Dick Morris: Ghost Voters Keep Democrats in Office

From Western Journal.com (May 18):

Voters who have moved away and those who are deceased may provide a solid core of Democrat votes in many key states.

Because most states do not have efficient or effective ways of purging their voter rolls when people leave the area or pass away, the names stay on the rolls and afford a great opportunity — in the absence of photo IDs — for fraudulent ballots to be cast in their name.

States are limited in what they can do to ascertain who still lives at a voter’s address and who has moved because courts have ruled that doing so could intimidate minority voters. [read more]

It’s good that the Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s “use it or lose it” policy for voters. Maybe other states will follow Ohio’s lead and purge their voter roles of dead and apathetic voters. Actually, if you are 110 years or older you should probably be automatically removed from the voter roles. 

What’s the Dems say? Give us your dead and illegal voters. (Okay, I made that up.)

Trump Puts an End to Taxpayer Subsidies for Unions

From The Daily Signal.com (May 29):

Government employee unions have enjoyed an absolute boondoggle in recent years, receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds. But the boon could soon be over thanks to a new executive order from President Donald Trump.

Last Friday, the president signed an executive order requiring that federal government employees who work full-time for the public employee unions at taxpayer expense spend at least 75 percent of their paid time on the government’s business. The administration estimates this will save taxpayers $100 million.

This measure is one of three executive orders the president signed on Friday. Those orders do not eliminate taxpayer subsidies for public employee unions altogether—that is Congress’ job—but they do end the taxpayer subsidy of travel for union business; mandate that unions be charged fair market value for rents of government office space; streamline the public employee appeals process so that bad apples can be fired more rapidly; and force taxpayer-funded union workers to spend at least three-quarters of their time doing the people’s business.

Most people are shocked to learn that taxpayers have been footing the bill for public employee union salaries, but they become incensed when they learn that in 2016, union employees were paid $177 million by the federal government, not counting office space and travel expenses. [read more]

It’s about time. Now, Congress needs to get its act together and end subsidies for unions once and for all. The Dems would drop a load if that ever happened. To be fair, corporations don’t need subsidies either for that matter.

The Reason Liberals View Melania Trump as a Threat

From The Daily Signal.com (May 16):

Need more evidence that there are two Americas? Here: Left-wing hatred of Melania Trump is inversely proportional to flyover admiration for the first lady.

In just the last month, late-night clown Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump’s Slovenian accent, CNN contributor April Ryan attacked her as “not culturally American,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines derided her genteel presence at former [first lady Barbara Bush’s] funeral, and horror writer Stephen King snickered at her hospitalization this week for kidney surgery.

Yet, while partisans in the political press and entertainment media work hard to stoke division against and resentment of the Trump administration, “Melania” is now among the fastest-growing baby names in the nation, according to recently released Social Security data. And a new poll by anti-Trump CNN released on Monday reported a 10 percent jump in the first lady’s favorability ratings—from 47 percent in January to 57 percent last week.

That’s nearly 6 in 10 Americans with a positive view of FLOTUS. Uh-oh!

………………

Despite Trump’s successful career as an internationally photographed model featured in Harper’s Bazaar, GQ, Vanity Fair, and Vogue, lib-dominated fashion and celebrity magazines have shunned her. Pop culture editors and producers—who turned Barack and Michelle Obama into the Beltway Brangelina, promoting their election campaign, re-election campaign, books, and every last pet project—have ghosted her.

Why? Fear.

The first lady is not just strikingly beautiful. She is worldly, well-traveled, and well-read. She speaks English, French, German, Italian, and Serbian, in addition to her native Slovenian—more languages than any other woman who has served as America’s first lady. Her devotion to son Barron is exemplary. Her aversion to limelight and lack of political ambition are refreshing. So is her ability to refrain from public grievance-mongering over “sacrifices” and trade-offs made between work and home life (looking at you, Hill and ‘Chelle O).

The hostile White House press corps blames Trump’s own reticence for the publicity vacuum around her. But I believe there’s something deeper at work:

More exposure to this interesting and remarkable woman would mean more familiarity with her. More familiarity with her might mean more popularity. And God forbid there be more Republican women in the public eye who can compete with—and win against—the usual parade of militant kvetchers and moaners who pass themselves off as feminist role models. [read more]

The Left doesn’t like the First Lady because she is married to President Donald Trump. Period. (Another reason why the Left doesn’t like her is because she doesn’t fit into the “box” that the Left puts women into.)

