You know what a free trade treaty should say? This:
Goods and services may flow freely between Country A and Country B, unless such goods or services are illegal in the receiving country.
Or, if you’d like to have semi-free trade with a small tariff – this:
Goods and services may flow freely between Country A and Country B, unless such goods or services are illegal in the receiving country.
A tariff no larger than 5% of the purchase price in the receiving country may be levied.
That’s it – it is all you need, if what you want is free trade. Now, take a look at the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership. It is page after page of incomprehensible, bureaucratic gibberish which is designed to allow the maximum latitude for un-elected bureaucrats to “adjust” things based upon who is bribing the best at the moment. It isn’t a free trade agreement – it’s a mechanism whereby whomever is in charge at the moment can claim it means whatever they want.
The trouble with our political life is that we’ve raised political issues to the status of religious dogmas. Free Trade has become a dogma and you are not to question it, period. But that is just one of a thousand political and/or economic things we are told we’re just not allowed to dissent from. Nonsense. I can dissent from any statement issued by any man or woman – God and His Word are eternal and unchanging…everything else is subject to revision.
Of course, expert opinion says we must have free trade – but, what is expert opinion? It astonishes me that the same experts who were saying a few weeks ago that it was certain to be Hillary in a landslide are now, straight-faced, saying it is certain to be Hillary in a squeaker; or any variation between those two points. Experts this year seem a very strange thing.
For example, on Friday night on Twitter the experts were agog over a rush to vote in Nevada on the last day of early voting – they were tweeting out shocked statements about how amazing it was that so many people, strongly Latino, were just jamming the polling places…lining up for a couple hours to do so. This was IT – proof that Trump is completely DOOMED on Tuesday. Did none of these people think for a moment that these people jamming the polling places late on Friday evening had two weeks in which to early vote and, of course, could still vote on Tuesday? I mean, sure, I totally get a strong anti-Trump vote from Latino voters…it is expected. No one doubts that Hillary will crush it among Latino voters this election. But the fact that all of a sudden, right at the end of early voting, a huge number of them just “happened” to show up means that it was planned that way. For crying out loud, are we to believe that these people just suddenly remembered they hated Trump that much? “Oh, my goodness! I forgot that I hate Trump a lot – better get to the polls right now! Even though I could have done this any time in the past two weeks or could easily do it on Tuesday…I’ll do it NOW…”. It was a stunt – a well-managed stunt, I grant, but a stunt nonetheless. It was a Narrative-driver, an attempt to get people talking about a surge of Hillary support on the eve of the election. It was, folks, politics – which is street theater writ large. Now, it could well presage a huge anti-Trump vote on Tuesday…or, it could be that they’re just milking their Tuesday vote. We’ll find out on Tuesday…but to read some cosmic truth into a political stunt is absurd.
But it has been like that all year – people picking out small pieces of data and extrapolating from that to a complete theory of what is going on. Here’s the kicker – if their predictions wind up in line with reality, they’ll be hailed as political geniuses…and if their predictions are wrong, they’ll just blame bad polling and move on to the next election. For crying out loud, people – the experts are mostly liberal Democrats who are members of the MSM and thus share a strong desire that Hillary wins and Trump loses. Maybe they’ve got it right, maybe they’re wish-casting. But until the votes are actually counted, no one can be sure. Lots of people are saying that Reagan’s win in 1980 surprised no one. They are either lying or they simply weren’t around or aware at the time…it was a shocker. No one was expecting it. The 2014 mid-terms were also a complete shock – right up until the votes started to come in, everyone was thinking that the GOP might actually get beaten…right before the GOP gained 9 Senate seats and the largest number of State legislative seats since 1928. And yet, here we are, hanging on the words of people who are only right by accident…
If your expert analysis is that the Browns will lose against Dallas tomorrow, then you’re probably be right…but that won’t make you a genius. And they’ll still have to play the game…and maybe the Browns get lucky? Or the Cowboys unlucky? You want to prove to me that you’re a genius at predicting things? Then I want to see your prediction from a few weeks back – before the game was played – wherein you said that the Bolts would be up 13 points half way thru the 4th quarter and then would give up two fumbles resulting in scoring drives by the other team. You don’t know the future. Ever.
