Saturday, February 29, 2020

Coronavirus and Leverage

Forget for a moment the potential death toll.  And forget for a moment the financial damage from plummeting stocks.  The coronavirus could make the 2008 mortgage crisis look like child's play.

The last time there was a real pandemic was 1918.  Spanish flu killed up to 5% of the world's population.  Obviously a huge human tragedy.  (On the bright side, 95% of the world survived!) But there are big differences between 1918 and 102 years later.  High speed travel is ubiquitous, medicine has improved greatly, aaaand LEVERAGE IS EVERYWHERE (ie: borrowed money).

Unlike the early 1900s, everything today is bought on time, and the coronavirus does not care about your payment schedule.  

Banks, businesses, bonds, houses, cars, hospitals, you name it.  Everything today depends on a matrix of time sensitive payments happening at precise intervals. If time slows down, or takes a temporary pause, those payments will not happen and the deck of ownership around the world will be  completely re-shuffled.

If you are a leveraged company and depend on China for some part of your product, you cannot sell product TODAY.  If you cannot sell product, you cannot pay your debts. If your debts are collateralized by assets, someone else will soon own those assets. 

If you hold a mortgage and your job depends on business as usual, guess what?  Business as usual is going to take a temporary pause.  Can your mortgage payments?    

There will be bank runs, defaults, bankruptcies, and financial chaos beyond anything the world has seen before.  

Just another fun aspect to the unfolding pandemic.  


Thursday, January 23, 2020

Fact Check - The One Thing You Need To Know About Impeachment

There's a lot of noise in the Trump impeachment story, and it's deliberate.  Noise obscures the clear and obvious truth.  To help simplify things, here's the noise-free version, first from 30,000 feet, and then in high resolution from eye-level.

From 30,000 feet it looks like Donald Trump did exactly to Joe Biden what he's been screaming Obama,  Clinton, Comey, and Brennan did to him; that is enlist foreign actors to dig dirt on a political opponent.  When Donald Trump asked Ukraine's leader to investigate how the Bidens made millions from a Ukraine energy company, Joe Biden was leading the polls as Donald Trump's Democrat rival in 2020.  He was clearly asking a foreign country to investigate his political opponent. 

That's how it looks from 30,000 feet, and that's the story Democrats want you to hear.  It looks pretty bad, right?  Maybe even impeachable.  But a funny thing happens when the same events are examined at eye level.

The detail that is missing from 30,000 feet hinges on one key word: "predication".  Was there a basis for what Donald Trump asked Zelensky about the Bidens?  Did he have a good reason to suspect corruption by a former Vice President of the United States?

Here's an analogy:  Consider the cases of two fatal shootings.  In both cases the victim was shot at point blank range in the back.  That's what happened from 30,000 feet.  Are both shooters guilty of murder?  Now consider that in the first case the victim had robbed the shooter and was fleeing.  In the second case the victim had stabbed the shooter and was lunging with a knife for his child.  Those are the details up close.  One shooter had a basis for using deadly force and the other did not.  Predication makes all the difference.

In the case of Obama, Clinton, Comey, Brennan et al digging dirt on Trump, the search for predication came up dry.  Not only that, Obama and Clinton manufactured fake dirt and then looped it back to U.S. intelligence to create the appearance of predication.  That's what the Steele dossier, Stefan Halper,  Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, etc. were all about.  Even after spending years and unlimited funds looking for predication,  Robert Mueller came up empty.  In essence, the Democrat spying on Trump in 2016 and 2017 was part of a coup d'etat.  (Overthrowing an election, in French.)

In Trump's case, he not only had predication, but he also prefaced his request with that very justification during the Ukraine phone call:

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.  Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.   

(Full transcript here)

Here's what Joe Biden openly bragged about doing in Ukraine that piqued Trump's interest: (video below)
I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee,  And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from [then-Prime Minister Arseniy] Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.
I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.  I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.’ I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired.

Mind you, the Ukrainian prosecutor that Joe Biden had fired for $1 billion U.S. dollars was investigating how Joe's son, Hunter Biden, came to be paid up to $8,000,000 by a Ukrainian energy company for sitting on it's board while knowing nothing about energy, Ukraine, or doing business in the region.

The Bidens took an actual bribe in the form of millions from Ukraine, and then bribed Ukraine with a billion U.S. taxpayer dollars to fire the prosecutor looking into it.  If that is not corruption, then the word is meaningless.

That's it. Donald Trump had ample predication and expressed it to the Ukraine leader.  Case closed.

Donald Trump was actually just doing his job when he asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.  It is the responsibility of Presidents to hold government officials accountable for corruption, bribery, extortion and wrongdoing according to the U.S. constitution.  Politicians like Joe Biden are not exempt from this accountability, even if they are running for office. Were they to be immune due to seeking office, that would put them above the law, and "no one is above the law", as Democrats constantly remind us. 

