Democrisy! Salon is worried about “impartiality” of Justice Thomas, but fine with political statements of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg

Salon, which, Alas! gets far more readers than The First Street Journal, swims in hypocrisy:

Gini Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, wants to lead a pro-Trump grassroots organization

In an email chain, Ginni Thomas said she wanted to start a group that would counter the resistance from the left

By Taylor Link | Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:30 PM EST

In an email chain, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, asked how she could start a grassroots organization that would support President Donald Trump and combat the resistance coalescing against him.

The emails, uncovered by The Daily Beast, were posted to a conservative listerv this month. They revealed an eager Ginni Thomas determined to make sure Trump’s policies were enacted.

“What is the best way to, with minimal costs, set up a daily text capacity for a ground-up grassroots army for pro-Trump daily action items to push back agains the left’s resistance efforts who are trying to maker America ungovernable?” she wrote.

“There are some grassroots activists, who seem beyond the Republican party or the conservative movement, who wish to join the fray on social media for Trump and link shields and build momentum,” she added. “I met with a house load of them yesterday and we want a daily textable tool to start.”

Naturally, there’s more at the original.

It’s true enough that Mrs Thomas is something of a conservative activist, but, in reading the entire article, I failed to find a single mention of the fact that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was vociferously opposed to Donald Trump’s candidacy, and said, in her judicial chambers, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” or that Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said, more than once, that a “wise Latina” would reach different, “better (judicial) conclusions” than “a white male,” a statement which can only mean that she believes in taking legal decisions based upon race and ethnicity rather than just on the law. Those weren’t the spouses of Supreme Court Justices; those were the Justices themselves.

The term ‘salon’ is defined as “an assembly of guests in such a room, especially an assembly, common during the 17th and 18th centuries, consisting of the leaders in society, art, politics, etc.,” or “a fashionable assemblage of notables (as literary figures, artists, or statesmen) held by custom at the home of a prominent person,” or “a gathering of people under the roof of an inspiring host, held partly to amuse one another and partly to refine the taste and increase the knowledge of the participants through conversation. These gatherings often consciously followed Horace’s definition of the aims of poetry, “either to please or to educate” (“aut delectare aut prodesse“). Salons, commonly associated with French literary and philosophical movements of the 17th and 18th centuries, were carried on until as recently as the 1940s in urban settings.”

But, while the definitions would seem to include people of different political persuasions or beliefs, Salon, the “progressive mainstream media website” certainly does not: you must be a political leftist to be a contributor to Salon,1 and any commentary that does not fall within the liberal paradigm will engender nothing but vociferous criticism and mockery; there are no attempts at actual discussion.

Salon has become pretty much of a joke, but that’s what one would expect of any ‘journal’ which includes Amanda Marcotte as a contributor.
_______________________
Cross-posted on RedState.
_______________________

  1. For the record, I have never contributed or attempted to contribute to Salon.

Tips for Finding the Ideal Lawyer

Tips for Finding the Ideal Lawyer

There are many situations in life where you might have the need for skilled legal counsel. A legal dispute can be a very serious thing. Losing the case might cost you a significant amount of money or even your freedom. Therefore, the selection of a lawyer is definitely something you will need to give some serious thought to. The amount of lawyers in this world is overwhelming. How can you find out the best one for your particular legal needs? There are a few basic things that you will need to keep in mind during your search.

1. How long has the lawyer been in the legal profession?

There are few jobs in the world where experience is more important than that of a lawyer. Even the slightest mistake by your lawyer could result in you losing your case. It is much less likely that something like this will happen if you hire a lawyer with many years of experience. Avoid hiring a young lawyer who is fresh out of law school. It is common for inexperienced lawyers to offer their services for a very low fee. However, you usually get what you pay for in the legal profession.

2. Has the lawyer handled many cases that are similar to yours?

Finding an experienced lawyer is not enough. You also need to make sure that the lawyer you hire has handled many cases that are similar to the one that is facing you. For example, are you having a legal disagreement with your former spouse over the payment of alimony? If this is the case, you need to hire an experienced alimony lawyer Montgomery County Maryland. Hiring a lawyer who primarily deals with bankruptcy or malpractice cases would not be of much help to you in this situation.

