The Sally Yates letter

Sally Yates was the acting U.S. Attorney General who was fired by Donald Trump for failing to support his executive order which restricted processing of immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries. As pointed out in my previous post, this executive order was legal and binding.

Fired Sally Yates letter devoid of legal argument. Reeks of moral preening, grandstanding. pic.twitter.com/J7RdnRrzxs

— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 31, 2017

There is a fine line between "moral preening" and "taking an ethical stand". So which is it?

Brit Hume is correct about the lack of legal argument in the letter. While Yates does mention the questionable legality of the executive order, she doesn't explain why. Even more telling is this one sentence:

In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. 

Justice and standing for what is right are more philosophical questions than legal ones. While justice is something which the law aspires to, it doesn't always succeed. As far as "what is right", that isn't even a legal consideration (sorry lawyers!).

What Yates did was take a moral stand. Sadly, she either took the wrong one, or explained it very badly. Nowhere in her letter does she give a good explanation for not defending the executive order, other than she considered it wrong. Based on the evidence, she deserved to be fired.

Now if she had taken a stand against America's unjustified wars on Islam, which are leading to the necessity for Trump's executive order, then I would be fully on board with her.

Instead, she provides no valid reasoning for her inaction, thereby providing support for Hume's "moral preening" accusation.

Monday Night Massacre: Today's news for January 31st

CNN:

Trump fires acting AG after she declines to defend travel ban

President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night for "refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States," the White House said.

"(Yates) has betrayed the Department of Justice," the White House statement said.

Dana Boente, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was sworn in at 9 p.m. ET, per an administration official. A few hours later, Boente issued a statement rescinding Yates' order, instructing DOJ lawyers to "defend the lawful orders of our President."

There has been much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over this executive order banning immigrants from seven countries, with special attention paid to Syria due to the refugee crisis there. Unfortunately, America helped create that crisis (thanks Obama!). Allowing refugees into our country, who might not have been refugees if not for American actions, is the equivalent of allowing the fox into the hen house. The fact we are continuing operations over in Syria only creates peril for our country if we allow refugees inside.

Under the circumstances (continued military action in Syria), this is the only logical course of action.

Also, this executive order is NOT a ban on all Muslims, as many in the mainstream media are harping. So calling this some kind of anti-religion action is just plain wrong. If anything, the truth is that both Republicans and Democrats have been unashamedly carrying on a war on Islam ever since 9/11. For the MSM to point fingers at Trump, but not Bush or Obama, is disingenuous. Don't complain about "denying the rights of Muslims" as you sat idly by while the last two presidents were denying the LIVES of Muslims.

Not to mention Trump's executive order was perfectly legal, under the very law authorized by the Constitution:

The Hill:

Trump's immigration ban executive order is clumsy, but perfectly legal

President Trump’s executive order (EO) titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” has produced a storm of protest. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on Friday that “there are tears running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight.”

What is in this EO that is so upsetting?

The EO’s stated policy is “to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.”

It directs the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence to determine what information is needed from any country to decide whether one of its nationals who is seeking admission to the United States is who he claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

It gives them 30 days to report the results of that determination with a list of countries that do not provide adequate information.

The EO imposes a 90-day suspension of immigrant and nonimmigrant admission of aliens from countries designated in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which excludes aliens who have been present in a specified country from participating in the Visa Waiver program.

The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows: 

"(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

The 90-day suspension can be waived on a case-by-case basis.

Read the rest of the article, but this all seems very proper and legal.

In other Trump news....

Business Insider:

As Trump readies to announce Supreme Court pick, one judge emerges as top candidate

President Donald Trump announced Monday morning that he had settled on a nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court — and one formerly dark-horse candidate has emerged as the judge with quite possibly the inside track to score the nod.

Thomas Hardiman, a 51-year-old judge who sits on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, has caught the attention of observers to fill the void left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for several reasons.

With Democrats threatening to block Trump's Supreme Court pick, it's noteworthy that Hardiman was voted onto the appeals court in 2007 by a 95-0 tally. Both Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted to approve him.

If the Democrats want to stop Hardiman, they will have to explain why they voted for him unanimously in 2007. This will only leave his decisions made since then as excuses to vote against him. This should be high political drama, along the lines of Advise and Consent. Get your popcorn ready.

Finally, in international news...

Fox News:

Iran tests ballistic missile in defiance of UN resolution, US officials say

Iran conducted its first ballistic missile test under Donald Trump's presidency, in yet another apparent violation of a United Nations resolution, U.S. officials told Fox News on Monday.

...U.N. resolution 2231 -- put in place days after the Iran nuclear deal was signed -- calls on the Islamic Republic not to conduct such tests. However, this is at least Iran's second such test since July. The resolution bars Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests for eight years and went into effect July 20, 2015.

Wasn't our treaty with Iran supposed to help prevent this kind of thing? Scratch out another part of Obama's legacy.

On the bright side:

The launch occurred Sunday at a well-known test site outside Semnan, about 140 miles east of Tehran, Fox News was first to learn.

The Khorramshahr medium-range ballistic missile flew 600 miles before exploding, in a failed test of a reentry vehicle, officials said. Iran defense minister Brigadier Gen. Hossein Dehqan said in September that Iran would start production of the missile.

Iranian technology: Making the Chinese look really good!

Immigration's fifth column problem

Saturday, Austin Petersen brought up the question, "Does The Constitution Apply To Non Citizens?" in his live stream video below:



Section 1 of the 14th Amendment answers most questions around immigration:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Austin's answer is basically yes, based specifically on the part I put in bold above. Unfortunately, this part does NOT prevent the government from targeting specific groups of people for specific treatment. For example, an affirmative action law is no better than a Jim Crow law in denying "equal protection of the laws", and yet we have allowed and enforced them over the years.

Putting aside that bad laws get made and enforced by the courts, leading to unequal protection of the laws, immigration isn't JUST about the natural rights of people to move from one country to another. There is a national defense aspect to immigration. A foreign person inside the United States can be here for multiple reasons:

1. They could be here to make a better life for themselves.
2. They could be here as part of a fifth column effort to undermine our government or terrorize our people.
3. They could be here as part of an invasion force (see War of 1812).

It is easy to say #1 comes under immigration and #3 comes under national defense. But #2 isn't quite so clear cut. Because of fifth column potential, even if it is only a small minority, we have to treat immigration as a national defense issue also, especially when dealing with immigrants from a country where we are carrying out military operations.

While I don't consider our military operations in most parts of the world as necessary or even defending our interests, Americans seem intent on carrying out a war on Islam. Since the majority rules here, I personally don't want to be caught up in some Islamic fifth column effort against Americans on American soil. Letting people from countries we are warring against into our country presents an unnecessary danger to the safety of Americans. It is NOT strictly a matter of nativism (although for some people it is). It is a matter of national security and public safety.

