Saturday, March 11, 2017

The Trump Economy Keeps 'Unexpectedly' Topping Forecasts

IBD ^ | March 10,17 

So does President Trump deserve credit for these recent upbeat results or is this just economy finally getting over the Great Recession? Normally, we'd say no to the former, since Trump has yet to enact his economic agenda.
But in this case, Trump's pro-growth agenda marks a dramatic turnaround from the Obama years. And as a direct result, a multitude of surveys have shown a huge increase in optimism among business owners, investors, and the public at large. The National Federation of Independent Business' small business optimism index hit a 12-year high in January. The IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index was the highest it's been since October 2004. The Dow has gained nearly 17% since the November elections.
This sudden change of heart appears to be having an immediate impact on the economy. The unexpected rise in home sales, for example, is being driven in part by "a postelection jump in mortgage rates, led by optimism about President Donald Trump's plans to ease regulations and spur economic growth," noted Crain's Business. The jump in capital goods orders "is a sign that businesses might be following up buoyant postelection sentiment by spending more after years of tepid global growth," according to Bloomberg.
Whether this will last depends on whether Trump gets his economic policies in place.
In the meantime, it's worth asking why it is that economists consistently overestimated the economic impact of Obama's tax-regulate-and-spend policies, and now appear to be underestimating Trump's pro-business agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Remaining Democrat government underground must also be drained from the swamp!

The Canary in The Mine ^ | 03/11/2017 | The Canary 

Draining the swamp means cleaning out the remaining Democrat government underground too. President Donald John Trump is reported to be furious with his communications staff for steadily being outsmarted by well-timed and –placed leaks from Democratic operatives, suggesting collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government agents in preventing Hillary Clinton’s election, even surmising that this may have involved treasonous activities by Trump operatives.
With so far not an iota of evidence in support of such collusion, and completely ignoring that not only Hillary Clinton lost the election but the Democrats all over the country by failing to achieve expected gains in Congress and local state elections, he has reason to be upset that his government is unable to control the message. Less than 24 hours after giving before a joint session of House and Senate one of the best presidential speeches in U.S. history, he found himself once again on the defense under relentless leaks from former members of the Obama administration and government bureaucrats in various agencies who very obviously oppose the Trump agenda.
The Canary predicted in several prior blogs that Obama and his “army” of organized supporters would be a dangerous and divisive political force in strident attempts at delegitimizing the Trump presidency. Increasing evidence now has become public that during the last two weeks in office, the Obama administration carefully planned and executed a strategy of not only delegitimizing President Donald J. Trump but by claiming he won the presidency illegitimately by colluding with the Russian government in treasonous fashion.
These largely Obama-driven attacks on Trump and his administration, therefore, go far beyond just attempts at political deligitimization; they are meant to introduce the concept of treasonous behavior by a sitting president and, therefore, are attempts at criminalizing the arguments against his presidency with the potential goal of impeachment.
The deviousness of this campaign is unprecedented because it was initiated while, publicly, President Obama was extending a helping hand to the incoming Trump administration since, as he himself stated, despite political differences, he had been at the receiving end of such a helping hand from President Bush when he moved into the Oval Office.
18 U.S. Code §2381 defines treason as: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall …..”
This definition is of importance when considering the allegations swirling around. While it is important to reemphasize that, as of this writing, there is not an iota of evidence to support any collusion, indeed, not even that discussions regarding the subject took place between Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials, let us for a moment assume that there, indeed, have been discussion between these two parties, in which Trump operatives were made aware that the Russian government was in possession of e-mails generated by Hillary Clinton’s and the Democratic National Committee. Let us further assume that the Trump team even encouraged their publication. Would that have constituted treason?
Since President Putin’s Russia is, rightly, widely considered a hostile nation to the U.S., this is basically the argument made by Trump bashers. Moreover, opponents of Trump further argued during the election campaign (and still do) that the involved e-mails not only came from a hostile power but, in addition, were “stolen.” Their use in the campaign, therefore, would establish complicity with the thieves (i.e., hackers).
On both issues the Canary disagrees with the underlying logic of the anti-Trump crowd , and here is why: Though Russia under its current government has, indeed, to be considered a political and military adversary, promises of favorable treatments, disclosures of national secrets or any other potentially harmful acts to the security and interests of the U.S. in return for publication of these e-mails by the Russian government (or a potential third party agent, like WikiLeaks) could, in fact, potentially be considered treasonous. But in absence of any quid pro quo, disclosures of political fraud, undermining the democratic election process (like the interventions in the Democratic primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton and to the disadvantage of Bernie Sanders by Democratic National Leadership) are, especially before a crucially important presidential election, in the best interest of the electorate. Opposition research, routinely pursued by both major parties, frequently involves “stolen” data. To offer just one example, the Clinton campaign, for example, had no hesitation to use Trump’s stolen tax returns in the campaign.
Even repeated contacts with the Russian government, if it did not involve any quid pro quos, therefore, would appear not only perfectly permissible but are routinely taking place before elections all over the world because all countries are proactively assessing who may be the next government leader they would have to face.
The Russian government, of course, is also perfectly entitled to favor candidates in U.S. elections and, indeed, even to support them. It is the responsibility of U.S. politicians to make sure that any such “help” does not contradict U.S. law. The U.S, rather routinely, intervenes in national elections by supporting favorite candidates politically and even financially. A principal motivation why President Putin apparently opposed Hillary Clinton’s election has been her active support as Secretary of State for opposition groups to Putin during the last presidential election. The Obama administration also quite openly intervened in Israeli elections when sending financial support (using U.S. tax dollars) as well as expert staff help from Obama’s own election campaign to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s opposition in a blatant attempt to subvert Bibi’s reelection. The effort failed and, indeed, misfired once it became public but, if this is what the U.S. does to friends, imagine how much we, likely, meddle in elections of less friendly countries.
The furor expressed by Democrats and the media about Russian meddling in the recent U.S. presidential election, therefore, appears hypocritical and highly exaggerated.
Which returns the analysis to the recognition that there are significant differences between a presidential candidate, who may or may not assume the presidency in the future, and a sitting president, who already assumed all presidential powers. A candidate for the presidency, in principle, still only speaks for himself. Moreover, candidates are widely known to switch campaign positions on the journey from candidate to elected president. Representations and deeds of a sitting president, therefore, are, of much greater significance.
Exploring this thought further, it, therefore, would appear that the risk of treasonous acts is much higher for sitting presidents than for candidates for president, who still lack access to confidential government information and have no decision-making powers yet. In other words, candidate Trump had very little opportunity for being involved in treasonous situations with the Russians; Obama, however, as has been well documented, in highest government levels communication with Russia, meeting then Russian (temporary) President Dmitry Medvedev, in an open microphone gaffe on March 26, 2012, just before his reelection, revealed the message to Putin, “tell Vladimir that I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”
What Obama in those very few words communicated to the President of a hostile country could be, indeed, considered treasonous because he, basically, told him that, once the elections were over, he could give Russia concessions the American people, likely, would not approve of (because why would he, otherwise, wait with those concessions till after the election).
The irony is that, in contrast to current collusion rumors spread by the Obama propaganda machine, this event in 2012 really took place. It received minor media attention as a “gaffe,”- a more humorous than serious political occurrence; but, when closely examined, this event represented a truly astonishing statement from an American president in a one-on-one meeting with the president of a hostile country, and clearly evidence of collusions, – not only to the benefit of an election outcome but, in addition, behind the back of the American people.
For the Trump administration, it is high time to recognize that the Democratic Party establishment and many other well-financed interest groups are determined to prevent President Trump from completing his term and running again. In other words, the swamp Trump promised to drain is fighting back and, interestingly, is doing so with what psychologists call psychological projections, by accusing Trump of exactly the transgressions the Democrats have been guilty of over the last eight years. It is time for the Justice Department to take the gloves off, and open the public’s eyes to the corruption and abuse of state powers that pervaded the Obama administration for almost a decade. It, indeed, is a very deep swamp that needs to be drained!