Moreover,  Ukraine and the U.S. have a treaty that requires cooperation for rooting out crime and corruption.  In other words if Trump had NOT asked about the Bidens, he would be ignoring his official duties as President and could have been impeached for that based on the Democrats newfangled definitions of impeachable offenses!

It all comes down to predication.  Trump had it.  Obama, Clinton, Comey, Brennan did not,  tried to manufacture it and got caught.  That makes all the difference.  Everything else is just noise.

Will that stop Democrats from continuing their coup?  Not a chance.  They've been promising to impeach Donald Trump since before he even took the oath of office!  

The Washington Post headline on the day Donald Trump was inaugurated read:
"The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun"-  Washington Post 1/20/2017

Eleven days later, the lawyer representing "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella tweeted that the "#Coup has started".  He tweeted it twice to make sure the message wasn't missed:

The impeachment of Donald Trump has always been a coup d'etat.  He is restoring constitutionally limited government, borders, strong defenses, free markets, and an independent populace to the U.S.  In other words, he is an existential threat to the entire Democrat project.  


Here's "predication" in Joe Biden's own words:

Sunday, January 19, 2020

A Bird-Dogging Sequel in Richmond, Virginia?

Here we go again.  The Democrat party (and Hollywood, but I repeat myself) loves a sequel, so tomorrow they are attempting to stage Charlottesville II in Richmond, VA hoping to stir up violence and make some juicy headlines.  This time the plot centers around the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.  In other words, a Charlottesville sequel with guns.  I hope the Democrats fail this time, because unlike in the movies, real lives are at stake in these live-action agitation-propaganda events.
Let's review what happened at Charlottesville I, the original.  It started as a protest over removing a statue of Robert E Lee, and ended with a bunch of white-supremacists marching at night with tiki torches.  A woman was killed when one of the marchers drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters.

In the wake of that event it became apparent that much of it was quite possibly stage managed by Democrat operatives.  Sounds like a conspiracy theory, right?  Well, don't take my word for it, watch the video below and hear Democrat operatives in their own words.

James O'Keefe's Project Veritas video exposed Democrat operatives like Bob Creamer as they revealed the tactics they use to stir up violence and trouble.  According to them, they train massive numbers of operatives, union guys who will do anything they ask, in tactics like direct-action, bird-dogging, conflict-engagement, and how to create anarchy, all of which are designed to produce exactly what happened in Charlottesville.

Democrat operative fingerprints were all over Charlottesville:

The organizer of the white-supremacist march was a Democrat Obama supporter and an Occupy Wall Street organizer named Jason Kessler.

The Governor, Mayor, and Chief of Police were all activist Democrats.

The Democrat Mayor had declared that Charlottesville would be a "capital of resistance" to Trump's Presidency.  He also worked with John Podesta at The Center for American Progress (CAP).  CAP is a bridge organizations between the official DNC and the dark-arts operatives like those caught on camera below.  John Podesta founded CAP, ran the the Hillary Clinton campaign, and ran the Clinton Foundation.  The Governor of VA was Terry McAuliffe, also an activist Democrat, big Clinton loyalist, and top money man to both Bill and Hillary.

The activist Mayor deliberately had his police herd the marchers and counter-protesters onto a collision course for maximum conflict-engagement. He then ordered his police to stand-down to allow maximum anarchy.

Meanwhile, the white-supremacists actually marched with tiki torches!  Can you write a Hollywood script with a better visual than that?  But no one in the mainstream media bothered to look into Mr. Kessler's past.  They had their narrative and their visual.  Case closed.

So how could these choreographed operations happen right under the media's nose without them realizing it?  First, they aren't looking.  And second, as revealed in the third clip below, these operations are deliberately disguised to never be traceable back to Democrat operatives.

The sequel is scheduled to take place tomorrow in Richmond, VA.  This time it's about guns, not a statue.  The new Democrat Governor,  Ralph Northam, provided the set-up by bird-dogging second amendment supporters with 9 new radical unconstitutional anti-gun laws.  What could possibly go wrong?   


Here are the Democrat operatives explaining their tactics to James O'Keefe's hidden camera.  If you have the time to watch the whole sixteen minute video, I've embedded it below.  If not, here are some links that begin at the appropriate segments:

Conflict Engagement and Creating Anarchy
Trained Agitators in Massive Numbers
Disguised to Look Like Ordinary People
Our Union Guys will do Whatever We Want
Importance of Media
Using "Trump Is A Nazi"
Bird Dogging
Bob Creamer is Diabolical

Watch the whole video:

Perhaps the biggest political fallout from Charlottesville was the fake narrative that Donald Trump had praised white-supremacists as "fine people".  Joe Biden launched his Presidential campaign using that false claim.  Trump's "fine people" comment specifically addressed the statue supporters, not the white-supremacist tiki torch marchers.  If you don't know that, and I'd wager most people don't, then
here's a full debunking:  Trump didn't call Neo-Nazis "fine people".  Here's proof.

