Oh! Our New NDP Leader Does Not Have A Firm Line On Balanced Budgets———????

Here in Canada we have three major Federal Parties: The Conservatives Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party is our Socalist Party. And it really wants to form a Government , it says. They have a new leader . His name is Jagmeet Sing. In a recent interview below he showed us just how ready he is to be Prime Minister after the next election:

First:

First, he doesn’t a have firm line on balanced budgets . Get that? Here is a newly minted Federal Leader who wants to be Prime Minister and yet he doesn’t have a firm line on balanced budgets. Interesting wording isn’t it? Firm line ? In other words he has a soft line? One assumes he means he has not taken a position . Now this is in a circumstance where the governing party, the Liberal Party, since coming into power has ramped up budget deficits and predicts more for the foreseeable future. He actually says that getting Canada’s books back to balance will not be his priority.

Second , Mr. Sing speaks of austerity and he would have no part of that . Now Canada over the last number of years has had a growth rate greater that any of the OCED countries , so why this austerity notion. I suspect the fellow means that he would not cut anything to get to a balanced budget.

Third, Mr. Sing list his objectives as free universal pharmacare , dental care, eye care , and free tuition post secondary education. Cost? He doesn’t say . But taxing offshore accounts and closing stock options loop holes should do the trick he thinks. No numbers , of course.

How in all common sense can someone get to be the leader of a major political party and show such ignorance?

Wow!

And there are people who believe in him. That’s what’s scary.

He says this is not a sprint but a marathon. Let’s hope it is not the traditional 26 miles but rather more like——-never.

Here’s the article:

‘I don’t have a firm line on balanced budgets’: Jagmeet Singh

By Monique Scotti National Online Journalist, Politics Global News

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says that if his party forms government in 2019, getting Canada’s books back to balance will not be a top priority.

“In difficult economic times, I’m firmly opposed to austerity,” Singh told The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos this weekend.

“I don’t have a firm line on balanced budgets. I believe that if we are able to, obviously we need to ensure that we have a robust budget that’s balanced, but there’s no way I would ever accept austerity.”

Singh’s goals for his party — and potentially the country — are ambitious to say the least. Things like free universal pharmacare, dental care, eye-care and post-secondary tuition are all part of a robust system of social programs, he argued, and his goal in the next federal election campaign will be to inspire Canadians to dream big.

But dreams cost money, Singh acknowledged. So how do you finance such a major expansion of the government’s support networks?

“One of the massive ways we can afford that is tackling the offshore tax havens that exist,” he argued. “Our current government doesn’t have the will, the conviction or the courage to do anything about it.”

The NDP will also continue advocating for the closure of the so-called stock option loophole, Singh added. At the moment, the rules allow company employees to pay taxes on only 50 per cent of their earnings from stock options as part of compensation packages.

Singh’s leadership has not yet translated into a big bump in support for his party. He does not yet hold a seat in the House of Commons and has not committed to running for one until the next election, in spite of several recent byelection openings.

The NDP’s disappointing performance in those races didn’t come as a shock, Singh said. The NDP, he argued, remains on the long path to recovery after suffering devastating losses in the last federal election.

“I’m, of course, not happy with the results but at the same time I’m not surprised by the results,” he said of the byelections, one of which was held not far from where he grew up.

“I didn’t expect that the two years that our party was not headed in the right direction could be turned around in just two months … I know the work that I’m setting out so do is not a sprint, it’s a marathon.”

Advertisements

I Have Seen London’s Future and It Is Caracas

From City Journal Website

I Have Seen London’s Future and It Is Caracas
by THEODORE DALRYMPLE|

Important (for good or evil) as Brexit may be to the future of Britain, it is not without its importance for the European Union. Indeed, it was always essential for the Union that Britain’s departure should be an economic disaster for Britain: for if it were not, why have a union at all?

It was therefore entirely predictable that the Union should drive a hard bargain with Britain, even a bargain economically harmful to itself, provided only that it was worse for Britain: for the self-preservation of the European political class is at stake. In the European Union politics always trumps economics.

