Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Patriot Trump vs. the Leninist Impeachment Pushers

Unlike Schiff’s fiction, Trump’s reality has defied the evisceration the Constitution has suffered over the decades and challenged progressives in ways not seen in the Republican Party for over a century.
 
 
- October 7th, 2019
Should President Obama have been impeached for giving cash and assets worth as much as $150 billion to Iran by executive order? Or for lying about Obamacare? No, because that kind of punishment even for these injustices would have trivialized the grave constitutional purpose of impeachment and conviction. Clearly, it would have fulfilled a legitimate partisan purpose, though one which is more appropriately resolved through elections.
If the current impeachment fever materializes into reality, virtually any executive action with which the opposition party disagrees can be made an impeachable offense.

The Trump impeachment inquiry seeks to besmirch President Trump, fundraise for Democrat House and Senate candidates, destabilize the markets, knock Joe Biden out of the race, and mock presiding Chief Justice Roberts at the Senate trial. These are nothing but crude partisan appeals and clearly not constitutional purposes. Demagoguery is too gentle a word. Whatever else these political aims are, they are not affirmations of constitutional government. Once the dust settles all of these motives may well have backfired, but the Democrats have powerful enablers.
And no one serious about protesting injustice, let alone defending the Constitution, would have opened a hearing about the alleged impeachable offense with a grotesque parody of the transcript, intended to cast the president as a mobster. (Don’t the Democrats know that the Godfather portrays a hero to most to Americans? Since we’re talking parody, recall that one of the novel’s first lines can be paraphrased “for justice we must go to Don Trump.”)
Unlike Schiff’s fiction, Trump’s reality has defied the evisceration the Constitution has suffered over the decades. Normal people laughed when candidate Trump declared at a 2016 rally that Russia might help find Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails. They didn’t panic or see in it an opportunity to shiv him. In fact, Trump is the most constitutionally devout President since Lincoln.
 While not shedding all the vices of Progressivism, which not even Ronald Reagan could overcome, he has challenged them in ways not seen in the Republican Party for over a century. Trump may be America’s best hope to restore the Constitution since Lincoln. That possibility calls to mind how relentlessly the Great Emancipator’s opponents, the Democrats back at that time, sought his ouster. Lawless opportunism has always united that party, whatever particular issues it advanced since 1800, whether it meant secession, dictatorial presidential power, or embrace of unelected bureaucracies, national or foreign.
Recently the incisive scholar of Russian literature, Gary Saul Morson, once again illuminated the extremism 20th century politics in his essay “Leninthink.” Lenin goes straight to the brutality demanded of the Soviet ambition: “When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism.” The parallels I would make between the American and Soviet experience are instructive.
Democratic Party extremism today reflects more Lenin than Jefferson, more NKVD than New Deal, more Schiff than Solzhenitsyn. “Lenin worked by a principle of anti-empathy, and this approach was to define Soviet ethics. I know of no other society, except those modeled on the one Lenin created, where schoolchildren were taught that mercy, kindness, and pity are vices,” writes Morson. Of course the rhetoric of freedom can continue: Morson recalls “a Soviet citizen telling [him] that people in the USSR had absolute freedom of speech—so long as they did not lie.”

The fanatical environmentalism, the amoral anti-racism, the disgust with America all stem from the logic that “For a Leninist, the shoe is never on the other foot because he has no other foot.” If this doesn’t sound like all Democrats today, one must not forget that “The whole point of Leninism is that only a few people must understand what is going on.”
Fortunately, the principled answer to the Democrats’ now open Leninism—not mere socialism—is found in Trump’s recent speech to the United Nations, one filled with references to friendship and love as it articulates the need for justice within nations. In the speech are found the best responses to the Democrats’ promiscuous, partisan use of impeachment that poorly masks their Leninism—just a shadow away from violence. Trump offers, by contrast, a primer on free government and the love and justice it can offer to the world today.
The overriding theme of his speech is one familiar to students of Lincoln: the world today cannot survive half slave and half free. For the free world to survive, those nations must embrace their “national foundations,” which need revival. The world is good, and the existence of separate nations makes it so. “Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see: If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation.” The freedom of nations comes in many varieties, as many varieties as there are nations. The slavery the world offers, though it comes in a similar variety of means, leads always to the same end, which Trump touches on. The alternative to the nation is empire or tribalism, both of which lead to slavery. Only in nations is there strength, freedom, and civilization.
Trump starts with the need for nations to protect their borders. He speaks with the refreshing eloquence of bluntness:
Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: …. Your policies are cruel and evil…. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives, wellbeing, … [of] countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.
The suppression of individual liberties comes in myriad ways affecting the safety and happiness of women, the unborn, and homosexuals. The right of armed self-defense, so basic to the social contract, and the freedom of religion are endangered among 80 percent of the world’s people because of their governments.
As Trump elaborates, we learn that the purpose of all these rights is the safety and happiness of the people against the passion to dominate. “Our Founders gave us a system designed to restrain this dangerous impulse. They chose to entrust American power to those most invested in the fate of our nation: a proud and fiercely independent people.”