Justice Department Funded ‘Parent’ of Group Whose App Helps Illegal Immigrants

From Daily Signal.com (May 1):

An organization whose parent group received taxpayer funds developed and offers an app that allows illegal immigrants to notify family and lawyers when they encounter law enforcement.

The app, a computer program designed to run on a cell phone or other mobile device, also allows the user to warn other illegal immigrants when authorities are in the neighborhood.

A division of the Justice Department awarded at least $206,453 to the National Immigration Law Center, which advises illegal immigrants on their rights, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch.

The Office of Justice Programs awarded the grants between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, the records cited by the conservative government watchdog group show. That would overlap the administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. [read more]

All the open border people (like the Soros’ Open Society Foundation) love this app. Some much for justice.

Reporters Without Borders

From Bill OReilly.com (Apr. 25):

The group Reporters Without Borders has issued a study that says freedom of the press is dropping in America.  The reason according to the organization is the growing animus towards the U.S. media by we the people.

Of course, RWB places the blame for that on Donald Trump, who openly disparages the media because it is generally hostile to him.  But while President Trump’s posture does bring scrutiny on the press, he is not the primary reason for the distrust.  The truth is the media is harming itself.

Recently, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta said on camera that many Trump supporters are not capable of seeing reality.  Mr. Acosta’s shallow insult clearly demonstrates his bias.  The man is supposed to be an objective reporter, not a sociologist.  Having a guy like that covering a President he clearly loathes is not honest journalism.  And the folks know it. [read more]

Freedom of the press dropping in America? Really? Has this group been to Russia, Iran or China for instance? Any American citizen has the right to criticize the press including the president. Freedom of the press isn’t more important than freedom of speech. The press should be more responsible reporting the news

A Zero-Tariff G7 Area? Yes, Please!

From FEE.org (June 13):

In yet another stunning turn of events at the current G7 meeting in Canada, Donald Trump has argued for a tariff-free G7 area. This would mean zero tariffs and no subsidies. Regardless of whether Trump's suggestion is to be taken seriously, the reactions speak for themselves.

This Is Not the First Time Trump Has Suggested This

Larry Kudlow, national economic adviser to the President, had indicated to the press that he had a “lengthy discussion” about the idea of creating a tariff-free G7.

Reduce those barriers. In fact go to zero, zero tariffs, zero no-tariff barriers, zero subsidies, and along the way we are going to have to clean up the international trading system about which there was virtual consensus of agreement.

"Ultimately that's what you want, you want tariff free, no barriers, and you want no subsidies because you have some countries subsidizing industries and that's not fair," Trump said. "So you go tariff free, you go barrier free, you go subsidy free, that's the way you learned at the Wharton School of Finance."

After Trump's introduction of new tariffs on both steel and aluminum, the idea that the President would suddenly favor dropping tariffs altogether seems odd. However, it appears that the tariffs aren't really a means of getting the American steel and aluminum industry back on its feet, as mercantilists would lead you to believe, but a means of retaliation. For Trump, America's trading partners have been treating it unfairly, which is why he is obligated to respond to the trade-threat. He is, quite frankly, not entirely wrong about that.

……………………

The (Absence of) Reactions

Sir Simon Fraser, former permanent secretary at Britain’s Foreign Office, called Trump's trade suggestion "false" and "bizarre": "It amounts to a total G7 free trade bloc for goods,” he said. “This would create massive distortions of world trade. I doubt US officials or US industry and agriculture lobbies support it.”

Sir Simon Fraser is certainly right that some agricultural lobbies would not support it, but Donald Trump was also arguably elected to oppose the swamp of lobbyists and special interests that continue to swarm Washington, D.C.

As for the G7 leaders present, most seemed to have been taken aback by the suggestion, and even after a handful of hours, the responses were still timid. The self-proclaimed voices for free trade have suddenly become mute after someone suggested genuine free trade. Could it be that they are afraid of their own agricultural lobbies at home?