3. How can you go about paying the lawyer?

You will need to make an appointment to visit the office of each lawyer you are interested in hiring. You will discuss your case in depth during this meeting. You will talk about all of the specific details. The lawyer will then tell you his or her plan for winning your case. This is assuming the lawyer agrees to take your case. Payment will also be discussed. Some lawyers do not accept payment unless they win your case. Obviously, this is the type of lawyer you should hire.

The dirty little secrets of illegal immigration

Mr Sulu tweeted:

The tweet, of course, refers to Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant who had been living in Arizona, and convicted of a felony for using a fake Social Security number. She had previously made seven visits for her regularly scheduled immigration check-ins. “After each meeting, the married mother of two was released and went back to her family.” Mrs Garcia had been under a deportation order since 2013, but the Obama Administration wasn’t enforcing that order.

She came illegally to the United States in the mid-1990s with her parents when she was 14. She was arrested in 2008 during a workplace raid and convicted one year later of felony criminal impersonation.

After her conviction she appealed a court order to voluntarily deport and lost. She became the subject of a removal order in 2013 and was placed court-ordered supervision, which required her to report on a provided schedule to an ICE office until her order of removal was “affected,” or acted on.

US immigration officials acknowledged that she was compliant with her supervision order. She showed up for each of her seven immigration check-ins prior to Wednesday.

Officials said her case had followed the legal system process and it was time for her to go back to her home country.

“(Her) immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the US,” ICE said in a statement.

Carlos Garcia, director of immigration rights group Puente Arizona, said “ICE had done what President Trump wanted — which is deport and separate our families.”

It’s pretty obvious, despite what Carlos Garcia said, that he case had been, as ICE stated, working its way through the legal process well before Mr Trump took office, but what ICE is doing is enforcing the law. Mr Sulu seems to believe that enforcing the law “meant to terrorize and destabilize our cities, communities.”

Mrs Garcia’s case has become a cause célèbre, because she was (apparently) not engaged in any criminal activity since her 2009 conviction, just rearing her children, and people are just so sympathetic, don’t you know?

Activists and her lawyer cautioned that she could be deported under the new Trump administration policy. They offered sanctuary at a church but she decided to check in anyway, said Lucy Sandoval, an activist who has been working with Garcia de Rayos’ family.

“She wanted to confront this,” Sandoval said. “They were hopeful that there would be some consciousness and some heart.”

But the same argument can be made concerning any convicted felon. After all, every thug, every gang banger, every “white collar” criminal convicted is still leaving behind distraught family members when he’s hauled off to the penitentiary. Mayor Greg Stanton (D-Phoenix) said:

Rather than tracking down violent criminals and drug dealers, ICE is spending its energy deporting a woman with two American children who has lived here for more than two decades and poses a threat to nobody.

Of course, not much “energy” was spent tracking down Mrs Garcia, since she reported as scheduled!

The immigration executive orders signed by Trump could amount to a vast expansion of authority for individual immigration officers and a dramatic increase in efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.

The order lays out a series of categories of undocumented immigrants that immigration law enforcement officials should prioritize for removing from the country, a reaction to what was criticized by the right as lax enforcement of immigration law by President Barack Obama.

The Obama administration had prioritized expulsion of undocumented immigrants who threatened public safety or national security, had ties to criminal gang activity, committed serious felony offenses or were habitual misdemeanor criminal offenders.

Trump’s order goes far beyond that, using a sweeping definition of “criminal” and giving a single immigration officer the ability to make judgments on threats to public safety, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of a crime.

If someone is here illegally, he has committed a crime, period. There should not be any leniency, simply because someone, like Mrs Garcia, perhaps, isn’t necessarily a threat to public safety.