In Britain too, political considerations were uppermost in the minds of those who voted for Brexit. They saw in the European Union a Yugoslavia in the making, led by a megalomaniac class without effective checks or balances. But now they are increasingly apprehensive of the economic costs of Brexit.

And the economic auguries for Britain are indeed poor, though not only, or even principally, because of the European Union’s hostility. The fact is that Britain is unlikely to be able to take any advantage of life outside the European straitjacket because its own political class is itself in favour of straitjackets that are no better, and quite possibly worse than, the European ones. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, is very much a statist, indistinguishable from European social democrats, and the leader of the opposition, Mr Corbyn, who might well be the next Prime Minister, is an unapologetic admirer of Hugo Chavez. It is hardly to be expected that foreign investors will place much trust or confidence in an isolated country whose next government might very well weaken property rights, impose capital controls and increase corporate taxation in favour of supposed social justice. It would not take very long to turn Britain into a northern Venezuela: a Venezuela without the oil or the tropical climate.

Moreover, Britain already has many weaknesses and few strengths. It has a huge and persistent trade imbalance, because it does not produce enough of what the world wants and cannot easily be made to do so; it has a large national debt, about the same size as that of France, but without a highly functioning infrastructure such as France’s to show for it; its household debt is among the highest in the world. For many years, its economic policy might as well have been presided over by Mr Madoff; its social policy has been to smash up all forms of social solidarity or support for the vulnerable that do not pass through the state. The destruction of the little platoons has been very thorough: most large ‘charities’ in Britain are now dependent on government rather than on private funding, and hence are in effect departments of state.

As if this were not enough, Britain has enormous cultural problems, perhaps only to be expected in a country in which more than fifty per cent of children are born out of wedlock and twenty per cent do not eat a meal with another member of their household more than once every two weeks. A dangerously high and perhaps unsustainable proportion of the population is unfitted for productive life in a modern economy, having attained an abysmally low educational level despite (or because of?) considerable state expenditure. This section of the population is not merely indifferent to refinement of any kind – intellectual, aesthetic or of manners – but actively hostile to it. Similarly, it is not merely not anxious to learn, it is anxious not to learn.

This explains why Britain has persistently imported labour from Eastern Europe to perform tasks in its service industries that ordinarily one might have expected its large fund of indigenous non-employed people to perform. The fact is, however, that though these tasks require no special skills, they did require certain personal qualities such as reliability, politeness, and willingness to adapt: and these the eligible local population lack entirely. No hotel-keeper, for example, would consider using British labour if he could get foreign.

Perhaps nothing captures the levels of personal incompetence and lack of self-respect in Britain than the fact that young men of the lowest social class are about half as likely to die in prison as they are if left at liberty. In prison, though adult, they are looked after, at least in a basic way, and told what to do. They are no longer free to pursue their dangerous and crudely self-indulgent lifestyle, in which distraction is the main occupation. In prison they receive the health care that, though it is free to them under the National Health Service, they are not responsible enough to seek when at liberty. In short, they do not know, because they have never been taught, how to live in a minimally constructive fashion, though they were certainly not born ineducable.

No doubt other comparable countries have similar problems, but none (at least, none known to me) has them to anything like the same extent. These problems do not originate from Britain’s membership of the European Union, nor will they be solved by exit from the Union. They can be solved only by something more resembling a religious revival than by any likely government action. But expecting a population to bethink itself while simultaneously being offered political solutions that require no effortful cultural change is unreasonably optimistic. And politicians are unlikely to be frank about the problem for two reasons: first because alluding to the deficiencies of their electorate is probably not the best way to get elected, and second because it downgrades the providential role of politics, which politicians are understandable reluctant to do.