The Trump Economy Keeps 'Unexpectedly' Topping Forecasts

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 3/10/2017 | Staff 

Growth: For eight years, economic indicators repeatedly came below forecasts. Now, there's been a string of reports — the latest one is on jobs — that have outperformed economist predictions. What's changed, we wonder?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the economy added 235,000 jobs in February, when economists expected 200,000 new jobs. And that comes after January's 227,000 gain, which also beat economists' forecasts by a substantial margin.

That's not all. Other recent indicators have come in better than economists had expected.

Orders for capital goods were higher in December than forecast.
There were supposed to be 5.55 million existing-home sales in January. The actual number was close to 5.7 million — which was the highest level since 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Trump upsets another special interest group: Porn Addicts!

American Thinker ^ | March 11, 2017 | Monica Showalter 

The Trump administration has made life miserable for yet another special-interest group: Porn-watching perverts "working" at federal agencies

RT reports:



A House committee on oversight has approved prohibiting federal employees from using government computers and devices to watch pornography on the job.

On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee unanimously approved House Resolution 680, entitled the “Eliminating Pornography from Agencies Act.

The legislation, sponsored by Congressman Mark Meadows (R-North Carolina), would require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue new guidelines within 90 days to “prohibit the access of a pornographic or other explicit web site from a Federal computer.

Rep. Meadows has been trying to get this legislation through three times, given all the disgusting stories he's heard of federal employees spending their working hours looking at filth on the Internet instead of doing their work and answering citizen phone calls. What's more, these one-hand losers can't even be fired. With President Trump now in office, apparently, the political atmosphere has improved and the bill is moving through for another try.

Those in favor cited the theft of time and the hostile work environment for women. Those are perfectly valid reasons. But there probably are more.
Porn is a favorite means of hackers to draw clicks for assorted phishing expeditions to steal data. It was just such a phishing expedition, albeit not from porn, that enabled some sort of hackers to expose the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, which has led to countless brouhahas still not spent out even today.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Obama Is Going Down As the Worst Ex-President In History

IWB ^ | Gabrielle Seunagal 

As more of Obama’s nefarious deeds are unveiled, his reputation continues to suffer tremendously. The former President not only worked through organizations such as Organizing For Action (OFA) and even the deep state, but has also been outed by Judge Napolitano, who revealed that Obama did, in fact, wiretap President Trump during the 2016 election, and without a warrant. Is there no end to the treachery of the disgraced former President? Obama’s popularity continues to decrease by the day, with only himself to blame.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...

BREAKING NEWS: FISA WARRANTS FOR TRUMP WIRETAPPING CONFIRMED

YouTube.com by "WIKIFACTS" ^ | Mar 9, 2017 | WIKIFACTS 


ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS (1993)

New York Times ^ | March 24, 1993 | By David Johnston 

WASHINGTON, March 23— Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno's order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...