American Elephants


Why Are We In These Strange Times? by The Elephant's Child

This is a fairly long video, but very worth your while. Dr. Hansen explains the Obama Administration, the election, and why we seem to have entered such a surreal period.

Democrats have lost elections before, but never so completely or thoroughly. They have never before reacted so badly, nor hated so viciously, nor demonstrated their hatred so tastelessly.

Who could ever have dreamed of a Kathy Griffin and her pretend ISIS decapitation, and now she’s back, apologizing for her apology. Undoubtedly her audience would not accept her regret and she is emboldened. Pity. One assumed she could not get more disgusting.

Advertisements


Did FDR End the Great Depression? Nope! by The Elephant's Child

It has long been accepted knowledge that Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression, which lasted and lasted and lasted. But is that true? A few years previously, Calvin Coolidge faced another depression. He essentially did nothing, and the economy recovered quickly. FDR embarked on a series of endless experimentation to see just what would work to end the hard times, and managed to make it last and last. Really hard times.

Here’s Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA, who decided to take another careful look. Listen carefully.



Best Essay of the Day by The Elephant's Child

Donald J Trump is president. Really. He won it fair and square, he was inaugurated seven — almost eight — months ago, and he very probably is going to be president for another three and a half years.

Minimum.

So, now, children, let’s calm down. All of you people over there saying Trump is unqualified and should be removed? Give it up. He’s qualified by the only qualification that matters: he is over 35, he is a native U.S. citizen, and he won the damned election. The Constitution doesn’t have a clause in it for removal by vote of the media, or because his political opponents don’t like him. The only reason he can be removed constitutionally is if someone finds high crimes and misdemeanors.

Now, I know that some people are fantasizing about the Democrats taking the House, and passing a bill of impeachment, and somehow getting the Senate to convict.

To which I say, “be careful, you’ll get chafed.”



CNN’s Very Bad, Horrible, No Good Week by The Elephant's Child

CNN has had a very bad week. Tuesday, the network announced the resignation of three journalists — Eric Lichtblau, recently hired from the New York Times, Thomas Frank, and the head of the network’s new investigative unit, Les Harris. (We can probably assume fired). The cause —they had published a Russia/Trump story that had turned out to be completely false, so false that it had to be retracted by CNN. Retracted is really, really bad.

Apparently CNN’s CEO had told their reporters that the Paris climate thing was nice, but it was time to get back to Russia.

According to Power Line:

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has infiltrated CNN, and he has video of a CNN producer admitting that the network’s Russia fixation is “mostly bullshit,” but they do it because it brings in the money. Paul wrote about O’Keefe’s dynamite video this morning; if you missed it then you should watch it now. The CNN producer says things like “it’s mostly bulls**t right now.” And “I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me.”

This is, of course, a body blow to whatever is left of CNN’s credibility. But the bad news doesn’t end there. O’Keefe says today’s video is just Part 1. He has more on CNN, and he has put other corrupt news media on notice. So there could be more fireworks soon.

President Trump lost no time claiming vindication–rightly, according to the CNN producer.

I was looking through one of my bookshelves and noticed several books on  the Media. Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best, showing how statistics are manipulated by the media, and the difference between the world as it is, and the world portrayed by the media and the statistics they use to support their view. Published — 2001

Then there was Coloring the News by William McGowan, also published in 2001, exposing how crusading for diversity has corrupted American Journalism. Newspaper publishers and editors insist that promoting ‘diversity’ in the newsroom has produced better reporting and journalism. The assumption was undoubtedly that being of a different race or ethnicity would naturally produce a different viewpoint. McGowan carefully proved that they were wrong.

Bernard Goldberg’s Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News came out in 2002.Emmy Award-winner  Goldberg said the media too often ignored their primary mission—objective disinterested reporting.

Mobocracy: How the Media’s Obsession with Polling Twists the News, Alters Elections, and Undermines Democracy. Also published in 2002, by Matthew Robinson. Mark Levin’s blurb said Robinson had meticulously documented how the once-benign concept of gauging public opinion has been perverted into a weapon wielded by journalists with a political agenda.

Apparently I have been concerned about the American Press even longer than I remembered.  I can remember a day when we did trust the news and the reporters who brought it to our attention. I also recognize how hard it must be to put your politics aside and do objective disinterested reporting, but the current crop seem to wallow in their political agendas and are unfamiliar with the task of keeping politicians in line with honest reporting assigned to the profession by the Founders.



Charles Krauthammer: Build the Wall by The Elephant's Child

Charles Krauthammer nails it. As the Center for Immigration Studies says —they are anti illegal immigration and pro immigrant. We have around 4.4 million people who want to immigrate to the United States and become citizens. They are obeying our immigration laws, waiting patiently, and hoping. I see no reason why illegal immigrants of questionable integrity, who are flouting our laws should take precedence over those who are doing it correctly.