As if this were not quite enough, the hold on the country’s intelligentsia of statist solutions to practically all problems is still immensely strong. Nowhere is this more evident than in its attitude to the National Health Service, the establishment of which it almost universally regards as having been a great achievement, perhaps Britain’s only great achievement of the twentieth century. This is despite all the evidence that it has not been egalitarian in its effect, as it was originally supposed to be, or that almost all Western European health systems are superior to it. The fact that all Western Europeans regard it with at least disdain, and more usually with absolute horror, does nothing to shake the British intelligentsia’s faith in the essential goodness of the National Health Service. The only perceived problem with it is that it underfunded: the same problem as with all other government services. In the struggle between rhetoric and reality, rhetoric always wins.

The population by and large follows the intelligentsia, and the politicians follow the population; but the only economic advantages to Brexit would be the possibility of a nimbler, less regulated and bureaucratic economy. There is now no prospect of this. Therefore, I have seen the future of London, and it is Caracas – or very might be.

Theodore Dalrymple
Theodore Dalrymple is a retired prison doctor and psychiatrist, contributing editor of the City Journal and Dietrich Weissman Fellow of the Manhattan Institute.

A New Interesting Book On Conrad—One of My Favorite Authors

JOHN GRAY

The Dawn Watch: Joseph Conrad in a Global World
By Maya Jasanoff

William Collins 375pp £25 order from our bookshop

LITERARY REVIEW – BRITAIN’S BEST-LOVED LITERARY MAGAZINE

Corresponding with Bertrand Russell in 1922, Joseph Conrad confessed: ‘I have never been able to find in any man’s book or any man’s talk anything … to stand up for a moment against my deep-seated sense of fatality governing this man-inhabited world.’ Conrad was responding to Russell’s book The Problem of China, published in the same year, in which Russell had pinned his hopes for China and the world on ‘international socialism’ – ‘the sort of thing to which I cannot attach any sort of definite meaning’, Conrad observed.

International socialism, he continued, was ‘but a system, not very recondite and not very plausible … and I know you wouldn’t expect me to put faith in any system’.

Conrad was a sceptic who believed that the human world was fuelled by illusions. He felt strongly about a number of the political issues of his day, such as the threat posed to Europe by Russian autocracy, and was horrified by the rapacity he witnessed being inflicted on the local population when he travelled through the Belgian Congo in 1890. But nothing could have been further from his way of thinking than high-minded dreams of a world without tyranny or empire. In his view, no change in political systems could eradicate the universal human propensity for savagery. He was suspicious of all large schemes of improvement.

Conrad’s political scepticism was contentious in his own day, when it went against the grain of European imperialism, the chief proponents of which claimed to be exporting civilisation throughout the world. Today it would be considered heresy against the liberal creed that decrees self-government to be an overriding good. Maya Jasanoff, a professor of British and imperial history at Harvard, has felt the force of the anathema that is visited on anyone who appears to question this orthodoxy.

Writing in the New York Times in August about a journey she had made on the Congo River retracing Conrad’s path, Jasanoff ventured the judgement: ‘Measured in relative terms, most people in Congo were probably better off 100 years ago.’ This provoked a storm of righteous indignation among fellow academics, who claimed it showed condescension to the Congolese people. But the issue Jasanoff addressed is at least in part a factual matter. Are people in the Congo today more or less likely to die a violent death than they were in colonial times? Whatever the answer, it is a legitimate question.

Nowadays any study of Conrad invites controversy unless it recites a ritual condemnation of his sins. Jasanoff herself comments, seemingly without irony, ‘Often enough I’ve questioned my own attachment to this dead white man, perpetually depressed, incorrigibly cynical, alarmingly prejudiced by the standards of today.’

Written with a novelist’s flair for vivid detail and a scholar’s attention to texts, The Dawn Watch is by any standard a major contribution to our understanding of Conrad and his time. Whether Jasanoff fully enters into Conrad’s vision of the world is more questionable.

