Georgia’s 6th District Special Election: The Trump Referendum

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsOminous development for Democrats.

There’s much more than meets the eye here.  True, Georgia’s 6th Congressional District is and has been a strongly Republican district, but it was a very weak Trump district. It was and is full of very reluctant Trump voters, which made it a juicy target for Democratic strategists. Trump won the national election last year in spite of himself.  Simply stated, Donald Trump captured a sizeable share of voters who really didn’t like him.  It’s true.   Analysis of post-election survey data reveals that about 7 percent of all voters are so-called reluctant Trump voters.  They didn’t like Trump, and they didn’t like Hillary Clinton very much either.  Flip about half of the so-called reluctant Trump voters, the reasoning goes, and you can flip the entire election map.  We would agree IF the Democrats handled this critical reality with a modicum of sophistication and strategic judgment. But, instead, as we’ve opined over and over again in our recent essays, the Never-Ever-Trump-Resistance movement, and the left-leaning media that provides non-stop wind for its sails has so overplayed their cards that a backlash that redounds to Trump’s benefit was likely to emerge.  And now it has.

Georgia’s 6th congressional district is one of the most highly educated districts in the country. These highly educated districts are areas with which Trump generally has trouble. Reluctant Trump voters, as might be expected, have had more education than other Trump voters; it’s one of their defining characteristics as a group. In the 2016 election, 37 percent of reluctant Trump voters have at least one college degree compared with 25 percent of all other Trump voters. That’s exactly consistent with the general movement away from the Republican Party by well-educated voters in 2016. The latest American Community Survey finds that 58 percent of Georgia’s 6th District residents age 25 and older have at least one college degree, which is higher than all but five other congressional districts in the entire nation. This would not generally be considered fertile Trump territory.  And in fact, it isn’t now and it wasn’t last November.

Think of it. John McCain took Georgia’s 6th with 62 percent of the vote beating Barack Obama by 18 percentage points, and Mitt Romney topped that with 68 percent of the vote, beating Obama by over 23 percentage points.  Donald Trump squandered that traditional Republican lead and squeaked by with 48 percent of the vote,  beating Clinton by barely one percentage point. That’s why the Democrats, quite correctly, focused on this congressional race like a laser. They raised seven times more money for the Democrat Jon Ossoff than the Republicans raised for their candidate, Karen Handel. Democrats poured approximately $30 million into Ossoff’s coffers (mostly from California), compared to barely $4 million that Handel raised.  Ossoff wasn’t a long shot, dark horse. It was his to lose — and he did.

So what or who beat Ossoff? Karen Handel is a seasoned state politician, but not that charismatic and not that well funded.  In fact, she was swamped by the Ossoff campaign’s fundraising. The ridiculous $30 million Ossoff raised made his campaign the highest and best funded congressional campaign in American history. Yet Handel won comfortably with nearly a 4-point margin of victory.

As our readers know, we’re not entirely surprised.  We have in these essays warned time and time again that near 24-hour Trump bashing by much of cable news and leading print news was almost certain to backfire just as it did in 1972. That’s  when Richard Nixon, forty-five years ago, beleaguered by Viet Nam, the King Assassination, widespread urban riots, anti-Nixon protests throughout the country, Kent State, and Watergate called upon the “Great Silent Majority” in whose sense of fair play he professed confidence and placed his trust. His confidence and trust were well founded.  He went on to win in the greatest presidential landslide in American history.

The greatest Special Prosecutor Investigation since Watergate and  Whitewater is now underway. The Watergate and Whitewater investigations both involved known crimes, and a Special Prosecutor was appointed to determine whether Nixon, in the case of Watergate, and Clinton(s) in the case of Whitewater were implicated in a crime that had previously taken place. In Watergate, there had been a burglary, and in Whitewater there had been 18 felony convictions attributed to Whitewater partner Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan owned by James McDougal (Clinton’s partner in Whitewater).  In the current investigation, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, seems to be looking for a crime (any crime will do), and then whether Trump or his campaign participated in the yet undiscovered crime. There is a difference, which many find troubling. Count us among them.

We believe we have just witnessed the first indication of a dramatic backlash that is building against the almost hysterical over-the-top Stop Trump at-any-cost movement about which we’ve been warning for weeks. In this case “at any cost” was a $30 million cash assault on a Georgia congressional district. Thirty million dollars gone with the wind like the lost cause at Tara one hundred and fifty years ago.

 

 

 

Investigation of Trump/Russia Collusion: Even Torquemada would blush.

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsAt least Tomas de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, had a shred of evidence when he unleashed his horrific crusade to purge Spain of alleged secret Jews. They were the Spaniards whose ancestors were Conversos, neighbors whose forefathers, generations or even centuries earlier, had converted to Catholicism, often at the point of a sword. Everyone who was a descendant of a Converso, (many of whom didn’t even know they were of Jewish ancestry) was suspect. That they were of Converso ancestry was all the evidence the fanatical Castilian Dominican friar needed to send the suspected infidels to the rack. Pretty paltry evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Of course, Torquemada, himself a descendant of Converso’s, conveniently exempted himself from the Inquisition

Today’s inquisitors are simply partisan Never Trumpster members of any of the various congressional or agency committees who have been feeding at the Never-Trump trough. Let’s count them. There’s the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, The Senate Judiciary Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. And, of course, we have the FBI, the CIA and the NSA, all of which have, and are, conducting their own investigations. The first of these investigations commenced last July, nearly a year ago.

There seems to be plenty of evidence that the Russians practiced high mischief during the 2016 presidential campaign, but that’s really nothing new. We’ve engaged in some pretty impressive mischief ourselves. Our snoops were bugging German Chancellor Merkel’s phone for ten years, and in July of last year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that an NGO with connections to President Obama’s 2008 campaign used U.S. taxpayer dollars in an attempt to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015. But we digress.

