Wednesday, October 16, 2019

WATCH: Allie Stuckey Stars In New Parody Ad for Democratic

By Allie Beth Stuckey

Allie sarcastically depicts a new campaign ad for the Democratic Party.



President Donald Trump and Melania Trump at the official launch of the Trump 2020 campaign at the Amway Center in Orlando, Florida. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/GETTY)

Though President Donald Trump currently trails several leading Democratic candidates in early national polls, a research firm with a historically accurate model has him winning the 2020 election by a wide margin.

The Moody's model has predicted presidential elections with success since 1980 until its first miss in 2016. Like so many others, they predicted a Hillary Clinton win.

"In our post-mortem of the 2016 presidential election model, we determined that unexpected turnout patterns were one of the factors that contributed to the model's first incorrect election prediction," wrote Mark Zandi, Dan White and Bernard Yerbos of Moody's Analytics.

"The model did not account for the individual attributes of the candidates other than whether they belonged to the incumbent political party. In other words, it assumed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were generic candidates, which they were not," the research firm concluded.

Moody's uses three models to come up with its forecast; in each case, Trump gets at least 289 Electoral College votes.

The "pocketbook" measure focuses on three economic variables: the change in gas prices, the change in house prices, and changes in personal income. This is where Trump shines brightest, grabbing a whopping 351 electoral votes.

"If voters were to vote primarily on the basis of their pocketbooks, the president would steamroll the competition," the report said.

The "stock market" model relies on fewer economic variables than the pocketbook model and is the least favorable model for Trump, but it still currently predicts a victory for the president. Meanwhile, the "unemployment model" predicts a more comfortable win for Trump than the stock market model.

Moody's Analytics may have missed on the previous election but an economic analysis released in 2016 by the research firm forecasting Trump's presidency has largely come true.

"Broadly, Mr. Trump's economic proposals will result in a more isolated U.S. economy. Cross-border trade and immigration will be significantly diminished, and with less trade and immigration, foreign direct investment will also be reduced," Mark Zandi, Chris Lafakis, Dan White and Adam Ozimek wrote in the report.

The report also determined that Trump's plans would hit the middle class the hardest while high-income earners would benefit the most from his tax breaks, concluding with a simplified overview.

"Even allowing for some variability in the accuracy of the economic modeling and underlying assumptions that drive the analysis, four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trump's economic proposals can be reached: 1) they will result in a less global U.S. economy; 2) they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; 3) they will largely benefit very high-income households; and 4) they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment."

The authors of the report, however, warned that quantifying the real estate mogul's economic policies was "complicated by their lack of specificity."

Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, also acknowledged that sometimes numbers can't control the outcome.

"It could be that this election may be so out of bounds with history that the models just aren't going to work," said Zandi.

"It could turn out this thing runs on a dynamic you just can't model."



Sarah Sanders: Dems on debate stage knew Warren is frontrunner and Biden is 'finished'

2020 Democrats have finally realized Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is now the party's frontrunner following Tuesday's debate, and has eclipsed Joe Biden in the race for the White House, said Sarah Sanders Wednesday on "Fox & Friends."

"The big loser... was Joe Biden," she said. "It was incredibly telling that all of the fire that was taken on stage was by Elizabeth Warren, and not Joe Biden -- indicating that even Democrats on that stage know that Biden is finished and that Warren is the new frontrunner."

Sanders claimed Warren's ascension is a net positive for Trump and said her new position as frontrunner will rebrand her as the face of the party, to the detriment of other Democrats.

"She is the new face of the Democrat party," Sanders said. "That is a great contrast for this president. And I think it sets him up very nicely for re-election in November."

Sanders also said the questioning at Tuesday's primary debate was "pathetic" and slanted, in an effort to drag down Trump and exonerate Biden.

"CNN accused President Trump in their questions, yet gave Biden a complete free pass," she said. "They gave him one question -- a very basic follow-up and moved on. I couldn't believe that they glossed over the corruption that we've seen exposed over the last several weeks, so quickly as they did last night.