‘Conrad wouldn’t have known the word “globalization”, but with his journey from the provinces of imperial Russia across the high seas to the British home counties, he embodied it,’ notes Jasanoff. She is not the first to see Conrad as an incarnation of the new world that was coming into being during his lifetime. V S Naipaul, whose essay ‘Conrad’s Darkness’ (1974) probes deeper than anything published before or since the divided nature of the Polish seaman, born Konrad Korzeniowski, who would become one of the greatest writers in the English language, asked how it was that Conrad ‘had been everywhere before me’. One answer lies in the shifting fortunes of globalisation itself. As Jasanoff observes, between the voyages he made as a sailor in the British Merchant Navy, Conrad made his home in London, the hub of a global market that was more integrated during his lifetime than at any point until the 1980s. She goes on:

Conrad’s world shimmers beneath the surface of our own. Today Internet cables run along the seafloor beside the old telegraph wires. Conrad’s characters whisper in the ears of new generations of antiglobalization protestors and champions of free trade, liberal interventionists and radical terrorists, social justice activists and xenophobic nativists.

And there’s no better emblem of globalization today than the container ship, which has made transport so cheap that it’s more cost-efficient to catch a fish in Scotland, send it to China to be filleted, then send it back to Europe for sale, than it is to hire laborers in situ. Ninety percent of world trade travels by sea, which makes ships and sailors more central to the world economy today than ever before.

After the First World War, globalisation went rapidly into reverse and only regained momentum in the late 20th century following the collapse of communism. The world that has emerged since then resembles that of the late 19th century more than the one that existed during much of the 20th. But there are many signs of strain, and a reversal like that which followed the Great War must be a realistic possibility.

If we can recognise Conrad’s world in our own, one reason is that the two share some of the same fragility.

What Jasanoff offers the reader is not one more conventional biography, but a fresh view of a much-scribbled-on writer that enables us to see him in a time in many ways like our own. ‘I set out to explore Conrad’s world with the compass of a historian,’ she writes, ‘the chart of a biographer, and the navigational sextant of a fiction reader.’

It is arresting to learn how much of Conrad’s first impressions of London were formed by reading Charles Dickens. Conrad ‘stumbled out of Liverpool Street Station to discover his shipping agent in “a Dickensian nook”, perched in a “Dickensian” office, eating a mutton chop bought “from some Dickensian eating-house around the corner”’. As part of the relentless irony that infuses The Secret Agent (1907), Conrad’s only novel to be set entirely in London, the city in which a purveyor of pornography plots a terrorist atrocity is still recognisably that portrayed by Dickens.

It is instructive to be reminded how unexpected was Conrad’s marriage to Jessie George, a young typist from Peckham to whom he proposed after they had met ‘maybe five times’, and how surprisingly successful the marriage seems on the whole to have been. It is a pity the book does not explore Conrad’s relations with the swashbuckling American journalist and sometime spy Jane Anderson. The late-life romance he seems to have had with her in 1916–17 goes some way to resolving an enduring mystery flagged up by Jasanoff: ‘Whether he had any sexual relationships with any woman at all, in Europe or beyond, there was never the slightest contemporary clue.’

We are reminded of Conrad’s prescience when we read how unimpressed he was with Woodrow Wilson’s plans for national self-determination in Europe, which would create ‘countries whose independence would endure only as long as the bigger powers thought it worthwhile’. It is interesting to read how Jasanoff, in the course of her Congo River journey, came on sights that Conrad could not have seen: ‘Even the river itself looked different from in Conrad’s day, dappled by floating clumps of water hyacinth, an invasive species introduced in the 1950s.’

Describing himself in a letter as ‘homo duplex in more than one sense’, Conrad remains as elusive to critics and interpreters now as he was during his lifetime. Repeatedly, Jasanoff refers to him as ‘cynical’ – a strange description for this often despairing, half-broken yet intrepid figure. If Conrad sounds cynical to readers today, it is because he voices truths that are now deemed unmentionable. He did not believe in what Russell, in a 1937 essay, called the ‘superior virtue of the oppressed’. All human institutions, including newly independent states, were steeped in crime; barbarism and civilisation would always be intertwined, with old evils continually reappearing in new guises. It is a vision as disruptive to the censorious liberalism that holds the reins today as it was to imperial fantasies of progress a hundred years ago.