Trump got rushed off the stage in Reno by the Secret Service – from what I can tell, it was because a nut was acting like a nut. Good job on the part of the Secret Service being so alert.
Israel’s “partners for peace” name a school after a guy who planned the Munich Massacre.
Dethrone the House of Clinton.
Never Trump is still pretty convinced that Trump will lose and they are eagerly rubbing their hands at the prospect of the purge they’ll conduct. Bit of advice – don’t bother; everyone you don’t like will purge themselves from you and go on to other things. If Conservatism is just a mechanism whereby we mildly dissent from reigning Progressive orthodoxy, then no one will want any part of it…including 90% of Conservatives.
Hillary doesn’t like it when men make crude remarks – unless it’s at one of her rallies.
Trump campaign office vandalized in Denver…I expect liberals to start wringing their hands over Hillary’s harsh, exclusionary rhetoric just about the time pigs fly.
Trump and Pence are heading to Minnesota – probably an extremely long-shot and may be just a head-fake. But this year I do invite Minnesota to repair it’s 1984 shame of being the only State in the nation which didn’t go for Reagan – who fell 3,761 votes shy of a 50-State sweep.
Blogs For Victory 
My feeling about most man-made laws is that the longer and more complex they are, the more likely it is that, hidden somewhere in some fine print are loopholes designed to benefit special interests. And one of the biggest problems with multi-thousand page laws is that the only people who read them are the lawyers for those who are looking for ways to violate them. It would seem there could be some room for compromise between Mark’s 1 or 2 sentences and the actual 5,000 pages contained in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Certainly what constitutes a legal or illegal product needs to be spelled out along with provisions for punishment for those who violate the agreement.
This is the first I’ve heard that the hacked emails made public from WikiLeaks are coming from somewhere other than Russia. I realize there’s a lot of false info floating around the Internet, but I hope this is true.
I have been fascinated by the Leftist strategy of pretending that only the Russians have the immense skill needed to hack into Hillary’s unsecured server and dismayed by the Right’s refusal to correct that and point out that it was so vulnerable her entire communication archive is probably in the hands of several entities, not all of them governments, and of the governments not all are hostile to us.
The list of opportunities missed by this campaign and the GOP in general makes me wonder how we got as far as we have. You would think that somewhere in one or both of these organizations there would be at least one person who would watch for things like this and immediately take advantage of it.
Trump, for example, has been given many openings, all of which he has missed. When Hillary whined about the Russians, all he had to do was say something like “Why are you so sure these leaks are coming from Russia? Your server was so poorly protected your emails are probably in the hands of a dozen different countries and probably some individual hackers who thought it would be fun to see what the State Department is up to.” That would have been a great smack-down, using her comments to point out in a different way how careless she was with national security.
Speaking of national security, does Huma Abedin have a security clearance? If so, how did she get it? I would think that a cabinet member would have to start with such a clearance before naming staff, but it kind of looks like it was backwards, with Hillary naming her staff and then clearances being automatically granted. If there are any. She evidently didn’t even check to see if the manager of her email server had any level of security clearance. (He didn’t.)
“You don’t know the future. Ever”
True dat. I remember a time when the Cubs were down three games to one in the World Series with two of the final three to be played in Cleveland…
And the plot just gets thicker and thicker.
Spook, your link won’t open.
Try it now.
It’s really disturbing to see what depths this government will go to hide their corruption from the American people. Bill and Hillary Clinton both went to an island on numerous occasions where they prostitute very young teenagers 13 – 15 years old. Oh my goodness! *rubs eyes*
I thought Mr. Comey was doing this investigation for the right thing, for the people of this country, instead he says he “doesn’t want to prosecute Hillary” … this is utterly amazing!
I hope Donald Trump will do the right thing if he’s elected, and it looks like he will be, and will prosecute Hillary!
You have to admit, it looks like a clever trap. Comey comes out and says he is reopening the investigation, Trump starts to talk about how great Comey is and how ethical he is, etc. and then a big ad campaign comes out telling people the FBI is still investigating Hillary and we shouldn’t elect someone who is under investigation.
Then the trap snaps shut, Trump looks like a fool for running an ad claiming something that is not true, he can’t say much against Comey after praising him to the skies, and Hillary just gives us that smug grin of hers. Well played, Comey and Dems.