Sunday, December 29, 2019

Fact Check: Why Attacks on Jews are Increasing

Violent and deadly anti-Jewish attacks appear to be on the rise.  Six were killed in NJ a couple of weeks ago and several were attacked by machete in NY just days ago.  And there have been waves of smaller attacks in recent weeks throughout NYC.

Luckily, CNN is on the case:

What are the other possibilities when someone attacks a Jew and yells, "Fuck you, Jew!"?

A striking number of these violent attacks were committed by Black people.  This is significant because a number of prominent Democrat people-of-color are vehemently anti-Jewish and anti-Israel.  Among them:

Louis Farrakhan
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
Keith Ellison
Ilhan Omar
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Marc Lamont Hill
Tamika Mallory
Alice Walker
Angela Davis
Ayanna Pressley
Linda Sarsour

Most prominent among them is of course, Louis Farrakhan, who is unparalleled in his open hatred of Jews.   Which raises the question, what has the response been by other prominent Democrats to all this Jew hatred?  Has Barack Obama weighed-in?  How about Chuck Schumer?  How about Nancy Pelosi?  How about the Democrats running for President?   

To answer this question I did some research and compiled a list of all the prominent Democrats who have specifically and unequivocally addressed these haters by name.  I found all the leaders who were brave enough to say something other than the generic cliches and who volunteered to do so before being prompted. 

Below is a PDF of the completed list.

They all deserve high praise for boldly standing-up and risking support from the Black, Hispanic, and Muslim communities.  Thanks to Democrat leaders like them, the increase in attacks on Jews will not last.  

And remember, Barack Obama was the most anti-Semitic President in history.

(I avoid using the term "anti-Semitic" because Arabs are technically Semites too.  Many Jew-haters are themselves Semites, or are allied with the Arabs, as was Hitler.  It is an extremely inaccurate term.  But when the original source material uses it, I abide.) 

Friday, December 27, 2019

Fact Check: Is Donald Trump a Dictator?

[UPDATE 1/25/20]
Jerry Nadler accused Donald Trump of being a dictator last night during his impeachment speech.  Here is an fact check on that very subject from earlier this year: 

The polemics flow like water over Niagara Falls. Every minute of every day there's a new rant by some politician, media personality, academic, or entertainer asserting that Donald Trump is:  
A Dictator!  A Fascist!  A Tyrant!  A Totalitarian!  Subverting our Constitution!  Hitler!  An Existential Threat!

The question is, is any of this true?  Can we prove or disprove these allegations?

Luckily, there's a whole branch of government dedicated to identifying this exact behavior.  At the top of that branch is the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).  No matter what happens in the lower courts,  the supremes always get the final say.  If there's ever a dictator living in the White House, he or she would have an historically bad losing record at the SCOTUS.

Astonishingly, Donald Trump does not!

Here’re the numbers from Trump’s last year at the SCOTUS:

From: “Trump’s Top SCOTUS Lawyers Post winning Term, But Barely” - Bloomberg Law

Donald Trump had a TOTAL win rate of 68% based on his only full Supreme Court session for which he had a confirmed Solicitor General.*

So how did Barack Obama do?
Overall, the (Obama) administration has managed a record of 79-96, a win rate of just above 45 percent.
Wait. OBAMA had a losing record?

How about the other Presidents?
That (Obama) audit doesn't look too good when compared to the record of his predecessors. George W. Bush achieved a record of 89-59 (60 percent)—and that's if you fold in all of 2000-2001, including cases argued when Bill Clinton was president in what was an unusually bad term for the government (roughly 35 percent). Clinton, in turn, had an overall record of 148-87 (63 percent), again including all of 1992-1993. George H.W. Bush went 91-39 (70 percent), while Ronald Reagan weighed in with an astounding record of 260-89 (about 75 percent).

While it looks like this is merely a tale of a downwards trend in recent years, Jimmy Carter still managed a 139-65 record (68 percent). Indeed, the overall government win rate over the last 50 years—I've calculated back to the early 1960s—is comfortably over 60 percent.
From: “Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President” - Cato Institute

And remember, Obamacare (ACA) is likely going back to the Supreme Court in 2020!

*Note: The Bloomberg graphic includes Trump’s amicus cases. The Cato analysis only includes cases in which the administration was a party. Using only party totals, Trump is still at 55% vs. Obama at 45%.

In summary: Donald Trump is doing about average and has a winning record at the SCOTUS.  Conversely, his immediate predecessor is the most overturned President in modern history and the only one with a losing record!

Remind me again who the dictator is?