Before you can throw in the "giving up a little liberty for a little bit of safety" warning, this is something which should mainly impact non-American citizens. There should be no impact to American citizens in making demands on people trying to emigrate/immigrate to the United States. To most citizens, it may require the horrible inconvenience of presenting your ID occasionally. That amount of liberty is a small price to pay for the amount of safety involved, and it is well within the boundaries of government established within the Constitution. This is not an Edward Snowden-style 4th Amendment violation.

I have no issues with allowing Mexicans into our country, and I firmly believe we should allow more. I also believe the criteria for gaining admittance into the United States should be fairly simple and easy to process. But I also believe that in times of war, our borders must be protected against those who might try to carry out fifth column activities.

If you want to talk about allowing Syrian refugees into the country, how about starting with "let's end the war over in Syria"?

Steve Bannon and the ban on Muslims: Today's news for January 30th

A lot of people are discussing President Trump's ban on Muslim immigrants, or the court order on Friday that overturned it for green card holders and those "who have already arrived in the US and those who are in transit, and who hold valid visas". But there is a more intriguing story emerging of how and why this happened, and it seems Trump adviser Steve Bannon is at the center of it: 

Washington Post:

Questions multiply over Bannon’s role in Trump administration

President Trump’s elevation of his chief political strategist to a major role in national security policy, and a White House order banning refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries from U.S. entry, appeared to come together as cause and effect over the weekend.

Stephen K. Bannon — whose nationalist convictions and hard-line oppositional view of globalism have long guided Trump — was directly involved in shaping the controversial immigration mandate, according to several people familiar with the drafting who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The order, which has ignited sweeping domestic and international backlash, came without the formal input of Trump’s National Security Council, the committee of top national security aides designed to ensure the president examines all policy issues from different perspectives.

In Trump’s case, the NSC has not yet been fully formed. Key department heads, including the secretary of state, have either not been confirmed or had little chance to be briefed by those under them.

But even as the mechanism for full consultation with defense, diplomatic, intelligence and other national security chiefs remains incomplete, Bannon’s policy influence was established late Saturday in a presidential directive that gave him something no previous president has bestowed on a political adviser: a formal seat at the NSC table.

That isn't completely true, except the "formal" part of it:

While [President] Obama did not include political strategist David Axelrod in his own NSC organizational directive, Axelrod frequently showed up at the meetings — particularly those having to do with strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq — to the consternation of [CIA director Robert M. Gates] and others.

"Presence in a meeting" versus "formal presence in a meeting" is splitting hairs.

On the other hand:

George W. Bush barred his political strategist, Karl Rove, from NSC meetings, according to Josh Bolten, Bush’s chief of staff. “The president told Karl Rove, ‘You may never come to a National Security Council meeting,’ ” Bolten said at a conference on the NSC and politics last fall.

“It wasn’t because he didn’t respect Karl’s advice or didn’t value his input,” Bolten said. “But the president also knew that the signal he wanted to send to the rest of his administration, the signal he wanted to send to the public, and the signal he especially wanted to send to the military is that the decisions I’m making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions.”

The office of the presidency is no longer separated from political considerations, and this is yet another legacy of Obama.

But there is a positive aspect of this:

Trump sees Bannon as a generational peer who shares his anti-establishment instincts and confrontational style. According to several people familiar with their relationship, Bannon has cultivated a rapport with Trump over security issues in recent months, and impressed Trump with his grasp of policy in talks they have held together with top intelligence and military officials.

The new president relies on Bannon to ensure that his campaign promises and nationalist worldview are being followed and are shaping national security strategy. Trump’s approval of Bannon’s new role is seen inside the White House as the formalization of a dynamic that has already been at work for weeks, these people said.

Love him or hate him, Bannon helped to shape Trump's message on the campaign trail. By keeping Bannon close, Trump is staying close to the ideology which he conveyed to the voters. This is a positive that most presidents seem to forget once in office, especially after the multitudes of advisers get in their ears. Without a governing philosophy/ideology, then a president is nothing more than a balloon in the wind.

This begs the question: Who is Steve Bannon?

The Daily Beast:

Steve Bannon, Trump's Top Guy, Told Me He Was 'A Leninist' 

Who Wants To ‘Destroy the State’

I met Steve Bannon—the executive director of Breitbart.com who’s now become the chief executive of the Trump campaign, replacing the newly resigned Paul Manafort—at a book party held in his Capitol Hill townhouse on Nov. 12, 2013...

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

I emailed Bannon last week recalling our conversation, telling him that I planned to write about it and asking him if he wanted to comment on or correct my account of it. He responded:

“I don’t remember meeting you and don’t remember the conversation. And as u can tell from the past few days I am not doing media.”

...Trump’s decision to take on Bannon indicates that he wants to wage his campaign along the lines laid down by him—that of destroying the Republican leadership and the Party as we know it. Trump’s behavior thus far has been compatible with Bannon’s belief in Leninist tactics. As the Bolshevik leader once said, “The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.”

Are you seeing what this is? This is Trump leading a rebellion, first within the Republican Party, and inevitably on the national level.

But this rebellion has other interesting aspects:

Medium:

Trial Balloon for a Coup?

While the article linked above is from blogger Yonatan Zunger, it brings together published information in an informative way that is worthy of notice. Please read the whole piece.

However, here are some parts of note. First, Zunger's story links to an article from CNN, which states:

Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.

The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US. 

As the Zunger points out:

Also notable is that career DHS staff, up to and including the head of Customs & Border Patrol, were kept entirely out of the loop until the order was signed.

The Trump government is very much a top-down hierarchy, not an inclusive meritocracy.

Before you suggest this could be a one-off situation, consider this:

The Guardian is reporting (heavily sourced) that the “mass resignations” of nearly all senior staff at the State Department on Thursday were not, in fact, resignations, but a purge ordered by the White House. As the diagram below (by Emily Roslin v Praze) shows, this leaves almost nobody in the entire senior staff of the State Department at this point.

As the Guardian points out, this has an important and likely not accidental effect: it leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban (which they would normally resist) are coming down.

The article points out another point worth highlighting: “In the past, the state department has been asked to set up early foreign contacts for an incoming administration. This time however it has been bypassed, and Trump’s immediate circle of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Reince Priebus are making their own calls.”

Admittedly, this could still be a one-off situation, wherein Trump's inner circle is handling things until they can put their own people in place at the State Department. However, considering one of Trump's executive orders last week was a hiring freeze, does this sound like a guy who is looking to fill a lot of positions?

Also, when you consider Steve Bannon's stated goal to "bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment", this does fit within the mold of someone doing exactly that.

Before I leave Zunger's story, he has one last intriguing speculation:

Finally, I want to highlight a story that many people haven’t noticed. On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Conclusive? No. But it raises some very interesting questions for journalists to investigate.

Finally, in news from the far Left of America, aka California:

AFP:

California campaign to secede gains momentum

Momentum! What kind? Polls? A proposition on the ballot? Not quite:

A campaign for California to secede from the rest of the country over Donald Trump's election is gaining momentum, with supporters allowed to start collecting signatures for the measure to be put to a vote.