"Nobody else on stage even thought to call Biden out," Sanders added. "I think they have already decided to write him off and they're focusing their fire on Elizabeth Warren."

Nick Givas is a reporter with Fox News. You can find him on Twitter at @NGivasDC.


Pelosi: No House vote on impeachment inquiry


Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday she will not stage a vote on the House floor to officially launch an impeachment inquiry into President Trump

The decision came after Democratic leaders, returning to Washington following a two-week recess, had reached out to members of their diverse caucus to gauge the party's support for such a vote.

After back-to-back meetings with party leaders and then the full caucus, Pelosi announced that no such vote would take place. Democratic aides emphasized, however, that the process remains fluid and that Pelosi may reverse course and stage such a vote at any point in the future.

"There's no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote," Pelosi told reporters during a last-minute press briefing in the Capitol. 

The decision arrives as Trump and his Republican allies are amping up the pressure on Pelosi to hold a formal vote to begin the investigation — a move they believe would grant the GOP more power and influence in the process, including the ability to call and subpoena their own witnesses.

"The minority has been shut out of the process," Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, told reporters Tuesday. "It is being done in a ... classified briefing room behind closed doors when it should be in front of the American people so that all can see in a very transparent way the testimony of these witnesses."

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

The critics were wrong: Welfare reform has delivered for single moms

By Kay Hymowitz | New York Post

On Tuesday, September 10th, the Census Bureau released its report on the nation’s income, poverty and health-insurance coverage for 2018. News that the percentage of Americans with insurance took a troubling stumble — the largest since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 — was the angle that most interested front-page editors.

But one other tree in the Census forest of graphs and tables should have been an eye-catcher: Poverty in single-mother households sank to its lowest rate … ever. What’s more, the decline took place entirely among black and Hispanic single-mother families.

For those plugged in to debates about welfare reform and child poverty over the past 20-plus years, this is a “Wow!” moment. In 2018, median income for households headed by women with “no spouse present” increased by a robust 5.8%. The poverty rates for female-householder black families dropped 2.7 percentage points, while the rate for Hispanic families plunged 4 percentage points, to 31.1%, in 2018.

For blacks in female-householder families, the proportion with family incomes less than $25,000 decreased by 4.1 percentage points, while for Hispanics in female-householder families, the proportion dropped by 3 points.

More black and Hispanic women have jobs and are working more hours. “The rise in full-time, year-round work led to an increase in incomes and earnings at the household level,” the Census Bureau found.

Better yet, the growing number of hours worked by single mothers led to a decline in child poverty of 2.5 percentage points. That comes out to 649,000 fewer poor American children.

And while white and black child-poverty rates remained stable, the percentage of Hispanic kids living in poverty dropped 7.1 percentage points in one year.

A strong Trump-era labor market is one part of this story, but so is the 1996 welfare-reform law. Remember that the Clinton-period law overturned Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which had entitled poor single mothers to cash benefits. As a result, unemployment among the growing number of single mothers was high.

Essentially, welfare reform said no more free lunch, instituting work requirements and replacing open-ended AFDC with a time-limited grant to poor mothers (TANF, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families).

The idea was to promote self-sufficiency among a group depending almost entirely on government funds instead of a job to feed and house their families; to integrate a subculture of isolated outsiders into the mainstream of clocking in and meeting obligations to colleagues and bosses; and to discipline what appeared to be disordered and neglectful households.

From today’s vantage point, it’s easy to forget that welfare reform led to a dramatic decrease in welfare rolls, more single mothers in the workplace and a decline in poverty rates among single-parent families.

As time passed, progress seemed to stall; both the public and policymakers lost interest. The Great Recession undid whatever advances had been made, and disillusion with the work-and-save Protestant ethic set in.

