My Genuine Bipartisan Compromise Offer

The nation just witnessed what the OpMedia and the Commentariat like to call “bipartisan legislation.” The occasion was the two–year spending–palooza that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell and The Boy Ryan passed.

It was bipartisan in the sense that country club conservatives let Democrats waste $150 billion on social programs, so they could waste an equal amount at the Pentagon Mall. It wasn’t a genuine compromise any more than two addicts agreeing to split stolen money between heroin and crack is a compromise.

What I’m offering is a genuine compromise. Conservatives will agree to the left’s public financing of campaigns, if the left will agree to support federal term limits.

Leftist voters have long supported term limits — see Maryland, for instance — it’s leftist incumbents who fight limits on their chair–warming harder than they ever fight for constituents. While all conservatives intensely dislike publicly financed political campaigns.

The reason is simple. Government takes my coerced tax dollars and uses it to finance candidates I don’t know or support. Yet realistically, is that any worse than the current situation in the Senate where McConnell lets my tax dollars be used to help abort babies I don’t know?

Under my compromise strangers get my money, true, but the clock is ticking on how long they can use it. Term limits is so important to reestablishing government responsiveness that an unequal deal is worth it.

Public finance usually comes with spending limits, which means it’s also an incumbent protection racket. Challengers never have enough public money to overcome the built–in name recognition advantage that goes with holding office.

That’s one reason public finance is attractive to incumbents. It helps them by making wealthy, self–funding challengers look like they’re trying to buy the election. The other reason is incumbents are lazy and don’t like raising money.

The left also likes public finance because candidates who take the king’s shilling are either prohibited from accepting any other money or are prohibited from taking contributions over a certain amount. That’s supposed to remove temptation from our weak–willed officeholders and reduce the outsized influence contributors have.

My compromise won’t limit the total amount a donor can contribute in any year. That’s because the Supremes ruled political contributions are a form of speech, so limiting contributions limits speech. But it has not escaped my attention that the only families we seem to be hearing from these days are the Soros and the Kochs.

That’s why the public finance compromise will limit what candidates can accept and spend. To keep the program from becoming food stamps for exhibitionists, the compromise will require candidates to raise a threshold amount from small donors before public financing begins.

The weakness of public finance, as we’ve seen in presidential races, is candidates can opt out of the system without any penalty. A rich candidate can far outspend the public welfare candidate who stays within the public finance system.

My solution to that is in the general election if one of the candidates opts out of the public finance system, the candidate who stays in gets his public money AND the opt–out candidate’s money, plus he can also solicit donors. A triple whammy for those who don’t play by the rules.

Equally important I’m going to insist the new public finance system apply to primaries. This is crucial. Primaries are where the incumbent advantage is the greatest. Why do you think a pustule like McConnell, whose polling numbers in Kentucky are under water, remains in office?

How can these Congressional crony conservatives routinely ignore the conservative base? Easy, they don’t fear primary opponents, because in most instances they don’t exist. Big donors won’t give to a primary opponent because they fear retribution from the incumbent. And the party apparatus attacks challengers. You have to have a large fortune you’re willing to turn into a small fortune if you decide to file against an incumbent.

News coverage focuses on how many seats change hands, but the ideological direction of a party is determined in the primary. Public financing there would encourage challengers and make incumbents more fearful of the voters they are allegedly ‘fighting for.’ If I had to choose only one, I would take primary public campaign financing over the general election.

In return for public finance, conservatives want a hard 12–year, cumulative limit on federal office and once an incumbent terms out, there’s a lifetime prohibition on paid lobbying of Congress or any federal agency.

A nation that puts a sell–by date on bottled water can certainly put a discard date on politicians. Incumbents will fight this tooth–and–nail, so it’s going to take a genuine bipartisan effort at the grassroots level to force action. What do you say leftists, are you ready for a grand compromise?

More Evangelicals Selling Their Soul to Support a Loser

It’s sad to say another Christian group has decided to maintain access to DC power rather than tell the truth regarding the shortcomings of a prominent politician. Maybe it’s the ego rush when calls are returned. Or maybe it’s the meetings in off–limits–to–the–public Capitol hideaways that persuades these organizations to publically support a man who’s repeatedly failed to live up to expectations.

Their support would make perfect sense if I was referring to Donald Trump. His personal failings are legion, but he’s delivered. I’m talking about the Evangelical embrace of Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell. His personal life lacks ‘hos and handsy–ness, but his public life is steaming pile of defeat and insincere promises.

Christopher Weyant, The Boston Globe

McConnell’s failures are manifest in the Family Research Council’s scorecard on the 115^th Congress. FRC tries manfully to make a silk purse out of McConnell’s ear, but the task is impossible. Once you get past the hyperbolic lead, “A record number — 245 Members of Congress — scored a perfect 100 percent…last year.” One realizes most of the votes counted for nothing.

If FRC rated on legislative effectiveness the scores would max out at 25 percent.