California's Secretary of State Alex Padilla gave the green light on Thursday for proponents of "California Nationhood" -- also known as Calexit -- to start collecting the nearly 600,000 signatures needed for the measure to qualify on the November 2018 ballot.

Wake me up when they have something more than "you can now go out and collect a boatload of signatures".

Weekly finale: John Mulaney and Tom Jones

Another week ends, and I present you with the weekly musical finale.

For this week, I offer a finale based on one of my favorite comedy monologues, "The Salt and Pepper Diner" by John Mulaney:



With this being the weekly musical finale, this leads to two Tom Jones songs.

First, "What's New Pussycat?":


It is hard to believe that song was written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David.

Finally, here is the much better "liberation of France" song, "It's Not Unusual":



As Wikipedia describes it:

"It's Not Unusual" is a song written by Les Reed and Gordon Mills, first recorded by a then-unknown Tom Jones, after having first been offered to Sandie Shaw. Jones recorded what was intended to be a demo for Shaw, but when she heard it she was so impressed with Jones's delivery that she declined the song and recommended that Jones release it himself.

And the rest is history.

Enjoy your weekend, and I will return for more blogging on Monday.

Stat of the day: Obama's average job approval

From Gallup:

Barack Obama finished his tenure as president with a 47.9% average job approval rating. He ranks below eight presidents and ahead of only three -- Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman -- in Gallup's polling history.

Think about it: Obama ranks between the most scandal-ridden president in American history (Nixon), and the unelected president who pardoned him (Ford). 

The other wall: Today's news for January 27th

We all know about the border wall President Trump is having built between the America and Mexico. But now there will be another wall:

The Daily Beast:

Spicer: Trump Plans 20% Tax on Imports to Pay for Wall

Despite long insisting that Mexico will pay for his promised U.S. border wall, President Donald Trump plans to fund the estimated $15-billion project by taxing U.S consumers. During a press gaggle on Thursday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the president has decided that the wall can be funded by a 20-percent tax on imports to the United States.

Unfortunately, this story has revealed a certain economic ignorance in the press:

USAToday:

A border wall could lead to pricier cars, beer

American consumers may have to pay more for products ranging from Toyotas to vegetables to beer, if a proposal by President Donald Trump to impose a 20% tariff on Mexican imports goes into effect.

Trump has floated the new tax as a possible way to finance a wall that would straddle the border separating the U.S. from what is currently its third largest partner in the trade of goods, according to the U.S. Trade Representative.

William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center. says that while a stronger dollar could minimize the pain U.S. shoppers feel, “the irony of putting a tariff on Mexican goods is that, to the extent it raises consumer prices in the U.S., consumers will be paying for the wall, not Mexican producers.’’

Mexico sent $295 billion worth of goods across the U.S. border in 2015, the USTR says. Overall, U.S. imports from its southern neighbor peaked at $316.4 billion that year. That's in contrast to Mexican-bound exports from the U.S. that amounted to $267.2 billion. 

The biggest import is cars, with the U.S. spending $74 billion in 2015 for the hundreds of thousands of Chevrolet and Ram trucks, as well as Fords, Hondas, and Nissans that are assembled in Mexican factories.

But cars are far from the only product that U.S. importers bring in from Mexico. Other key categories include machinery, medical instruments, and mineral fuels.The country is also the U.S.’ second-biggest provider of agricultural products, with imports amounting to $21 billion in 2015.

Time for a little Economics 101 lesson. If you have an object which costs $1, and you raise the cost 20%, that will mean it will now cost $1.20. When a consumer sees the price increase, they can have one of several reactions:

1. They will pay for the object anyway.
2. They will not buy it at all.
3. They will buy a different object.
4. If they buy the object in bulk, they may buy fewer of them.

As you can see, options 2 through 4 all lead to decreased purchasing of the object. The higher a price increase, the more people choose those options. 20% is a fairly steep price increase, especially for cars, which are the biggest import. Going from $20,000 to $24,000 is a pretty steep increase, unless importers absorb some of the tariff in their own profits, which isn't likely since car companies already have fairly low margins on the kind of cars built in Mexico.

Mexico's true cost will come in lost export sales opportunities. This will lead to greater Mexican unemployment, and potentially closed businesses. Expect Mexico to see a severe economic recession soon.

If Mexico was smart, they would offer to help pay for the wall. Even if they only made a token payment of a few billion dollars, it would save them a whole lot of economic pain.

So the American people are technically paying for the wall. But the Mexicans are paying a far steeper price for it.

In other news of America's foreign relations:

Washington Post:

The State Department’s entire senior administrative team just resigned

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.

Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.

Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career Foreign Service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

...One senior State Department official who responded to my requests for comment said that all the officials had previously submitted their letters of resignation, as was required for all positions that are appointed by the president and that require confirmation by the Senate, known as PAS positions.

Basically, this was Trump's call, and not some kind of mass protest.

A true revolution requires a change in the government bureaucracy. Otherwise, a change in leader is only changing the labels on the status quo. Kudos to Trump for recognizing this.

In other news...

The Hill:

US no longer considered 'full democracy,' group says

The United Sates was downgraded from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" in the 2016 Democracy Index, which cites declining trust in the government as the cause of its new rating.

The report is the Economist Intelligence Unit's ninth annual Democracy Index, which looks at the state of governments across the world. In 2016, the number of "full democracies" dropped from 20 to 19.

The United States' downgrade puts it at 21 in the international rankings, below Japan and tied with Italy.

President Trump, the report says, harnessed that low trust of the government to win the presidency. The report, however, doesn't blame the new rating entirely on Trump, noting the downward trend in trust over the last several decades.

The U.S. has been "teetering on the brink of becoming a flawed democracy" for years, the report says. It cites the decline starting with the Vietnam War in the 1960s, the civil rights movement, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy and the Watergate scandal.

America's crony capitalism is beginning to get attention.

Rand Paul's Obamacare replacement

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) has submitted a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. So what does it do? (Details below are taken from the bill's fact sheet.)

1. Repeals parts of Obamacare, specifically:

Individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, rate review, essential
health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates. 

2. Protect individuals with pre-existing conditions.

3. Makes health insurance premiums paid deductible to income taxes, both on payroll taxes and through income tax filing.

4. Expansion of Health Savings Accounts (HSA). This is, in my opinion, the best aspect of this bill. I won't print it all here, but I highly recommend you review the bill's fact sheet for the details to this. Basically, this bill finally provides HSA's with an incredible amount of flexibility that has long been needed. For example, this bill allows for HSA's to be used to pay for:

• Prescription and OTC drugs.
• Health insurance premiums.
• Medical expenses incurred prior to the establishment of the HSA.
• Certain exercise and physical fitness equipment.
• Dietary and nutritional supplements. 
• Pre-paid physician fees, which includes payments associated with “concierge” or “direct practice” medicine.  
• Contributions to Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).

5. Charity Care and Bad Debt Deduction for Physicians.

6. "Establishes Independent Health Pools (IHPs) in order to allow individuals to pool together for the purposes of purchasing insurance." Good idea.