But, since we at The First Street Journal make a habit of telling you the unvarnished truth, I will point out the dirty little secret about illegal immigration. The federal government loves illegal immigration, at least when those immigrants aren’t breaking too many laws. Mrs Garcia’s case demonstrates the reason. Her conviction was for using a fake Social Security number. Why was she using a fake Social Security number? Because she had a legitimate job, one in which her employer was withholding income, Social Security and Medicare taxes from her paycheck, and the government just loves collecting those taxes!

Think about it: Mrs Garcia, and every other illegal immigrant working and paying taxes under a false Social Security number, are sending in part of their wages for benefits they will not be able to collect. It’s nothing but ‘profit’ for the government to be able to collect Social Security and Medicare taxes from people who will not be eligible to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. Why should the government ever want to stop that tax inflow?

Mrs Garcia’s conviction was in 2009. Presumably, she ceased using that faked Social Security number then, but that raises the question: how was she making a living without using another faked Social Security number? Google searches have not yielded that information, but The New York Times reported that her husband is also “undocumented,” which means that he is probably working — and paying taxes — under a false Social Security number. If that’s not the case, what other options exist?

  1. Her husband — the Times wouldn’t print his name — is working ‘off the books,’ for cash, and not paying taxes; or
  2. The whole family is living on welfare, which they are not legally eligible to receive.

Let me be brutally frank about this: Mrs Garcia’s family had to have been committing other crimes since her 2008 arrest, or they would have starved to death!

And that is true of almost every illegal immigrant, because, in the United States, there are legal obligations which have to be met simply to live. More, to survive here illegally, the immigrants need other people to break the law as well. If someone is going to work, as Mrs Garcia did, with a fake Social Security number, either her employer failed to do his due diligence in examining her documents, or she obtained false documents from a forger. If someone is going to work off the books, for cash, not only is he evading taxes, but whoever is paying him is also evading taxes.1 There’s simply no such thing as an illegal immigrant who broke the law only once!

Another dirty little secret: the government already knows who most of these people are! This isn’t the eighties: the government is fully computerized, and the Social Security Administration not only knows every duplicated or faked Social Security number under which taxes are being paid, but also knows which employers are remitting those Social Security and Medicare taxes. It might require some changes in the law, but Social Security ought to report to the Justice Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement every time there is a use of a faked Social Security number and which employers are remitting those taxes. Employers who wanted to stay legal would start doing their due diligence, such as using eVerify, to check to make sure their employees are legal. Getting serious and putting a few employers in jail would send the message to all of the rest.

Donald Trump ran for President on stopping illegal immigration, and he’s making a start, but there’s a lot more which can be done.
_____________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.
_____________________________

  1. There will be some cases, though not many, in which the illegal immigrant is a sole proprietor — a small landscaper, for example, doing lawn care services — in which there is no one paying him who is evading taxes.

The professionals keep telling us stocks will drop; the investors keep pushing stocks higher

From CNNMoney:

Wall Street is getting worried about Trump

by Chris Isidore and Heather Long | February 8, 2017: 7:04 PM ET

Powerful voices on Wall Street are expressing concern that President Donald Trump isn’t going to be everything that investors had hoped for.

In recent days, three of the nation’s largest banks have issued reports that highlight the risks that come with a Trump presidency. They are warning investors to be careful.

U.S. stocks soared right after Trump’s election election because investors were eager for the corporate tax reform, regulatory relief and infrastructure spending he promised.

It’s worth noting at this point that the professional prognosticators were projecting declines for the stock market if Donald Trump won, compared with an even keel had Hillary Clinton been elected President. When it became obvious election evening that Mr Trump would win, Dow futures dropped 750 points. Yet, once the markets opened, stocks rallied, and gained strength quickly.

Instead, in his first few weeks of office, Trump has highlighted several controversial issues that businesses generally oppose, such as dropping out of trade deals and imposing new limits on immigration. And it may be hard to win approval for the parts of Trump’s agenda that Wall Street does like amid stark political polarization.

“The Trump Agenda presents risks in both directions; tax cuts and infrastructure funding could boost growth but could be offset by the negative effects of restrictions on trade and immigration,” said a note from Goldman Sach (GS)’s economists. “One month into the year, the balance of risks is somewhat less positive in our view.”