The House passed eight laws and one resolution used for scorecard evaluation. Four of those bills failed in the Senate. McConnell’s ‘accomplishments’ were so paltry, FRC had to use the routine confirmation of appointees for most of the scorecard.

That’s the legislative equivalent of giving participation trophies at the end of ballerina ball season.

Separating what the House passed from what the Senate failed to pass shows just how much damage McConnell single–handedly does to the conservative cause.

This political mastermind is responsible for the defeat of bills designed to stop funding Planned Parenthood and forcing Christian organizations to provide contraception coverage that conflicts with their Christian belief. McConnell is responsible for the defeat of the clean Obamacare repeal and it’s ‘skinny’ brother. And just this week McConnell passively watched the Pain–Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’s defeat even though it had a majority of 51 votes.

Yet there is zero criticism of McConnell’s serial failures! Instead FRC blandly refers to defeats requiring 60 votes without explaining why a simple majority of 51 isn’t enough.

This self–imposed 60–vote requirement is an internal Senate rule that only dates back to 1975. Before if a bill was scheduled to come to the floor and a senator or party opposed the measure, they had to conduct a genuine filibuster. This meant the senator had to hold the floor, blocking consideration of any other legislation or Senate business.

Senators read aloud, told stories or simply listened to the music of their own voice during their time at the podium. The filibuster was an around–the–clock affair and sympathetic senators had to continue the delaying drone by volunteering to take a shift. This took a physical toll and many filibusters ended because the opposition simply ran out of gas.

The other way to conclude a filibuster was a cloture vote to end debate. That’s what requires 60 votes.

Today if the minority party wants to filibuster a bill it simply informs McConnell and he considers the bill blocked until 60 votes materialize to bring it to the floor. McConnell could revert to the pre–1975 filibuster this week if he wished. Changing the rule only requires a majority and he has 51 votes.

Democrats would be forced to go public with their obstructionism. Voters would see which party is blocking the function of government and I don’t think Schumer could stand the heat.

But this small–minded, political coward won’t make the change. McConnell is a double–minded man who in his heart doesn’t believe in the conservative principles he claims to support. McConnell is a defeatist who fears success. That’s why he told AP “Republicans will welcome the [post 1975] filibuster when they return to the minority.” And he’s just the man to lead them there.

The thought that Republicans could pass conservative legislation that rolls back at least some of leftism’s excesses and puts the onus on Democrats to repeal those bills never enters McConnell’s mind. He just keeps the furniture dusted until his inevitable Democrat take over.

McConnell’s wasted an entire year in which Republicans controlled the presidency, House and Senate. It may well be one half of the time during the Trump administration when the GOP controlled all three branches.

An accurate FRC scorecard would give every GOP senator a zero rating, because their votes keep McConnell Majority Leader.

McConnell is a weakling who will never change Senate rules unless he’s pushed and pushed hard. It’s time conservative and Christian organizations told the truth about the man who is single–handedly blocking the agenda of the people who sent Republicans to Washington.

I’m Glad I’m Not an Alabama Voter

More specifically, I’m glad I’m not an Alabama conservative. The choice confronting conservatives in the December 12^th special senate election is very difficult. But not so tough that our cultural arbiters aren’t eager to give conservatives and Christians the benefit of their wisdom.

The same Opposition Media—Pundit—Celebrity nexus that didn’t condemn Teen Vogue for its recent issue introducing young girls to the “joys” of anal sex, is now urging Christians to vote “their convictions.” This is certainly a welcome change from being characterized as figures of fun who dabble in hate, but I’m still skeptical of the OpMedia’s sudden admiration for our sterling character.

Particularly when they urge us to choose a candidate based on moral beliefs the OpMedia routinely mocks and derides. Our media betters want Christian voters to pick an ideal candidate. Someone who would look good in a Baptist pulpit, instead of the left’s hotel bathrobe.

Naturally, their choice is Democrat Doug Jones instead of hands–on Republican Roy Moore. The argument isn’t all that compelling, particularly when one recalls all of Roy Moore’s alleged victims survived, whereas Democrat Ted Kennedy’s didn’t.

This election is also noteworthy in that it reverses the usual nose–holding option conservatives confront. I recently wrote how I was tired of being told to hold my nose and vote for country club conservatives. The Republican establishment would patiently explain that even though this spineless weathervane could never be depended upon to fight for bedrock conservative issues, he would be marginally better in office than his leftist opponent, since he’s a sure vote for Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader.

This year conservatives have a chance to vote for a somewhat tarnished candidate that will fight tooth and toenail for conservative causes and the establishment tells us to forget about that nose thing and just vote Democrat.

From the beginning I was suspicious of the alleged underage abuse allegations against Moore. I’ve worked in campaigns for over 40 years and timing is a key factor in the negative side of the campaign. I’ve been the media consultant for races where we had devastating information regarding the opponent and we sat on it for weeks or months until such a time as the information could be released and the opposing campaign would not have time to recover.

