Meet the Reporter Who Received Donald Trump’s Tax Returns

/0 Comments/in , /by

David Cay Johnston is the reporter who received what appears to be the first two pages of Donald Trump’s 2005 tax returns and shared them on “The Rachel Maddow” show Tuesday night.

The editor and founder of dcreport.org, which crashed Tuesday night during the 9 p.m. hour, said he received Donald Trump’s tax returns from 2005 in the mail a few days ago. The return revealed that Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on a reported income of $150 million in 2005.

Johnston speculated that Trump might have been the person who mailed the figures to him.

“Donald has a long history of leaking material about himself when he thinks it’s in his interest,” Johnston said. “With Donald, you never know.” (Read more from “Meet the Reporter Who Received Donald Trump’s Tax Returns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Horrifying Precedent — Federal Appellate Court Rules Cops Can Allow Dogs To Maul Innocent People

/0 Comments/in , /by

A disturbing and reckless precedent was just set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which held that the US Constitution does not necessarily require cops to stop a K9 from tearing an innocent person to shreds. Seriously.

According to the ruling in the case of an innocent homeless man being mauled, nearly to death by a K9, police officers who deliberately allow their K9 to maul innocent people will be immune from liability and victims will have zero recourse.

As Slate reports:

The grisly facts of the case are uncontested. One night in 2010, Officer Terence Garrison and his police dog, Bikkel, were tracking a robbery suspect in High Point, North Carolina. Bikkel led Garrison to an abandoned house, then attacked a man crouched behind a bush near the front stoop. Garrison quickly realized that the man did not match the physical description of the suspect. (In fact, he was Christopher Maney, a homeless man accused of no crime.) But Garrison decided that the man might still be dangerous, so he demanded that Maney show his hands before calling off Bikkel. But Maney was using his hands to try to protect himself against the dog and pleaded with Garrison to stop Bikkel’s attack, insisting that he had done nothing wrong. After allowing the mauling to continue for 10 seconds, Garrison finally told Bikkel to stop. He then put Maney in handcuffs and called medical support.

Because Garrison allowed his K9 to continue mauling Maney, the innocent homeless man suffered severe injuries. By the time he was brought to the hospital, Maney was in critical condition. Bikkel had torn apart the top of Maney’s head, removing an entire two-square-inch section of hair, skin, and tissue — which would later require a 16-inch skin graft. The dog also bit Maney’s arms and legs so severely that it led to a brachial artery blood clot with massive blood loss, bruising, and swelling.

After making a long and painful recovery, Maney attempted to hold the officer accountable for his sadistic and torturous act. He then sued Garrison for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

As it stands, a dog bite qualifies as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. So, Maney argued that the time Garrison allowed the K9 to rip him apart was unreasonable.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit did not agree. Insanely enough, the court concluded that Garrison was shielded from liability because he did not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right.

According to the majority, as Slate reports, Fourth Amendment precedents do not unambiguously prohibit officers from “prolong[ing] a dog bite seizure until a subject complies with orders to surrender.” The majority analogized the mauling to a “Terry stop,” during which an officer may briefly stop and frisk individuals on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.” Garrison, the majority concluded, had really just engaged in a type of Terry stop in which “the classic Terry tableau is replaced by something more dynamic.”

Simply put, the court ruled that Garrison’s use of his K9 to maul a man nearly to death, was reasonable because it is no different than a stop and frisk.

Judge Pamela Harris, the only judge with enough humanity left in her to dissent, explained why this ruling is nonsensical and disturbing.

Maney was not himself suspected of any crime, armed or not, and he did not attempt to flee or to resist. Nevertheless, Officer Garrison deliberately subjected him to a canine attack in order to rule out any possibility that he might pose a threat. Whether or not a more customary Terry stop might have been authorized, I think it is clear enough that the circumstances did not justify the sustained mauling of Maney. Clear enough, that is, to warrant denial of qualified immunity to Garrison on Maney’s excessive force claim.