Here’s what we know so far: none of these Trump/Russia investigations have found a shred of evidence (not a shred) linking the Trump campaign, or Trump himself, to any election collusion with Russia. Everyone agrees that there’s been plenty of smoke, but they’ve lost sight of the fact that most of the smoke has been created by leaks from anonymous sources within those committees and agencies who are searching for collusion. And according to none other than former FBI Director James Comey, media stories suggesting that the multitude of investigations have found collusion simply have been dead wrong.

This is serious stuff. The Russians could have never dreamed in a million years that their cyber-age mischief (hacking and leaking the unseemly goings on in the Clinton campaign) could have so tied up and paralyzed our government. Nor could they have imagined the distemper that would be unleashed in the land. Last month in Portland two men were killed and another injured when they tried to stop a deranged man from harassing two women, one black and the other wearing a hijab.  As we went to press today, a Sanders supporter began shooting up a congressional Republican baseball team practicing for an annual Republican-Democrat charity baseball game.  We are making a spectacle of ourselves searching for some scintilla of evidence that Trump or his campaign was involved in the Russian hijinks. The Clinton campaign masterfully pivoted attention from its own foibles to the fact that we learned of them from Russian hackers.  The Russian hacking and the predictable innuendo that the Trump campaign must have been involved became the issue.

Our top intelligence agencies have been investigating the possible link between the Trump campaign and the Russians ever since Moscow’s election mischief became apparent nearly a year ago.  One of the most powerful men in our nation’s intelligence community has been James Clapper, former US Director of Intelligence, the cabinet level position that coordinates all of our intelligence efforts and advises the President accordingly. No fan of President Trump, Clapper nonetheless confirmed that as of the time he left government none of our intelligence agencies could find any evidence that the Trump campaign or Trump himself had colluded with the Russians.

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, himself a presumed Clinton supporter, also concluded that the CIA had found no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with the Russians. Smoke but no fire, “not even a spark,” he said. The same is true of virtually every Democratic member of a congressional investigating committee when asked if their committee had found any evidence of collusion. No evidence.  Plenty of smoke, but no evidence. And where has the smoke originated?  From unnamed sources within the various committees. The one named source who has, perhaps, the greatest gripe regarding President Trump, Former FBI Director James Comey, has also acknowledged, under oath, that the bureau had found no evidence of collusion, and that press reports to the contrary were simply wrong.

The Russians probably can’t believe what we are doing to ourselves. We had an election in which both candidates wound up with an opponent they could only have prayed for. Each had millions of followers who could not countenance a win by the other side. Millions on each side delight in whatever misery they can inflict on the other side. Little to nothing gets done and the nation suffers as politicians get in their licks.

As we have written in recent essays, the danger of “over-the-top” implacable, bitter and revengeful harassment of the Trump Administration could well produce a backlash that will redound to the benefit of the Republicans and to President Trump.

Now, irrational schadenfreude reigns supreme.  We are reminded of Shakespeare’s “The Rape of Lucrece”:

 “What win I, if I gain the thing I seek?
A dream, a breath, a froth of fleeting joy.
Who buys a minute’s mirth to wail a week?
Or sells eternity to get a toy?
For one sweet grape who will the vine destroy?

Now available on Amazon, Kindle, Apple Itunes, Barnes and Noble and Audible.

coverScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PM49708710_high-resolution-front-cover-6286173-2-2-2-2

Political Arson: Creating Smoke

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsYes, unequivocally, we strongly believe that any American, especially politicians, guilty of colluding with the Russians to affect our electoral process should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Now, having said that, let’s differentiate between those who seek truth and only truth, and those who practice to insinuate and sow fear and doubt. We are not fans of this Administration, and we have not been sparing of our criticism, but we hope the allegations of collusion and other inferences of high crimes and misdemeanors are wrong and that President Trump and his team wind up doing good rather than ill. Who would wish otherwise?  Well, quite a few people, it seems.

It is pretty evident to us that no law enforcement or intelligence agency, including the FBI, has found any evidence suggesting that President Trump was, or should be, investigated for colluding with the Russians. And it certainly hasn’t been for lack of trying. The never-Trump press and the never-Trump Resistance, however, are full-throated and hyper-caffeinated in their determination to create enough smoke to keep the Administration off balance and devoid of accomplishment until the 2018 mid-term elections. That, in great measure, is what the incessant all-the-way-everyday accusatory drumbeat in so much of the press and among so many politicians on Capitol Hill is all about.

It seems that much of the press reporting, on both the right and the left, is all about pressing a particular narrative—the actual news and the truth be damned.  Here’s our assessment of the much awaited Comey hearing—the hearing the press dubbed the Super Bowl of news: (1) We learned that President Trump can be the Oval-Office oaf we thought he was. He “wished” Comey could see his way to letting go of the Flynn investigation, which is no crime. In fact, had he ordered Comey to end the investigation that would not have been a crime either unless it could be proved that he wanted to end the investigation to cover up a crime (which is, of course, what the Never-Trump crowd is inferring). (2) We also learned that, according to Comey, President Trump asked for his loyalty. That isn’t a crime either unless loyalty to Trump required disloyalty to America.

Last month John Dickerson, CBS News anchor, and host of Face the Nation, inquired of Robert Gates, who served both Democratic and Republican administrations with distinction, “In the reporting about the F.B.I. director, there was a report that the president asked him for his loyalty. Help people understand the line between duty, loyalty, and personal conscience.” Gates replied, “I think in the context of senior government positions, I think an anecdote of what I told President-Elect Obama when we had our first meeting. And I said, ‘You don’t know me. Can you trust me? Why do you think you can trust me?’ and so on. But at the end, I said, ‘You can count on me to be loyal to you. I will not leak. I will keep my disagreements with you private. And if I cannot be loyal, I’ll leave.”