LITERARY REVIEW – BRITAIN’S BEST-LOVED LITERARY MAGAZINE
Literary Review is published monthly in the heart of Soho. Subscribers receive the monthly magazine and access to all articles on our website.
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Tax Reform In America

It is most likely that next week the Congress of the USA will pass a tax reform bill that is the most major reform in decades . It will

lower corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%

lower the top individual tax rate from 39.6% to 37%,

double the standard married deduction from $12,000, to $24,000

Five years of 100% business expenses

Reduce other business expense provisions

Condinued mortgage deduction capped at $750,000

Here is the WSJ Editorial

By The Editorial Board
Dec. 15, 2017 7:14 p.m. ET

House and Senate conferees signed their tax agreement on Friday, and the bill that seems headed for passage next week is—Minor Miracle Dept.—better than what either body first passed. The bill’s corporate reform is far superior to its muddled rewrite of the individual code, but on balance this is the most pro-growth tax policy in decades.

The bill’s biggest achievement is reforming at long last the self-destructive U.S. corporate tax code. The top U.S. rate of 35%—highest in the developed world—will fall to 21% on Jan. 1. Cash currently held overseas will be taxed at a 15.5% one-time “deemed” repatriation rate, and America will move to a m in territorial system that allows money to be taxed where it is earned. The bill includes rules to prevent companies from concealing taxable income, especially on intangible assets such as intellectual property. And it sweeps away billions of dollars worth of industry-specific loopholes that misallocate capital.

All of this will go a long way to restoring American competitiveness that has eroded over several administrations. Even Barack Obama acknowledged this problem, though he declined to do anything lest some large business end up with a tax cut.

The same economists who presided over the weakest recovery since World War II now say none of this is needed with the economy finally growing at 3%. But the faster growth never materialized when they were in power, and this expansion has been notable for slow business investment and weak productivity growth.

This GOP tax reform—including five years of 100% immediate business expensing—is aimed directly at that weakness to keep the expansion going even as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. This isn’t a demand-side “sugar high.” These business tax changes are supply-side reforms that will increase the economy’s productive capacity.

Reducing the cost of capital should raise business investment and invite a capital inflow to the U.S. More investment means more hiring and more productive workers, which is what increases wages. Especially with a tight labor market, the share of income that goes to workers should increase. After eight years of trying to redistribute income through higher taxes and more subsidies, why not try a return to growth economics?

***
The individual tax reform isn’t nearly as ambitious. The GOP has rearranged some furniture to try to give everyone a tax cut while trying not to change the distribution tables of who pays taxes. The one bow toward simplification is nearly doubling the standard deduction to $24,000 for married couples, which means most taxpayers will elect not to itemize.

Far more confusing is the reform for business owners who declare income on personal returns, known as “pass-throughs,” which won a 20% deduction for some business income. Smaller businesses deserve tax relief but the deduction contains considerable risk of gaming.

For instance: A salaried manager at a corporation would pay a top marginal rate of 37%, yet a store owner gets a lower rate. This favors some industries over others, and the better route would have been cutting the top rate to the 1986 reform rate of 28%. Some lawyers, accountants and other professional services can claim some income against the deduction. And you bet they will: Look out for the college basketball coach who tries to become an LLC.

Yet Republicans deserve credit for at least trimming the top rate on individuals to 37% from 39.6%. The conferees dumped the House’s bubble bracket that slammed some folks with a 45.6% top rate. The 2.6-point top rate cut won’t increase the incentives to work by all that much, though the move is significant as a matter of principle that tax reform means lower rates for everyone. And lowering the top rate took political courage amid tendentious attacks from left and right.