Even though a nation may be advanced in science and culture, it will face today “alarming signs and new challenges to liberty” from the most educated within. These elites constitute what John Marini calls the “administrative state”—a knowledge elite that wants to remake the nation to its current theoretical or interested liking. It is omnipresent: in television news, social media, and the bureaucracy at all levels of government.
We see evidence of this in a number of areas. A small number of social media platforms are acquiring immense power over what we can see and over what we are allowed to say. A permanent political class is openly disdainful, dismissive, and defiant of the will of the people. A faceless bureaucracy operates in secret and weakens democratic rule. Media and academic institutions push flat-out assaults on our histories, traditions, and values.
This weakening of alternatives to the administrative state rule by those imbued with the spirit of Lenin opens the way to socialism. “One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It’s the wrecker of nations and destroyer of societies.”
Socialism is another form of slavery, when understood as Abraham Lincoln summed up slavery: You work, I eat. The soul of a nation is the love of the people in it, its patriotism. Leftist-Leninists can’t love their nation because they are obsessed with dominating it, imposing their will on it. Their spiritedness is about power over others, the desire to be masters over slaves. As Trump put it, “Socialism and communism are about one thing only: power for the ruling class.”
The patriot loves the country as he or she loves their equals. That is why patriots believe in equality before the law, while Leninist leftists know only the master-slave relationship. Patriots believe the law serves the interests of the nation. Leninists believe that the law serves the interests of their favored clients. Trump summarizes, “The true good of a nation can only be pursued by those who love it: by citizens who are rooted in its history, who are nourished by its culture, committed to its values, attached to its people, and who know that its future is theirs to build or theirs to lose. Patriots see a nation and its destiny in ways no one else can.”
Therefore, Trump repeats “a message for the world that I have delivered at home: America will never be a socialist country.” That pledge means that America will always be a place for other nations to look to as a model of freedom. If Trump perseveres, it will never fully embrace the Leninism now gripping the Left.

Monday, October 7, 2019

Trump and Ukraine: What We Know - DILBERT

Trump and Ukraine: What We Know

As Americans watch two different movies, here’s a way to discern what’s happening off the screen.