We also learned from Comey, that the news coverage of the investigations into Trump Administration collusion was often, well, lousy. When asked, under oath, about a sensational New York Times story that stated that “phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials,” former FBI Director James Comey testified under oath, “In the main, it was not true.”

So, we’ve coined a new inside-the-beltway term—Political Arson, creating smoke in the absence of fire.

Let’s review: Senator Joe Manchin (D- W. Va.) On “Face The Nation” JOHN DICKERSON: “Have you seen anything that suggests any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.” SEN. MANCHIN: “Well, there is an awful lot of smoke there, let’s put it that way, people who may have said they were involved, to what extent they were involved, to what extent the president may have known about these people there is nothing there from that standpoint that we see directly linking our president to any of that.”

Dianne Feinstein, (D-Cal) Senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: BLITZER: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me — and I am quoting you now — you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?” SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, no — no, it hasn’t. …” BLITZER: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the — you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?” SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) with Fox’s Chris Wallace March 5th 2017:  CHRIS WALLACE: “Why would you suggest in that clip that I just played for Senator Cotton that there are FBI transcripts that show, and I want to get your words, “provide very critical insights” in the collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians?” SENATOR COONS: “What I was trying to make clear, Chris, and I appreciate a chance to restate this, is that I don’t have, and I don’t know of, any conclusive proof one way or the other about whether there was collusion between senior levels of the Trump campaign and Russian officials.”

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, on NBC News: Michael Morell, who endorsed Hillary Clinton, cast doubt on allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Morell, who was in line to become CIA director if Clinton won, said he had seen no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with Russians. He also raised questions about the dossier written by a former British intelligence officer, which alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Morell stated, “There is no serious evidence showing Trump/Russia connections.On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all,’ Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence website. ‘There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”

Former Director Of National Intelligence James Clapper Said, “There Was No Evidence Whatsoever… Of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And The Russians. “Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told ABC News he did not see anything to suggest that Russia successfully infiltrated Donald Trump’s presidential campaign or recruited any of Trump’s advisers – at least as of the time Clapper left office. “There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Clapper, a retired three-star general and career intelligence officer, told ABC News’ Brian Ross in an interview for World News Tonight.

On March 5, When Asked If There Were “Definitively” Improper Contacts Between The Trump Campaign And Russia, Clapper Responded “Not To My Knowledge… At The Time, We Had No Evidence Of Collusion.” MSNBC’S CHUCK TODD: “That’s an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Russia campaign or intelligence officials.” JAMES CLAPPER: “…there no evidence of that in our report. “TODD: “I understand that, but does it exist?” CLAPPER: “Not to my knowledge.” TODD: “If it existed it would have been in the report?” CLAPPER: “This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. At the time, we had no evidence of collusion.” (MSNBC’s “Meet The Press.” When Asked To Clarify, Clapper Said “That’s Correct” When Asked If There Is No Proof Of Collusion. TODD: “What’s not proven is the idea of collusion?” CLAPPER: “That’s correct.”

We learn in science that where there’s smoke there’s generally fire. In politics, however, it ain’t necessarily so. Not when it’s political arson.

Now available at Amazon, Kindle, Apple Itunes, Barnes and Noble, and Audible.

coverScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PM49708710_high-resolution-front-cover-6286173-2-2-2-2

Trump on Paris Accord: Hot Air from The Rose Garden.

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsThere was only one reason for President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. Scuttling US participation in the Accord played well to his base. He said he would, so he did. To be sure, the Paris Climate Accord was an imperfect agreement, but it provided an impressive framework for an international consensus and commitment to addressing a very real problem facing the planet that every human being and other known lifeform calls home.  But let’s face it, the Accord imposed no legally binding commitments on the United States nor on any other nation.  It was a framework for future cooperation and, yes, it was flawed and, in many respects, more demanding of the United States and other developed nations than to most every other country.  That modifications would have to be made in the agreement as time went on was a certainty. So what!

We’re not climate scientists, but we have poured over a lot of data.  We’ve read endless pros and cons on whether or not the planet is warming, and whether man’s activity is contributing to global warming beyond the routine fluctuations that have always taken place.  It seems, to us, undisputable that man-caused greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise and will continue to adversely affect climate if we don’t begin to curtail activities that contribute (and trap) greenhouse gases in the very atmosphere on which we all depend. While Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Fluorinated gases and Carbon Dioxide are all referred to as greenhouse gases, the real culprit is Carbon Dioxide.  It represents over 80 percent of Greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere and hang around for a long time. These gases absorb energy, and because they do not readily escape into space they act as an insulating blanket causing temperatures to slowly rise. Reducing the level of these insulating gases or, more graphically, this heat-trapping barrier, is not, in our opinion a highly debatable objective.  It is a matter of common sense.

A united worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions offered some hope that responsible nations would take responsible action. The Paris accord was, to be sure, not a panacea, but it was a beginning. It recognized that we are all in this together and that together we might be able to control and begin to reverse what appears to be a frightening global reality.

Most important, the Accord assured the United States a leadership role in determining how the world would deal with a very real problem that threatens us all.  Instead, President Trump threw his (and our) lot in with Syria and Nicaragua, in what can now be described as a pathetic troika of truculent naysayers. When the United States, Syria, and Nicaragua all stand together in opposition to the rest of the world, the odds are pretty good that the smart money should be on the rest of the world.