I suppose I could accept the Washington Post’s claim that their scoop on Moore was generated in–house and not handed to them on a platter like the Russian Dossier. Only, if the stories about Moore’s alleged behavior were “common knowledge,” why did the knowledge only become common nationwide after Moore defeated Luther Strange and it was too late to put someone else on the ballot?

That convenient timing looks like a premeditated decision to hold the story and thereby influence the election. Then there’s the yearbook signature that’s an exact copy of the Judge Moore signature on the woman’s divorce decree from years later, but bears no relation to his unofficial personal signature at the time the yearbook was supposedly signed.

The OpMedia is doing its part to make voting Democrat less painful for wavering conservatives and Christians. Why Democrat Doug Jones’ middle name is ‘Moderate’ according to his glowing press clippings. He’s going to focus on jobs, education and infrastructure. There’s zero mention of Jones being the frontman for a George Soros–funded effort to politicize US Attorneys.

According to Breitbart, the Soros–funded effort supported ‘ending mass incarceration’ and its report — authored by Jones — used language similar to the Obama Justice Dept. effort to grant de facto amnesty to illegal aliens.

Running in the middle and governing from the left is common for Democrats. Last election Virginia had its first transvestite candidate for the House of Delegates. This man in woman’s clothing assured voters that he also intended to focus on meat–and–potatoes issues like transportation.

You can imagine voter’s shock after he won when they learned his first issue in Richmond would be forcing insurance companies to cover ‘gender transition’ and ‘gender reassignment’ surgery. Evidently, the road our shift–shifter was most interested in improving was the one between his house and the gender–bending clinic.

Alabama voters will see the same transition when Jones gets to Washington, absent the pronoun switch.

As far as I’m concerned, the voting decision for Christians comes down to a single comparison. Roy Moore may or may not have fondled babies 40 years ago, but if Doug Jones gets to Washington he’ll be voting to kill babies and fund Planned Parenthood from day one.

That’s why if I were an Alabama voter I’d choose Roy Moore now and support a conservative opponent in the 2020 Republican primary.

Any Chance Conservatives Will Finally Fight Back?

(This column was written before the deluge of sexual assault accusations hit the Roy Moore campaign in Alabama. At the time Codevilla’s advice was spot on, now I suppose now all conservatives are left is hope.)

The best moment for conservatives during the Claremont Institute’s panel discussion on “The Resistance and the Violent New Left” came at the end during the question period. An appeaser popped up and asked the panel how can “we” encourage more “leaders” like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Lisa Murkowski to run for office instead of “embarrassing” candidates like Alabama’s Roy Moore?

His question was met with dead silence from the panel of William Voegeli and Angelo Codevilla (of the Claremont Institute), Michael Walsh (author and media critic) and Henry Olsen (Ethics & Public Policy Center).

After a lengthy pause Codevilla leaned over toward the microphone and observed Moore “hasn’t lost yet” and we can “vote and hope,” which was the conclusion of the optimism portion of the event.

In a single anecdote the audience saw the problem confronting conservatives today. We are assailed from without by, in Codevilla’s words, “a compact ruling class,” — where establishment Republicans are full participants — along with bike–lock swinging members of Antifa functioning as storm troops. While inside the GOP accommodationists and other Quislings want to restore tranquility by electing more politicians whose first instinct is preemptive surrender.

The situation doesn’t appear to hold much possibility for improvement in the panel’s view, in spite of or possibly because of the election of Donald Trump. Codevilla’s opinion is, “The Resistance has convinced itself Trump is a passing phenomenon.” And a brief one at that. “Trump was elected to be revolutionary against the ruling class and GOP establishment, but in office he has equivocated.”

It’s his belief that what he terms the Cold Civil War will continue to heat up.

Live–and–let–live conservatives are confused by the left’s increasing rhetorical and physical violence in what appears to be a Whittaker Chambers’ moment for the right. In sports, when one side appears to completely outclass its opponent, it’s not uncommon for the victor to display good sportsmanship and ease up rather than pad the margin of victory.

Conservatives see a cultural landscape where their moral positions have been routed. And an indifferent Big Government appears impervious to influence by average voters or election results.

Naturally, many conservatives assume they’ve lost. So why all the leftist violence? Isn’t it time to put the all–conference agitators on the bench?

As Mr. Dooley, not on the panel, said, “Politics ain’t bean–bag.”

“Cultural Marxists are sensing a win and it’s a fact movements get more violent the closer they get to ultimate victory,” explains Walsh. Voegeli posits that when a faction thinks it’s only a matter of time before total victory and the assumption of power in a permanent majority, any display of inhibition is a betrayal of the cause.

Furthermore, the left’s violence and the ideology isn’t likely to be coherent. “A [movement] united by impulse is likely to be impulsive,” Voegeli wryly observes.

The bad news for accommodationist Republicans, like the questioner, is when the left wins there aren’t likely to be many prisoners taken, ideological or otherwise. Academia’s cultural Marxists are marinated in aggressive outrage and moral arrogance. “The Left is taught they’re inherently superior,” Codevilla said.  And as ideologically superior beings, those who disagree are by default intellectual sub–humans with all the tender care and feeding the sub–human label encompasses.