By the 2016 election, welfare reform was policy non grata; Hillary Clinton avoided it during her presidential run, though her husband had signed the bill during his own reelection campaign.

A new generation of voters, scarred by the Great Recession and perhaps by ill-informed teachers, was cynical.

These days, left-leaning younger Americans consider welfare reform a failure or even a disaster. It’s a sure thing that none of the Democratic presidential candidates will be flirting with welfare reform anytime soon.

If we lived in rational times, the new census numbers would at least challenge these convictions. It looks as if full-time, year-round work can reduce poverty and that, racism or no, poor minority women can improve their lives and the lives of their children through 9-to-5 labor.

Any “welfare-reform-is-a-failure” narrative should collapse under the weight of such demonstrated facts.

The new data confirm the hypothesis that work is a crucial factor to lifting people out of poverty.

Continued success depends on a healthy economy, because the poor suffer most during downturns. But we should all rejoice in the progress being made in uplifting these female-headed families.

Kay Hymowitz is a contributing editor of City Journal, from which this was adapted.

Monday, October 14, 2019

Journos Lose Minds Over Silly Trump Meme Based on Colin Firth Movie


If it's Monday, that must mean it's time to freak out about something that doesn't matter. Our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters in the press are bored with screaming about how the Joker movie is going to kill us all, so now they're collapsing onto their fainting couches over a Trump meme. Again.

A video depicting a macabre scene of a fake President Trump shooting, stabbing and brutally assaulting members of the news media and his political opponents was shown at a conference for his supporters at his Miami resort last week, according to footage obtained by The New York Times...

The video, which includes the logo for Mr. Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign, comprises a series of internet memes. The most violent clip shows Mr. Trump’s head superimposed on the body of a man opening fire inside the “Church of Fake News” on parishioners who have the faces of his critics or the logos of media organizations superimposed on their bodies. It appears to be an edited scene of a church massacre from the 2014 dark comedy film “Kingsman: The Secret Service.”

The disclosure that the video was played shows how Mr. Trump’s anti-media language has influenced his supporters and bled into their own propaganda.

And the NYT goes on and on about it. Over 1,000 words. This must be a disturbing video indeed, huh?

Judge for yourself. WARNING: This video depicts violence against corporate logos and people Trump doesn't like.

That's it. That's what the media gatekeepers are so upset about today. The video has been on YouTube since July 2018. You can find it here, assuming it hasn't been taken down now that the important people are upset about it. The video didn't hurt anybody for over a year, but because it was playing in an empty room in a building owned by Trump, now it's very urgent news.

There’s a big empty room here with TVs and projectors playing videos by that “carpe donktum” guy.

Originally, that scene in Kingsman: The Secret Service was an over-the-top comedic depiction of ultraviolence against rural Christians. It was part of a ridiculous James Bond-parody plot involving a madman's scheme to destroy the world, using mind-controlling cellphones that turned people into violent maniacs. 

That scene, set in a church in Kentucky, was one of the results of that scheme. It was just a dumb, crazy action movie, and that was the dumbest, craziest scene in it. Back in 2014, a movie showing a church full of homophobic rednecks in flyover America getting massacred was okay. Finding sick humor in that was fine. That sociopolitical commentary, in the form of a frenetic action scene, was no big deal.

But now that somebody on the Internet made a weird, dumb, not particularly funny pro-Trump meme out of it? Red Alert!!

CNN statement on video shown at @realDonaldTrump supporter conference at Trump's Miami resort last week:

If memes are outlawed, only outlaws will have memes.

Fantasizing about killing your political opponents is bad. Isn't that right, NYT?

My thoughts and prayers go out to all the brave journalists who are bravely opposing the president with their bravery. I hope you don't wind up in the next dopey meme that the NYT writes about as if it matters.

Update: I just discovered another reason to be outraged by that video, if you need one. The meme-maker put Hillary Clinton's head on a man's body. That's called misgendering, and it's literally violence against the LGBTQ community.