Harris noted that justifying the mauling by comparing it to a Terry stop was particularly ludicrous because “there was not reasonable suspicion sufficient to support a Terry stop” in the first place.

He (Garrison) was aware that there was a perfectly innocent explanation for Maney’s presence near the abandoned house. And I would not count against Maney his failure to stand and identify himself, which Maney—quite reasonably, in hindsight—attributes to his fear that a sudden movement might prompt a dog attack. Citizens are under no free-standing obligation to identify themselves to the police.

While Harris disagreed, the rest of the court believed Garrison “intentionally prolong(ing) a violent assault on Maney to determine whether he might pose a threat,” is entirely just.

It is likely that Maney will appeal this ruling. However, the mere fact that a court would rule in such a manner illustrates a much larger problem in America. Because Americans support a system that continuously refuses to hold police accountable while simultaneously granting them special privileges, cops can quite literally get away with murder. (For more from the author of “Horrifying Precedent — Federal Appellate Court Rules Cops Can Allow Dogs to Maul Innocent People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How the Federal Reserve Is Setting up Trump for a Recession, a Housing Crisis and a Stock Market Crash

/0 Comments/in , /by

Most Americans do not understand this, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve has far more power over the U.S. economy than anyone else does, and that includes Donald Trump. Politicians tend to get the credit or the blame for how the economy is performing, but in reality it is an unelected, unaccountable panel of central bankers that is running the show, and until something is done about the Fed our long-term economic problems will never be fixed. For an extended analysis of this point, please see this article. In this piece, I am going to explain why the Federal Reserve is currently setting the stage for a recession, a new housing crisis and a stock market crash, and if those things happen unfortunately it will be Donald Trump that will primarily get the blame.

On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve is expected to hike interest rates, and there is even the possibility that they will call for an acceleration of future rate hikes…

Economists generally believe the central bank’s median estimate will continue to call for three quarter-point rate increases both this year and in 2018. But there’s some risk that gets pushed to four as inflation nears the Fed’s annual 2% target and business confidence keeps juicing markets in anticipation of President Trump’s plan to cut taxes and regulations.

During the Obama years, the Federal Reserve pushed interest rates all the way to the floor, and this artificially boosted the economy. In a recent article, Gail Tverberg explained how this works…

With falling interest rates, monthly payments can be lower, even if prices of homes and cars rise. Thus, more people can afford homes and cars, and factories are less expensive to build. The whole economy is boosted by increased “demand” (really increased affordability) for high-priced goods, thanks to the lower monthly payments.

Asset prices, such as home prices and farm prices, can rise because the reduced interest rate for debt makes them more affordable to more buyers. Assets that people already own tend to inflate, making them feel richer. In fact, owners of assets such as homes can borrow part of the increased equity, giving them more spendable income for other things. This is part of what happened leading up to the financial crash of 2008.

But the opposite is also true.

When interest rates rise, borrowing money becomes more expensive and economic activity slows down.

For the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates right now is absolutely insane. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s most recent projection, GDP growth for the first quarter of 2017 is supposed to be an anemic 1.2 percent. Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if we actually ended up with a negative number for the first quarter.

As Donald Trump has explained in detail, the U.S. economy is a complete mess right now, and we are teetering on the brink of a new recession.

So why in the world would the Fed raise rates unless they wanted to hurt Donald Trump?

Raising rates also threatens to bring on a new housing crisis. Interest rates were raised prior to the subprime mortgage meltdown in 2007 and 2008, and now we could see history repeat itself. When rates go higher, it becomes significantly more difficult for families to afford mortgage payments…

The rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage reached its all-time low in November 2012, at just 3.31%. As of this week, it was 4.21%, and by the end of 2018, it could go as high as 5.5%, forecasts Matthew Pointon, a property economist for Capital Economics.

He points out that for a homeowner with a $250,000 mortgage fixed at 3.8%, annual payments are $14,000. If that homeowner moved to a similarly-priced home but had a 5.5% rate, their annual payments would rise by $3,000 a year, to $17,000.