Adapting to the left’s views is going to be difficult if not impossible for principled conservatives, although Lindsay Graham and John McCain may offer conversion therapy.

Olsen says the left defines America as “individual freedom. Anything that stands between desire and its fulfillment is null and void.” This leftist definition of America is intensely personal and subject to abrupt change (Voegeli’s “impulse”), while for conservatives the definition is institutional and relatively fixed. Olsen and Codevilla are united in their belief the differences between left and right are “intractable.”

Consequently, there’s no room for compromise in this ideological fight to the finish. Codevilla warns there are real consequences, “The Resistance expresses the evolving framework of ruling class thought.” The absurd and aggressive ideology one can read with distaste in the HuffPost is a harbinger of the next Democrat administration’s policy. Even Hillary Clinton, according to Codevilla, planned to “crush the deplorables and buy off the pitiables” on her way to victory.

With the exception of Olsen, the panel is united in a belief the left must be confronted and defeated in the street and in the voting booth. Conservatives need leadership, like Trump, that will get in the faces of the left and, not like Trump, be consistent in their opposition.

Walsh in particular has had it, “I can’t emphasize enough what miserable sods these people are. The left is an insane cargo cult of fascists. Until baby boomers are dead you will have no justice and no peace.”

Where is the GOP Refund Window?

Scott Daugherty of the Virginian–Pilot has discovered a lawsuit that may make a conservative folk hero out of the lawyer/plaintiff.

Bob Heghmann, a 70–year–old retired lawyer who lives in Virginia Beach, VA, has filed a lawsuit in federal court charging the national and Virginia Republican parties with more than simple bad faith failure to repeal Obamacare, as Republicans had promised voters for over seven years.

His lawsuit contends Republicans “[have] been engaged in a pattern of Racketeering which involves massive fraud perpetrated on Republican voters and contributors as well as some Independents and Democrats.” Heghmann believes the parties and national GOP leaders raised millions of dollars in campaign funds from trusting voters “while knowing they weren’t going to be able to overturn…Obamacare.”

As far as Heghmann is concerned that’s prima facie racketeering.

Morton Blackwell, a Virginia GOP national committee member named in the lawsuit, issued a two–edged response to the filing. Blackwell began by denigrating Heghmann’s call for legal accountability. He described the case as a “frivolous, nuisance suit that should be thrown out of court by any judge.”

Then he followed up with a statement that sounds more like an amicus brief than a condemnation. “[Blackwell] argued that ‘progressives’ had taken over the Democratic Party and seemed to lament that ‘conservatives’ had not yet taken over the Republican Party.”

Heghmann struck while the outrage was hot, filing just a week after Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell failed to pass an Obamacare repeal–only bill. It’s Heghmann’s belief Republican fund–raising should be just as accountable to donors as any other commercial money raising effort.

If Jim Bakker can go to jail for failing to honor pie–in–the–sky promises, why shouldn’t Republican committees be penalized for failing to honor pie–in–Obama’s–face promises?

Heghmann says, “Republicans could have repealed and replaced Obamacare with two–page bill. But the leadership never intended to do it. They want government control of healthcare, because as far as Republicans and Democrats are concerned it’s their way of balancing the books.”

It’s Heghmann’s belief he can strike a blow for an outraged conservative base because he’s been a contributor, although not to the Virginia GOP or the RNC. The dangerous section of his suit is where he demands the political arms refund donor’s money if Obamacare isn’t repealed.

By his calculations the RNC raised more than $735 million and Virginia Republicans took more than $20 million to the bank between 2009 and 2016 using the repeal of Obamacare as leverage to open wallets around the country.

If a promoter raised almost a billion dollars and promised to build a an energy plant and then didn’t even break ground, he would be guilty of fraud in spite of the fact he’s also probably a green energy advocate.

So why shouldn’t politicians who promise much and deliver nothing be held accountable, too?

That’s easy, just like DC politicians exempted themselves from Obamacare, they also made sure they’re not legally actionable for lying to the public. However, that exemption doesn’t apply to the state and national committees and that’s where Heghmann gets his leverage.

His first hurdle is surviving an expected motion to dismiss the lawsuit. If Heghmann makes it past that milestone, he has some interesting requests for the judge. He wants to limit the jury pool to Republicans who are both registered and voted and are aware of national issues. His contention is a jury of his peers in this instance is an informed and voting jury.

 

 

His goal is not really to obtain refunds, “I don’t want to bankrupt GOP, I want GOP to do what it promised to do.” Heghmann explains, “Money is leverage to get them to do what they are supposed to do.”

Mostly Heghmann is a “full supporter” of Trump who is fed up.

As far as he’s concerned, “Establishment Republicans have in effect repudiated the results of the last election. In their view the people made a mistake when they elected Donald Trump and the establishment is as interested in seeing Trump fail as Democrats are.”

