Skip to content

Poking the bear.

Why all the surprise over Canada’s Trudeau and France’s Macron’s attitudes toward tariffs in general and President Trump in particular?

Both of these men were ardently anti-Trump  during their campaigns, kissy-face continental displays notwithstanding.  Trudeau in particular appears to be a self-identified socialist.

So, for him to be critical of Trump’s “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” stand on tariffs is hardly a surprise.

For him to openly do a 180 on what was supposedly agreed upon at the G7 summit however is somewhat surprising.

It has been fairly obvious all along that the President’s strategy is to either eliminate tariffs on both sides, or at the least make them equal.

If we charge a 22% tariff on Canadian newsprint (and we do), then Canada should charge the same 22% on cheese or butter, for instance.

To be fair, even GOP legislators are wondering why he didn’t just lead with that, instead of picking just steel and aluminum as targets.

Tariffs and quotas in  general are meant to keep one nation from dumping something on another nation in such quantities and at such low prices that it destroys an industry in the receiving nation.

The U.S. steel industry collapsed in the 1970s and 80s because of dumping as well as government policies of the times. In other words, long before China became a player. Now, the industry produces about 75% of all the steel we use as it did in its heyday, largely due to recycling rather than raw material refining.

Still, whatever the source of steel and aluminum supplies are today, the President is right about the negative costs of tariffs on U.S. goods and services in general.

Right now, Trump is a bit busy with this North Korean thing.

Trudeau and Co. may find that once he has time to focus again on tariffs and trade, giving the U.S. a giant middle finger may prove to have been unwise.

He will be missed.

Today, Fox viewers and WAPO readers got the news many had feared they might hear.

Political analyst and writer Charles Krauthammer will not be returning to Special Report, or to the pages of the Washington Post.

If you write or opine about politics, you know Dr. Krauthammer. Or if you don’t, that is still your loss.

For myself, he was the reason I originally started watching Fox, although I had read some of his columns before, in Time and finally the Washington Post

It just seems so richly apropos to have a licensed psychiatrist analyzing politics.

Life is unfortunately what it is, and even though ones first instinct was to hope he can beat this thing too, you knew from his words that isn’t going to happen.

All we can reasonably hope for is that science will allow him to leave without too much pain.

God speed, Dr. Krauthammer.

TGIF – June 8, 2018

California dreaming.

By now every pundit has dissected the impact of a Republican winning a spot in California’s governor’s race.

GOP voters did show up big time.  Ask one of them why, and you might get an answer like this.

I had a choice.  Vote GOP or leave. I don’t want to leave. I want a state where fish don’t have more right to water than I do. A place where illegal immigrants aren’t entitled to free healthcare, but I have to pay for mine. A place where I don’t have to smell the feces of homeless people. I want a place where I am not taxed to death to promote illegal immigration. I just want the California of my youth back.  Maybe Mr. Cox can do that. I hope he can.”

Sounds like some Californians get it.

Spare us your outrage, Canada.

With the G7 summit ongoing today, here’s an observation.

Canada’s Trudeau must think Americans are stupid, since he is huffing and puffing about the steel and aluminum tariffs.

The truth is, Canada already has tariffs as high as 245% on U.S. produced cheese, and 298% on butter that we send into Canada as well as quotas and tariffs on other products.

That’s fine if they want to do that. After all, it’s their country, and we don’t have to export these items  to them if we don’t like it.

But haranguing President Trump for economic protectionism, in view of Canada’s policies, is just plain hypocritical.

Why not keep all children with their parents?

The left’s phony outrage over separating immigrant children from their parents leads one to ask whether we should always leave children with their parents.

Why not leave six year olds with their crack addicted mothers, up to and including putting them in jail with Mom?

Of course that’s ridiculous, and so is all this blather about separating illegal immigrant children from their parents.

What about the unaccompanied minors? What should we do with them?

Perhaps Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer can take them into their homes as foster children. At least then we could find the foster parents.

All we would have to do is track them to the nearest microphone.

Summer vacation on hold?

Apparently the Senate is going to work through it’s summer vacation. The question is, on what?

McConnell says he wants to speed up confirmation of judges while Chuck Schumer says it will be all about healthcare.

Whatever happened to immigration reform?

For some strange reason, Congress just doesn’t appear to want to fix immigration. Indeed Senator John Thune (R-SD)  noted today that the Senate had already spent a week on immigration, but since there was no consensus, continuing to deal with it would be a waste of time.

Gee, a whole week. Wow. The DACA people must be so impressed.