Of course stock investors do not like rising rates at all either. Stocks tend to rise in low rate environments such as we have had for the past several years, and they tend to fall in high rate environments.

And according to CNBC, a “coming stock market correction” could be just around the corner…

Investors are in for a rude awakening about a coming stock market correction — most just don’t know it yet. No one knows when the crash will come or what will cause it — and no one can. But what’s worse for most investors is they have no clue how much they stand to lose when it inevitably happens.

“If you look at the market historically, we have had, on average, a crash about every eight to 10 years, and essentially the average loss is about 42 percent,” said Kendrick Wakeman, CEO of financial technology and investment analytics firm FinMason.

If stocks start to fall, how low could they ultimately go?

One technical analyst that has a stunning record of predicting short-term stock market declines in recent years is saying that the Dow could potentially drop “by more than 6,000 points to 14,800″…

But if the technical stars collide, as one chartist predicts, the blue-chip gauge could soon plunge by more than 6,000 points to 14,800. That’s nearly 30% lower, based on Friday’s close.

Sandy Jadeja, chief market strategist at Master Trading Strategies, claims several predicted stock market crashes to his name — all of them called days, or even weeks, in advance. (He told CNBC viewers, for example, that the August 2015 “Flash Crash” was coming 18 days before it hit.) He’s also made prescient calls on gold and crude oil.

And he’s extremely concerned about what this year could bring for investors. “The timeline is rapidly approaching” for the next potential Dow meltdown, said Jadeja, who shares his techniques via workshops and seminars.

Most big stock market crashes tend to happen in the fall, and that is what I portray in my novel, but the truth is that they can literally happen at any time. If you have not seen my recent rant about how ridiculously overvalued stocks are at this moment in history, you can find it right here. Whether you want to call it a “crash”, a “correction”, or something else, the truth is that a major downturn is coming for stocks and the only question is when it will strike.

And when things start to get bad, most of the blame will be dumped on Trump, but it won’t primarily be his fault.

It was the Federal Reserve that created this massive financial bubble, and they will also be responsible for popping it. Hopefully we can get the American people to understand how these things really work so that accountability for what is coming can be placed where it belongs. (For more from the author of “How the Federal Reserve Is Setting up Trump for a Recession, a Housing Crisis and a Stock Market Crash” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Judiciary Demands All Records on FBI Plan to Pay British Ex-Spy Who Made ‘Russia Dossier’ on Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey demanding that his agency turn over all records of its reported plan to pay the British ex-spy — who compiled a salacious and unsubstantiated dossier on Donald Trump just prior to the election – to continue investigating the president.

The “Russia Dossier,” which claimed that Trump engaged in perverted sex acts in a Moscow hotel and allegedly was in collusion with the Russians, was published by the online site Buzzfeed. The disturbing allegations in the document were not substantiated. Famed author and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward called the dossier a “garbage document.”

In his letter to FBI Director Comey, Chairman Grassley notes that the Washington Post “reported that the FBI reached an agreement a few weeks before the Presidential election to pay the author of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and the Russians, Christopher Steele, to continue investigating Mr. Trump.”

“The article claimed that the FBI was aware Mr. Steele was creating these memos as part of the work for an opposition research firm connected to Hillary Clinton,” said Grassley.

“The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for President in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,” said Grassley. (Read more from “Senate Judiciary Demands All Records on FBI Plan to Pay British Ex-Spy Who Made ‘Russia Dossier’ on Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Justice Department on Monday asked lawmakers for more time to gather evidence related to President Trump’s claim that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower’s phones during last year’s presidential campaign . . .

On “Fox & Friends” this morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that even if the Obama administration did spy on Trump, there may never be a way to prove it . . .

“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command,” Napolitano said. “He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice.”

Instead, Napolitano said, Obama used GCHQ, a British intelligence and security organization that has 24-7 access to the NSA database.