7. Interstate Market for Health Insurance. Long story short, this allows health insurers to sell policies across state lines. There are some restrictions (including allowing secondary states to require consumer protections, which should keep insurers from abusing this law), but overall this looks positive.   

8. "Association Health Plans (AHPs) allow small businesses to pool together across state lines

through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for their employees and their families. AHPs increase the bargaining power, leverage discounts, and provide administrative efficiencies to small businesses while freeing them from state benefit

mandates." This appears to be a slight variation on number 6 above, based on legal definitions of the groups involved. 

9. "Provides an exemption from Federal antitrust laws for health care professionals engaged in

negotiations with a health plan regarding the terms of a contract under which the professionals

provide health care items or services." I am not a big fan of antitrust laws anyway.

10. Increasing State Flexibility to Conduct Medicaid Waivers. State flexibility is always a good thing. 

11. A legal definition change for "stop-loss insurance", which is an excess insurance policy for self-insured employers.

In summary, where Obamacare took the stick approach to health insurance, requiring it under law, this bill takes the carrot approach. This bill does to HSA's what previous laws have done to 401k's and IRA's, and goes much further in my opinion. While I would prefer a world without income taxes, if we have to have them, then this law is the best health care prescription possible.

RIP Mary Tyler Moore: Today's news for January 26th

TMZ:

MARY TYLER MOORE DEAD AT 80

Mary Tyler Moore -- the television icon who charmed America with comedic brilliance and charisma on her hugely successful '70s show -- died in a Connecticut hospital ... TMZ has learned.

...We're told Mary had been on a respirator for more than a week.  She was taken off life support Tuesday night.

Mary -- who battled diabetes and underwent brain surgery in 2011 -- became famous after starring on the "The Dick Van Dyke Show" from 1961 to 1966. She dazzled her way to 7 successful seasons on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" from 1970 to 1977, decimating skeptics who viewed her show as destined to fail.

In writing this, I decided to take the time to re-watch the first episode of  "The Mary Tyler Moore Show". Although the side characters were what carried the show (especially Ed Asner's lovable curmudgeon Lou Grant), Moore was the heart of the show, the warm-hearted straight woman to the oddball cast of characters. More than that, Moore was a feminist icon without the coldness. In a time of maturing women's rights, she provided a role model for how to be an independent woman while still maintaining your humanity. She also showed it was ok to stumble occasionally on the path to self-actualization, which is a powerful message regardless of your gender.



In other news...

Mother Jones:

Trump Just Ordered Government Scientists to Hide Facts From the Public

Throughout Donald Trump's campaign, he and his proxies consistently expressed hostility to government regulation, particularly of the fossil fuel and agriculture industries. Within days of taking over, the Trump administration has already put a squeeze on the two agencies that most directly regulate Big Energy and Big Ag, the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture.

At the EPA, the administration has  ordered that "all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately," ProPublica writers Andrew Revkin and Jesse Eisinger report, quoting an internal EPA email they obtained. Myron Ebell, the climate change denier who led the Trump team's EPA transition and directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, confirmed the suspension, Revkin and Eisenger report.

Can you tell which side of the ideological divide Mother Jones is? "Climate change denier" is Left-speak for "rational human being".

As for this story, the EPA has been running amok for far too long. It is well past time somebody put a rein on them.

As for the USDA:

Food & Water Watch's [Patty] Lovera notes that the decree is somewhat ironic, because the Obama USDA itself kept its scientists on a short leash in terms of press access—especially on topics of high importance to the agrichemical industry, like pesticides and genetically modified crops. 

Translation: Trump is only being slightly tighter than Obama was. Time for the world's smallest violin:

In other Trump news...

Bloomberg:

Trump Greets U.K.'s May as World Leaders Look For Cues

Theresa May will provide the first test for how world leaders can deal with Donald Trump when she arrives in the U.S. to welcome the new president to the global stage and lay the groundwork for a U.S.-U.K. trade deal.

“As we rediscover our confidence together –- as you renew your nation just as we renew ours –- we have the opportunity, indeed the responsibility, to renew the special relationship for this new age,” the U.K. prime minister will tell Republican lawmakers gathered in Philadelphia on Thursday, according to excerpts from her prepared remarks. “We have the opportunity to lead, together, again.”

It is curious what May means exactly by "opportunity to lead, together, again". But it does warrant cautious optimism, at least based on the long history of our two nations.

Finally, in what could be the most important news today:

The Hill:

Rand Paul unveils ObamaCare replacement

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) unveiled an ObamaCare replacement bill Wednesday as part of his effort to urge the GOP to speed up work on an alternative to the healthcare law.

Paul has been pushing his colleagues to have a replacement plan ready to pass simultaneously with repeal of ObamaCare, a demand that has recently been gaining support inside the party. His office noted that President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also reacted favorably to that idea.

"There is no excuse for waiting to craft an alternative until after we repeal Obamacare, and the Obamacare Replacement Act charts a new path forward that will insure the most people possible at the lowest price," Paul said in a statement.

I will cover this in more detail in my next post.

Wednesday wisdom

There comes a point in life when you can't stop and smell the roses because they go past far too quickly. However, if you've taken the time to smell them before, you can always remember what they smelled like. Sometimes, that's good enough.

The intolerance of the Left

Pity actress Nicole Kidman. From YourNewsWire:

Nicole Kidman has had contracts cancelled by two Hollywood studios and has been warned by “famous liberal celebrities” to “steer clear of the Oscars“, according to a source at Creative Artists Agency in Los Angeles.

Kidman has also received threatening letters telling her to “go back where you came from” sent by intolerant liberals, despite the fact she was born in Hawaii and holds dual US-Australian citizenship.

Why all the hate? Because on January 10th, Nicole Kidman, a Hollywood A-lister, dared to go against the Hollywood agenda and told an interviewer that “we need to support whoever is the president”.

This is the kind of intolerance you would expect in Nazi Germany or Soviet-era Russia, not modern America, especially not from our so-called open-minded and enlightened progressives. And yet...

This is not the only example. What we saw last weekend, at both the inauguration protests and the so-called "Women's Marches" the following day, the Left was out in full force to shut down President Trump even before he could do a single thing.

Ed Morrisey said it best:

Even during an inauguration of a new president, where we can all take pride in the peaceful transfer of power that the American experiment brought to the world, rational demonstrations based on real issues can remind us of the need to keep working for better outcomes.

That, however, was not what we saw on Inauguration Day. It didn’t start on Inauguration Day, either, or even on Inauguration Eve. This started immediately after the election, when those on the losing side of the election began dubbing themselves “The Resistance.”

This grandiose and pretentious appellation insults those who actually have to live under authoritarian regimes...

Those who lose elections in free countries are the opposition, and can fix that by winning the next election. Instead of asking why they lost, the “resistance” decided to pretend the loss of an election amounts to oppression and have adopted the language of revolution to rally themselves.