Update: Trump condemns the thing he's supposed to condemn. I'm sure that will lower the volume not one bit.

Update: Speaking of political violence, which meme inspired this attack?


After the @realDonaldTrump rally in Minneapolis, his supporters were attacked by left-wing extremists. An unprovoked assault on a woman was caught on camera by @AlphaNewsMN

Mayor @Jacob_Frey defends charging Trump campaign $530k for public safety. #antifa 

Producers of the Flailing Impeachment Inquiry

By Clarice Feldman | The American Thinker

Believing Adam Schiff’s lies and calling for an “impeachment inquiry” has to be one of the worst blunders of Speaker Pelosi’s career. The whistleblower tale has crumbled and the backup witnesses the Democrats are relying on only confirm the Deep State bureaucrats and Democrats believe that they, not the elected president, have a lock on executive powers. In fact, the ploy boomeranged and the spotlight is now on the Democrats’ White Hope, Joe Biden.  Despite the media downplaying Biden’s actions, there is more to come of his and his party’s corruption.

Whistleblower Won’t Testify

The leaker, incorrectly tagged a “whistleblower,” now doesn’t want to testify. Instead he wants to give his testimony “by letter,” presumably from an undisclosed location where no one can test his “testimony.”  Ostensibly this is because he fears for his safety. He is anonymous, so any claim of “death threats” seems unlikely, although as we show below,  we do have a rather good idea of his identity.

In any event the very notion is preposterous

It was already ridiculous to think a presidential impeachment, to remove the most powerful elected political representative of The United States, could continue based on an anonymous complaint.  However, expecting the same complainant/accuser to remain invisible during the process is so far beyond nonsensical, the light from where nonsense emanates wouldn’t reach this narrative for a year.

Yes, feel free to pummel the left-wing nuts based on the absurdity of this request.  Only the most raving Moon bat imaginable would think they could impeach a sitting U.S. President via a ‘Dear Sir’ complaint letter to Congress.

These are obviously not stable-minded people.

Oh, please, please, please hold that impeachment vote now.  It is more clear than ever where this nuttery is heading.

If you thought it was delicious to watch the media meltdowns on election night 2016, just imagine the meltdowns as the media attempts to sell impeachment via a strongly worded  letter of complaint to their resistance constituents….

Perhaps he could testify via text messages, or… wait, even better… via tweets.  Too damn funny. 

The real reason for this backoff, I think, is that once his identity is confirmed, it will be clear this was a stupid setup by amateurs in Congress who wanted to cover their tracks. From certain clues reported, online detectives have winkled out what appears to be his identity.

If they are right, there are a lot of reasons he wouldn’t want to testify. For one he seems to be involved with those behind the discredited Steele Dossier. “Billionaire Clinton donor Victor Pinchuk sent MP Bielkova to meet with him the same day she met with David Kramer and kicked Steele Dossier operation into high gear.” For another, his association with two members of Schiff’s staff -- Abigail Grace and Sean Misko -- suggests they cooked up his story together before sending it off to the Inspector General to refashion the leaker as a “whistleblower.” 

Grace, 36, was hired to help Schiff’s committee investigate the Trump White House. [snip] Grace worked at the NSC from 2016 to 2018 in U.S.-China relations and then briefly at the Center for a New American Security think tank, which was founded by two former senior Obama administration officials. [snip]

Misko, 37, worked in the Obama administration as a member of the secretary of state’s policy planning staff under deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, who became Hillary Clinton's top foreign policy official during her 2016 presidential campaign. In 2015, Misko was the director for the Gulf states at the NSC, remaining there into the Trump administration’s first year.

A source familiar with Grace's work at the NSC told the Washington Examiner, “Abby Grace had access to executive privilege information, and she has a duty not to disclose that information. She is not authorized to reveal that information.”