“There’s no American fingerprints on this,” Napolitano said. “What happened to the guy who ordered this? Resigned three days after Donald Trump was inaugurated.” (Read more from “Judge: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the GOP Can’t Seem to Banish Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Trump made some experts snicker when he explained the delay in unrolling the Republican replacement for Obamacare: “Who knew health care was so complicated?” Pundits who had spent years sweating the details of the many facets of health insurance policy came back at Trump with versions of “Er, hello? We’ve been saying that for years. Now if you’ll turn to page 723 of my proposal….” Indeed the policy details are enormously complex, and I won’t presume to wade in as an amateur to the debate over whether the current Republican proposal is the smartest or most politically viable plan for setting free one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

One thing conservatives have been right about all along: Obama’s plan was so complicated and unsustainable, it was tempting to believe that it was constructed that way on purpose. By building a Rube Goldberg machine that first entangled millions of Americans, before collapsing under its own weight (well after he’d left office), Obama would create the conditions where Americans would demand that the federal government “solve” the new healthcare crisis by creating a single-payer, British-style system of socialized medicine. In effect, the whole country would just slide onto Medicare.

Hard-working conservative policy wonks have been toiling for years to propose politically and fiscally workable alternatives to Obamacare. Most of these experts are sharply critical of the new plan Trump is backing, which seems to be a kind of Obamacare Lite, with tax incentives that slightly favor the better off, and a different kind of penalty for those who don’t buy insurance. I lack the expertise to wade into the details and try to clarify them, but the principles underlying them are clear. There’s a fundamental moral problem at the heart of the healthcare debate, which various plans — Obamacare as well as its conservative alternatives — have flailed around trying to solve.

It’s the problem that economists call the “free-rider.” I can explain it best with a personal anecdote. Last week one of my deranged rescue beagles yanked the leash so hard that it messed up my right wrist. (I’m a righty.) The pain was blinding, throbbing, debilitating. I couldn’t write my column. It hurt to use the mouse for any reason. In a perfect world, I would have gone to a hospital emergency room to get immediate care — since making the arrangements to get into an orthopedist would have taken days, during which I couldn’t work (or even brush my teeth very effectively).

Emergency Wards Full of Illegal Immigrants

Of course, since I live in the real world and my sister is a nurse, I knew better than to go anywhere near an emergency room — which are chock-full of people without any health insurance, many of them without the legal right to reside in this country, lining up to get routine care which they won’t ever have to pay for. Who would have to pay for them? I would. When insured, paying customers do turn up at the emergency room, they must be soaked to cover the costs, or else hospitals will close. The sheer number of free riders force the “fare” paid by regular customers to crippling heights — and that is why after a childbirth or short hospital stay, you will see on your bill itemized charges like $20 Q-tips.

I didn’t want to come home with a bill that socked me for the whole cost of my annual deductible for a single injury, so instead of going to the doctor, I found a massage therapist and relied on Advil and ice baths. Thankfully, I got better. But it struck me as a rather ironic that because I have a job and insurance, I have effectively less access to emergency care than illegal immigrants willing to wait several hours to get routine care from an emergency room — which typically won’t turn anyone away, even if there is little evidence of any genuine emergency. The New England Health Care Institute (PDF) warned back in 2010:

The overuse of U.S. emergency departments (EDs) is responsible for $38 billion in wasteful spending each year.

ED overuse is on the rise across all patient populations, irrespective of age or insurance coverage.

Drivers of ED overuse include lack of access to timely primary care services, referral to the ED by primary care physicians themselves, and financial and legal obligations by hospitals to treat all patients who arrive in the ED.

Turning Doctors and Nurses into Indentured Servants

The numbers are surely worse today. The combination of federal laws and liability risk makes it very difficult for staff at emergency wards to simply say “No” to someone who turns up with an ear infection or flu symptoms, and wants to be taken care of — though they are quite unable to pay, and don’t qualify for Medicaid (since they’re illegals).