President Trump’s Rose Garden homily was as unimpressive and as breathtakingly sad as we found his inaugural address to be. It was pure Trump, full of misleading hyperbole and bad judgment all wrapped in the flag and his tiresome and vacuous America-first rhetoric. Turning our back on a worldwide effort to rein in global warming is not putting America first. It is putting America with Syria and Nicaragua and with Europe’s losers such as Britain’s Nigel Farage and France’s Marine Le Pen.

The sad reality is that America already has been making real progress toward reaching the greenhouse gas reductions envisioned by the Accord. We are today, already nearly half way to meeting the 2025 goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% from our 2005 levels. President Trump’s facetious nod to the nation’s coal miners that pulling out of the Accord will bring back coal, ignores the reality that coal is suffering because of the abundance of cheaper natural gas, which also happens to be much cleaner and safer.

Setting a new standard for oratorical redundancy, President Trump complained that the Accord would cost the United States “billions and billions and billions” (of dollars), which we assume is meant to suggest a sum somewhat greater than simply billions of dollars. And it is true; America’s contribution would be greater.  Then again, we alone have emitted a third of all the carbon dioxide that is straining our atmosphere. Furthermore, focusing on the gross costs is a bit misleading. The Paris Climate accord envisioned America’s contribution at about $9.30 per capita. That’s not exactly pocket change, but compared to Luxembourg’s pledge of $93.60 per capita and Sweden’s pledge of $60.54 per capita, what we would have been contributing was far from inequitable.

The non-binding Paris Climate Accord was a worthwhile and responsible beginning. As a leading contributor of support (not to mention our sizeable contribution to the problem), we not only had a place at the table but more importantly, at the head of the table. But according to President Trump, it wasn’t a good deal for the United States, because we were obligated to put up more early money. Someone needs to explain to President Trump that this isn’t about his favorite zero-sum real estate negotiating philosophy. This is about remediating a growing worldwide problem that is and has been for a long time, disproportionately of our making.

Thank goodness  President Trump wasn’t in the Oval Office when the Marshall Plan was proposed.  We can just hear him.  “We won, they lost. Let them fund Europe’s reconstruction.”

Available on Amazon, Kindle, Apple Itunes, Barnes and Noble and Audible.

coverScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PM49708710_high-resolution-front-cover-6286173-2-2-2-2

The Kushner Imbroglio: Searching for a There There.

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsIt seems this week’s Resistance agenda has been to publically skewer Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, for seeking a back channel with the Russians during the presidential transition.  This morning there were reports attributed to no one in particular that suggested that Kushner was being asked to step aside.  Who knows, maybe he was asked by President Trump, or, more likely, he hasn’t been asked to resign by anyone other than the concocter of today’s unattributed and, so far, unsubstantiated scheduled rumor. The “Kushner affair” is being presented, in well-orchestrated fashion, as though it were the greatest scandal since turncoat Benedict Arnold made his stealth dash down the Hudson River to the HMS Vulture nearly 240 years ago.

Presidential transition team back channels to the Russians, or for that matter to the Iranians or, actually anyone, are neither new nor illegal, so the so-called Resistance and the journalists who carry their water, have kept up an endless drumbeat of If’s—“if Kushner said this or offered that. The last we heard government intelligence sources were still opining that Kushner was neither the focus nor the target of any investigation…not yet anyway.

So far, the only real news seems to be that someone within the intelligence community has passed along to the press information that our snoops know Kushner sought the establishment of a back channel with the Russians in order to discuss who knows what. We’re sure it delights the never-under-any-circumstances-anti-Trumpsters that their government is listening and telling. Sad, there are so few civil libertarians among them, or that they don’t care because, after all, this is about Trump, or that those who do care have been so effectively silenced.

Perhaps Kushner wanted to offer the Kremlin our nuclear codes, but we rather doubt it. Perhaps, more plausibly, he wanted to explore chances for a significant improvement in relations sort of like Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother and closest advisor, did when he secretly met with a known Russian agent in December 1960 just prior to his brother’s inauguration. Interestingly, Robert Kennedy who was also the senior-most member of President-elect Kennedy’s transition team, met with the Red agent at the Russian’s request.

Then of course we learned from Robert Sick who helped handle the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter Administration that William J. Casey, a key Reagan confidant and future CIA Director, was meeting with representatives of Iran months before the 1980 election to discuss timing the hostage release after Reagan was elected and sworn it.

Then there was the leaked memo Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Kobryin wrote in 1969 to his bosses in the Kremlin in which he explained that Henry Kissinger confided to him that the Nixon administration wanted to conduct a “most confidential exchange of views” because President Nixon said (we love this part) “the Soviet side … knows how to maintain confidentiality; but in our State Department, unfortunately, there are leaks of information to the press.”

Much is being made, according to the leaks,  that Kushner suggested that the back-channel discussions take place through the use of Russian secure communications. Why would that surprise anyone, given how pathetically porous our own governmental and private communications have become?  Nothing other than, presumably, pillow talk seems out of listening range these days, and who can be sure of that?

We don’t know what conversations may have transpired between Jared Kushner and the Russians.  We’ll be surprised to learn that those conversations involved any skullduggery, but we don’t know.  What we do know is that our intelligence community has turned it’s snooping apparatus on American politicians and American political candidates, and, perhaps, for good reason…and perhaps not.

Julian Sanchez of the libertarian CATO Institute summed it up well. “Progressives who’ve recently learned to stop worrying and love the surveillance state should think hard about the precedent such leaks set — and the implicit message they send to political actors — even if any particular instance can be justified as serving the public interest. The leaks may not be, as conservative media would have it, the only real scandal, but nobody should be too enthusiastic about the prospect of living in a country where officials who antagonize spy agencies find their telephone conversations quoted in news headlines.”