Free Trade Is More than Ideology

The European Union and other G7 partners need to improve their capacity for making a consistent case for free trade. The argument for free trade is all too often made in an ideological fashion, requiring us to stand for “openness” to the world. Instead, we should focus on the economically self-evident benefits of global trade. [read more]

I like the no-tariff idea for the G7. It’s a win-win. It’s too bad the G7 doesn’t. Then again they are playing politics.

Social Justice: When Good Becomes Evil?

From FEE.org:

Traditionally in the West, Justice was defined as, “To give to each his due.” Western men were expected to judge the individual and his actions against what were then considered objective truths. For anyone watching the culture these days, especially on college campuses, it should be clear that that’s no longer the accepted understanding of Justice.

Informed by the simplistic belief of Cultural Marxism that history and life is nothing more than a nearly perpetual battle between the oppressed and the oppressors, our cultural leaders have replaced Justice with Social Justice.

What's the Difference?

Well, if one distills the main thrust of Social Justice, one comes to understand that it is the belief that a just society cannot exist until all identity groups have parity with the others. In such a system, we do not judge the individual based upon his actions, but rather we judge him based upon the identity group with which he is most associated. Social Justice Warriors then work to determine which identity groups are oppressors and which ones are oppressed. Upon doing so, they use collective action to lift up the oppressed and bring low the oppressors.

In a way, Social Justice has a rather romantic feel to it, one in which you feel good using any means necessary to lift up the oppressed. You are helping the underdog while humbling the mighty. You are fighting racism, bigotry, ageism, homophobia, and so much more; you are the good guy. Hence, a lot of young Americans are being drawn to the effort.

With its current popularity, though, it’s worth considering the movement’s cloaked demand for Equality and the grave dangers inherent in the application of Social Justice as presented so far.

Individuals vs. Groups

Again, the traditional view of Justice asks of us to judge a man based on his actions. For instance, how do we determine if a man is a racist? We examine his actions towards individuals of a different race.

Is the man acting justly to those of a different race by measuring the sum of each individual? Or does he simply judge the others and act in a certain way based on assumptions about the identity group to which they belong? If the latter, then the man is being a racist. But if it is the former, then he is traditionally not guilty of racism.

…………………

But in the effort to right these wrongs, the Social Justice warriors often commit the very evil they are attempting to erase. Indeed, they have even gone so far as to change the definition of racism from something an individual commits, to something that identity groups establish, seemingly in an effort to mask the hypocrisy.

For instance, Social Justice Warriors might determine that one identity group created a government and that it is, therefore, guilty of establishing a system that gives the group power over other identity groups. Thus, the identity group that created the system is guilty of instituting racist, bigoted, homophobic, or ageist policies through the power structure of the system. The powerful identity group is therefore evil because Social Justice Warriors believe it can and likely does oppress other identity groups. Put simply, an identity group is evil if it has created inequality that benefits itself.

As a result, what we see happening with colleges, government bureaucracies, and even human resources departments is that individuals are treated either well or poorly depending upon the identity group with which the individual is most associated.

For instance, the White, heterosexual male is no longer judged based on his individual actions, but rather by what is assumed to be his identity group’s institution of systemic racism and homophobia when White, heterosexual males established both the federal and local governments in America several centuries ago. Because the individual is a white male, it is assumed that he is still benefiting from privilege created by his identity group many centuries ago, whether he realizes it or not. Therefore, because his identity group is racist, he is racist.

In doing so, the Social Justice Warriors who are seeking a good mission, such as ending racism, lost their way and actually commit evil themselves. Virtue often becomes vice, good often becomes evil. [read more]

The Left is just group obsessed. Everyone is in a tribe. No individuality at all.

Why Big Data Won’t Save Central Planners from the Knowledge Problem

From FEE.org (Apr. 11):

Among statisticians, economists, and business executives, “Big Data” is all the rage. Large and detailed data sets that, until recently, couldn’t even be stored on a computer are now managed and analyzed using innovative statistical techniques. Hopes are high that these advances will improve scientists’ ability to predict human behavior. Some enthusiasts even speculate that Big Data will render markets obsolete, enabling central planning of the economy. Big Data is more than a buzzword, but its potential is often wildly overstated.

How Are We Using Big Data?