Heghmann just wants the GOP to “support Trump’s agenda.” He has a better chance of getting the money.

You can follow Heghmann’s lead without going to court. Simply attend the next town hall meeting of your GOP Senator or Congressman and demand a campaign contribution refund due to failure to perform.

Should you know other contributors, stand up together and demand refunds in unison. If your politician is too gutless to won’t hold a real town hall meeting, then hold a refund news conference outside his district office when he’s back home.

I doubt you’ll get your money back in either event, but the embarrassment and bad publicity generated for the Obamacare betrayers will be priceless.

Virginia Governor’s Race Is the Establishment’s Revenge

November’s off–year Virginia governor’s race is what conservatives would have faced in 2016 if Trump had done a Hillary as he descended the escalator for his announcement and wound up in A Place for Mom instead of the Oval Office.

Our nominee would have been a bland, white, country club Republican who talked lukewarm TEA Party. A nominee that would have looked just like “Establishment Ed” Gillespie the caretaker conservative running as the Republican in Virginia.

These off–year elections are supposed to send a message to Washington and specifically the White House. If a Democrat wins nationally and Virginia elects a Republican the following year, the result is supposed to mean voters are angry because Democrats went too far.

Conservative voters dissatisfied with the nominee are given a binary choice by party leadership: Hold your nose and support some housebroken Republican or be personally responsible for electing the Democrat.

This hobbling choice is not limited to Virginia. Conservatives nationwide regularly confront this dilemma as yet another cocktail conservative holds their vote hostage to the Democrat alternative.

After years of just following orders my nose is as pinched as Ichabod Crane’s and I’m tired of it. This year instead of sending a message to the White House, where one of the Javanka twins would no doubt intercept it, I want to move the targeting solution about 3 miles from Pennsylvania Ave. to the Republican National Committee.

Instead of an interparty message, I want conservatives to deliver an intraparty message.

Ed Gillespie is a perfect example of a candidate that feels genuine conservatives are good enough to help him win, but not good enough to influence policy once he’s in office. It would have been difficult to find a candidate more out–of–step with the conservatives than Establishment Ed.

The National Review recently endorsed Gillespie and they unintentionally damned him with faint praise. According to those Never Trumpers, Ed deserves our vote because:

• He joined the Bush White House when George W was low on friends
• A Gillespie win will send a message
• Ed wants to cut taxes
• Gillespie wants someone to open more charter schools

Big deal. For conservatives, the most important issue in Virginia is transportation: Base voters want new roads for a speedy trip in to work and new enforcement for a speedy trip back to Central America for illegals.

Naturally, Enervating Ed is on the wrong side of both parts. He doesn’t mention roads and Giveaway Gillespie supported the failed Gang of Eight bill. He’s part of the Delusion Caucus that’s convinced surrendering to Democrat demands to import more voters will someone result in GOP victories.

As befits a former lobbyist who made a living torturing innocent words, Gillespie assures conservatives he didn’t support “amnesty” for illegals, he only supports “legalization.” So, let me explain to Gillespie — who only speaks conservative–as–a–second–language —any result allowing illegal aliens to remain in the US is AMNESTY, regardless of how you try to focus group your way out of it.

Ed’s idea of tough–minded leadership on illegals is keeping a lid on how many other benefits the piñata holds.

The Washington Post reports that Gillespie is so concerned about conservatism potentially rubbing off on him that he promised business donors that he won’t champion any cultural issues from the governor’s office. This failure to grasp that politics is downstream of culture is why Ed and his cronies are long run losers.

It also appears that groveling doesn’t sell particularly well. The candidate of the rich is trailing the Democrat in fund raising by a two–to–one margin.

Conservatives next year are faced with a president who is ready to betray his promises on ending DACA for younger invaders and Virginia voters this year have a gubernatorial candidate who is just as soft on the rule of law.

My advice is don’t allow your vote to be held hostage by placeholder Republicans. When my family goes to vote in November we will be sending a message to the RNC in the only manner they can understand. We will be voting for write–in candidates for every spot on the ballot. And it’s going to be the same write–in each time.

For the first name, we will write DACA and for the last name Betrayal. We will no longer go–along–to–get–ignored. The only way Republican leadership will pay attention to the base it relies on for victory is when the victories stop.

My advice for Virginia voters is write in “Senor DACA Betrayal: and take a photo of your ballot. Send the picture to your state Republican Party and another copy to the RNC. Let’s show them voters are angry because the GOP hasn’t gone far enough.

Millionaires & Billionaires Fighting “Oppression”

Oppression certainly isn’t what it used to be. Instead of vicious police dogs, water cannon, billy clubs and Bull Connor, America is greeted with the sight of millionaires and billionaires kneeling in football stadiums trying to make white America feel guilty without so much as a Chihuahua yapping in the background.

And they aren’t alone. The Opposition Media, celebrity culture, leftist pastors, educators, politicians, various groin activists and Hollywood were all united in condemning the USA for the alleged subjugation of blacks. The protesters had no compunction about attacking the president and insulting the flag.