“The recent difficulty congressional Republicans have had in moving forward on Obamacare repeal does not bode well for reaching a quick agreement on tax reform or infrastructure funding, and reinforces our view that a fiscal boost, if it happens, is mostly a 2018 story,” it added.

Well, that’s what the prognosticators are saying, but that’s not what the markets have been doing. From The Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Stocks Rise to New Records

President Donald Trump said his goal of lowering taxes for businesses was moving ‘ahead of schedule’

By Riva Gold and Corrie Driebusch | Updated Feb. 10, 2017 4:23 p.m. ET

Major U.S. stock indexes ended the week at fresh records, buoyed by corporate earnings as well as the prospect of tax cuts and relaxed regulation.

Stocks have been rising since Mr. Trump’s election partly on expectations that his proposed tax cuts would energize the U.S. economy and lift corporate earnings.

Gains accelerated Thursday after Mr. Trump said his goal of lowering taxes for businesses was moving “ahead of schedule.” He plans to send Congress an outline for a tax-code overhaul for individuals and businesses by the end of the month.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose roughly 97 points, or 0.5%, to 20269. The S&P 500 climbed 0.4% and Nasdaq Composite added 0.3%. All three closed at records Friday and posted weekly gains.

“Politics is playing a much larger role in the day-to-day and week-to-week market than it ever has before,” said Brian Nick, chief investment strategist at TIAA Investments, an affiliate of Nuveen. “It’s not the euphoria we’ve had since the election, but until we have something happen to throw a wrench in the market in terms of fiscal policy, investors are optimistic about the future.”

The rally in stocks pushed Apple within a dollar of its record close of $133 this week. Apple shares slipped Friday but posted a weekly gain of 2.4%.

Bank stocks got a lift early Friday afternoon as the Federal Reserve announced that Daniel Tarullo, its regulatory point man who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, will resign this spring.

There’s more at the original, but the point has been made: what the economic experts have predicted is not what has happened.

Eventually, the stock markets will have some declines; that always happens. But it seems that the people who are putting their money down have different opinions than do the professional economists.

John Kasich tries to throw a monkey wrench into the Trump presidency

From a CNN reporter with an incredibly good name:

First on CNN: John Kasich starts new political chapter

By Dana Bash, CNN | Updated 4:40 PM ET, Friday, February 10, 2017

Washington (CNN)Just three weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency, associates of former Republican primary rival John Kasich are already positioning him as the GOP’s Trump alternative, launching a new political organization to champion his campaign themes — from political tolerance to fiscal discipline.

The organization, called Two Paths America, will push for a balanced budget amendment, strong national defense and political bridge building.

“We believe there is more that brings us together than divides us, and that when we do come together, when we unite, America always wins,” the homepage of the group’s new website reads.

Two Paths America is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit political organization. It will advocate for policy and ideas and be run by longtime Kasich aides like John Weaver and Chris Schrimpf, but the Ohio governor will not technically be involved. However, Kasich’s campaign apparatus, Kasich for America, continues to exist as well as his Super PAC, New Day for America.

Kasich was one of the last of the 17 Republican presidential candidates to drop out of the race, despite only winning one GOP primary — that of his home state.

His moderate brand of Republicanism failed to catch on in a year when GOP voters were instead attracted to a firebrand first-time politician.

There’s more at the link. The website for Two Paths America is a subsidiary of johnkasich.com; they couldn’t even come up with a separate website!

The problem for Governor Kasich is that Two Paths is very much wrongly named. It implies that Mr Kasich wishes to take a different path from President Trump, which I can see, but it ignores the rather obvious fact that there are other paths as well, paths outside the Republican Party. President Trump might have one path, and Governor Kasich is planning to start another, but there are people out there like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) who would propose a third path, one much different from either Republican path, and splitting the GOP vote doesn’t make John Kasich the next President; that honor would almost surely go to a Democrat.