That incendiary language didn’t just get adopted by a few on the fringe, but by many on the left, including some in the news and entertainment media.

Language matters, and on Inauguration Eve, the tension erupted into riots. Pro-Trump groups organized supporters for a celebration at the National Press Club they dubbed “The DeploraBall,” a play on Hillary Clinton’s insult. The event was organized by independent groups and didn’t include any incoming Trump administration officials.

Even so, protesters agitated against Trump outside, a demonstration that turned violent when some of them started throwing smoke bombs at police, who had lined up to keep the activists out of the celebration inside.

After two hours of rioting, police finally began using pepper spray to disperse the crowds, but not before some cops got hit with bottles. Some of the demonstrators set fires, while demanding Congress “impeach the predatory president.”

By the next day, the nation’s capital suffered widespread rioting. Hooligans smashed windows, set fires, threw bricks and attempted to block the entrances to the inauguration. More than two hours after the inauguration, a mass of rioters began setting fires on K Street. By 2 p.m., police had already arrested 90 people, and the unrest was growing.

The Daily Beast’s description of these protesters as “anti-fascists” stretches the definition of irony. The protesters weren’t demonstrating against any specific action by Trump, because he had not yet taken office at that time. They were protesting against his election victory and wanted it negated — and at groups like DisruptJ20, they used violence to try to get their way.

While I didn't vote for Trump, this kind of behavior makes him look sympathetic, and forces libertarians like me into his camp of supporters. For all his flaws, Trump has yet to show any of the fascist tendencies of which his detractors on the Left accuse him. But many on the Left are clearly displaying these tendencies.

Contrary to the Left's rhetoric, they aren't about equality or civil rights, especially when they want to void a fair and free election result. They are about totalitarianism, and shutting down any dissent to their socialist/progressive/communist views. The Left scares me much more than my worst nightmare about a Trump presidency.

Mexico and Chicago: Today's news for January 25th

New York Times:

Trump to Order Mexican Border Wall and Curtail Immigration

President Trump on Wednesday will order the construction of a Mexican border wall — the first in a series of actions this week to crack down on immigrants, including slashing the number of refugees who can resettle in the United States and blocking Syrians and others from “terror-prone” nations from entering, at least temporarily.

Say what you will, this is in keeping with his campaign promises.

Also:

He is considering a policy that would temporarily freeze admissions of refugees from Syria and other majority-Muslim nations, and halve the number of displaced people who can be resettled on American soil. This would effectively bar the entry of people from Muslim countries — including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Syria — and might prioritize the admission of those who are Christian religious minorities.

Exactly how does an immigration bureaucrat determine what is a person's religious beliefs?

If Trump was really smart, he would end the war on Islam. But if Bush and Obama weren't that smart, why should we expect Trump to be? Killing Muslims is politically palatable on the Right, and the Left is too busy screaming to let them into the country to bother caring about our military killing more of them overseas.

In other Trump news...

Fox News:

Trump says he will 'send in the Feds' if Chicago doesn't reduce homicides

President Trump tweeted Tuesday night that if Chicago is unable to reduce its homicide figures, he will send in "the Feds" to help reduce the city’s murder rate.

"If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible `carnage' going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!" Trump posted.

Exactly how is this the problem of the federal government? While this is a terrible problem, all problems do not automatically become federal problems.

Unfortunately:

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson responded late Tuesday, saying: "The Chicago Police Department is more than willing to work with the federal government to build on our partnerships with DOJ, FBI, DEA and ATF and boost federal prosecution rates for gun crimes in Chicago."

Roll over with your belly up so the feds can scratch it. Good dog!

Seriously though, if you really want to help Chicago, there is one simple solution: Lift the gun restrictions.

Democrats work to become irrelevant

If things weren't bad enough for Democrats, their current crop of potential Democratic National Committee chairmen should be enough to push them over the edge into complete irrelevance in America.

From Grabien News:

Candidates aspiring to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee met Monday night to discuss what went wrong in 2016 and how to get the party back on track.

Early into the event the candidates gravitated toward a particular scapegoat for the party’s poor showing in November: Political consultancies owned by white people.

Why didn't I think of that? But let's hear the further explanation:

“We have to stop, particularly with the consultants,” said the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Jaime Harrison. “You cannot come to the DNC and get a contract and the only minority face you have is the person answering the phone.”

Minority consultants “need to get the same resources that the white consultants have gotten,” said a Fox News analyst and candidate for the chairmanship, Jehmu Greene. "The DNC did a piss poor, pathetic job" attracting minorities, she said.

Clearly, all the white consultants telling Hillary Clinton to ignore the middle class whites gave her bad advice. Black consultants are much more likely to have picked up on that flaw.

But those aren't the only two candidates:

Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white,” urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white. 

Darn those uppity white folks!

But it gets better...

The event’s moderator, MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid, asked the candidates how the party should handle the Black Lives Now movement.

The candidates uniformly emphasized that the party must embrace the activists unreservedly.

“It makes me sad that we’re even having that conversation and that tells me that white leaders in our party have failed,” Brown said. “I’m a white woman, I don’t get it. … My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt.”

“This is life and death” she emphasized. “I am a human being trying to do good work and I can’t do it without y’all. So please, please, please, get ahold of me. Sally at we-the-dnc.org. I need schooling so I can go school the other white people.” 

Read that again, except replace the word "white" with "black." Then it sounds like something from an Uncle Tom a century ago.

Let me be the first to "school" you, Sally: Shut up! You are right about one thing: You don't get it.

And the stupidity kept rolling...

Raymond Buckley, the chairman for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, told a story about how, in the midst of “grieving” on Election Day, he received a call from his black niece, who feared for her life after Trump’s victory.

“It’s not just certain parts of the country,” he said. “That fear is all across the country. It’s even in rural new Hampshire. So when people say black lives matter, you are damn right they matter.” 

There are no gangs of angry white people roaming the countryside looking for blacks to kill, but Buckley appears to be living in a different country from the rest of us. Who knew New Hampshire was so rough?

This whole event just gets the bear:

On the bright side:

Asked whether they would agree to work with President Trump, the candidates agreed they would never do so, which drew some applause from the otherwise quiet crowd at George Washington University. 

So next time Democrats complain about how Republicans obstructed Obama, you can reply, "Pot, meet kettle."

Trump's character flaws

If you ever need the view from the Left, just head over to Salon. If there is a point to be missed, they will be the little tree at the end of the runway (i.e. everything goes over their heads).

For example, this is their latest piece of news, "'He’s never going to admit he’s wrong in front of everyone': President Trump’s aides are worried about his behavior":

Following Donald Trump’s first days as president, reports are coming out that some White House insiders are troubled by his in-office behavior.

One anonymous insider who frequently talks with Trump told Politico his aides are often afraid of saying no to him due to his notorious unwillingness to look bad.

“You can’t do it in front of everyone,” the insider said. “He’s never going to admit he’s wrong in front of everyone. You have to pull him aside and tell him why he’s wrong, and then you can get him to go along with you. These people don’t know how to get him to do what they need him to do.”