Congressman Ron Paul, MD, had the right answer to resolving this free rider problem. He shocked people in the 2012 presidential campaign when he said that the government should remove any legal or regulatory requirement that doctors or hospitals treat people who won’t be able to pay them, apart from obvious, life-threatening emergencies.

Rep. Paul was right. Food is just as crucial to life as health care, but we don’t let hungry people turn up at restaurants and ditch the tab. There is no moral case for drafting health care professionals into indentured servitude for those unable to pay. The fact that emergency wards are available for this purpose surely discourages a certain percentage of people who could afford health insurance from spending the money to get it. And of course, we should not be providing free medical care — except for life-threatening emergencies — to illegal residents at all.

Americans Who Game the System

So that’s one kind of free rider. But here’s another, home grown specimen. Someone I knew, a working attorney, churchgoer and political conservative, told me that he really resented the Obamacare mandate that he sign up for health insurance. He was healthy, young, and physically active. He didn’t like being pressed into the insurance pool to effectively subsidize older, sedentary people who needed care. So far so good, I guess.

But then I asked him why he didn’t sign up for some form of catastrophic insurance. What if he got in a car accident, or was struck down with some rare cancer? He didn’t have savings or assets that could begin to cover the real costs of health care he’d need. How would he deal with the bills that would come from hospitals and surgeons?

At that he shrugged and smiled. “Oh, that’s what bankruptcy laws are for.” He explained that a number of his clients were uninsured adults who had faced enormous medical debts. He got bankruptcy judgments that let them pay pennies on the dollar. Apparently he took these cases not as cautionary tales but as inspiration.

Leave aside Obamacare’s absurd restrictions (which must be repealed) that virtually killed off catastrophic insurance plans, like the kind I used to have. How many young, healthy Americans who normally would shell out a few hundred dollars a month for catastrophic insurance don’t do so, because they are counting on Chapter 11 as their “insurer” of last resort? Morally, such people are no better than illegal immigrants who expect free medical care at emergency wards. In fact, as well-educated Americans with better options, they’re actually worse. Obamacare’s individual mandate was a ham-handed, probably un-Constitutional attempt to address this very real issue. It’s young, healthy people like my friend who make an insurance pool viable. If they don’t fear that medical debt could ever do them serious harm, many will not buy insurance. So the system will totter and fail.

No reform of health care in America will really address the fundamental problem of “free riders” jacking up costs for the rest of us unless it removes the legal obligation of medical professionals to work unpaid in non-emergency cases — and reforms bankruptcy laws that allow those who are willfully uninsured to essentially cheat the doctors and nurses who cared for them.

And now I leave it to the wonks to sweat the details. (For more from the author of “Why the GOP Can’t Seem to Banish Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Redistricting Case Makes It Official: Courts Are Rigging the Game … And It’s Entirely Legal

/0 Comments/in , /by

A gerrymandering case out of Texas serves to further prove the point that the judiciary is rigging the game against Republican candidates — and it’s all completely legal.

Late Friday, a panel of federal judges threw out three of Texas’ congressional districts — because racism. This further highlights how the federal judiciary is using provisions of the Voting Rights Act to rig elections in favor of Democrat candidates.

According to a report at NPR:

Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Orlando Garcia wrote the court’s decision, which comes after a protracted and complex legal battle that began when the new districts were drawn in 2011, following the last census.

“The political motive does not excuse or negate that use of race; rather, the use of race is ultimately problematic for precisely that reason — because of their political motive, they intentionally drew a district based on race in a location where such use of race was not justified by a compelling state interest,” says the ruling.

Politically motivated redistricting is legal, but redistricting with an intent to reduce the influence of minority voters — either by “packing” those voters into a district, or “cracking” them among multiple districts — is not.

More troubling is that the ruling goes after both practices of political redistricting (packing and cracking) and throw both out, alleging to discern racial animus amongst the political — even though the political was most clear. (What gifted mind-readers in black robes we have at our disposal!)

So there is literally no way to draw districts in a political fashion without a federal judge being able to cry racist and kick the maps out.