The article noted that “it is unclear if Kasich will go so far as challenging Trump in a 2020 GOP primary,” but if he does, and isn’t squashed down immediately, neither Mr Trump nor Mr Kasich will win the 2020 election. John Kasich had his chance: he put himself before the Republican primary voters in 2016, and they rejected him.

The Wall Street Journal finally catches up to The First Street Journal

How many times have we been touting the use of the U-6 unemployment rate? From The Wall Street Journal:

Forecasters See Slow Progress in Labor-Market Measures Favored by Trump Administration

Workforce participation seen rising to 63.3% in 2019 from 62.9% in January

By Josh Zumbrun | Updated Feb. 9, 2017 10:22 a.m. ET

Broader measures of unemployment favored by President Donald Trump are unlikely to see much improvement in coming years, according to a new WSJ survey of economists.

Mr. Trump frequently criticized the official jobless rate on the campaign trail. His Treasury secretary nominee, Steve Mnuchin, outlined a wider report card of labor-market health to Congress.

Many economists share Mr. Mnuchin’s view that it is time to pay more attention to such broader measures, which could become an increasing focus of markets and policy makers.

“In a complex economy, there should never be just one summary statistic,” said Diane Swonk, founder of economics consultancy DS Economics.

There is a lot more at the original, and really, I’d like to quote the entire article! It notes the differences between the various measures of unemployment. It goes on to note that Treasury Secretary-designate Steve Mnuchin said that too much attention is paid to the ‘official’ U-3 unemployment rate, without looking at the alternative measures. Secretary-designate Mnuchin apparently favors the U-5 rate, which includes the “marginally attached” and “discouraged” workers, whereas I prefer to use U-6, which includes the ‘underemployed,’ people stuck in part-time jobs but who want and need full-time employment.

  • U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
  • U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
  • U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
  • U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
  • U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
  • U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
  • NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

But whether we use Mr Mnuchin’s U-5 or my preferred U-6 measure, both indicate that the unemployment problem in the United States is worse than the rosy claims the Democrats were making about the U-3 unemployment rate. The difference, however, is considerable: U-5 currently stands at 5.8%, while U-6 is pegged at 9.4%. If employment conditions improve, U-5 can be expected to drop, but U-6 will definitely be a harder nut to crack.

But the Trump Administration has put itself on notice: by having Mr Mnuchin touting U-5 in public, and the President himself having talked about the U-6 rate during the campaign, the Administration has foreclosed the use of U-3 as a selling point on whatever progress is made in the economy.  And I think that we can count on the Democrats to start talking about those “alternative measures” of labor underutilization every time they think they have a chance to attack President Trump.

I do not believe that the government controls the economy, but President Trump has already set the benchmark by which he should be judged: he pledged the creation of 25 million new jobs, over the next ten years, and a return to 4% real growth.

Those will be very difficult goals to achieve, but when you set the standards by which you say you should be judged, then those are the standards by which you will be judged.

Carly Fiorina for Senate?

From The Washington Post:

Carly Fiorina confirms it: she is considering challenging Sen. Tim Kaine

By Jenna Portnoy | February 8 at 5:42 PM

Carly Fiorina, the former GOP presidential candidate, is considering challenging Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) next year.

Her comments on a Portsmouth-based radio show popular among party activists marks the first time that the Fairfax resident has spoken publicly about getting back into politics since the November election.

“I’m certainly looking at that opportunity,” she told host John Fredericks on Tuesday about a Senate bid. “It’s a little early to be making that decision.”

Fiorina and her husband moved to Lorton, in Fairfax County, in 2011 after a bruising loss in her bid to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

She ended her presidential campaign one year ago this month and briefly jumped onto the ill-fated campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) as his vice-presidential pick. In the months since, Fiorina has been helping other Republicans, particularly in Virginia, where she stumped for everyone from Rep. Barbara Comstock (R) to little-known candidates for state legislature.

Kaine, who was Hillary Clinton’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket, will be seeking a second term in the Senate in 2018.