There were four proposals that came out of the House. Couldn’t Congress see which parts of each one of them could be combined into a new bill?

That’s actually how governing is supposed to work, in case anyone is interested.

Every voter seems to agree that legal immigration takes too long, costs too much, and that illegal immigration and smuggling is killing our country.

So why can’t Congress commit to fixing it?

Obviously Democrats don’t want to fix it because they want open borders and the ability to vilify President Trump over it, but why are Republicans so loathe to bring it to the floor?

Most people have an answer to that…no guts.

After all, it is an election year, meaning that no one in Washington wants to stand on principle.

Or maybe they can’t,  because principles are so sorely lacking on the Hill.


Pants on fire.

Once again, Mark Zuckerberg has lied, even if only by omission, to Facebook users and followers as well as to Congress.

Specifically that refers to his failure to admit that his company shares data, very specific data, with device manufacturers, some of whose products are supposedly used by foreign enemies of the United States.

I like what Facebook is supposed to be about, but not what it is.

Quite frankly, there are many of my friends that I would know very little about unless I checked their Facebook page. In case you haven’t noticed, phone calls and private emails aren’t very popular in the age of Facebook.

That said, the company has to make money somehow, and the way it does it is to sell data.

Way back when FB started, it was obvious that it had the potential to be dangerous to users, if they posted the wrong information to their page.

Still, they could control that by not posting when they were going to be out of town, or that they had just purchased the Hope diamond, for instance.

Now just being on the platform is a danger.

Just prior to this newest revelation, FB notified users of yet another new and improved “privacy” policy. This is a joke, right?

It’s unclear what we can do about the monetizing of our private business, since by definition, FB is not a private platform.

Even if you limit sharing to just friends and family, the data is still out there.

What we can do is to demand honesty from Zuckerberg.

He says they are no longer sharing this data, beginning to wind it down in April. The question remains, do we believe him?

If he wants to keep Facebook viable, this time he’d better be telling the truth.

And when we say “Do not track” it needs to mean something to the Googles and Facebooks of the world.

Is this worth it?

On the heels of another nasty CNN clickbait piece concerning  First Lady Melania Trump, some Trump supporters are wondering if their desire to expose the corruption in our government  is worth the pain it is bringing to President Trump’s family.

Not since the early 1800’s has a First Lady been attacked so personally, just to inflict damage on her husband.

Other First Ladies have drawn their share of nasty press, but primarily it has been due to their own political activism

Probably the closest historical figure who received treatment similar to this was Rachel Jackson, in 1806. Perhaps luckily for modern day journalists, dueling is now illegal.

But back to the original question.

Certainly , none of President Trump’s backers wished this on his family. Indeed, it’s doubtful that any of them even foresaw this.

Still, the President’s history was not unknown to them, and if they thought about it all, they knew his personal history was going to be a factor.

That said, most of them feel that exposing Washington for the morass it is,  is still important.

“Miranda” put it this way.

“I hate that Mrs. Trump and her son are caught in the middle of all this and I would do anything I could to defend her. But really, what choice did we have as voters? The country desperately needed someone like the President, and no one offered us up a saint. I believe Mrs. Trump is a strong lady, and I can only hope she can see that too.”

That seems to be the long and short of it. Trump’s voters have been attacked since 2 in the morning of November 9, and even well beforehand.

In the end, Trump’s supporters are judging him on his results, and likewise they are judging his opponents by their actions as well.

In the court of public opinion, it is no wonder that the MSM is receiving a failing grade. They richly deserve it.

Whence goeth California?

Cali holds its primary tomorrow, and the results should prove interesting.

Keep in mind that there are more than three Democrats for every Republican in the state, so the state is unlikely to suddenly turn red.

However, due to their goofy jumble voting system, it could sure take on a purplish tinge.

The results also hinge on how many disaffected Democrats and closet independents actually speak out for change.

Schiff, Schumer and Co. would have you believe that everyone in the state just LOVES being a sanctuary state.

Obviously that’s not true, since over 20 cities and counties have said they aren’t on board.

Will they take that disaffection to the polls?

Contrary to some people’s idea that California is the model for 21st century America, a majority of Americans are not interested in becoming residents of another south of the border state.

To the extent that anyone cares about what California does within its borders, a great many people more closely identify the state with Marxist Germany in the 1930’s than they do with America.

Of course the primary will only be a indicator. What matters is the November election.

But if California is to remain a functioning member of the United States, tomorrow matters too.