OTOH – it reminds people why they dislike Hillary: she gets away with it. I’ve seen a lot of rage today over this development.
the butcher of Waco has gone on to her JUST reward…..dont forget she worked for the Klinton crime family…..
Remember the comments that Comey was using his last chance to redeem himself and the reputation of the FBI?
Well, not so much.
Within the last hour or so:
WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI director James Comey tells Congress review of additional Clinton emails does not change conclusion she should not face charges.
Comey says that agents have “reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton” that were part of newly discovered emails.
Comey sent a letter to Congress Sunday informing them that the FBI has “not changed our conclusions” from earlier this year that she should not face charges.
The emails were found on the computer of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Comey’s brief letter did not indicate how many emails were reviewed or what sort of material was found in Abedin’s emails.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/06/fbi-director-james-comey-no-criminal-charges-hillary-clinton-based-additional-emails
I wonder if this amnesty includes the other crimes that are apparently revealed in these emails, such as the pedophilia. Supposedly the NYPD is looking hard at Bill for this—it might be up to them to deal with Hillary, as they are not part of the federal “justice” system.
Anyone really think a President Hillary is going to put those evil bankers and hedge fund managers in their place.
A comment on media coverage: I just got home and immediately called KOA News in Denver. I was so pissed off all morning, after hearing the newscaster explain, in the most chirpy, sincere, happy voice imaginable, that “The FBI has cleared Hillary Clinton of all criminal charges…” I scolded the young man, probably an intern, who took the call. Yes, I, Amazona, scolded.
So we had a little chat, he and I. I explained that the ONLY trier of fact is a jury, or in some cases a judge. The FBI had no such authority, and in fact Comey never said any such thing. What he did was read a ten minute long list of things she had done wrong, many of which he admitted were crimes, and then said that he was not recommending prosecution because his opinion was that no prosecutor would take the case—-after which dozens of prosecutors around the country chimed in and said hell yes, they would take the case.
The criminal acts occurred, and she is known to have committed them. Not even Weasel Comey has said otherwise. He just said he didn’t recommend that she be prosecuted for them.
The young man said he didn’t think the newsreader distorted the facts on purpose, to which I said “Tough”. If she wants a position in which she tells people “the news” it is up to her to get her facts straight.
And this is a pretty centrist station, which carries Rush and a couple other conservative talk show hosts. Their old news reader was really to the Left, and often got called on it, but since he has been gone I haven’t seen anything quite as bad, but even an honest mistake based on ignorance is inexcusable in a “journalist”.
This is a mild case of media distortion, and it happens all the time.
In this era of instant fact checking, it amazes me how many people make public statements that directly contradict easily obtainable video and/or audio evidence. I guess they’re banking on most people not bothering to check. What a sad commentary on the state of our society.
I was just listening to the local talk guy who comes on after Rush, and he had the County Democrat Chairman on as a guest (to be followed next hour by the GOP County Chairman). John Gregg, an old time Democrat who was Speaker of the Indiana House in the late 90’s and early 00’s is running against Mike Pence’s Lt. Governor, Eric Holcomb, for the the governorship. Holcomb’s ads claim the state was near bankrupt when John Gregg was Speaker. This was refuted in the interview with the Dem county chairman, who said Gregg helped Republicans balance the budget, and claimed the GOP ads were all lies, and, in fact, John Gregg’s ads say the same thing. Well, it turns out that Gregg retired from the Indiana House at the end of 2002, and Mitch Daniels and the Republicans balanced the Indiana budget in 2005 for the first time in 8 years. So the Indiana budget was in the red for John Gregg’s last 5 years in office. You expect politicians to exploit each other’s weaknesses, and, I guess, in this day and age where character no longer counts, you can now expect them to just lie about it if the facts don’t fit their narrative. I won’t go so far as to say Democrats have a monopoly on such behavior, but they sure have it down to a science.
I don’t understand why the national GOP and every state GOP don’t have a person on the staff whose only job is to fact check statements and immediately provide rebuttal. This doesn’t even always have to involve digging into records and archives, though that would be part of it.