There’s more at the link, including noting that this would be a tough challenge: Virginia has become steadily more Democratic, as the number of federal government employees living in northern Virginia has swelled. Every statewide office in the Old Dominion is held by a Democrat. Still, out of eleven seats in the House of Representatives, Republicans hold seven of them.

The Editor of The First Street Journal supported Mrs Fiorina during the Republican primaries in 2016, and twice contributed to her campaign, but I have to point out that, other than the 2010 Republican primary in California for the United States Senate seat then held by Barbara Boxer, Mrs Fiorina has never won an election. It was no surprise that Senator Boxer won re-election in 2010, but Mrs Fiorina did not win any of the primaries or caucuses in the 2016 campaign. She proved herself to be a skilled debater, but that hasn’t been enough to win elections for her.

I will cheer her on if she does decide to enter the race, but, Alas! I won’t be able to vote for her, since I won’t be a Virginia resident.

The Democrats play politics — again!

Donald Trump is a billionaire, a multi-billionaire. Just how many billions, well, we’re not quite sure: Forbes lists the President’s net wort at $3.7 billion, but others have disputed that. What we do know, however, is that he has plenty of money, and said that he would accept only $1.00 per year salary as President.

The Democrats, however, are looking for any little edge they can find:

House Democrats demand info on Trump hotel

by Jill Disis and Cristina Alesci | February 8, 2017: 1:57 PM ET

House Democrats are invoking an obscure federal statute to demand information about President Trump’s luxury Washington hotel.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee want the General Services Administration to determine whether Trump is violating the hotel lease.

Trump rents the space for the Trump International Hotel from the GSA, making him effectively landlord and tenant at the same time. A clause appears to prohibit an elected official from being party to the lease.

Earlier this week, the GSA told Democrats on the committee that it had not yet decided whether Trump’s presidency triggered a violation of the lease. It also declined to provide information on the hotel’s monthly revenue.

On Wednesday, eight Democrats sent a letter invoking a 1928 provision called the Seven Member Rule. The Democrats say that provision requires executive agencies to provide any information requested by at least seven members of the Oversight Committee.

The GSA did not immediately return a request for comment.

There’s more at the original.

There is no serious concern that President Trump is somehow enriching himself at government expense. His complicated business holdings have made the traditional “blind trust” route of insulating presidents’ private wealth from their public service — and decision taking — impractical to the point of impossibility. He sold all of his shares in publicly-traded companies last June, and the shares would have been the easiest part of his wealth to have put into a blind trust.

What the Democrats are doing is putting up a massive resistance effort against President Trump, an effort that is meaningless as far as actually governing this country, but one designed to pick at any scab, trying to find some weakness. The confirmation votes on his cabinet nominees shows just how poorly the Democrats are behaving on this: despite all of his friendships with Democrats in the Senate, only one, Joe Manchin (D-WV), voted to confirm Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III1 (D-AB) to be Attorney General, and not a single Democrat voted for Betsy DeVos to become Secretary of Education. Rex Tillerson’s confirmation as Secretary of State, one which should have gone without a hitch, drew 43 negative votes from the Democrats, while only four supported him.2

That the Democrats are simply playing the obstruction game for politics has been made obvious by the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation for Judge Neil Gorsuch. From the Delaware Liberal:

Brian says:
February 8, 2017 at 12:25 pm

According to NRO, 9 Dems have said NO to SCOTUS filibuster… enough to kill…

Coons – DE Blue
Blumenthal- CT Blue
Manchin – WV Red
Durbin – IL Blue
Heitkamp – ND Red
McCaskill – MO Red
Tester – MT Red
Donnelly- IN Red
Shaheen – NH Blue

Dems not filibusteringNaturally, The First Street Journal will give you more information than the Delaware Liberal, so I went ahead and put it in an easy-to-read chart. None of the Democrats in blue states are up for re-election in 2018, while all of the Democrats in red states are up for re-election that year.

It’s easy to see: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is smart enough to see that, if the Democrats filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s nomination, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will simply use the so-called ‘nuclear option’ to confirm him anyway, now that Orrin Hatch has showed him what a real backbone is. Senator Schumer doesn’t want to lose the filibuster option — at least, not while the Democrats are in the minority! — but the Democrats want to show how nobly they are resisting President Trump.