President Obama wanted more bodies and believed that illegals would be more reliable Democrat voters. No actual care for the people —he just wanted to win and defeat Republicans. He ordered the Border Patrol to pay no attention and flooded the country with illegals, violent gangs—MS-13—the international criminal gang, diseases we thought were gone, like smallpox, measles, and Mexican drug gangs and traffickers, who are responsible for the current opioid crisis, sex traffickers and criminal activity in general. All that, and he managed to decimate the Progressive party in the course of his efforts. Nice going.

Dr. Krauthammer is correct about Amnesty. Any time you offer amnesty to illegals—it is an open invitation to the next influx who will expect amnesty in their turn. Doesn’t matter if we claim this is the very last time.

CIS has also established that the wall would pay for itself if it prevents a  significant number of illegals. Illegal immigrants cost a lot, whether in police work, Border Patrol and the courts, health care (emergency rooms) or benefits.  Most who are rounded up and given hearings for deportation never show up for the hearings, and just disappear into the population. That all costs a lot. We welcome legal immigrants and wish them well. The Seattle area is home to a lot of high-tech with Microsoft, Amazon, and lots of others, and we have new residents from all over.



Lightening the Burden of Excessive Regulation by The Elephant's Child

President Donald Trump has made a good beginning on the immense burden of excess regulation on the U.S. economy and on us personally. Experts believe the cost is close to $2 trillion a year on the economy. Eager progressives believed that the way to fix everything would be strong regulations from the wise elite in Washington D.C. Well, you and I know that the elite don’t seem to be exceptionally wise, and in many cases are definitely deficient.

There was a better way of regulating, according to Steve Forbes, back in (of all places) the Clinton administration. Regulators should state the goals, and let the industry figure out the best way of achieving them.

Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., recently asked the right question in a hearing on improving our infrastructure: “Can performance-based regulations be more effective than command-and-control regulations in achieving safety goals while imposing less of a burden on industry?”

The answer, of course, is yes and there is now a bill before Congress that would codify this common sense approach, The Revamping American Infrastructure Act of 2017. The proposed legislation would call on federal bureaucrats to “identify those regulations, guidance and policies that in current form establish prescriptive requirements for regulated entities; and are able to be replaced, consistent with Federal law, with outcome-based performance standards.”

Thanks to deregulation in 1980, the [freight railroad] industry morphed from an inefficient, loss-ridden system into the finest, most efficient in the world. Nonetheless, the industry is still weighed down unnecessarily by countless, archaic operational mandates. It is ready to deploy new technologies for inspections such as drones, trackside detection systems and sophisticated X-ray machines that would provide crucial information in real time. Yet the industry must abide by a rigid set of procedures established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) that seems to think the world is still dominated by those legendary steam engines of yore.

Federal regulators wanted to address the problem of accidents caused by human error. To fix it, they wanted to dictate to the railroads the number of of persons  in a crew,  without any data that supported the notion that a second person in the cab would actually reduce the number of human-error accidents. (You remember the goofy regulation that all ingredients,with their calorie count in all pizzas, had to be included in the big sign back of the cash register in all pizza parlors.)

The EPA’s jihad against fossil fuels resulted in their so-called haze rule, supposedly to improve visibility. The rule would have forced the closure of several coal-fired power plants and killed many jobs, with no noticeable improvement in visibility.

Sensible removal of excessive government regulation should be a boon to the economy, and perhaps even reduce the number of government regulators. So far, so good. The Trump administration has made a good start.

 



The House Took a Big Step to Fix the Economy Today by The Elephant's Child

While the Washington media was glued to every word emanating from former FBI director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the collapsing hope that the next words would provide the ammunition to finally impeach President Trump, a much bigger story going on in the House was being completely ignored.

The Financial Choice Act, which the House approved by a 233-186 vote (no Democrats voted for it) got no attention at all. Yet this bill can be a very big deal for the economy. It repeals the failed Dodd-Frank banking law, 22,000 pages of regulations, which cost the economy $36 billion in the first six years of its implementation. Dodd-Frank , signed into law by President Obama in the wake of the financial crisis, was supposed to be foster innovation, stop taxpayer bailouts once and for all, and be good for the economy. Instead, it choked competition in banking more than 1,700 banks  have disappeared, the banking industry became more concentrated and did nothing to reduce risk in the financial industry.

According to the American Action Forum, if Dodd-Frank were left in place it would cut the nation’s GDP by nearly $900 billion, and slow any hope of growth dramatically. Dodd-Frank created the unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which has expanded in size and regulatory reach, collecting massive amounts of sensitive financial data on millions of Americans.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank law has been a disaster, responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of American jobs, and slowed economic growth by making credit harder to come by by those who need it most.

Late last year, a U.S. appeals court ruled that the design of the CFPB was unconstitutional because it gave the director “more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of the U.S. government, other than the president.”

The House Bill strips out the worst parts of Dodd-Frank, reins in the CFPB, but does not eliminate them both. The Democrats in the Senate are determined to stop this bill completely, whether because of unconcern for the economy or an attempt to save Obama’s “legacy.” The bill will probably be watered down to some form that might overcome a Democrat filibuster. The CFPB needs to be shut down completely, not “reformed.”

 




%d bloggers like this: