difficult as it may be, there’s a reason: it’s much better than the alternative. When you have to get someplace far away in a hurry, a jet is the only way to go, at least until they perfect that “Star Trek” transporter technology. And she did call for building all those rail lines within 10 years. Sure, that’s laughably impossible, but at least it’s an admission that they don’t exist now, so you can’t really fault her for taking planes and cars.
Here’s the point that really should be taken from this: why did AOC spend so much more time in planes and cars than on trains? Because during a campaign, you really need to get somewhere by a certain time. Planes cover long distances very fast, and cars take you straight to where you need to be. Unless commuter trains can ever go 500 mph and leave their tracks to drop you off at your destination's doorstep, they will never replace planes and cars. Even in cities that have decent mass transit, many people prefer to drive because they don’t want to spend two hours getting to and from work.
Mass transit has its place (in densely populated areas), but it’s just not feasible in much of America, nor does it fit with the lifestyle of most Americans, who want to get where they need to be in a hurry and get to work or play. I can’t recall who said it, but someone once summed up very well why Americans will always prefer cars to mass transit: because trains take you where they want you to go, but cars take you where YOU want to go.
Americans will always want to go their own way. You’d have to force them not to. That’s why, just like all grand socialist schemes that rely on government power to force people to act against their will, the “Green New Deal” is doomed to be a train wreck.
Speaking of the “Green New Deal,” one of its many flaws is that it reflects the arrogant elitism of the Ivy League political class, those people who, as the Wizard of Oz put it, have no more brains than anyone else but they have diplomas (remember when Obama said he thought he was a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, knew more about any policy than his policy directors, etc.? Or when Hillary Clinton locked doctors and insurance actuaries out of her meetings to create her doomed Hillarycare plan?) These folks come out of the academic hothouses thinking they are brilliant enough to restructure our entire society and couldn’t possibly learn anything from talking to a lowly farmer, rancher, factory worker or coal miner. If they did, they would risk finding out just how much they don’t know.
For instance, here’s a great story about what a rancher would had said to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez if she’d bothered to get down off her high horse and talk to him before releasing her grand plan to eliminate the existential threat of gassy cows.
He explains how farmers and ranchers are already using genetics, breeding and changes in feed to reduce livestock methane emissions; and how surplus scrap vegetation is turned into livestock feed, making cattle into recyclers of garbage. Read it not only to find out what you can learn when you lower yourself to talk to someone who actually knows something about the subject, but to find out exactly why this rancher says, “Seriously, cows are like superheroes.”
Wednesday, America had a literal “red letter day” (the letters being written in red ink) as the national debt topped $22 trillion.
As always, politicians are pointing the finger at each other, and as always, three fingers are pointing back at them. Some are trying to blame President Trump and the GOP tax cut for federal revenues dropping 0.4% last year to $3.33 trillion (the budget for this year spends $4.2 trillion.) But a Treasury official said that’s a short-term drop because of front-loaded benefits such as immediate expensing of capital expenditures to encourage investment in U.S. businesses. They expect the boom in economic activity that it’s spurring to boost tax revenues over time. Indeed, Washington already took in a record $1,665,484,000,000 in individual income taxes in 2018.
I hope so, and I do believe revenues will rise in the long run. The problem, though, is one that has remained the same for years, through both Democratic and Republican leaders. It’s the idea that the government can keep on indefinitely spending more money than it takes in. If $3.33 trillion in revenue isn’t enough, then does anyone want to bet that if revenues go up to, say, $5 trillion, spending won’t go up to $6 trillion?
You’d think they would have figured out by now that the problem isn’t inadequate revenue, it’s too much spending. This has been the case since time began, as explained so well by Mr. Micawber in Charles Dickens’ 1850 novel, “Oliver Twist”:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
It’s easy to shut down debate --- even a formal debate competition --- on a college or even high school campus: just accuse one side of racism and that’s the end. What happened during this event will chill your bones every bit as much as it chilled the debate. Add this to the ever-growing list of things leftism has ruined.