The solution? Get enough Democrats together who either need to not filibuster this nomination because they face tough re-election battles in red states, along with Democrats holding safe seats in blue states, who don’t face the voters in two years. It’s just enough to break a filibuster, but it’s blatantly obvious. Other than Senator Manchin, none of those Democrats voted to end debate for Messrs Tillerson or Sessions, or Mrs DeVos. Why would they then state that they won’t filibuster Judge Gorsuch, who is up for a much more important position?

We all know why!

  1. Yes, I know: he goes by Jeff Sessions, but his full name is such an amazing Southern name that I just have to use it!
  2. Technically, one of the four was supposed independent Angus King of Maine, but he caucuses with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders is listed as an independent, but he not only caucuses with the Democrats, he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, which he lost to Hillary Clinton because there was just no way that the Democrats were going to nominate someone who couldn’t beat Donald Trump. :)

How ’bout that? Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law shuts down hedge fund a month after she loses presidential election!

From Bloomberg:

Chelsea Clinton’s Husband Closes His Hedge Fund

by Saijel Kishan | February 8, 2017, 9:48 AM EST

Eaglevale Partners, the hedge fund co-founded by Marc Mezvinsky, the son-in-law of Hillary and Bill Clinton, closed in December, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Eaglevale, based in New York, is in the process of returning money to clients, said the person who asked not to be named because the firm is private.

Eaglevale was started by former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. traders Bennett Grau, Mark Mallon and Mezvinsky in 2011. They had previously worked together on the bank’s global macro proprietary-trading desk.

A spokesman for Eaglevale declined to comment on the news, which was reported earlier by Hedge Fund Alert.

The Wall Street Journal had reported, in 2015, that Eaglevale had not performed well:

The hedge fund co-founded by Bill and Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law suffered losses tied to an ill-timed bet on Greece’s economic recovery, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Eaglevale Partners LP, founded by Marc Mezvinsky and two former colleagues from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., told investors in a letter sent last week they had been “incorrect” on Greece, helping produce losses for the firm’s main fund during two of the past three years, according to the letter. Mr. Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton, the former first daughter, in 2010.

The main fund dropped 3.6% last year, far trailing the 5.7% rise for similar hedge funds tracked by HFR Inc. That followed an Eaglevale gain of 2.06% in 2013 and a loss of 1.96% in 2012, the documents show. It returned 6.24% this January, helped by bets on the U.S. dollar, said a person familiar with the situation, putting it in positive territory since its inception in 2012. . . . .

A smaller Eaglevale fund focused only on Greece plunged 48% last year, said the person familiar with the situation, hurt by the belief Greece’s economy will see a quick rebound.

“Our recent predictions regarding Greek politics have proved incorrect,” Mr. Mezvinsky and the other Eaglevale founders wrote to investors last week, after a radical leftist party won national elections in an upset of Europe’s political order. “We are reticent to render decisive predictions at this time.”

But Eaglevale’s poor investment decisions didn’t end in 2015. One of the fund’s investments, Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, lost 90% of its value and was subsequently shut down in mid 2016, according to The New York Times, and Breitbart reported:

Eaglevale picked up $13 million from the CalPERS public employee pension fund in April 2012 to invest it in distressed Greek bonds. At the same time, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Chelsea Clinton’s former boss Marc Lasry both bought Greek bonds.

Despite all of the work by the U.S. State Department in favor of a bailout that would have been a home run for Greek bondholders, the German government opposed a blanket bail-out and Greek bonds crashed even lower in price. It is believed that CalPERS suffered a 100 percent loss on its investment.

Breitbart’s independent reporting does not have a 100% accuracy rating, but much of that article reports on the incestuous relationship between Goldman-Sachs and the Clinton family and is sourced through the ‘credentialed media.’