What’s truly laughable is that the state maps of Maryland and Illinois – which are infamously rigged in favor of Democrat politicians – remain wholly unchallenged despite some of the absurd-looking districts on their maps. But, details …

Even if as many GOP politicians were legitimately racist as liberals claim, the Left tends to forget what politicians really love: winning elections. Any sensible politician will draw a map that maximizes their chances of winning, regardless of race. You may not like it, but it’s legal, constitutional, and how things have been done since ratification.

As Daniel Horowitz and I explained in a previous, more comprehensive piece on the subject:

Then there is the reality that contrary to breaking up demographic constituencies, many of the maps pull them together. One could statistically argue that such districts would actually give minorities a statistical punch above their weight in Congress than if the lines were drawn otherwise.

When a minority votes near-monolithically for one party and lives in geographically distinct enough areas to be lumped together via gerrymandering, of course that is the result of intentional action. That’s not racially motivated; it’s party motivated. How much smaller would the Congressional Black Caucus be if those districts weren’t drawn as such?

First, in order for the courts to rule that maps drawn with political intent are racially discriminatory, they assumed that minorities are going to monolithically vote for Democrats every single time. This is a false assumption and just bad law when one realizes that the whole of American political history displays the continual birth, death, and realignment of political coalitions.

If you grant one voter bloc a new constitutional right to maximize their potential, then why not grant another bloc (of another demographic) the same constitutional right? What about white rural voters? What about white rural voters in blue states (listed above) who have also had their representation sliced up? Why is nobody crying “foul” and “racism” over them?

So, because Republicans often have enjoy atrocious election results among some racial demographics, any effort to draw a constitutional map that isn’t suicidal will look racially motivated. However, as much as Democrats do everything they can to shame black people out of even entertaining the idea of voting Republican, the amount of melanin in your skin does not dictate your political party.

Simply put, there’s no way to draw a district map without someone being able to claim disappointment or “disenfranchisement.” This is why these are political questions — not ones for unelected judges, unaccountable election commissions, or (per a recent suggestion) the robots.

There’s only one question remaining about the current redistricting scenario: Where is Congress?

Since several states are losing a constitutionally enumerated power at the hands of the judiciary — based off the interpretation of a law that usurped that power — it would only make sense that the branch that started the problem clean up its own mess by either clarifying what the courts’ power over the states are, or repealing the outdated provisions of the act (or the whole thing) altogether.

Until then, Democrats have a handy way to pick the lock and rig the system on future elections, and it’s only going to get worse. (For more from the author of “Texas Redistricting Case Makes It Official: Courts Are Rigging the Game … And It’s Entirely Legal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Catch the Left’s Latest Boycott Hype? Neither Did the Rest of America

/0 Comments/in , /by

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

One of the few things the Left used to be really good at was boycotting: What they lacked in ideological fervor they made up for in boots-on-the-ground activism. That talent seems to be fading though, as the “A Day Without A Woman” flopped, and two other pet causes — the anti-feminist, feminist crusade against Ivanka Trump and Starbuck’s support for refugees —have also been a disappointment. While average Americans are no doubt tired of outlandish commercial leftism, this is also what happens when ideology is as stable as shifting sand and as vacuous as air.

The world didn’t end without women

On Wednesday — “International Women’s Day” — the same folks who organized the “Women’s March on Washington,” decided the best way to show their solidarity for women and demonstrate the vital importance women have on society and the economy was to have “A Day Without A Woman.” Effectively, they encouraged women to take the day off if possible.

No really. So many women in the public school district in Alexandria, VA, about 300 staff, asked for “personal leave” on March 8 that the school didn’t feel they could effectively hold class in the system’s 17 schools … so they cancelled. It’s unclear if the administration’s policy requires they grant personal leave to everyone who requests it, but they certainly did so in this case. Not only did the school cancel classes with only 48 hours warning, but this meant women who were unable to take the day off work — a situation many women, especially with lower-paying jobs find themselves in — had to arrange for and pay for childcare. The same thing happened in North Carolina. How’s that for appreciating women!