An example: In Colorado we are voting on two amendments. One is to force political parties to hold primaries, and one is to force them to have open primaries. Now, if they pass I expect and will support legal challenges, but the thing is, I never heard the Colorado GOP address this. When I did, as I mentioned in an earlier post about how my CPA voted for both, she instantly understood what I was saying. We (the state party) just let it slide.
We didn’t need to say much. We just needed a simple ad that pointed out that political parties are private entities, and get to make their own rules, and the government doesn’t have the right to tell them how to run their organizations, and maybe use the analogy I used, which is that we don’t let the teams the Broncos are playing get to pick our quarterback and we shouldn’t let people who aren’t Republicans pick our candidates. The ads promoting these two things were very good, very touchy-feely, about how so many voters in Colorado never had a voice, blah blah blah.
I’m just a retired rancher, and this stuff jumps right out at me, but the “professional” politicians seem deaf, dumb and blind.
I’m going to a state GOP meeting next week. I’ll let you know if they kick me out. I doubt that I will win many friends with my commentary on our stealth campaigning.
The GOP is always calling me asking for money, and I think they would get a better response if they would tell us what it is being spent on. For example, I have been thinking for a long time that we need a detailed, searchable, cross indexed data base of quotes, videos, etc. so when something is said, such as your comment Spook about the claim of John Gregg, it can be quickly tracked down and refuted. That data base, even if it requires a membership fee to access, would be invaluable, and even if restricted to party use could mean the difference between losing and winning.
For one thing, I think if every lie was immediately refuted, with proof of it being a lie, the Left would start to get a little gunshy about tossing out their inventions. Think of it as a kind of shock collar for Libs—they learn that every time they lie, they get a buzz. Or a shock.
Now they lie with impunity, because the Right is so disorganized and fumbling we can’t even stop tripping over our own feet, much less deal with an agile and nimble lying machine like the Left.
Interesting WSJ article on political whore Comey. (I didn’t realize he was behind the whole Scooter Libby persecution. Explains a lot.)
It looks like our contributor, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, was right last week. FBI Director James Comey’s review of newly discovered Hillary Clinton-related emails was never going to change his legal judgment because the FBI and Justice Department handling of the case was never serious in the first place.
The Justice Department never went to a grand jury in the case, which was needed to gather all appropriate evidence and vet the legal charges. Judge Mukasey’s judgment was vindicated on Sunday when Mr. Comey sent a letter to Congress saying that the FBI had reviewed the new emails and “we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”
To rehearse Mr. Comey’s actions: In July he publicly exonerates Mrs. Clinton in an extraordinary press event, two weeks before she is to be nominated for President, though that is not his responsibility. He thus liberates Attorney General Loretta Lynch from her decision-making obligations as the nation’s chief prosecuting official. Later we learn Justice cut needless and generous immunity deals with Mrs. Clinton’s advisers.
Then 11 days before Election Day Mr. Comey sends a letter to Congress saying the FBI has found new email evidence. He comes under ferocious Democratic assault for meddling in the final days of the campaign. His boss, President Obama, joins the criticism and says Mrs. Clinton has already been exonerated. Then two days before the election Mr. Comey sends another letter exonerating Mrs. Clinton again. And Washington’s political class wonders why Americans don’t trust government?
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the main point of Mr. Comey’s many political interventions has always been to protect Mr. Comey’s job and political standing. Certainly Mrs. Clinton will have cause to be grateful to Mr. Comey if she wins on Tuesday. The price to the country is the damage he has done to the reputation of the FBI as an apolitical law-enforcement agency.
In better news for the cause of justice related to Mr. Comey, the D.C. Court of Appeals last week reinstated Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s law license. Readers will recall that as Deputy Attorney General in the Bush Administration, Mr. Comey named his buddy Patrick Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor in connection with the leak of Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. Mr. Comey then stood by as Mr. Fitzgerald pursued Mr. Libby, who was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, even after he knew that someone else had leaked Ms. Plame’s name.
Mr. Fitzgerald won the conviction based on testimony that a key witness, journalist Judith Miller, has since recanted. The office of the D.C. disciplinary counsel recommended that Mr. Libby’s law license be reinstated in part due to Ms. Miller’s recantation. The hyperpolitical Mr. Comey has left a trail of legal messes wherever he has worked, but at least Mr. Libby can earn a living at his chosen profession again.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-political-mr-comey