If this is “oppression” it’s news to Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and Kim Jong–Un. If I were a white supremacist, I think I’d demand my money back. From all appearances it’s whites, conservatives of all colors and taxpayers who are being told to sit down and shut up.

Instead of being a lonely and dangerous stand against institutionalized brutality and “oppression” the “take a knee movement” has rapidly become this fall’s Ice Bucket Challenge. The difference being the Challenge was a showy, self–involved effort on behalf of a real disease, while take a knee is a showy, self–involved effort on behalf of a grievance fantasy.

The left claims to own science, so lets look at the data. First of all the Us is one of the least racist nations on the planet. An investing and investment newsletter, with the credibility–dissolving name of Insider Monkey, performed an analysis of racism polls that included “responses of over 85,000 people from 61 countries” and found the USA didn’t even make the top 25 of the most racist countries.

The number one for racism was India with South Korea at number 25. What researchers did find was the US ranked #12 on a list of the Least Racist Countries in the World. The report concluded, “We believe America, on average, is one of the most racially tolerant countries on Earth.”

So much for “oppression.” But no protest implying malevolence on the part of whites would be complete without including “police brutality.” Data here proves there may be individually brutal cops of all colors, but there is no institutionally brutal police regime threatening blacks or anyone else.

Philippe Lemoine did an analysis of the Police ­Public Contact Survey (PPCS). It’s a 70,000 sample of US residents 16 or older that’s representative of the whole population. Participants are asked if they had an encounter with the police during the past year. If so they are asked for details, including any use of force.

This means data from the survey is based on personal encounters with law enforcement and not speculation on encounters other people have had with cops based on OpMedia reports or “community rumors.”

Lemoine found “just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police…These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year. The comparison illustrates that these killings are incredibly rare, and that it’s completely misleading to talk about an ‘epidemic.’ You don’t hear people talk about an epidemic of lightning strikes and claim they are afraid to go outside because of it.”

The case for routine police harassment is just as fraudulent. Black men have less yearly contact with police than whites: 17.5 to 20.7 percent. And as for injury, protesters in the stadium have a greater chance of getting a rug burn at the hands of Monsanto than they do a bruise at the hands of the cops.

“Actual injuries by the police are so rare that one cannot estimate them very precisely even in a survey as big as the PPCS, but the available data suggest that only 0.08 percent of black men are injured by the police each year, approximately the same rate as for white men.” Lemoine reports.

It would make more sense to accuse the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of brutality since black men are 44 times more likely to be injured in a car crash.

Lemoine’s conclusion: “The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives.”

So why are the knee people blaming ticket holders and the audience? There aren’t any billionaires, mayors or Members of Congress in the stands. All the people with real power are on the field insulting the blameless over a grievance that doesn’t exist.

During the Civil War black soldiers in the 54^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry — immortalized in the movie “Glory” — could distinguish between individual bigots and the flag of the nation that was fighting to free the slaves.

I wonder why privileged football players, and their enablers in politics and the media, can’t do the same.

DACA: Check Expiration Date Before Relying on Trump Promises

In May of 2016 Donald Trump casually discarded one of his central campaign promises. I thought it was remarkable. While it was traditional for Republican candidates in former campaigns to wait until after their inauguration to break campaign promises, Trump didn’t even wait until he was the nominee.

Trump had repeatedly declared, “By self-funding my campaign, I am not controlled by my donors, special interests or lobbyists. I am only working for the people of the U.S.!” It was a central element in his early appeal.

Jeb Bush may have been making money calls between naps, but Donald Trump couldn’t be bought or rented.

Then poof, it was gone! Trump began soliciting donations from the same contributors he’d been disparaging only a few rallies before. It was so surprising I found myself agreeing with MSNBC which said,” Trump is taking one of the best arguments in support of his candidacy and throwing it out the window.”

Trump didn’t appear to suffer any damage from going back on his word and he saved money to boot, so for him it was win–win. For conservatives this casual discarding of a foundational promise should’ve been an ominous development.

The campaign finance issue was a crowd–pleaser but it didn’t have a direct impact on voters. Most of the people at his rallies weren’t contributors before or after the expiration of his promise, so the brief controversy was tangential.

Trump’s chief attraction to disenchanted voters was built around attitude: Trump wasn’t politically correct and he didn’t give a damn about what elite cultural arbiters thought.

As far as voters were concerned specific issues and their relevance were judged on whether or not the topic fit into the general aura of Trumpismo! For many Deplorables it was personality first — policy second.

But what if it was all attitude and arrogance and the issues that were central to our decision to vote for Trump were just so many applause lines at rallies he’s long forgotten?

Trump has been waffling on “Day One” issues since the end of the campaign. He said he’d move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Then he changed his mind. Trump said he would withdraw from the Paris agreement and then went back and forth for weeks on what should have been an easy decision. Trump said it was time to get out of Afghanistan and then decided to buy into the failed nation–building policies of the Bush that got elected.