Good for debater Michael Moreno, a high school senior from Utah, for pressing the issue after being accused by the debate judge of racism for quoting (gasp) Dr. Jordan Peterson and (double gasp) Ben Shapiro and, at the root of it all, for being white and male himself, which seems to be the worst crime against humanity one can commit. (That went for his partner, too, who apparently is also a white male though he has not been identified by name.) The concept of intersectionality, taken as far as it has been, has so “poisoned the well” that anyone –- at least any white male –- arguing AGAINST identity politics and FOR all people to be judged equally regardless of race is actually considered to be racist. The idea of what “racism” is been completely twisted around, but the people who’ve been taught to think that way don’t seem capable of understanding this, as their minds reject any challenge.
Please read the full details and watch the cellphone video at the link below, which takes you to The Daily Wire, for which Ben Shapiro is editor-in-chief. But first, I’ll summarize here: The other debate team did not follow the proscribed debate structure; instead of formally arguing the “pro” side (“for” a plan to reduce restrictions on immigration), they got creative and read a “slam” poem and quoted from professors critical of the American Dream and cultural assimilation. Moreno’s team was left with no specific points to refute, so they challenged this during the cross-examination section. And how did the other team respond? They said Moreno’s team couldn’t talk about fairness because they were white.
Now, if you thought that’s the point at which someone stood up and cried “racism!”, I’m sorry to disappoint you.
That accusation came in response to Moreno, after he refuted their assertion by speed-reading through some quotes on identity politics from Shapiro and Dr. Peterson, who make the case that race shouldn’t matter. (Sample quote from Shapiro: “My identity has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.”) That’s when the fireworks started. The other team continued to protest this challenge, asserting that, “as white males,” Moreno's team had no standing to talk about it. One member of the opposing team –- I think a Latina, for those who keep track of these things –- repeatedly referred to being “triggered.”
Question: Under these conditions, how is a white male supposed to debate? Especially when the topic is related to immigration, which is related to race. He has no standing to talk about anything concerning race. Why bother competing at all?
After about ten minutes of this bickering, the debate judge sided with the other team, telling Moreno’s team that for saying racial identity shouldn’t matter, THEY were being racist. Moreno criticized the judge for letting his politics inform his decision. The argument was extremely heated by then; there’s a loud door slam that I think was the judge leaving the room, but video was temporarily lost at that point.
I’ve used the expression “through the looking glass” numerous times, but this time, we are so far through it we can’t even find the glass from the other side.
I wish Moreno had referenced Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and said they simply hoped to be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. What a racist thing to say! Or, at least it would have been if it had come from a white man being scrutinized in 2019.
After the judge ruled that his team had lost the first round, Moreno went to talk with the tournament directors, both of whom work for Arizona State University. They did allow that the two had a “legitimate gripe” but that their strategy had been a poor choice to persuade this particular judge. In other words, in the final analysis, it wasn’t the judge’s fault for siding with racists (which is what they are) against a couple of white kids, but the fault of the white kids, for trying in vain to make their case in a way that any rational individual should not dismiss out of hand, especially in a DEBATE ROOM.
If colleges and universities are allowed to continue immersing young people in leftist non-reason, our nation is finished in a couple of generations. (And here we see even high school students using identity politics and talking about being “triggered.”) We can’t sustain a republic with two classes of people: the woefully uneducated and the thoroughly indoctrinated. Donors who care about this have got to start pulling strings in a big way. Only with the threat of funding drying up will the leftists who run the schools make any change. (We also can refuse to send our kids there.) Campus reform needs to be a very big deal –- a demand –- and we can start with a closer look at competitions like this one, which are being destroyed by political correctness. It’s events such as this that arguably involve our brightest students, the next generation of leadership in this country.
Someone in the room during the debate picked up the audio and some sporadic video of the dispute on a cell phone; this is also at the link. To listen, I suggest that you fast-forward to about 4:45, as the first part recorded is the speed-reading, which will be mostly unintelligible. The argument starts right around there, and you’ll hear some unbelievable remarks being tossed around. (“We’re not going to give you cookies now, just because you’re white.”) If you listen through to the end, you’ll hear that argument followed by by the conversation with the tournament directors. This should give you a good idea of what smart, rational, independent-minded kids face when they go off to college.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!