Thursday, May 30, 2019

Are Politicians Purveyors of Outrage?

The Democratic California senator's stated goal is to produce a world with "Equal pay for equal work." There's nothing wrong with that, of course, if there's actually a problem.

In her new report, she claims, like many others before her, that this is indeed an issue and that "Women who work full time are paid just 80 cents, on average, for every dollar paid to men." That's the foundation of her report, and that number is actually meaningless.

The problem is that these numbers don't compare women with men who perform the same jobs, work the same number of hours and have the same education.

The work of Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, whose work is impossible to ignore on the left, has shown that when measured properly, the small pay gap that remains still isn't the product of discrimination.

There are reasons to believe that as the workplace continues to evolve and with more telecommuting, maybe more paternal involvement in children's lives and a greater willingness of clients to substitute one worker for another, we will see even greater convergence between men's and women's job selections.

Always the enforcer, she wants to require employers with more than 100 workers to go through the trouble of proving to a federal bureaucrat that "They're not paying women less than men for work of equal value" in exchange for an "Equal Pay Certification." If they fail to do so, they'll have to pay Uncle Sam "1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist."

Think about the work produced at think tanks, law firms, or even hospitals.

https://spectator.org/are-politicians-purveyors-of-outrage/

Claire McCaskill and a MeToo Double Standard?

Claire McCaskill sat down for a freewheeling discussion with David Axelrod, a former journalist and later Democratic political consultant close to Barack Obama.

As one ad put it, "As victims cry for help, is Claire McCaskill listening?".

As McCaskill herself implied on David Axelrod's podcast, there was more to Shepard's behavior towards women than what had been reported.

"Evidently, Claire McCaskill was on the Stephen Colbert show and she denied that ad, saying that it was false. Now I didn't see [the] Stephen Colbert interview with Claire McCaskill, but I heard it talked about on the morning show the next day. And that is what prompted me - the fact that I knew to be true what this ad was saying. And then [McCaskill] is getting on national TV, on the Stephen Colbert show, and saying that it was a lie."

For one thing, the last time Claire McCaskill appeared on Stephen Colbert's show was 2015.

Murnin freely admits that when she first saw the ads calling out Shepard's behavior towards his ex-wife, she'd "Been uncomfortable with Claire McCaskill as senator for a while." Add to that the fact that this story was being pushed as part of a Republican opposition research effort operating on a specific timetable to help the party's electoral prospects.

Claire McCaskill herself once thought so; way back in 2006 she ruffled more than a few feathers in the Democratic Party when she told "Meet the Press," "I have a lot of problems with some of personal issues" and "I don't want my daughter near him."


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/30/claire_mccaskill_and_a_metoo_double_standard_140442.html

Where is the media's explanation for Avenatti?

The media immediately salivated at the idea Avenatti could be the man to finally take down Trump and greatly increased his public profile.

ADVERTISEMENT. Despite book deals and major media oxygen, when the Daniels allegations failed to have an impact on the White House, Avenatti looked for another angle.

"The evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee's investigation. Accordingly, the Committee referred both to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation," the report states.

"The Committee made a second criminal referral against Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 1505, based upon the NBC story that evidenced that Mr. Avenatti may have fabricated allegations by a second declarant."

Fox News, a favorite target of the leftist media, was heavily criticized for scrutinizing Avenatti instead of jumping on the bandwagon to support his claims.

"There are lots and lots of reasons why Avenatti was newsworthy when he was representing Stormy Daniels. Journalists did their jobs and questioned him - some more effectively than others," Stelter wrote in his newsletter, comparing Avenatti to President Trump and accusing others of "Distorting" his comments about the lawyer.

"Some folks have been distorting my comment last September about Avenatti. My thesis back then, which still holds, is that all future U.S. presidents will be television stars of some sort. TV star power will be a prerequisite for the presidency. I told Avenatti 'one reason I'm taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news,'" he continued.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445857-pavlich-where-is-the-medias-explanation-for-avenatti

Pelosi Demanded Better Trade Deals -- But Ignores USMCA

Better trade deals and an equal playing field for American workers was a bipartisan issue that helped propel Donald J. Trump to victory in 2016.

We now have a better trade agreement for American workers.

The economic impact of the USMCA is more than three times the GDP growth estimated for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

This means better jobs with higher wages, and an end to low-wage work incentivized by NAFTA. In sum: The USMCA will spur investment, create high-paying jobs, and put us on equal footing with our neighboring trade partners.

Just as they are stalling on whether to begin impeachment proceedings absent a crime, the Democrats are delaying a better trade agreement for American workers - based on political calculations.

"We will see how many Republicans now pretend to have been on the same side as Democrats in demanding a better trade agreement for American workers," she said just three days after the president took office.

Let's see how many Democrats join Republicans in voting for a better trade agreement they demanded for American workers.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/30/pelosi_demanded_better_trade_deals_--_but_ignores_usmca__140441.html

The Russian Interference Mueller Didn't Investigate

We actually know that there were "Links" between a presidential campaign and Russians who likely were associated with Putin's regime.

Hillary Clinton's campaign went looking for Russians who could serve up dirt on Donald Trump.

In a futile attempt to avoid illegality, the campaign told its lawyers at the Perkins Coie firm to contract with Fusion GPS, run by fervent Democrat Glenn Simpson, who in turn contracted with Christopher Steele to try to find Russians who had useful information on Trump.

Christopher Steele obliged the Clinton campaign by finding several Russians who, based on the information they pretended to have, almost certainly were associated with Putin's regime.