Really? And who exactly responds well to being called wrong in front of a group of people? There is a Management 101 lesson, whereby you NEVER criticize one of your employees in front of the entire group. All you do is make them defensive. Any point you want to make will get lost in the subsequent embarrassment they will feel.

Criticizing your boss is likely to get an even worse reaction.

Whoever this person is, they have no business overseeing anyone anywhere, let alone advising a president.

Back to the story:

This insider also told Politico that Trump “gets bored and likes to watch TV,” so it’s important for his aides to check his tendency to respond impulsively when angered, as well as control what information reaches him and is taken seriously. 

I could have told you this just by how he acted on the campaign trail. Where was this "insider" for the past year?

A more accurate headline for this Salon piece would be: "Trump is human and thin-skinned: Things we missed during the campaign".

What Trump has done: Today's news for January 24th

So what has President Donald Trump done?

CNN:

What the Trump administration has done so far

Here's a list of the Trump administration's actions in its first 72 hours:
1. Taken over running of the entire federal government.

Cue the James Earl Jones voice, "This...is CNN." Thank you Captain Obvious.

2. Issued an executive order aimed at rolling back former President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Good start. Now let's put some meat on those bones?

3. Halted a reduction to the annual mortgage insurance premiums borrowers pay when taking out government-backed home loans. 

Another good start. How about getting the federal government out of the mortgage business entirely?

4. Ordered agencies to freeze new regulations, giving the new administration time to review them.

Finally! A president who recognizes that government regulations can have a downside.

5. Received a key legal OK from the Justice Department for Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to take on a role in the White House.

We care about this why? Maybe CNN should report that Trump got copies of the White House's front door keys made? Or maybe what he had for dinner Saturday night?

6. Met with the CIA, where he addressed employees. Trump also took over the nuclear codes.

These are two very different things. Getting the nuclear codes is "business as usual" in the transfer of presidential power.

Meeting with the CIA is mildly interesting, especially given the anxiety between Trump and the intelligence community.

7. Trump's nominee for CIA director, Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, contradicted his earlier testimony and said he was open to revisiting limits on interrogation techniques including waterboarding if his intelligence officers think it is needed.

Being "open to revisiting limits on interrogation techniques" is not the same as actually doing something. Scratch  this one from the list.

8. Raised the specter of another conflict in Iraq, with Trump expressing regret for not taking over the country's oil and telling the CIA, "We should have kept the oil. Maybe we'll have another chance."

If America is going to be carrying on with the "Modern Crusades", we need to be a bit more ruthless about how we go about it. Trump correctly stated that if we kept the oil, ISIS would not have been able to sell it for their own profit.

(Note that I do not support the Modern Crusades. But if we are going to fight a war, at least do it intelligently.)

9. Spoke to the Mexican president and said the two will meet at the end of January.
10. Spoke to the Canadian prime minister about the two nations' economic relationship.
11. Announced he has meetings with leaders in Mexico and Canada to begin re-negotiating NAFTA.
12. Announced his first foreign leader meeting will be Friday with the United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May.

Good stuff, and appropriate.

13. Signaled a shift in the Justice Department's civil rights efforts when it requested a delay in the lawsuit over a Texas law requiring voters to present certain types of government-issued IDs. 

Being required to present an ID to vote is not racist or evil.

The real unspoken issue with this is the fees which the state governments charge for a basic ID card and/or ID information, such as birth certificates. If a person doesn't have a drivers license, and cannot afford the fees to get a birth certificate of basic ID card, they end up in a situation where these fees become de facto poll taxes. This is the true problem.

Back to CNN...

14. Prepared to issue more executive orders this week.   

Really? Trump "prepared to issue more executive orders"? And what was his preparation? Did he practice signing his name? Flex his wrist a few times to work out the carpal tunnel kinks?

15. Told the National Park Service not to tweet after it retweeted side-by-side images showing the crowd at former President Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration and Trump's inauguration.

Jawohl mein kommandant!

16. Began discussions about moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

TRUMP: Let's move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
STAFF: Ok.
TRUMP: Next subject...

17. Confronted his first national disaster as President, deadly tornadoes in Georgia. 

TRUMP (watching tv): Look at that devastation. Just horrible...

18. Issued executive orders to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal negotiations, as well as executive order on abortion and lobbyists who want to work in the White House.

If they buried the lede any deeper, it would be in China...

CNN:

Trump signs order withdrawing from TPP, reinstate 'Mexico City policy' on abortion

President Donald Trump on Monday will start to unravel the behemoth trade deal he inherited from his predecessor, as he signed an executive action to withdraw from the negotiating process of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

That executive action sends signals to Democrats and leaders in foreign capitals around the world that Trump's rhetoric on trade during the campaign is turning into action. Trump vowed during the campaign to withdraw the US from the Pacific trade deal, commonly known as TPP, which he argued was harmful to American workers and manufacturing.

This is a tough one. While free trade is a good thing, how much negotiation do you need to accomplish it? Here is how it should work:

ONE SIDE: Let's have free trade between us? No tariffs, and no subsidizing exporting industries to cut costs. Just completely fair trade.
OTHER SIDE: Ok.

The fact negotiations drag on for years is all you need to know that somebody is getting screwed. It may be us, or it may be them. My money is the average people on both sides are the ones getting screwed, while the politicians walk away with some kind of profit.

Continuing the story...

The other executive actions signed Monday included reinstating the Mexico City abortion rules and instituting a hiring freeze for federal agencies.

Now if he can turn that hiring freeze into a federal staff reduction, we will be making progress.

As for the Mexico City abortion rule:

The News & Observer:

What is the Mexico City abortion rule?

Here are a few facts about the Mexico City Policy:

• It requires foreign non-governmental organizations to not provide or promote abortion services if they receive funds from the U.S. government. Specifically, the funds would come from the United States Agency for International Development, and abortion cannot be presented as a “method of family planning.” Promoting abortion services includes work such as counseling for women that includes language on abortions.
• The policy was named for Mexico City because it was announced at the United Nations International Conference on Population in that location.
• It was signed into law by former President Ronald Reagan and went into effect in 1985.
• The policy stayed in effect until 1993, when it was rescinded by former President Bill Clinton. Since then, it has been reinstated by every Republican president and rescinded by every Democratic president within their first few days in office. Obama rescinded it exactly eight years ago, on Jan. 23, 2009.
• Obama’s statement when he repealed the policy read, in part, “It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.”
• The presidents previous to Obama who took actions on the policy signed them on Jan. 22 of their respective years, which is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Some noted in 2009 that Obama likely waited a day on purpose due to the anniversary, though Obama never confirmed or denied that.
• The order does provide exceptions in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening conditions.
• Critics of the policy refer to it as the “Global Gag Rule,” and the U.S. has been unsuccessfully sued over the policy by those who say it limits freedom of speech.
• The policy creates legal problems for organizations in certain countries, such as South Africa, where the groups are legally required to inform a woman seeking an abortion of her rights and refer her to a facility that would perform an abortion.