ILLUSTRATION: SCOTT ADAMS
If you’ve followed the Ukraine phone-call news, you might have noticed reality branching into two completely different movies. In one, President Trump was doing his job of protecting the republic by asking an allied country to help out on an important legal investigation. The other movie involves Orange Hitler bullying a foreign country into meddling in our elections by “digging up dirt” on a political opponent.
Which movie is the real one, if such a thing exists? I’d like to offer a rule of thumb for evaluating political news: If a fact is reported the same by both the left-leaning and the right-leaning press, it’s probably a fact. If not, wait and see.
It’s also smart to wait a week or two before you make up your mind, as the fog of war often makes early reporting unreliable. But after the fog clears, if all sides agree on a fact, it’s probably a fact. Or at least it’s credible, even if future reporting debunks it.
In the case of Mr. Trump’s Ukraine phone call, all sides agree a whistleblower exists, at least in the minimal sense of using the whistleblower process. We also agree a phone call was made, and the transcript seems to capture what was said. We also know a few other facts: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the call, and the whistleblower contacted Rep. Adam Schiff’s office before filing the complaint, and some other details.
But that’s where the agreement stops. One side says the quid pro quo—in the form of Mr. Trump’s asking his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden at the risk of losing military funds already approved by Congress—was so obvious it didn’t need to be stated in direct language. The other side says every conversation among world leaders carries some kind of implied quid pro quo, and in this case the request for investigation was entirely appropriate. You might even say it was one of Mr. Trump’s highest priorities, given the risk that a potential future President Biden might be compromised in his dealings with a foreign government.
I see conflicting reporting on the biggest fact about Mr. Biden and Ukraine: Did the then vice president want the prosecutor fired because his son Hunter was on the board of Burisma, which was at some point under investigation by Ukrainian authorities? The press on the left says no, the right says yes. My rule of thumb says we shouldn’t treat either version as true—for now.
Did Hunter Biden accept the Burisma board seat, which paid $50,000 a month, while Ukraine was part of his father’s official portfolio? Yes, all sides report that to be a fact. Was Hunter qualified for such a role? Both sides say not so much. Both sides also agree that Hunter’s taking that position wasn’t illegal but sure looks swampy.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
UP NEXT
0:00 / 1:06
Opinion: Joe Biden Forced Ukraine to Fire Prosecutor for Aid Money
Opinion: Joe Biden Forced Ukraine to Fire Prosecutor for Aid Money
Best of the Web: During a Council on Foreign Relations discussion on January 23, 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden spoke about his dealings in Ukraine. Image: Shutterstock / AP / Composite: Brad Howard
Both sides further agree that Joe Biden is on video bragging about getting a Ukraine prosecutor fired by using the threat of withholding U.S. aid in the amount of $1 billion. But there is disagreement on why he did it. Was it because the prosecutor was ineffective and suspected of corruption himself or because the prosecutor was fighting corruption at Burisma? We see opposing press reports on the left and the right, so my rule says wait for all of that to sort out.
If you strip out the parts of the Ukraine story we can’t yet know to be true, you still know enough to have a responsible opinion. Vice President Biden was handling the Ukraine portfolio while his son had a financial interest in Ukraine, and that is enough of a conflict to merit an investigation. We all agree that the sitting president is responsible for protecting the integrity of American elections and generally keeping foreign interference in U.S. politics to a minimum. That’s what Mr. Trump was doing on the Ukraine phone call. (For those of you who say such matters should be handled at lower levels of government, my experience in corporate America tells me nothing much gets done until the bosses talk and agree. I assume government is similar.)
All sides can also agree that Mr. Trump was serving his own re-election interests by asking Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden. But we also agree our political system allows that—even encourages it—so long as the president is also clearly pursuing the national interest. Before the Democratic primary, would it be good for the country to know more about Joe Biden’s relationship with Ukraine? Democrats should appreciate finding out soon if there is anything of concern, because I assume they don’t want to go into the general election with a candidate who has some surprises in his Ukrainian closet.
What we all agree to be true about Joe and Hunter Biden is that they had the types of interactions with Ukraine that raise eyebrows and invite a closer look. We also all agree that protecting the integrity of American elections should be a top priority for a president.
I won’t try to convince you that my rule of thumb works every time. I assume there are times when one side is simply right and the other is wrong. But keep an eye out for how often the rule does prove reliable. And remember to wait a week or two for the fog to clear before you make any decisions about what is fact and what is not.
Mr. Adams is creator of Dilbert and author of “Loserthink: How Untrained Brains are Ruining America.”

We Need to Talk About the Recession - MB 10/07/19

ECONOMY

We Need to Talk About the Recession

Witthaya Prasongsin/Moment/Getty Images

Because these mixed messages are making it really hard to define the relationship. The labor market remains strong and low interest rates have helped stocks—but recent weak economic data has some investors questioning how long this decade's expansion will stick around.
The red flags: Stocks are currently working on the worst start to a quarter since 2016. Last week, ISM said the U.S. services sector grew at the slowest clip since August 2016, while September’s manufacturing reading was the worst in a decade.
That’s chilled sentiment among execs, who definitely don’t mean it when they say “I’m fine.” Last month, a Duke survey found optimism among CFOs was at a three-year low. Plus...
  • One Fed Bank of New York measure currently suggests there’s a nearly 40% chance of a recession over the next year, the highest likelihood so far in this bull market. 
  • A Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey recently showed recession concerns at the highest point in a decade. 
But we haven’t hit dealbreaker territory yet. September’s jobs report wasn’t the best, but it still 1) showed the economy adding jobs at a steady rate 2) confirmed unemployment is near multi-decade lows and 3) always takes out the garbage.
We’re still playing wait and see:
  • Earnings season kicks off next week—analysts expect earnings to have fallen about 4% in Q3. They’ve also lowered expectations for all 11 sectors in the S&P.
  • The Fed could buoy markets with another rate cut at its meeting later this month. Investors are penciling in up to two more rate cuts through December, and you can thank Powell & Co. for a big chunk of the stock market’s gains this year.
The takeaway: Most economists and four out of five dentists agree that the eventual nosedive won’t be as gnarly as the financial crisis. But it will happen...the question is when. 
        