A lower top rate also offers relief to productive earners in high-tax states who will lose most of the state-and-local tax deduction. That subsidy for progressive politicians in Sacramento and Albany will be capped at a $10,000 write-off for property, income and sales tax. A full repeal would have been better policy, but the accommodation brings along Republican Members in New York and California.

The worst individual tax policy is the doubling of the tax credit for children to $2,000 from $1,000. This costs half-a-trillion dollars and contributes nothing to growth because it doesn’t change incentives. Up to $1,400 of the credit will also be refundable after Florida Senator Marco Rubio staged a hostage crisis on Thursday, and this means checks in the mail to households with no income tax liability. Mr. Rubio demanded this change as the price of his vote even after his child-credit amendment lost on the Senate floor, 29-71.

The long-term politics of the credit are worse. Mr. Rubio concedes such households don’t owe income taxes but says they need relief from payroll taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare. But the way to do that is to propose cutting payroll tax rates. Mr. Rubio’s backdoor raid means the payroll tax will be the new pot of cash to redistribute income, and entitlement reform could become that much harder.

The House and Senate compromised on the mortgage-interest deduction, which will now be capped at $750,000, down from $1 million under current law. This is a small victory over the housing lobby, but Republicans couldn’t even eliminate the deduction for second homes. Republicans also won’t repeal the death tax, though the exemption will be doubled to about $11 million. A menu of energy subsidies survives, and so does the loathsome alternative minimum tax that requires families to calculate two sets of tax assumptions.

Some of these survive due to political support and others are ways to pay for cuts elsewhere and comply with the Senate’s budget rules. One asterisk is that the cuts for individuals expire after 2025, though the political pressure to extend them will be immense, especially for middle-income families.

In better news, the bill will repeal the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate that punishes Americans for declining to buy health insurance that they can’t afford or don’t want. This chips away at ObamaCare’s command-and-control model, and may open the door for larger reform.

***
Republicans have been promising to reform the tax code for decades, and Speaker Paul Ryan deserves particular notice for years of intellectual and political spadework. The House campaigned on tax reform with its Better Way agenda, and Donald Trump made it a 2016 theme. This bill fulfills that promise.

For eight years the Democrats put income equality over growth and ended up with less of both. Now Republicans are poised to enact a tax bill that on the whole makes broad prosperity the priority. Next week the House and Senate will call the roll and we’ll see which politicians in Washington still think America is one of the world’s great underdeveloped countries.

Appeared in the December 16, 2017, print editio

TV Ads Do Affect A Child’s Behavior.

Study: Fast-Food TV Ads Have Dramatic Impact On Children’s Fast-Food Consumption

15Dec – by Ben Renner –

HANOVER, N.H. — If your kids would rather down a Big Mac for dinner than a home-cooked burger, the TV may be to blame. A new study finds that preschoolers who watch programming with advertisements for fast-food are more likely to eat products from those restaurants than children not exposed to ads.

The study, conducted by researchers in Dartmouth University, is the first of its kind to link fast-food commercials to consumption in preschool-aged children.

A new study finds that preschoolers are more likely to eat fast-food products when they’re frequently exposed to TV commercials for them.

“Most parents won’t be surprised by the study’s findings since they probably know this from observing their own children, and the results are also consistent with food marketing influences that have been observed in highly controlled laboratory settings,” says lead author Madeline Dalton, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the university, in a news release.

Dalton and her team recruited 548 families with preschool-aged children in Southern New Hampshire for the study. Parents filled out a survey that reported their children’s TV-viewing time, the channels they watched, and their fast-food consumption.

Their responses were cross-referenced with a list of fast-food commercials aired on kids’ TV channels during the same period. Researchers calculated each child’s exposure to advertising from three major brands: McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Subway.

The results showed that forty-three percent of the preschoolers surveyed ate from one of the three restaurants during the previous week — nearly identical to the 41% of the preschoolers whowere exposed to TV advertising for such products.

Ultimately, the researchers found that children who had moderate or high exposure to fast-food TV ads were 30% more likely to consume the often unhealthy meals.