Why would anyone want to spend money to promote abortion at all? It is already bad enough that the government denies the right to life of fetuses, but now we are going to take money from taxpayers who are against this procedure and force them to indirectly promote it around the world? This is insane...and typical of the Democrats.

Kudos to President Trump for ending this insanity.

In other Republican news...

The Intercept:

REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS IN FIVE STATES PROPOSE BILLS TO CRIMINALIZE PEACEFUL PROTEST

ON SATURDAY, THE Women’s March on Washington will kick off what opponents of the incoming administration hope will be a new era of demonstrations against the Republican agenda. But in some states, nonviolent demonstrating may soon carry increased legal risks — including punishing fines and significant prison terms — for people who participate in protests involving civil disobedience. Over the past few weeks, Republican legislators across the country have quietly introduced a number of proposals to criminalize and discourage peaceful protest.

Notice how this article starts out linking this action with the Women's March? Very sly, but that isn't the whole story:

The proposals, which strengthen or supplement existing laws addressing the blocking or obstructing of traffic, come in response to a string of high-profile highway closures and other actions led by Black Lives Matter activists and opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Republicans reasonably expect an invigorated protest movement during the Trump years. 

These laws aren't saying you can't protest. Only that you cannot stop the rest of the world just so you can have your "look at me" moment. There is no inherent connection between police shootings and highways, or women's rights and highways. To demand that protesters should be allowed to block highways is not only stupid, but inconsiderate of the rights of others.

Tantrums from the Left

From Fox's Greg Gutfield: 

[Liberals are] operating in a bygone era, so when confronted by the present, all they do is fret about the things they don't understand. And so they are stuck, repeating the same grade (likely sophomore year) over and over again. 

They don't like a president who tweets, or right-wing radicals who get book deals, or lesbians who voted for Trump. They don't understand why identity politics isn't resonating anymore after demanding we all bow before the altar of political correctness for decades. They don't get it: No one cares who you're sleeping with anymore, or what percentage of you is Cameroonian. No one cares if you require one of 50 different pronouns, or that you get easily triggered by words and images from action films. That's the past. 

No one cares about who you are anymore. We only care about what you do.   

(A piece of advice to the young social justice warrior: You may think people care about who you are. They don't. If you're trafficking in identity politics, then you're likely surrounded by people just like you. Which means everyone is in it for the same reason: not to listen, but to be heard. So they aren't listening to you either. Get a life outside your grievances.)

This is why the protests over the weekend were ineffective: They were cries for attention more than actual calls for change.

What do women need they don't already have?

They have equal rights. Even if the president is a misogynist, which he is, what will he do against women's rights? There is nothing he can do, since nobody would support him if he tried. There is nothing to prevent, and no actions have been taken to merit a protest, other than Trump's exercise of his free speech rights. (For which we should be thankful, since they revealed him to be a sexist. Do you really want to shut him up?)

If anything, Trump suggested requiring 6 weeks of paid maternity leave from employers. While I don't personally endorse that idea, how is that "against women"?

No, these protests were all about Leftists throwing a tantrum because they didn't like what the rest of the people decided in the election. The best thing to do when a child throws a tantrum is to ignore them. Otherwise, they will keep doing it every time you tell them "no".

The first fruits of Trump: Today's news for January 23rd

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."--Matthew 7:18-20

For all the air expended on President Donald Trump this weekend, here is what he has done to merit it:

CNN Money:

Trump and Obamacare: Where we go from here

President Trump's executive order on Obamacare Friday reaffirmed his commitment to dismantle the health reform law. But it could have little tangible impact on the law... at least initially.

The order directed the Health and Human Services secretary and the heads of other agencies to minimize the financial burden of Obamacare on Americans, states, insurers, health care providers and others to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Therein lies one of the main hurdles to quickly taking down the Affordable Care Act. Much of Obamacare is controlled by law or by a hefty slew of regulations that an executive order can't undo with the stroke of a pen.

So this non-action led to...?

CNN:

Protesters across globe rally for women's rights

More than one million people marched through Washington, D.C., and other American cities Saturday to show support for women's rights and express their discontent over the election of President Donald Trump.

The Women's March drew members of Congress, world-famous actresses and countless citizens...

The protesters came out for a range of reasons, including immigration, health care and a general antipathy to Trump. But most said they wanted to show support for women and feared that there will be attacks on women's rights during Trump's presidency.

The connection seems to be missing.

But Trump picked up on it:

Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2017

So what exactly are these women protesting? There is only one thing to protest at this point in time, especially considering these protests were planned before Trump entered office: The election resulted in a sexist becoming president. In other words, they didn't like the election results.

News flash for the protesters: The American people, by voting or not voting, selected Donald Trump to be president. Protesting that is comparable to protesting the sun rising in the morning. That is how our system works. Deal with it, or move to another country.

Aziz Ansari said it best during his Saturday Night Live monologue:

We can’t demonize everyone that voted for Trump. Some people are like, everyone that voted for Trump is a dumb racist misogynist homophobe. Hold on. We’re talking about 63 million people. You know? Don’t judge them by their words. I’m sure there’s some people that had different political priorities. I’m sure there’s some people that voted for him with reservations.

I’m sure there’s a lot of people voted for Trump the same way a lot of people listen to the music of Chris Brown, where it’s like, “Hey, man! I’m just here for the tunes. I’m just here for the tunes! I don’t know about that other stuff. I just like the dancing and the music. I don’t condone the extracurriculars.”

If you think about it, Donald Trump is basically the Chris Brown of politics.  

On another note, here is a problem that has been left to Trump from previous administrations:

Business Insider:

NASA is in a strange and expensive pickle with the Russians

NASA, in dealing with Russia's monopoly on human spaceflight, is hoping Boeing can help — that is, by buying tickets the company owns for rides aboard Russian rockets.

When NASA retired its last space shuttle in July 2011, it expected commercial carriers like SpaceX and Boeing to launch its astronauts into space by 2015.

But both companies hit snags with the development of their rockets and spaceships, causing the first planned launches to slip to 2018, according to a September 2016 audit by NASA's Office of Inspector General (OIG).

This left NASA with one option for getting astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) for the next 3 years: a Russian spacecraft called the Soyuz.

NASA is no stranger to buying Soyuz seats — it has done so for more than a decade — but Russia has taken full advantage of its temporary monopoly to charge ever-more-exorbitant sums for them. And now the space agency may need more than it originally expected.

This is called "monopoly pricing". This is also what happens when our "enlightened" leaders show no foresight in their policies.

This is also the cost of big government. With a federal budget running trillions of dollars, who cares about a few extra million going to Russia? How many other government programs show such reckless spending because they are only a few million dollars here and there? Unfortunately, in government, metaphorical trees that produce no fruit are never "hewn down, and cast into the fire". 

Weekend finale: 3 Doors Down

While we celebrate a new president today, we also end another week.