We do know as a certainty that our intelligence apparatus is maliciously and illegally leaking to the press, apparently, with complete abandon, for no other conceivable reason other than to bring down certain public figures—especially if they are part of the Trump Administration. There may be reason to bring them down, but this is not the way to do it, and when all is said and done, the pervasive bugging and leaking may be the biggest scandal of all.

Maybe our snoops are bugging and leaking because they believe the Trump Administration is riddled with crooks and spies. And maybe the snoops are in high dudgeon simply because they can’t stand Donald Trump.

Available at Amazon, Kindle, Barnes and Noble, Apple I-Tunes and Nook

coverScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PM49708710_high-resolution-front-cover-6286173-2-2-2-2

Trump Abroad: So Far So Good.

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsWhile we do not know how President Trump’s first soiree out of the country will ultimately be judged, (he still has important stops to make in the Vatican, Brussels and Italy) so far so good. Trump’s trip is going well because Trump is assiduously avoiding being Trump. His public comments have been devoid of Trumpian bombast, hyperbole or off-the-cuff, spontaneous miscues.

His speech to many leaders of Islamic countries and kingdoms in Riyadh was direct, relevant, presidential and focused on things that had to be said, and should have been said years ago. Finally, an American President discussed Islamic terrorism with leaders of Islamic-majority countries, and the sky didn’t fall, and the earth didn’t spin off its axis.

Of course, President Trump came with $110 billion worth of goodies that will goose both the Saudi economy (which badly needs goosing) as well as our own economy as the Saudi’s contract with American defense companies for tens of billions of dollars in military equipment.  Given that the US-Iran nuclear deal provided a largess for Iran to purchase weapons and fund terrorism on the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere, the investment in Saudi defense capability seems acceptable.

There was more going on in Riyadh then met the untrained eye. Think of it.  In barely two days, President Trump, in a summit trifecta, met separately with the Saudi King, leaders of the Gulf States and with an impressive cross-section of the heads-of-state of the Sunni Arab world.  We would not be surprised to see more public thawing of relations between the Gulf states and Israel as a result of this trip. Who knows, perhaps the ancient Arab adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend will actually prove to be true. Even Trump’s flight from Riyadh to Tel Aviv was somewhat historic merely because it was a very rare direct flight.

The highlight of the President’s first day in Israel was his visit to the Western Wall, the last remaining vestige of the Second Temple, which was destroyed by Rome during the conquest of Jewish Jerusalem in 70 AD. Many consider the Western Wall to be the most sacred site in Judaism. It is the retaining wall on top of which rests the Temple Mount, believed to be where the ancient biblical tabernacle and its inner sanctuary once stood, which religious Jews believe housed the holy of holies, where God actually dwelt. By all accounts it was a moving experience for both the President and his Jewish daughter, Ivanka who remarked, “It was deeply meaningful to visit the holiest site of my faith and to leave a note of prayer.”

That President Trump and his daughter visited the Western Wall is no small matter.  No other American President has ever done that. That’s because, according to international  law codified without respect to history, the Western Wall is not considered to be a part of Israel, but rather part of the disputed West Bank.

Israel liberated the Western Wall when it liberated Jerusalem and the old walled city including its former Jewish quarter during the six-day war fifty years ago. The old Jewish quarter, which was called the Jewish quarter because, well, it was where Jews lived, and had lived for time in memorial. The Jews were forced out during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence and the ancient Jewish quarter wound up in Jordanian hands.

Interestingly, no one in the international community protested “the occupation” of the Jewish quarter by Jordan, or, for that matter, Jordan’s entire occupation of the disputed West Bank. Contrary to the armistice terms following the fighting in1948, Jews were given no access to the old Jewish quarter nor to any of the synagogues or other Jewish landmarks. In fact, the Jordanians systematically destroyed or otherwise desecrated most of the Jewish holy sites, to which no one except Jews objected.

The Jordanians were quite proud of their obliteration of Jewish life in the old Jewish quarter. Jordanian Colonel Abddullah el Tell, who commanded local units of the Jordanian Arab Legion proudly described the destruction of the Jewish quarter in his memoirs.  Let us quote:  “… The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion…. I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews…. I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction…. Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it…. As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud – a cloud of death and agony.”  

And so, following the Six-Day War, the old Jewish Quarter, or what was left of it, was back in Jewish hands. That’s how it became “occupied territory,” according to the sages who divine international law.

And that is where President Trump and his son-in-law and daughter respectfully, rightfully and resolutely approached the ancient remnant of the second temple known as the Western Wall, and either symbolically or earnestly communed with a painful past and, presumably, prayed for a better future.

So far, so good, Mr. President.

Available on Amazon, Kindle, Nook, AppleTunes I-books, Barnes and Noble and now Audible:

coverScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PM49708710_high-resolution-front-cover-6286173-2-2-2-2

The Trump Administration: A Sole Proprietorship

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsContrary to popular belief, the Trump Administration is not being run like a big business. This Administration is being run like a small business—sort of like a sole proprietorship.  That is not to say that President Trump hasn’t employed some excellent people. He has. But like many sole proprietorships he seems to be the ever-present decision maker, commenter, defender, and offender and the nation’s first oval office tweeter of tweets.