Interestingly, nearly three out of four fast-food ads the children viewed were for McDonald’s, which was the clear favorite place to eat, accounting for nearly 80% of fast-food consumption.

Researchers found that advertising exposure was independent of other factors that contribute to eating fast-food, such as socioeconomic status, how much their parents ate from such restaurants, and the overall number of television hours watched.

“An important part of the take-home message for parents is that there are preschool channels that don’t feature fast-food advertising, and to the extent that they can direct their child’s viewing to those channels exclusively, they themselves can protect their children from that exposure,” says Meghan Longacre, PhD, a study co-author and assistant professor of biomedical data sciences.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, fast-food chains create the most exposure to food advertising in children ages two to 11 in the United States. The industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on child-targeted advertising.

The study’s findings were published in the journal Public Health Nutrition.

Laura Ingraham Takes On Mueller and the Department of Justice

What is just as bad as this and adds even more fuel is the fact that the US Department of Justice and the FBI is refusing to provide information to the Congress of the Republic. If ever there was an example of the bureaucracy overtaking the people’s house this is it.

by JOHN NOLTE15 Dec 20171,208

Laura Ingraham ripped into the “irreparably tainted” Mueller investigation into Russian collusion with the claim that it is now an example of “how big government can end up becoming a threat to a representative democracy.”

On her Thursday night edition of The Ingraham Angle, Fox News’s latest primetime star opened with a blistering breakdown of the gobsmacking corruption and conflict of interest that has fueled, not only Hillary Clinton’s exoneration over her email scandal, but Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian collusion.

Specifically, Ingraham pointed to text messages written FBI Agent Peter Strzok in August of 2016 that read: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Strzok is referring to what was obviously a political meeting in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s office.

Worse still, earlier that same month, Lisa Page (a key player in Mueller’s Russia probe) texted to Strzok: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace [Trump].”

“I can protect our country at many levels,” Strzok replied.

This exchange occurred in the heart of the 2016 presidential election, and these texts relate directly to the idea of stopping Donald Trump from becoming president, to an “insurance policy” if he is elected, to an FBI Agent promising to “protect our country” from Trump on “many levels.”

This is stuff of banana republics and their secret police.

Strzok would go on to play a key role in aiding and abetting former FBI Director James Comey’s inexplicable exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Moreover, at this point, Clinton had spent millions to put together the phony Russia dossier that was almost certainly used by the FBI and the Obama administration to obtain the warrants necessary to spy on their political opponents in the Trump campaign.

Strzok then, inexplicably, became a top investigator for Mueller’s Russia probe, and Mueller only became a special prosecutor after Comey illegally leaked confidential notes to the news media in the hopes the appointment of a special prosecutor would be the result. Another conflict of interest is that Mueller and Comey are close friends.

If that is not bad enough, in 2015, when FBI Deputy Director McCabe’s wife ran for state senate in Virginia, longtime Clintonista Terry McAuliffe funneled some $675, 000 into her campaign. The following year, Strzok watered down the language that exonerated Hillary for her prosecutable email crimes.

And if that is not bad enough, Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, is married to Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS to put together the discredited Russian dossier.

Hovering over all of this is the number of Hillary Clinton donors hire by Mueller to investigate the man who beat her.

Focusing specifically on the Strzok’s “insurance policy” reassurance to Lisa Page, and calling this text a “smoking gun,” Ingraham broke down exactly how that “insurance” has manifested itself over the last 18 months.

They were intent on preventing him from being elected by any means necessary. And if that meant applying for a FISA warrant based on a phony dossier in order to spy on the campaign, maybe they’d do it. And if it meant deploying the entire mainstream media apparatus into Defcon 1 mode; hyper-ventilating about Russian collusion 24/7, they’d do it.

Ingraham then moved into what this “insurance policy” looks like today as a means to stop Trump from governing.