The elementary portion of this elite prep school in New York called The Ethical Culture Fieldston School also was forced to cancel school due to so many elementary teachers taking the day off for “A Day Without A Woman.” This school didn’t make the call until the night before and tuition there costs upwards of $47,000 a year.

Fieldston leader Jessica Bagby said, “I am deeply sorry about the impact this protest will have on families at Fieldston Lower, and women in particular, for whom this walkout creates an undue burden and reinforces inequities tied to economic means and job security.” Bagby nails it. First and foremost: What message did this send little girls (and boys) who attend school? Want to have a day off, I mean participate in a political protest? Be a teacher! Second, this act of protesting, failing to go to work — which is somehow supposed to honor women — is entirely counterintuitive. It forced women who must work to scramble to find childcare, placing an even larger burden on them. It’s safe to say this this protest was a bust.

Starbucks brand reputation has dipped

When President Trump issued an executive order halting refugees from certain countries from entering the United States, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz proudly proclaimed with a hint of righteous indignation he’d hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years to make a political point. As CEO he can do whatever he wants, hopefully legally, and certainly there’s nothing wrong with hiring folks who need work. But Schultz took it a step further by capitalizing on a political statement all while contradicting himself (If he cared so much about refugees, why not make the same proclamation last year?).

This squishy approach too seems to have backfired. Since Schultz made the announcement, Starbucks stock has plummeted. CNBC reports analysts at Credit Suisse found Schultz’ declaration is hurting the Starbucks brand. In a research note, equity analyst Jason West wrote, “Our work shows a sudden drop in brand sentiment following announcement of the refugee hiring initiative on Jan. 29th, to flattish from a run-rate of ~+80 (on an index of -100 to +100). Net sentiment has since recovered, but has seen significant volatility in recent weeks.” A dip in brand reputation could result in a dip in sales unless it quickly recovers.

Ivanka’s clothing line sales have surged

Remember when feminists loved other women who seemed like ideal feminists, until they turned out to be the daughters of a Republican president? That’s exactly what’s happened with Ivanka Trump. If her lineage was still a mystery, feminists would be extolling the many ways Ivanka embodies modern feminism: A confident business woman, Ivanka balances her work with her children, and stands up for her beliefs. This all changed when her father moved into the White House. Two companies withdrew her clothing line citing poor sales.

While that seems unlikely, it appears that may have also backlashed. According to Refinery 29, sales have surged not just since the inauguration, but since those retailers dropped her products. Though Ivanka’s company declined to give sales specifics, Abigail Klem, the new president of the brand said:

Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand. For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.

These boycotts may ultimately fail, but they can still cause harm. They still communicate falsehoods about economics, feminism, and work ethic — especially to our youth. I’m not bemoaning the fact that liberal boycotts seem to be less effective than they used to be. I’d find it humorous if it weren’t so sad and pathetic. But these are all examples of what happens when activism trumps ideology. A liberal’s ideology is about as firm as the sand on a seashore and their boycotts crumble like a sand castle — standing tall for a minute, then washing away when the waves hit. (For more from the author of “Catch the Left’s Latest Boycott Hype? Neither Did the Rest of America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Harvard Tries to Shield Students From Conservative News Sites They Label ‘Fake’ or ‘Biased’

/0 Comments/in , /by

For a prestigious ivy-league school with Christian roots, Harvard is shrugging off its original identity as quickly as its motto changed from “Truth for Christ and Church” (Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia) to just “Truth” (Veritas). But even that’s in question these days.

The Harvard Library recently posted a list of ways to avoid “Fake News, Misinformation, and Propaganda” and attached a list of suspect websites, but there’s just one problem: some of the news sites they reference are conservative — many of them are quite reputable, which leads some to speculate that Harvard wants to keep students liberal.

In addition to common-sense warnings, such as keeping an eye out for sloppy or unprofessional design, the library suggests that, if you are in doubt about whether a news site is real or fake, “Ask a Librarian.” As helpful as that may sound, librarians are not news analysts. Their job is to help students locate information — not discern good from bad or even fake from real.