Many sole proprietorships reflect the quirks, habits, strengths and weaknesses of “the guy or gal” who comes in and opens the shop each morning. In many respects these are the people who make America tick. They are the proverbial backbone of the nation. But the guy or gal who does a fine job of running Ajax TV Service, might not be so good at running NBC, or for that matter the Trump Taj Mahal, The Trump Plaza Hotel, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts or the Trump Entertainment Resorts all of which, except for NBC, have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Now, as Tevia the fiddler might say, “bankruptcy is no sin, but it’s no great honor either.” Donald Trump the candidate bragged that “Hundreds and hundreds of deals, and four times I’ve taken advantage of the (bankruptcy) laws. And, frankly, so has everybody else in my position.”  Well, not so — only everyone else in his position whose enterprises ran out of money with which to meet their financial obligations. Now, we are in no way being critical of those who have availed themselves of the nation’s bankruptcy laws, especially under Chapter 11 which governs restructuring as compared to liquidation. But bankruptcy is far, far, more common, in relative terms, among sole proprietorships and other small businesses as compared to big businesses.

For example, about 20% of small businesses will fail in their first year in business and about 80% will have failed by the end of ten years. Conversely, only 5% of the 500 largest companies have declared bankruptcy over the past twenty years. So candidate Trump’s proud (everybody in my position does it) pronouncement, while not true, is far more accurate about sole proprietorships as compared to big businesses.

We do not make this point to criticize the President’s business acumen. We think he’s pretty astute, even cunning, and he’s certainly been quite successful.  We also think he has some very impressive presidential accomplishments to his credit. Where he can operate as the firmly and legally established chief executive of the United States, which he can do where executive decisions are final, he has done some impressive things…and some not so impressive.  He has certainly gotten China’s attention, and, we suspect, Chairman Kim Jong-un’s as well. That’s something a succession of prior Presidents had failed to do. They were played by Kim Jong-un as well as his father. We supported his decision to send cruise missiles into Syria and to drop the MOAB onto a terrorist tunnel system in Afghanistan. On the other hand, his thrusts with respect to immigration have been hasty and clumsy—perhaps, a bit of showboating and grandstanding.

President Trump seems to view the legislative and judicial branches of our government as anything but co-equal, but he is not the first President to have a contemptuous relationship with the two other branches of government. He is incredibly Nixonian in that regard, and his firing of FBI Director James Comey suggests that he never heard of (or read about) Archibald Cox and the historically clumsy, Nixon-instigated Saturday-night massacre. Anyone who believed President Trump fired Jim Comey because of the recommendation he received from the Justice Department’s Deputy Secretary Rosenstein, well, we have some lovely beachfront property to sell them at the water’s edge on the Sea of Tranquility.

We know of few chief executives of major businesses who rely on themselves to communicate with, or respond to, everyone who is critical of their decisions or performance. First, they have more important things to do, and furthermore, they have knowledgeable professionals who can respond more factually and articulately to the issues of the moment. President Trump has made his communications staff largely irrelevant, because he has conditioned the press and the public to await his tweets or comments on whatever the controversy of the moment is.

President Trump has so compromised his communications staff that he is now hinting at ceasing daily press briefings—not because they can’t keep up with his pace of work, but because they can’t keep up with his erratic and often self-contradicting tweets and quotes.  While the President’s base delights in his tweets, the greater public, and certainly the press and those serious thinkers and historians who will eventually chronicle these days (or years) will observe the confusion, the walk-backs, the ire and record a very unpleasant time in our history. That President Trump doesn’t see what all his contretemps are inflicting on his Presidency is an American tragedy in the making.

As of now, we rather suspect that when the investigations into Russian election interference are concluded there will be little there there. We can’t get our heads around the notion that former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn was a serious potential candidate to be blackmailed. As Professor Alan Dershowitz has opined, all the State Department had to do is tell him he had been taped by our snoops, and poof, he is no longer a potential blackmail target.

President Trump should stop whining and tweeting. His chronically petulant behavior is unbusinesslike, and he is giving sole proprietorship a bad name.

49708710_kindle-ready-front-cover-6286173Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PMcover

AHCA: A Poor Bill To Replace A Worse Law

AHCA is nothing of which to be proud.

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsMake no mistake about it. Its primary purpose is to establish a lower baseline budget now by doing away with Obamacare taxes on the wealthy. This would allow a tax reduction bill to be drafted later this year that would be revenue neutral over a ten-year period. In other words, the net decrease in tax revenue wouldn’t be as great as it would be if the Obama surtax on the wealthy were still in place.  That’s a requirement tax reduction legislation later this year would have to meet to be enacted through the arcane reconciliation process requiring only a majority vote. That’s the truth of it.

BUT the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is a train wreck in desperate need of repair, replace or repeal and, at the end of the day, (we hate that expression) all three verbs are interchangeable. Obama’s Affordable Care Act is affordable for some, especially when healthcare premiums are subsidized by others, and outrageously unaffordable for others who have seen their healthcare premiums and /or deductibles go through the roof. The ACA was sold to the American public with a presidential look-em-in the-eye blatant lie— “if you like your doctor you can keep him or her” – “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it” and just to make sure everyone understood they could count on those promises, President Obama punctuated each promise with “Period!” President Obama even assured the nation that premiums would go down by $2400 during his first term in office. None of these promises were true, nor did anyone in the White House believe they were true. Worse, the ACA obliterated any actuarial basis for pricing healthcare, thereby assuring that a preponderance of older, high-cost applicants would show up, and younger, low-cost applicants would go fishing or take their kids to Disneyland instead of buying health insurance.

AHCA leaves much too much to others (the States) to implement which isn’t bad in and of itself. Handing waivers off to the States, however, creates too much uncertainty for a populace that is already being whipsawed by rate and deductible increases as well a substantial retreat of health insurance companies exiting the ACA (Obamacare) marketplace.