And today, if it means floating a specious story alleging that the president has early on-set dementia, they’ll do that too. Or maybe spreading damaging falsehoods with anonymous sources that are later parroted and then retracted by major news organizations. Yeah, they’ll do that too. … Whatever it takes. As former Mueller investigator Peter Strzok put it, they needed an “insurance policy” to stop Trump.

With only an hour show, Ingraham could not hit on everything, but this “insurance policy” has also manifested itself through inexcusable leaks of President Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders and Mueller’s apparent desire to derail the (successful) Senate vote on tax reform by announcing, on the morning of the vote, his plea bargain (for a process crime) with Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Adviser.

“The Founders never envisioned that a separate office inside the executive branch could hire a bunch of agenda-driven investigators, in search of a crime, by the head of the executive branch [Trump],” Ingraham said, and then called on FBI Deputy Director McCabe to be fired over many things, including his apparent role in planning to “subvert Trump’s campaign, or if elected, his ability to lead the government as president of the United States.”

Although she said she is tempted, Ingraham did not call for Mueller to be fired, but did say his investigation is “irreparably tainted” and needs to be investigated. If not, she believes his investigation “will and should” collapse over these “endless revelations of bias.”

Questionable Whether Trump Tough Talk Is Working —His Own Crowd Will See That It Isn’t .

Well, if one surveys the global scene it is unclear if the Trump tough talk is working.

I mean a new report from a think tank monitoring the South China Sea says that China kept on constructing in the disputed South China Sea through 2017, building tunnels and navigation systems on some of the islands , bolstering other facilities and really proceeding in spite of America’s objections and that of its neighbours. As a matter of fact while China has beeen doing this it continued with a charm offensive with the very neighbours who don’t like what they are doing in that Sea and who claim some of the same territory.

Then you have North Korea moving ahead unabated it seems. Several reports this past week spoke of how they beat the system and establish third parties to conduct business in the west . It seems someone has finally figured out that third party use is rampant . Surely, the CIA and other such agencies must have known about this sooner . The reports I read left the impression that this was all new stuff. Of course, Chinese companies are still involved in North Korea , make no mistake about that.

Topping off the North Korea discussion one cannot help but notice the remarks of Secretary of State Tillerson’s this week whereby it seems , if you take his words as being serious, that the US is now prepared to meet with Noth Korea , no strings attached. Now that’s a change . The North Koreans must be holding parties congratulating themselves on once again bluffing America into doing what previous Administrations have done —agree to talks, talks , drag them out, sort of pretend that you are softening —-meanwhile keep improving your nuclear capability. Now today the White House is saying that there can only be talks if there is no resumption of tests and denuclearization begins, whatever that means. Another North Korean party no doubt to celebrate America’s Confusion.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are exposed by the US today of having provided weapons to Yemen fighters , contrary to the big Agreement that Obama and the West signed and which Trump has refused to extend. I know that this is the first ,I suppose , tangible evidence but we know that their ballistic missile program continues a pace , contrary to the Agreement etc. Of course, America is alone on this ( as with most all international matters) in that the main powers of Russia, France and Germany have so invested in Iran now that to get them to agree to anything meaningful to constrain what the Iranians are doing is nigh impossible.

Then there is Russia with Putin playing a cool hand in Asia with big gas deals with China, new nuclear power deal with Egypt, Germany’s support for second European gas line , fully ensconced in Syria , controlling Crimea, all the while crooning about wanting better relations with America. And no American collusion with Trump evident or proven .

I suspect the Tillerson’s, Kelley’s, And Mattises of this world have so effectively surrounded the Donald that when push comes to shove they will prevail and appeasement almost on the European model will be the order of the day.

Israel’s ‘Capital’ announcement may seem contrary to this theme but I suspect the trio was willing to accept this one ——and perhaps even agreed , knowing that this would only cause a few demonstrations and ‘verbal denouncements , similiar to what is happening regularly at the UN .

So they grin and bear the tweets knowing full well they will play the last card.

Hope I am wrong, but I am getting a bad smell.