Those are bad enough, but his seeming decision to go back on one of his bedrock issues and betray his base could make Democrat dreams come true and render Trump a one–term aberration.

During rally after rally Trump promised to “end DACA.” Trump is notoriously sloppy and inexact with language, but I guarantee that not one person in his base interpreted “end DACA” to mean granting illegal aliens the largest amnesty in history.

That appears to be the plan now. Trump tweeted, “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!…..” As someone pointed out, more DACA beneficiaries have enlisted in MS–13 than have joined the military. Trump has owned casinos so he should know when one’s luck runs out, it’s time to go home.

That applies to DACA, too.

Trump has surrounded himself with functionaries whose political advice would have prevented him from winning the nomination, to say nothing of the presidency. Trump appears to have convinced himself that allowing DACA participants to stay in the US without citizenship isn’t amnesty, but for Trumpistas that’s a distinction without a difference.

Before he cratered on DACA Trump made a number of appearances with Angel Moms, mothers who had suffered the death of a child at the hands of an illegal alien. Angel Moms were great props and gave Trump cover when the OpMedia criticized him for his promises to crack down on illegals.

Now the relationship isn’t so heavenly. Angel Mom Sabine Durden told Breitbart, “…the news about DACA receiving amnesty feels like a horrible nightmare and if true, betrayal of the worst kind.”

Mary Ann Mendoza explained, “President Trump needs to stand firm and keep his promises not only to us Angel Moms and Dads but to All Americans.”

Mareen Maloney agreed, “It is reprehensible that President Trump would go back on his campaign promises to the American’s who elected him, especially the Angel parents and families, to make a DACA deal with Democrats.”

Trump once boasted during the campaign, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Maybe so, but I wonder how many campaign promises he can trash on Pennsylvania Avenue before voters decide they’ve been had?

Opposition Media Grades on a Strange Curve

Don’t you hate it when your optimism proves unfounded?

He entered the New Year riding a wave of what appeared to be unprecedented political support — the most for a Republican in quite a few years. And what happened? Legislative fumbles in the first 100 days, and the second 100 days for that matter, produced story after story in the Opposition Media claiming the legislative honeymoon was over before it began.

Then there was the unseemly internal bickering with other Republican leaders, again extensively covered by the OpMedia. Externally, there were high–profile failures to honor major campaign promises.

And don’t forget the politically tin–eared statements to the media that alienated independent voters and kept critical news coverage going during any lulls between major upsets. This resulted in a collapse in his approval rating with both base and swing voters — possibly a crucial setback to any chance of re–election.

Analyzing this collapse is where the OpMedia’s grading on a strange curve comes into play. This master of political disaster who’s frittered away a huge opportunity is not Donald Trump. It’s the Curator of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, currently a political dead man walking. And still the OpMedia treats McConnell like he’s the politician completely in tune with the electorate.

A recent Public Policy Polling survey discovered that McConnell’s strategy of keeping Senate rules dusted, lubricated and running smoothly until the Democrats take control again is a loser with voters that expected results. McConnell’s approval rating is a laughable 18 percent, while his disapproval rating is a stunning 74 percent.  And this isn’t a nationwide poll where voters know little regarding McConnell other than the fact he’s chairman of the Can’t Do Caucus.

This is a Kentucky poll in his home state!

Among GOP voters McConnell’s approval is underwater at 28 percent approve and 64 percent disapprove. Independent voters are even more disdainful. Only 4 percent approve and 81 percent disapprove of McConnell’s lack of performance.

Compare McConnell’s pathetic home state numbers with Trump’s Kentucky numbers. Overall 60 percent approve of Trump’s performance and 36 percent disapprove. Among Republicans Trump’s support is almost four times that of McConnell, 86 to 28 percent. Independents favor Trump over McConnell by a factor of 14: 56 percent for Trump and 4 percent for Mitch.

The news hook here should be McConnell blocks Trump agenda and his support collapses at home. Instead, we get warnings that it’s a dangerous strategy for Trump to confront McConnell and the establishment GOP in the Senate and House.

National Review, which remains a hotbed of Never Trumpers, contends that instead of making senators who oppose him pay a price politically, Trump should be grateful for any crumbs that fall from legislative pygmy McConnell’s table.

Both the National Review and the Washington Post have identified the problem, but refuse to consider any remedy that doesn’t involve appeasement. The WaPost says, “For some time, it has been apparent that members of Congress do not fear the president” and NR writes, senators “not sufficiently scared of the White House.” That lack of respect, combined with the political classes’ disdain and personal contempt for Trump, means the usual hearts–and–minds strategy won’t produce the results Trump promised his voters.

That’s why his visit to Arizona was so encouraging. Arizona is home to the serial betraying RINO Sen. John McCain and the disrespectful Sen. Jeff Flake, who is up for re–election in 2018. Prior to his visit Trump tweeted an almost endorsement of Flake’s primary challenger Kelli Ward. On the ground Trump met with two other potential Flake challengers.