As might be expected, the Democrats and some Republicans are calling the AHCA a disaster equaled only by the three Woe Judgments depicted in the Book of Revelations. Like many criticisms leveled at anything Trump, the criticisms leveled at the ACHC are a bit over the top. The biggest criticism, of course, is that it will throw people with pre-existing conditions under the bus –either leaving them with no insurance or much more expensive insurance. That’s really not true.

House Speaker Paul Ryan was, essentially, correct when he said, “no matter what, you cannot be denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.”  The charge that people with pre-existing conditions will either be denied coverage or priced out of coverage–also, not true.

What is true is that individuals with pre-existing conditions who wait until they need care to buy insurance (even though they have known they would eventually need care) would be charged more than those who make the decision to purchase insurance when available under the AHCA at rates commensurate with what the general public is charged. In other words, Speaker Ryan used a reasonable analogy when he compared people with pre-existing conditions who wait to buy insurance until they need care to someone who waits until their house is on fire to then buy homeowner’s insurance.

No one with pre-existing conditions would really get thrown off their health care because of the provision that grants waivers to States. You do not have to take our word for it. According to the Washington Post fact checker, the AHCA allows states to seek a waiver so that a person who lives in one of those states who “has a lapse in health coverage for longer than 63 days; has a pre-existing condition; and purchases insurance on the individual or small-group market” can “face insurance rates that could be based on their individual condition, for one year.” After that year, rates would once again be based on a community assessment, and states that avail themselves of the waiver must also offer a high-risk insurance pool to alleviate the financial burden. True, such high-risk pools may be underfunded, but under funding is also a major problem with Obamacare. That is exactly why rates are going through the ceiling in so many States. Obamacare is underfunded because the penalties charged to those who do not buy insurance is woefully inadequate, and that is why insurance rates and deductibles have skyrocketed.

The biggest problem with AHCA is that it may bear little resemblance to whatever bill the Senate finally enacts and sends back to the House. In other words, no one really knows at this point what the nation’s healthcare program will finally be. It’s the uncertainty. That’s the dilemma and not that the House has created sausage on which people are choking.

coverScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PM49708710_kindle-ready-front-cover-6286173

The First 100-Days Farce: Much Ado About Nothing

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsWell, maybe something, but not much.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt made much of his first 100 days in office, and the press and subsequent presidents have been fixated on that initial period as though it were more significant than the second or third 100 days, or the fourteen 100-day cycles that would, ultimately, comprise a president’s first term.

It all started with FDR.  The country was in desperate straits and FDR knew that a barrage of federal initiatives would give hope to a desperate nation. And it did.  We won’t try to analyze all that FDR pushed through during those first 100 days.  Suffice to say, FDR’s legislative agenda produced a mixed bag of results, which, all things considered, served to instill faith in federal action by a nation that had lost faith.

Congress, during FDR’s first 100 days sent to his desk legislation that created the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Federal Emergency Relief Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, Tennessee Valley Authority Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Emergency Banking Act, the Government Economy Act, the Abandonment of the Gold Standard, The Securities Act, the Abrogation of Gold Payment Act, the Home Owners Loan Act and, of course, the Glass Steagall Banking Act.

Nearly everyone, today, assumes FDR’s first 100 days were a smashing success.  Few things done in such haste, however, are smashing successes. FDR succeeded in stabilizing the nation’s plunging confidence, instituted reforms that were necessary, and demonstrated that government could play a constructive role in improving, over time, the services available to the people. Think Tennessee Valley Authority, the Securities Act and other initiatives. Other legislation probably did more harm than good. For example, the heart of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act, which restricted output and stabilized (fixed) prices for virtually every business. It imposed medieval guild-type restrictions on prices and output. Under the NIRA it was a crime to increase production or reduce prices.

According to James Powell’s “FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression,” a forty-nine-year-old immigrant dry cleaner was jailed for charging 35 cents instead of 40 cents to press a pair of pants. While the NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court in May 1935, many excessive New Deal restrictions on business are still with us today.  When all was said and done, FDR’s record-breaking first 100 days clearly did not shorten, let alone end, the Great Depression. America’s ramp up to the Second World War did far more to jolt the country out of the 1930’s economic doldrums than anything from FDR’s first 100 days.

Nonetheless, the press has remained fixated on President Trump’s proverbial first 100 days. Of course, Candidate Trump’s excessive bragging about all that he would accomplish during his first 100 days as President created, among many in the press,  anticipation of a schadenfreude happening of tsunamic proportions.

So were Trump’s first one hundred days the failure virtually all of cable news (except Fox) and most talking heads and editorial writers have declared them to be?  No, they really were not. Nor were they the greatest first 100 days in the history of American presidencies that President Trump has declared them to be. Trump signed 29 new laws compared to Obama’s 14, Bush’s seven or Clinton’s 22. The new laws he signed were second in length to those Obama signed, but longer than either those signed by Presidents Bush or Clinton. All of which is rather irrelevant. Generally, most legislation signed during the first 100 days of a new President’s administration had been drafted before the new President was even inaugurated. A President doesn’t get to sign a law until Congress passes it.

While we can argue, and will, the propriety of many executive orders that presidents sign, Trump during his first 100 days issued thirty executive orders compared to Obama’s 19, Bush’s 11 and Clinton’s 13.  It is true, however, that most of Trump’s executive orders simply reversed Obama’s executive orders.  That doesn’t make them any less important (depending on one’s political point of view). Obama certainly issued executive orders late in his presidency knowing full well they would be reversed if a member of the opposition party were to be elected.

Our view is that presidential executive orders are an indication of how muscular presidents have been in exercising their executive powers. As President Obama threatened (and delivered) when he couldn’t get the Republican-controlled congress to send him the legislation he wanted, “I have a pen.” George Washington, still our favorite president, issued only eight executive orders during his entire two-term presidency, while FDR signed close to 3,800  during his time in the White House, including Executive Order 9066 that authorized the incarceration of nearly 120,000 innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry.