The same source said that Misko had not been trusted by Trump appointees. "There were a few times where documents had been signed off for final editing before they go to the national security adviser for signature," the source said. "And he actually went in and made changes after those changes were already finished. So he basically tried to insert, without his boss' approval.

"There were meetings in which he protested very heavily, and next thing you know, there's an article in the paper about the contents of that meeting." [snip]
Misko's name surfaced in the Hillary Clinton email controversy when he worked in the State Department during the Obama administration.

In a Dec. 1, 2009, email released by Judicial Watch, Clinton adviser Huma Abedin sent classified information regarding foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her private email account. That email originated with Misko, who wrote to Sullivan that he initially “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was sending the email again. 

The “whistleblower” -- if the supposition of his identity is true -- is or was with the CIA and is a fellow on the Atlantic Council, “which has a business partnership with Hunter Biden’s holding company” the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.  The same tweeter JP also reports that members of the Atlantic Council include a significant number of anti-Trumpers whom we are all familiar with:

What do we know about The Atlantic Council members now?

1:  Burisma Holdings.
2:  Sean Misko (Schiff staffer)
3:  Dmitri Alperovitch.  (The CTO and cofounder of Crowdstrike)
4:  Victor Pinchuk (Ukrainian Oligarch/Hillary Funder)
..& more Obama/Hillary people than you can imagine.
You know what else is SOOOOO coincidental?  That the CTO of Crowdstrike is ALSO in The Atlantic Council.

Who funds the Atlantic Council? Hunter Biden’s Burisma.  The American Security Council is also a rats’ nest of familiar persons, notes JP:

“Let's look at members of The Center for a New American Century... CNAS...Members: 1: Abigail Grace (Schiff staffer. Former NSC at WH) 2: Christopher Heinz. (John Kerry son, Partners with Hunter Biden) 3: Sean Misko (Schiff staffer. Former NSC at WH)”

Even the “whistleblower’s” attorney, Andrew Bakaj, has a long anti-Trump history and a connection to the Project on Government Oversight, financed by George Soros’ Open Society foundation. 

Back up Witnesses Before Congress

My online friend “The Infamous Iggy” captured the unifying theme of these two witnesses best:

The DNC, Pelosi, Schiff, the media, progs in general and even the bureaucracy and FBI are in some respects a sideshow.

The real issue that ought to either-or-both frighten and enrage any honest American is that the "Intelligence Community" truly does now consider itself a law unto itself and has arrogated the power to actually decide who is a suitable president and who will be allowed to occupy the White House.

The genesis of Russia and the Ukraine has quite plainly been at its root the IC and especially the CIA.

They have, make no mistake, declared war on self-governance, unless we pick someone they approve of which is quite obviously not self-governance.

Thankfully the stupid bastards are remarkably incompetent and have been for decades but they still can, and are, causing a great deal of damage. 

So absurd have been the multiple efforts by Democrats to geld the chief executive that one federal appellate court judge has termed their efforts violative of the constitutional ban on Bills of Attainder.

Hoping to inject life into a dead horse, Democrats announced two witnesses this week, both of which are disgruntled former Trump officials and neither of whom had firsthand knowledge of the phone call that prompted this nonsense.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch 

The President pulled her from that post in May. She is the ambassador who didn’t let representatives of the new government of Ukraine have visas to travel to this country to provide evidence of corruption by Biden and others in their country.

I suppose her point, and that of the Democrats, is that the executive powers granted the president are to be negated. The Deep State, once in place, cannot be removed by an upstart president who disagrees with its members.

Fiona Hill

Her testimony is due next week. She likewise objected to the president setting his own foreign policy circumventing the advice of the bloated (300) membership (Obama’s doing, now trimmed back to the original 100 by Trump) of the National Security Council and herself. The President’s former Russian advisor resigned days before the call which so perturbed Adam Schiff, a call he misrepresented (“parodied”) when the White House surprisingly revealed the transcript of it. In her case, it seems that once again that policy differences and turf protection are the issues, not presidential wrongdoing.