To make sense of enormous databases, statisticians have developed innovative analytical tools, including machine learning, A/B testing, and natural-language processing. Storage and computation speeds have also improved in recent years.

……………….

Of course, Big Data raises important ethical concerns. Data are often drawn from oblivious populations. Although Internet users typically sign a Terms of Service contract granting social media companies permission to record behavior, the legalistic jargon in these agreements usually leave users unaware of the scope and scale of surveillance. The Cambridge Analytica debacle clearly demonstrates these problems (though it does not imply government would be a better steward of information).

Governments, on the other hand, make no such pretensions about obtaining permission. Officials in the Xinjiang region of China use Big Data analytics to track the movements of the Uighur ethnic minority. The Associated Press reported thousands of Uighurs have been sent to political indoctrination camps and prevented from communicating with relatives abroad. The risk of a data-fueled dystopia is not trivial.

Big Data Does Not Equal Big Knowledge

Some Big Data enthusiasts are somewhat reminiscent of 20th century “market socialists.” For example, a 2017 article by economists Binbin Wang and Xiaoyan Li of Sichuan University for the World Review of Political Economy contends that Big Data solves many of the problems faced by 20th-century socialism. Tech journalists and even entrepreneurs like Alibaba's Jack Ma have expressed similar sentiments. Since today’s governments have far finer-grained knowledge of citizens, the argument goes, central planning could be more viable.

Big Data represents an important scientific advance, but it is fundamentally inadequate to achieve these more ambitious goals. The problem is not merely a time-lag of data collection or the inability to predict future innovations and sudden changes in preferences (though these limitations are also important).

The reason that Big Data can’t enable central planning is that any data on economic activity is inextricably predicated on the existence of markets.The algorithms which private firms use to better predict demand and supply rely on an incoming flow of market data. Without a market, that data ceases to exist.

It is only from market transactions that prices emerge. Consumer behavior is only conceivable when consumers have the freedom to choose between products. Profits and losses reflect the performance of actual firms and market participants engaged in rivalrous competition. [read more]

Doomsday AI machines could lead to nuclear war, think tank paper warns

From Fox News. com (Apr. 24):

Could the future of artificial intelligence bring about a robot doomsday?

In a scenario straight out of apocalyptic science fiction, a leading security think tank is warning that as soon as 2040, AI machines could encourage nations to take apocalyptic risks with their nuclear stashes.

A paper commissioned by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit in Santa Monica, Calif., that offers research and analysis to the armed forces on global policy issues, says it's conceivable that AI —  as well as the proliferation of drones, satellites, and other sensors —  could lead to nuclear war with overwhelmingly grave consequences for humanity.

“Autonomous systems don’t need to kill people to undermine stability and make catastrophic war more likely,” said Edward Geist, an associate policy researcher at RAND, a specialist in nuclear security and co-author of the paper. “New AI capabilities might make people think they’re going to lose if they hesitate. That could give them itchier trigger fingers. At that point, AI will be making war more likely, even though the humans are still, quote-unquote, in control.”

The study was based on data collected from experts in nuclear issues, government branches, AI research and policy, and national security.  [read more]

AI could also control the elections (fix the elections for candidates who are more friendly to AI for instance) and even take over the Federal Reserve to screw around with the stock market and interest rates. Think about that! Or don’t. I wouldn’t want any of my readers to lose sleep.

And more articles on AI:

• AI Experts List the Real Dangers of Artificial Intelligence
• The Military Just Created An AI That Learned How To Program Software

What Trump Can Learn From the Master of the Greatest Deal in American History

From Daily Signal.com (Apr. 29):

Our current president prides himself on being the master of the deal. The upcoming summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un will certainly put his bargaining skills to the test.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, since they involve the security of one of the most populous and economically vital regions in the world, and North Korea has shown little regard for agreements in the past.

If President Donald Trump successfully forges a deal that denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, it will go down as one of the greatest deals in American history. With that said, it’s fair to ask whether history provides any lessons in the art of presidential negotiation.

Of course, historical situations differ vastly, but it’s still fair to ask whether historical examples can provide any guidance for the general principles of high-stakes negotiation.

Perhaps there is no better place to look than what has been described as the greatest bargain in American history—the Louisiana Purchase. The deal was struck exactly 215 years ago this Monday.

………………….