Thomas Lifson, Harvard alum, faculty member and officer had this to say:

I am sorry, but this is dangerous nonsense. I was grateful for the help that the staffs of several Harvard libraries (there are dozens of libraries at Harvard) gave me in my years there. They knew what their collections contained and how to get a hold of even the most obscure items. But they always knew they were in a service role, not in the role of determining what sources I should rely on. That was my job!

Lifson went on to say that it’s just one more example of liberal activists trying to keep young minds from being exposed to anything but the liberal agenda. The youth of Harvard are not to be trusted to make up their minds about what is accurate news reporting, he said. “Harvard librarians … find certain viewpoints dangerous, and want to make sure that youngsters are warned away from viewpoints dissenting from liberal orthodoxy.”

The full list contains 916 websites, including reputable sites like Breakpoint.org, Breitbart.org, Christianpost.com, Lifesitenews.com, the Blaze.com and many others. It does not contain liberal news sites. (For more from the author of “Harvard Tries to Shield Students From Conservative News Sites They Label ‘Fake’ or ‘Biased'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Meets With Obamacare ‘Victims’

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Monday, President Donald Trump met with Americans described by the White House as “victims” of Obamacare to hear their stories.

In what the administration called a “listening session,” Trump referred to the Affordable Care Act as the “very, very failed and failing Obamacare law” as he heard from citizens in the Roosevelt Room who have had negative experiences with the health care law, according to the White House press pool.

“We paid $8,000 for five months and were never able to use it,” Georgia woman Brittany Ivey told Trump.

Ivey, who said she left her full-time job in 2009 to focus on her children, claimed she had a family plan for four that went up by 102 percent. After she lost insurance that had been provided by her husband’s employer, Ivey said she looked for a new job with health care benefits but was unable to find employment that would have provided insurance.

According to Ivey, the family had to purchase Obamacare coverage, which resulted in the loss of their preferred doctors.

Louis Brown, a Virginia resident and a former Democratic National Committee staffer, said, “[People should be] at the center of our American health care system, not the government.”

Brown said that he worked for the DNC during the early stages of Obamacare, but added he quit the job due to his pro-life stance. He said he supported Trump in the presidential election.

Carrie Couey, a cattle rancher from Colorado, said that the health care costs associated with Obamacare affected her family so much that it put her food source at risk.

“We can’t afford our [ranching] equipment if we’re paying these rates year, after year, after year. Our food source is in jeopardy because of this health care law,” Couey said.

Elias Seife, a second-generation immigrant from Cuba living in Florida, said he had his individual plan canceled.

Seife mentioned his parents, who came to America from a communist society, as living testaments against Obamacare, saying, “They know what socialism is all about. I know what socialism is … and this whole system was meant to have one single provider.”

Robin Armstrong, a doctor from Texas, said many of his patients are not sufficiently insured under Obamacare, as they are affected by expensive premiums and deductibles.

Armstrong said he likes the new American Health Care Act, the Obamacare replacement proposed by House Republicans, saying, “I actually read the bill that’s been produced, that’s coming out of the House now and I really like a lot of the changes in it. I think this is going to correct a lot of issues that Obamacare has had.”

The president voiced his opposition to the media’s coverage of Obamacare, claiming that the press is attempting to cover up the health care law’s downfalls to make it “look so good.”

“First of all, it covers very few people and it’s imploding. And [2017] will be the worst year,” Trump said.

Trump attributed Obamacare’s favorable media coverage to nostalgia, claiming the law is similar to President Barack Obama in appearing better now than it actually is.

“It’s a little bit like President Obama. When he left, people liked him. When he was here, people didn’t like him so much. That’s the way life goes. That’s human nature,” he said.

Trump concluded his remarks by calling Obamacare a “horrible thing.” (For more from the author of “Trump Meets With Obamacare ‘Victims'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.