That’s a great start, but if Trump really wants to defeat Flake and send an unmistakable message he needs to take two more steps. First he needs to fund his own political action committee and fund it with $50 to 75 million of his own money. Second, he needs to persuade Arizona conservatives to settle on a single Flake challenger. Once that’s done he can conduct an independent expenditure campaign on the challenger’s behalf.

Trump can consider adding Utah’s Orrin Hatch and Tennessee’s Bob Coker to the target list. Nothing motivates senate slugs like a threat to their self–interest. As on again, off again Trump advisor Roger Stone told the New York Times, “the GOP will fall in line once Trump has “taken a scalp” and starts “bumping off Republican members of Congress in primaries.”

Playing nice didn’t win the presidential primary for Trump and playing nice with a GOP senate, that holds him in as much contempt as Jeb Bush did, won’t either. Harry Truman ran against a “Do Nothing” Republican Congress and won. Donald Trump can run and win against another GOP Congress. Only now he demands it “Do Something!”

Temple to Journalist’s Self–Regard Falls on Hard Times

Evidently, America just wasn’t that in to you.

The Newseum, a 250,000–square–foot Nexus of Narcissism for America’s journalists is in danger of closing. Originally opened 20 years ago, the Newseum is journalism’s valentine to itself. A museum designed to tell a breathless public everything it could possibly want to know about all that’s warm and wonderful about reporters.

That’s a tough sell when journalists are tied with lawyers in the public’s disdain ranking.

A better way to think of the Newseum is as a celebration of the interpreters of an event rather than the event itself.

I’m sure if historians were mentioned in the Constitution, that profession might have tried the same gambit. Fortunately we’ve been spared the “Histeum.”

The media, as it never tires of telling us, is mentioned in the Constitution and to prove it the Newseum has the First Amendment etched on the front of this Pennsylvania Avenue Preening Palace, but that’s only window dressing.

It would have been more fitting to simply install the world’s largest mirror so the Opposition Media could admire itself as members of the profession entered the building.

This tangible demonstration of the journalistic ego contains 250,000 square feet of exhibit space, PLUS 15 theaters, a conference center, parking garage, apartments AND a Wolfgang Puck restaurant.

For comparison purposes we have two other museums dedicated to the 2^nd Amendment — also in the Constitution although journalists often pretend otherwise. The NRA National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, VA is only 15,000–square–feet and the J. M. Davis Arms Museum in Claremore, OK totals another 40,000–square–feet. This makes the combined total less than 20 percent of Battleship News.

The Newseum was originally founded in Arlington, VA but as far was the sophisticates who ran the place were concerned they may as well have been in Claremore. They longed for the bright lights. So in 2008 the facility moved to Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol.

Timing couldn’t have been worse. The Newseum greatly increased its expenses just when the journalism profession was beginning its long slow decline. A mausoleum would have made more sense.

Newseum marketers had as much trouble convincing tourists to visit as journalists had convincing those same Middle Americans to vote for Hillary. Adult tickets costing $24.95 didn’t help either. While the National Air and Space Museum had 7 million visitors in 2016 the Newseum had a mere 800,000, which according to the Washington Post, brought in $7.5 million in revenue.

Even hijacking captive audiences of school children on field trips, PR events trying to buy journo good will and industry confabs weren’t enough to cover the operating nut. To keep the Newseum from closing like a suburban newspaper, the Freedom Forum, formerly the Gannett Foundation, has been pumping approximately $20 million a year into the budget for a total of $500 million.

That’s a lot of money for a vanity project.

I’m a journalist myself and I never had any interest in visiting “my” museum.

In WaPost coverage of the Newseum’s problems mention is made of some of the more interesting exhibits, like the “interactive displays and exhibitions on 9/11, the FBI and the Unabomber, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Newer exhibitions include one on the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement and ‘First Dogs: American Presidents and Their Pets.’”

But the exhibits are all derivative. Journalists didn’t accomplish any of those events. They observed those events. Heck, they didn’t even clean up after the presidential dogs!

Visiting the Newseum and expecting a firsthand experience is like going to Wolfgang Puck’s restaurant and instead of being allowed to eat, they hand you a copy of the food critic’s review.

I’ve been trying to think about what would get me to visit and I came up with a list of journalistically–related exhibits that have real tourist interest:

• An animatronic display with a copy editor — like Lincoln at Disneyland — explaing the proper usage of “fewer” versus “less” and why beer doesn’t need an ‘s’ to be plural
• A small, tasteful display with the last vestige of CNN’s credibility
• Brian William’s bullet–holed Katrina ballistic vest
• Hillary’s 35,000 email messages
• Katie Couric’s before and after facelift photos
• The last offering envelope used by a major network anchor
• And the biggest attraction of all: The Ark of Political Correctness

If the staff wants to adopt any of my ideas, they’re going to have to move fast. The Freedom Forum is getting ready to turn off the subsidy spigot. As Wayne Reynolds, a former Newseum board member put it, “Who would give them money when they were losing $30 million a year? People typically don’t want to salvage a sinking ship.”