The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States, and that doubling was a precursor to its eventual domination of the North American continent and its rise to world power. It reduced the hold that European powers had on the continent, thereby mitigating the threat they posed to the young republic.

It was the greatest deal in American history, but how did Jefferson pull it off?

Part of the answer lies in Thomas Jefferson’s own complexities.

Our third president, whose 275th birthday was on April 13, is known for the eloquence of his pen and his renaissance-man lifestyle, but this image belied his cutthroat political instincts. Jefferson was a shrewd politician, through and through. As secretary of state under George Washington, he had secretly funded an opposition party right under the first president’s nose.

Just weeks into Jefferson’s presidency, he learned that France was reacquiring the Louisiana Territory from Spain. The prospect of an aggressive Napoleon ruling territory right next to the United States alarmed the new president, so he made a number of moves that any shrewd head of state would.

First, Jefferson drew a red line with France. Jefferson was a renowned Francophile—he loved France, and some even accused him of having “a womanish attachment” to the country. At the same time, he was a staunch critic of Great Britain. But he knew the threat that Napoleonic France would pose to the young nation.

………………….

Second, Jefferson played the age-old diplomatic game of back-channel diplomacy. Despite establishing a red line, he knew that his infant country could ill-afford a war with a European superpower. So he engaged in multiple lines of communication with France. This included making use of his minister to France, Robert Livingston, but it also involved sending a more personal envoy, James Monroe, to join Livingston in his negotiations with the French.

But Jefferson didn’t stop there. He also communicated through Pierre Samuel du Pont, a wealthy Frenchman in America with connections to the French regime. Indeed, it was du Pont who is often credited with suggesting a purchase of territory as a solution.

Further, Jefferson made use of a French diplomat in the United States, Louis-Andre Pichon. Through Pichon, the Jefferson administration fed information to the French, raising the specter of American cooperation with the British against the French.

Third, Jefferson had the wisdom to listen to advice contrary to his own inclinations—and that advice often came from his brilliant secretary of state, James Madison. Madison’s genius and political skills rivaled and arguably exceeded that of Jefferson’s.

This brings up the fourth lesson: Know how far you are willing to go, even if it means going past your ideological limits.

As I said earlier, Jefferson was known as a pro-French, anti-British strict constructionist. And yet, during this episode, he threatened to side with the British against the French and then disposed with his strict constructionist tendencies, forgoing an amendment for the sake of his country’s interest. [read more]

Former Admiral: Can North Korea Launch an Electromagnetic Storm?

From News Max.com (Apr. 25):

The diplomatic circuit is awash in optimism as the proposed summit between North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump draws near. Indeed, Trump is right to go to the table with the North Koreans and negotiate for full denuclearization.

Still, given the long history of North Korea’s double-dealing, outright lying and surreptitious construction of weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood of Kim actually surrendering his nuclear weapons is extremely low, no matter what he says publicly.

And what makes it so worrisome is not only the handful of nuclear weapons in the hands of a dictator who may be able to lob a few to Honolulu or even to Seattle.  We also need to consider North Korea’s ability to deploy one or two nuclear weapons at altitude over the continental U.S. in order to create a devastating burst of energy called an electromagnetic pulse. [read more]

Scary scenario! Mark Levin on his Fox News show Life, Liberty & Levin talks to Dr. Peter Pry about EMPs and their effect on the electrical grid in America. Interesting interview.

The Connection Between Russia and 2 Green Groups Fighting Fracking in US

From The Daily Signal.com (Apr. 22):

Two environmental advocacy groups that successfully lobbied against fracking in New York each received more than $10 million in grants from a foundation in California that got financial support from a Bermuda company congressional investigators linked to the Russians, public documents show.

The environmental groups Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club Foundation received millions of dollars in grants from the San Francisco-based Sea Change Foundation.

“Follow the money trail, and this [New York] ban on fracking could be viewed as an example of successful Russian espionage,” Ken Stiles, a CIA veteran of 29 years who now teaches at Virginia Tech, told The Daily Signal.

To Stiles and other knowledgeable observers, this looks like an actual case of knowing or unknowing collusion with Russia.

Both Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club Foundation also accepted tens of millions from the Energy Foundation, the top recipient of grants from Sea Change, according to foundation and tax records.  [read more]