Zero Hedge reported:

As a reminder, 2013, Institutional Investor proclaimed Mezvinsky “a hedge fund rising star”

In late 2011, Marc Mezvinsky co-founded New York-based, macro-focused hedge fund firm Eaglevale Partners with Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon, two Goldman Sachs Group proprietary traders whom he’d gotten to know when they all worked at the bank. Best known as the husband of Chelsea Clinton, Mezvinsky, 35, who has a BA in religious studies and philosophy from Stanford University and an MA in politics, philosophy and economics from the University of Oxford, has been quietly building his finance career. Before launching his own firm, the longtime Clinton family friend was a partner and global macro portfolio manager at New York- and Rio de Janeiro-based investment house 3G Capital. Eaglevale manages more than $400 million.

Alas, he was anything but, and instead of having a real grasp of macroeconomic events, or how to – you know – hedge, he decided to dump millions in Greece just before the country entered a death spiral that culminated with its third bailout, capital controls, insolvent banks and a terminally crippled economy.

Meanwhile, things went from terrible to abysmal for both the clueless hedge fund manager and his LPs, and as the NYT reports, Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law is finally shutting down the Greece-focused fund, after losing nearly 90% of its value. Investors were told last month that Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity would finally be put out of its misery and would shutter.

The Editor of The First Street Journal does not usually go in for conspiracy theories, but the idea that rational investors would plow $400 million — admittedly, not a large sum when the subject is Wall Street and investment funds — into a fund with a poor track record, and leave it there, in 2016, after the firm’s poor performance the previous year strikes me as rather unusual, unless there are non-economic reasons to do so. When I see that the fund is shutting down, and returning what remains of their money to investors, the month after Mr Mezvinsky’s mother-in-law unexpectedly lost the presidential election, the first thought that comes to my mind is that: there’s no more influence to buy by investing with Eaglevale.

Naturally, Nobel laureate and liberal sycophant Paul Krugman would say that the Clinton campaign was as pure as the wind-driven snow, blaming Russian hacking for Hillary Clinton’s loss, but here’s this one, from Politico — not exactly a right-wing group — two days before the election:

Chelsea’s husband allegedly used foundation ties to boost hedge fund

In a hacked email, ex-Clinton aide Doug Band claims Marc Mezvinsky traded on family ties to help his fund.

By Kenneth P. Vogel | 11/06/16 09:19 PM EST

Chelsea Clinton’s husband used his connections to the Clinton family and their charitable foundation to raise money for his hedge fund, according to an allegation by a longtime Clinton aide made public Sunday in hacked documents released by WikiLeaks.

Marc Mezvinsky extended invitations to a Clinton Foundation poker event to rich Clinton supporters he was courting as investors in his hedge fund, and he also relied on a billionaire foundation donor to raise money for the fund, according to the WikiLeaks documents. They also assert that he had his wife Chelsea Clinton make calls to set up meetings with potential investors who support her family’s political and charitable endeavors.

The documents — a memo and an email — were written in late 2011 and early 2012, respectively, by ex-Clinton aide Doug Band. They were sent to family confidants including John Podesta, who is now serving as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, and Cheryl Mills, who was Clinton’s State Department chief of staff.

They were hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account and made public Sunday in the latest batch of Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks.

At the time Band wrote them, Mezvinsky, who had been an investment banker at Goldman Sachs, was working with two partners to raise capital to launch a hedge fund of their own called Eaglevale Partners. The word among rich Clinton backers on Wall Street was that the family would look favorably on investments in Eaglevale, a major Manhattan investor told POLITICO.

That sentiment seems to be corroborated by the newly released WikiLeaks, which could provide fodder for critics, including Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump, who argue that the Clintons have used their charitable foundation to try to enrich themselves.

I’m sorry, but this whole thing just plain stinks. I don’t know if Donald Trump will turn out to be a good president or not, but we ought to thank the Lord every day that Mrs Clinton lost the election. She’s a crook, and her whole family are crooks. And it seems that the investors in Eaglevale thought so as well; that’s why they invested in a failing fund, and that’s why they want out now that it won’t pay off politically.
___________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.