If we assume Steele didn't fabricate the whole thing, then he colluded on behalf of the Clinton campaign with Russian officials or insiders who told him lies.

If Mueller's charge was to investigate "Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election[including] investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign," why didn't he look into the possibility that the false information fed by alleged Russian insiders to an agent of the Clinton campaign was a disinformation effort by the Russian government, meant to interfere in the 2016 presidential election-an effort in which the Clinton campaign colluded?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Steele dossier was exactly that, while there never was any evidence at all that the Trump campaign colluded in any way with Russians.


https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/robert-mueller-partisan-fraud.php



The Foolish Economic Agenda of Kamala Harris

The Democratic California senator's stated goal is to produce a world with "Equal pay for equal work." There's nothing wrong with that, of course, if there's actually a problem.

In her new report, she claims, like many others before her, that this is indeed an issue and that "Women who work full time are paid just 80 cents, on average, for every dollar paid to men." That's the foundation of her report, and that number is actually meaningless.

The problem is that these numbers don't compare women with men who perform the same jobs, work the same number of hours, and have the same education.

The work of Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, whose work is impossible to ignore on the left, has shown that when measured properly, the small pay gap that remains still isn't the product of discrimination.

There are reasons to believe that as the workplace continues to evolve and with more telecommuting, maybe more paternal involvement in children's lives and a greater willingness of clients to substitute one worker for another, we will see even greater convergence between men's and women's job selections.

Always the enforcer, she wants to require employers with more than 100 workers to go through the trouble of proving to a federal bureaucrat that "They're not paying women less than men for work of equal value" in exchange for an "Equal Pay Certification." If they fail to do so, they'll have to pay Uncle Sam "1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist."

Think about the work produced at think tanks, law firms, or even hospitals.

https://reason.com/2019/05/30/the-foolish-economic-agenda-of-kamala-harris/

Bogus Mueller Investigation Ends With His Sudden Retirement

Why did Special Counsel Snake Robert Mueller III choose May 29, 2019 to slither off into retirement?

Two years after the collapse of the dossier, Special Counsel Robert Mueller collapsed like the proverbial empty suit before our very eyes yesterday.

Although Mueller and his pro-Clinton Dream Team members held centre stage for more than two years, theirs was never a legitimate investigation from the get-go.

"If we had evidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said in his farewell speech.

"Is that Mueller has evidence and that Barr is not releasing it and we need to talk to Mueller. We gotta get to Mueller. Mueller, there's gotta be more in this report. Barr is lying. Barr is handpicked by Trump. Barr is covering for Trump. We need to talk to Mueller."

In spite of all Mueller and the Deep State have tried-and are still trying to do for her-Obama's former Secretary of State wears a big sign reading PC-Politically Corrupt-on her back.

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton and her surrogates, including your pal James Comey, will soon be joining you in boring retirement, Mr. Mueller.


https://canadafreepress.com/article/bogus-mueller-investigation-ends-with-his-sudden-retirement

Mueller Speaks

Mr. Mueller noted that he was "Authorized to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation." He claimed that he was permitted to investigate the sitting president's conduct because any evidence gathered "While memories are fresh and documents are availablecould be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged." However, Mr. Mueller explained why in his view he could not take any prosecutorial action against President Trump while Mr. Trump remained in office.

Mr. Mueller pointed to a long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office as justification for failing make a prosecutorial decision on whether to formally charge President Trump with obstruction of justice.

The problem for Mr. Mueller is that his office evidently found no evidence of any "Co-conspirators who could now be charged" as part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice spurred on by President Trump.

Even if President Trump were suspected of acting entirely on his own to obstruct or attempt to obstruct the FBI and Mueller investigations, the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president was not the special counsel office's only concern.

Mr. Mueller failed to mention in his statement the concern expressed in his own report that the evidence his office "Obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

In any case, the evidence cited in various portions of the Mueller report linked the president's actions with his perfectly legitimate worry that the continuing investigation impaired his ability to govern effectively, conduct foreign policy and keep the commitments he had made to the American people.

Despite saying in his statement that it "Would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge," Mr. Mueller used his statement to leave the president under a public cloud of suspicion.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273885/mueller-speaks-joseph-klein

In Latest Trade-War Salvo, China Halts 'Goodwill' Soybean Purchases

America's farmers are extremely vulnerable right now, which is probably why Beijing has opted for this latest precision strike in the trade conflict: Bloomberg reports that China's largest state-run grain buyers have been instructed to halt the 'goodwill' purchases of American soybeans as Beijing ratchets up the pressure on the White House, which could soon approve new tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports.

Thanks to February's pledge to buy another 10 million tons of American soybeans, sales to Chinese grain buyers by American soybean farmers started to recover during the opening months of 2019.

Since President Trump and Xi called the trade-war truce back in December, China has bought some 13 million tons of soybeans from American farmers.

Data from the Department of Agriculture show that China's grain buyers have yet to take delivery on about 7 million tons of US soybeans that it has committed to buying.

The timing of Beijing's latest blow is notable: Friday marked the conclusion of a two-week tariff 'grace period', which suggests that more retaliation from Beijing could be in the offing.

Ministry of Commerce Spokesman Gao Feng said Thursday during a regular press briefing that China can't accept its rare earth metals being used against itself, though it remains willing to meet other countries' demands for the metals.

Gao added that China will fight "Until the end" if the US continues to escalate the trade fight, adding that China won't tolerate US bullying.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-30/latest-trade-war-salvo-china-halts-goodwill-soybean-purchases