GE Announces U.S. Pension Plan Actions

GE Announces U.S. Pension Plan Actions

Oct 07, 2019
Expects to reduce GE’s pension deficit by approximately $5-8 billion
  • Multiple changes represent sizable step in Company’s deleveraging plan.
  • Expected to reduce GE’s pension deficit by approximately $5-8 billion and net debt by approximately $4-6 billion*; in total, along with $5 billion debt tender, GE has announced approximately $9-11 billion in net debt reduction actions in last month.
  • GE’s pension plan has been closed to new entrants since 2012; today’s actions more closely aligns GE benefits with current industry standards and competitive market practices.
October 7, 2019, BOSTON -- GE (NYSE:GE) announced today that it is taking three actions related to its U.S. retirement benefits as part of its strategic priority to improve its financial position:
1. Freezing the U.S. GE Pension Plan for approximately 20,000 employees with salaried benefits, and U.S. Supplementary Pension benefits for approximately 700 employees.
2. Pre-funding approximately $4-5 billion of estimated minimum ERISA funding requirements for 2021 and 2022.
3. Offering a limited time lump-sum payment option to ~100,000 eligible former employees who have not started their monthly U.S. GE Pension Plan payments
In total, the actions announced today are expected to reduce GE’s pension deficit by approximately $5-8 billion and Industrial net debt by approximately $4-6 billion*. The Company is on track in its deleveraging plan and continues to expect to make significant progress toward its leverage goal of <2.5X Net Debt to EBITDA by the end of 2020, inclusive of the impact of the current interest rate environment. GE will continue to evaluate further options to reduce leverage and strengthen its balance sheet.
1. U.S. GE Pension Plan & Supplementary Pension Freeze:
GE will freeze the U.S. GE Pension Plan for approximately 20,000 employees with salaried benefits, and U.S. Supplementary Pension benefits for approximately 700 employees who became executives before 2011, effective January 1, 2021. There is no change for GE retirees already collecting pension benefits or employees with production benefits. GE will record a non-cash, pre-tax curtailment charge in the fourth quarter of 2019. GE’s pension plan has been closed to new entrants since January 1, 2012.
Kevin Cox, chief human resources officer at GE said, “Returning GE to a position of strength has required us to make several difficult decisions, and today’s decision to freeze the pension is no exception.  We carefully weighed market trends and our strategic priority to improve our financial position with the impact to our employees. We are committed to helping our employees through this transition.”
Freeze
2. Voluntary Pre-Funding Contribution
GE also announced that it plans to use a portion of the $38 billion cash sources it has identified or collected from its BioPharma, BHGE, and Wabtec transactions to pre-fund approximately $4-5 billion of its estimated minimum ERISA funding requirements for 2021 and 2022.
3. Limited-Time U.S. GE Pension Plan Lump Sum Payment Option:
GE is offering approximately 100,000 eligible former employees who have not started their monthly payments under the U.S. GE Pension Plan a limited-time option to receive their benefit in a lump sum. Notices will be provided to eligible participants, and those who elect to receive a lump sum should expect to receive it in December 2019.
Company funds will not be used to make the lump sum distributions. All distributions will be made from existing pension plan assets in the GE Pension Trust. The company does not expect the plan's funded status to decrease as a result of this offer. At year-end 2018, the plan's funded ratio was 80 percent (GAAP). After distribution of the lump sum amounts, the company expects to record a non-cash pension settlement charge in the fourth quarter of 2019, which will be determined based on the rate of acceptance.
About GE:
GE (NYSE:GE) drives the world forward by tackling its biggest challenges. By combining world-class engineering with software and analytics, GE helps the world work more efficiently, reliably, and safely. For more than 125 years, GE has invented the future of industry, and today it leads new paradigms in additive manufacturing, materials science, and data analytics. GE people are global, diverse and dedicated, operating with the highest integrity and passion to fulfill GE’s mission and deliver for our customers. www.ge.com
Forward–Looking Statements:
This document contains "forward-looking statements" – that is, statements related to future events that by their nature address matters that are, to different degrees, uncertain. For details on the uncertainties that may cause our actual future results to be materially different than those expressed in our forward-looking statements, see http://www.ge.com/investor-relations/disclaimer-caution-concerning-forward-looking-statements as well as our annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. We do not undertake to update our forward-looking statements. This document also includes certain forward-looking projected financial information that is based on current estimates and forecasts. Actual results could differ materially.
*Calculation of net debt tax effects the pension liabilities at a rate of 21%.