This brings us to our weekly musical finale. In keeping with the theme of today's inauguration, it was actually nice to see Donald Trump enjoying the performance of 3 Doors Down last night. Here's a sample:

Although I am not really a fan of 3 Doors Down, as most of their music tends to be too darkly serious, they do have one song I enjoy:



Kryptonite is musically fun and bouncy, even if the lyrics are typical of 3 Doors Down's dark side. As songwriter Brad Arnold describes the lyrics:

It's not just asking, "If I fall down, will you be there for me?" Because it's easy to be there for someone when they're down. But it's not always easy to be there for somebody when they're doing good. And that's the question it's asking. It's like, "If I go crazy, will you still call me Superman?" It's asking, "If I'm down, will you still be there for me?" But at the same time, "If I'm alive and well, will you be there holding my hand?" That's kind of asking, "If I'm doing good, will you be there for me? Will you not be jealous of me?" 

It makes for an intriguingly appropriate question for a new president to ask.

That is all for me this week. Enjoy the inauguration, and I will return Monday to review our new president's first weekend in office.

The meaning behind Trump's presidency

There’s something genuinely positive here that illustrates America’s greatness with or without Trump. And it’s worth celebrating. 

It’s simply that American democracy performed, although awkwardly, as the founders basically envisioned: Common folk could stand up against the establishment elite and boot them out the door. Of course, the founders reserved that right basically only for white men — no women, slaves or Native Americans — so we’ve come a long way. 

Rebelling against the ruling class — peasants with pitchforks overrunning the castle — is part of the American DNA. 

--George Skelton, from "Trump's inauguration is a reminder that rebelling against the ruling class is in America's DNA"

Trump's presidency is a far greater thing than the man himself. It is the American people reminding our elitist establishment that they have failed.

In Obama's election of 2008, America threw off the shackles of white racism by electing our first black president. While white racism still exists today, it is far over-reported to any actual existence of it. In truth, black racism is more of a problem today than 8 years ago, and more so than white racism. Contrary to what many Leftists want to claim about Trump, he isn't the white supremacist they imagine. The racial gains (in terms of respect) have not been lost, nor will they be.

But Obama's election was also a "last chance" for the elites to fix their economic mess from the Bush years. Economically, Obama was never about "change". When he nominated Janet Yellen as chairman of the Federal Reserve, he was doubling down on Ben Bernanke's policies, which he also supported when he extended Bernanke's chairmanship. Also, with the U.S. debt increased by $9.3 trillion, Obama showed less fiscal conservatism than George W. Bush (and he was a free spender!).

Also, the labor force participation rate was 65.7% when Obama took office. That is down to 62.7%.

In summary, 8 years of Obama has given us nearly twice as much debt with no economic progress to show for it. The political elites have failed, and the American people have held them accountable, as they had tried to do with Obama in 2008.

This time, the American people went with a political outsider in Donald Trump. While many of us question the wisdom of the Trump choice, it is still an improvement over the status quo of more socialism. Whether Trump's presidency is just driving off a different cliff, or it leads to an American renaissance, remains to be seen. But it is the road "WE THE PEOPLE" have chosen.

Good luck and God bless, Mr. Trump. 

The Trump era begins: Today's news for January 20th

CNN:

Washington prepares for Donald Trump's big moment

Donald Trump has arrived in Washington -- and he's going to be here for at least four years.

The reality of the moment, that the real estate mogul and reality show star will recite the oath of office Friday, is finally taking hold.

At noon Friday, the most divisive campaign in recent history -- and a similarly contentious transition period, marked by Trump's attacks on Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon, and dozens of House Democrats saying they'll boycott Trump's swearing-in over it -- reaches its end.

Because the only thing that matters today is an obsolete civil rights "icon" who hasn't been relevant for decades, as well as a bunch of sore losers who won't be at the Inauguration.

Apparently, there were other immature jerks among the Democrats/"progressive socialists":

Protesters and Washington police scuffled Thursday night outside a meeting of pro-Trump conservatives, the first of several demonstrations aimed at disrupting the new administration's inaugural weekend.

...Protesters gathered on 14th Street outside the National Press Club to demonstrate against "DeploraBall," an event organized by some of Trump's most fervent supporters. The name riffs off the campaign description of some Trump backers by his defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton, as a "basket of deplorables."

As attendees -- some of whom were clad in suits and red hats, others dressed in gowns -- entered the event, demonstrators chanted "Shame" and "Nazis go home" behind a phalanx of police. Some held signs that read "No Alt Reich" and "No Nazi USA."

...Some protesters could be seen setting small fires in the streets, though it was unclear what was set ablaze. A motorcycle was damaged on the street, and police could be seen pepper-spraying some protesters.

Note to Democrats: This does nothing to endear your cause to the rest of America. However, this is typical of the immaturity of your political views, which come from the worldview of a 5-year old ("Gimme stuff!").

This behavior from the Democrats only solidifies their appearance as a cancer on the American body politic. While Trump is a flawed candidate, nobody yet knows what his presidency will entail. He could be awesome or awful, with the probability being somewhere in-between. To be protesting him before he takes office is despicable and un-American. Even worse, it flips a collective bird towards the majority of Americans outside of California who voted for him. Protesting a new president before he takes office sends the message that your views are more important than the rest of America.

Grow up.

In other news about the incoming administration...

Daily Caller:

Mnuchin Wants To INCREASE The Size Of The IRS

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of the treasury, Steve Mnuchin, said at his Senate confirmation hearing Thursday he would like to increase the size of the IRS.

Mnuchin said that while some have questioned, including himself, the number of employees at the IRS, he would consider increasing the size of the labor force.

“The IRS headcount has gone down quite dramatically, almost 30 percent over the last number of years. I don’t think there is any another government agency that has gone down 30 percent. Especially for an agency that collects revenues, this is something that I’m concerned about,” Mnuchin said.

Mnuchin gets the bear:

Finally, regarding the outgoing administration...

CBS News:

Assange walks back extradition pledge after Manning clemency

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange retreated from his pledge to accept extradition to the U.S. if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency, arguing Wednesday via his lawyers that what he was really asking for was an immediate pardon for the ex-Army analyst.

It was only last week that Assange raised eyebrows across the internet when he appeared to offer himself up as a kind of swap for Manning, the former private convicted of leaking the hundreds of thousands of documents that made WikiLeaks a household name.

“If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case,” WikiLeaks said, apparently referring to the U.S. Department of Justice’s continuing investigation into the radical transparency website. 

There are two sides to this story. First, because Obama explicitly said that Assange's offer was not part of the consideration in granting clemency, that kind of takes Assange of the hook for it. In the political calculus, if it didn't matter to Obama, why should it matter to the rest of us?

On the other hand, it was still a pretty weaselly thing for Assange to do.

Having said that, it must be said that Assange is one of the last bastions of true journalism today. Think what you will of the messenger, but he is one of the few giving us the unbiased facts. The mainstream media loves to attack him and his sources, and yet they cannot attack the truth of what he reveals. Therein lies true journalistic integrity.