While Trump has had rough sledding with his cabinet nominations, largely the result of Schumer slow-walking the nominations whenever he could, Trump succeeded in pushing through 21 of 22 cabinet nominees during his first 100 days compared to Obama’s 20, Bush’s 17 and Clinton’s 18.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed along party lines after Senate Majority Leader McConnell invoked the so-called nuclear option allowing a simple majority to confirm the nominee. Senator Schumer’s protestations were both ludicrous and laughable given his own record of opining that President Bush shouldn’t nominate a supreme court justice at the end of his last term in office.  (Former Vice President Biden had also opined that it would be wrong for President Bush to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court in the event a vacancy occurred during his last year in office).

Finally, we note that Trump has stayed in the United States working during his first 100 days in office, albeit not all of them in Washington, while President Obama made his famous world tour sojourning to nine foreign countries during his first 100 days.

All in all, Trump’s first 100 days have not been “historic” as he has described them, nor have they been “an incredible journey” for the nation.  But he has certainly had a credible first 100 days—especially given the abject hostility of the opposition and most of the press to his presidency.

Available at Amazon, Kindle, Nook, Apple i-Tunes, Barnes and Noble and Audible –

49708710_kindle-ready-front-cover-6286173Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PMcover

US, Britain, and now France: The Established Order Kaput!

Of Thee I Sing Heading AuthorsIf we might borrow from Thomas Paine: These are, indeed, times that try men’s souls.

A disquiet, a sort of mass angst, seems to have settled over much of Europe just as in the United States. Three of the four great democracies have chosen to roll the dice rather than depend on tried and true establishment politicians and policies. Polls in the fourth great democracy, Germany, have gyrated back and forth, although Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union has been gaining strength in recent polls.

Refugee and Immigration issues have weighed heavily throughout the European Union and voter preferences are hyper sensitive to terrorist attacks and to the type of outrages that occurred in Cologne and other German cities a year ago when women were attacked by gangs of Arabic-speaking refugees. The sane world is holding its breath, hoping the final May 7th election in France won’t be whip-sawed by a mad-man shouting Allahu Akbar.

Also, roiling voters, especially in the United States and Great Britain has been the ever-increasing centralization of power. Tens of millions of American have become fed-up with Washington, just as millions of Brits have had it with the constant flow of dictates from Brussels.

Right now, all eyes are on France. Nearly half of French voters cast their votes this week for candidates whose main appeal is that they’re ardently anti-establishment. Emmanuel Macron’s claim to fame is, essentially, that he’s never been elected to anything. He even had to create his own political party in order to run.

And Marine Le Pen, well, she’s a piece of work who has waited, perhaps impatiently, for just such a national angst to make a serious dash for the presidency. Le Pen, and her bizarre father, Jean-Marie Le Pen have been odd fixtures in French politics for a long time.  Marine broke with her father who founded the anti-immigrant National Front forty-five years ago. While she has tried to distance herself from papa’s fame as a holocaust denier, France’s Muslims and Jews will unite behind Macron, just to keep a Le Pen from stepping foot in the Élysée Palace. We suppose that’s a good thing.

Over half of French voters cast their ballots for neither Macron nor Le Pen so there is apt to be widespread discontent no matter who wins the May 7th tally.  Already, there have been violent protests at, of course, the Place de la Bastille by demonstrators who do not like the idea of either Macron nor Le Pen becoming their next president. Other protests erupted after the election at the Place de la Republicque as well.

We expect that Emmanuel Macron will become the next President of France, if for no other reason,   than because every other political party will campaign for him rather than see Marine Le Pen ascend to the presidency.

While all of the current attention is focused on the second-round elections to be held on May 7th, the real fly in the ointment may prove to be the legislative elections that follow a month later. A French President without most the parliament behind him or her is in a decidedly weak position. Such an outcome is not only feasible, but it seems to us probable.  Neither Le Pen nor Macron have much of party machine behind them, so the June legislative election looms very large. Without a majority of legislators in his or her corner, the new president could be a very crippled chief executive at the Élysée Palace, and that could utterly paralyze the French system of government.  Sound familiar?

Le Pen’s party, the National Front, has never done well winning elections at the legislative, or local,  level. While Le Pen has developed a following of sorts, the National Front has elected only two deputies in the 577 member National Assembly. This could make governing extremely difficult should Le Pen ascend to the presidency.

Macron doesn’t seem to be in much better shape. He split from the Socialist party to run for president and created his own party, En Marche or “the movement.” En Marche, has never run a single candidate in any election before, either national or local.

Arguably, the fact that the legislative elections take place well after the presidential election might give whoever is elected president time to rally support for local candidates who support their candidacy, but that looks, to us, unlikely. Local politics in France are, well, very local, and neither Le Pen nor Macron have a well-disciplined party apparatus working for them at the local level. If neither Le Pen nor Macron can rally support for local candidates who support them in the few weeks following the May 7th presidential election, the President of France could be what the revered Polish hero Field Marshal Jozef Pilsudsky once called the Polish Presidency a hundred years ago— “a bird in a gilded cage.”

Regardless of the outcome of the May 7th election we expect rough sailing in France for the foreseeable future.  Stability on the continent may prove elusive for years to come, and that’s not good for anyone.

Available at Amazon, Kindle, Barnes and Noble,  Audible and fine book stores everywhere.

coverScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 10.00.36 PM49708710_kindle-ready-front-cover-6286173

Ideas and commentary with allegiance to neither the left nor the right, but only to this sweet land of liberty.