Deep State Corruption in Ukraine is Still Only Partially Revealed

It is my belief, based on information, that the Bidens were not the only ones who treated Ukraine as a private piggy bank. Obama sent them a billion dollars and to paraphrase the Bible, he cast bread upon the waters and Biden and others got back Fig Newtons. Hunter Biden alone received $3.1 million in an 18-month period.


Hunter Biden’s bank records show that $3.1 million flowed in from the Ukrainians over an 18 month period

$142,000 was wired from a Ukrainian oligarch

$1.2M came from an LLC connected to a bank with a history of money laundering

All while his dad steered Ukrainian policy 

It seems that Joe Biden may have done well, too:

Rudy Giuliani has alleged that a Ukrainian natural-gas company that employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter also paid the former vice president $900,000 in lobbying fees. 

Appearing on Fox News’ “Hannity” Wednesday, President Trump’s personal lawyer cited as evidence claims made by Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s parliament. [snip]

“Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the US-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners,” Derkach told reporters, referring to the investment company the younger Biden founded with Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry. 

“The payment reference was payment for consultative services,” Derkach said, according to Interfax, a Russian news agency. 

He went on to claim Burisma -- according to documents -- paid $16.5 million to former Polish President Aleksander Kwasnieski, who was chair of Burisma’s board, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer.

It remains to be seen if Derkach’s claims will be proven, but Biden has a long history of corrupt dealings. Tom Brokaw first raised this issue in 2008.

 I think a thorough investigation will show that money sent to Ukraine to help develop its natural gas resources were diverted by pro-Russian Ukrainian officials who sat on it in order to allow Russia to dominate the natural gas market in Europe (and blackmail it) and disbursed a portion to the Bidens to pull this off. I also think the Obama Administration was well aware of this corrupt deal with Hunter Biden. 


Ukraine was not the only piggybank Hunter tapped into. There was China as well, and there John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, joined him.  

In 2015, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China teamed up with Bohai Harvest RST to buy Henniges Automotive, a producer of high-tech anti-vibration components for automobiles.  Bohai Harvest's investment funding, though "managed" by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz, had come in large part from Chinese government interests.  So it's stretching the truth to say a Chinese investment pool "teamed up with" a Chinese company to buy the components-maker.  Really, it was the Chinese buying an American company.

At a big-bracket investment firm such as Goldman or Morgan, such a transaction would have had to pass muster through teams of compliance and due diligence officials.  What sort of compliance review do you think occurred at the so-called private equity firm run by a drug-addicted ne'er-do-well like Biden or like Kerry's stepson?

Private equity funds tend to charge one or two percent a year on invested capital plus 20% of profits.  Assuming that the fund had a total of $1.5 billion of "assets under management," the lucky fellows were -- and probably still are -- splitting $15 or $30 million a year.

In both cases, not only do we have the unseemly, certainly corrupt practice of officials and their children cleaning up on foreign deals obtained through political connections, but as well there is the stench of these people undermining U.S. interests for pelf.

But absent Schiff and Pelosi’s dumb and phony “impeachment inquiry” none of this would have received much attention in the press, which as John Nolte describes has hit defcon in desperation

Incidentally, the presidency is not the only branch whose powers the Democrats want to circumscribe. Democratic Senators Whitehouse, Gilibrand, Hirono, Blumenthal, and Durbin just filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a Second Amendment case regarding NYC firearm transport restrictions. 

The brief contained a thinly veiled threat to restructure the Supreme Court if it decides against the City of New York.

These people keep trying in every way large and small to impose a one-party autocratic rule over us, even going so far as to ignore the separation of powers among three constitutional branches of government.

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Is it possible that Democrats were so stupid they walked into a trap?

See the intriguing video by Millie Weaver “Democrats Plan Mass Civil Unrest To Overthrow Trump.”