Twitter, Inc. Refers to The Resistance as “Human Error”

Earlier today, Twitter announced that Donald Trump’s Twitter account had been rendered inactive for eleven minutes. They attributed it to “human error” and were investigating.

It turns that the human error was actually a member of The Resistance. A Twitter employee on his/her last day on the job, decided to take it upon himself to turn off Donald Trump’s personal twitter account. The employee, probably a millennial, determined that his judgment should reign supreme and he could be the sole arbiter of the President’s Twitter account.

This is a typical leftist who takes it upon himself to do something like this. The baker and florist must be shut down rather than allowed to run a business imbued with their values. And the President’s Twitter account should be shutdown because he says things people dislike. Things cannot just be ignored. They must be shut down.

Twitter has turned back on the account and the employee was on his last day. Whether that was because Twitter won’t let them back in the building or not is left unsaid and unknown. Right now, though, some leftwing publication is racing to find the person and declare him a hero.

Joe Ricketts is a Billionaire Because He Doesn’t Put Up With Self-Entitled Lefist Crap

Leftwing outrage is pouring in because Joe Ricketts, a billionaire, dared to manage his money wisely. Ricketts is shuttering Gothamist and DNAinfo two hyperlocal news sites. He is doing so because the entitled millennial leftists who work there decided to unionize and make demands.

Ricketts, instead of giving in, shut down. Prior to the unionization vote Ricketts wrote on his personal blog

I believe unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed. And that corrosive dynamic makes no sense in my mind where an entrepreneur is staking his capital on a business that is providing jobs and promoting innovation.

I could not have said it better myself. I have known Joe and his family for a while. Ending Spending, which the family controls, has sponsored The Resurgent in the past. The whole family is fueled by success. They know how to turn businesses around and grow businesses. They have become very wealthy by making tough decisions and not putting up with shakedowns and wasteful crap.

A Wall Street Journal reporter accused me of not being a very good Christian for cheering on Joe Ricketts putting people out of work. But these people put themselves out of work. I’m cheering on a successful entrepreneur who isn’t going to be held hostage to the left’s fever dreams. You should be cheering on Joe Ricketts too. And more employers should do this.

The Erick Erickson Show 11-02-17 Tax Plan Voodoo

Tonight on the show Erick talks about the Republican tax plan and its potential impact, Donna Brazile has a new book out ripping the Clinton campaign and journalist going into overdrive with hit jobs on the President.

Steve Bannon and the Million Dollar Question

For those of you who have not yet seen the news, there is a bombshell of a story developing. It’s the distancing of the Mercers from Steve Bannon.

As I wrote a few weeks ago in my post Bannon’s Braggadocio, it’s one thing for someone like Steve Bannon to boast about how many Republicans he is going to take out in primaries. It’s entirely another thing to back that boasting with legitimate funding.

The consensus up until today has been that there is relatively little daylight between the Mercers, specifically Bob and Bekah, and Steve Bannon. Today we all found out otherwise.

Here’s my quick take on things. It’s not that the Mercers and Bannon have dissimilar objectives. Many of us among the liberty, free market movement share the belief that there are those in Washington, DC who say one thing on the campaign trail and do a 180 once elected. And they have to be replaced with those who will fulfill their campaign promises. As these campaign chameleons do their DC kabuki dance, the country goes deeper into debt, socialized medicine becomes an encroaching reality and the difference between the two major parties, which should be stark, blends into a murky gray.

Here’s where I think the difference is. Donors like Bob Mercer want to see creative destruction, a sort of market disruption, that has an objective in mind-an actual principled, free market driven party that is intent on giving as many people as possible the greatest amount of liberty.

On the flip side of this is Steve Bannon, aider and abetter of the alt-right and a modern day (would be) Robespierre who just wants to create chaos. Articles like this one from Buzzfeed are damning. Bannon’s personal history is damning. As I have written before, we can be principled conservatives and not be with Steve Bannon. We can foment for constructive change and not have to embrace the ugliness that he embodies.

A new day dawned today in conservative and Republican politics.

And it is a good thing.


Powell Expected to Be President’s Pick for the Fed

President Trump is expected to announce his pick for a new chair of the Federal Reserve today, and the choice may pique Janet Yellen fans but please financial markets.

As usual, Mr. Trump has eschewed traditional protocol in both the selection process and in the very act of choosing a new chair rather than maintaining the sitting chair, as most previous presidents have done. Rather than taking place behind closed doors, the selection process has been a markedly public one, in which Mr. Trump even openly solicited input from a group of Republican senators.

Though he could surprise us–President Trump is nothing if not unpredictable–Jerome Powell is expected to be the president’s pick. Powell is a lawyer, a highly successful investment manager, and a member of the Fed’s board. He is likely to maintain Yellen’s cautious approach to rates but may be more amenable to easing some of the tight financial regulations that were imposed after the 2008 financial crisis. This is good news for Wall Street, which has been chafing against what many believe to be overly burdensome–and costly–compliance requirements.

Mr. Trump has praised Ms. Yellen’s tenure at the Fed, but choosing a new Fed chair will continue his effort to make a clean, clear break from the Obama administration and its policies. Some may see the replacement of Yellen–the Fed’s first female chair–as a slap in the face to women, which won’t help the president’s reputation for sexism. But if Powell can help bolster the U.S. economy’s upward trend, perhaps it’s worth the price.

BREAKING: GOP Tax Plan Is Massive Overhaul Of Tax Code

Republicans have finally released their proposal for tax reform. The bill includes dramatic changes to the current tax code that, if enacted, will be largest overhaul of the tax system since the Reagan era.

The new plan maintains the top individual tax rate at 39.6 percent per Politico, but would reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. New individual tax brackets of 12, 25 and 35 percent would be created. Income levels for these brackets are not yet available.

The plan doubles the standard deduction and increases the child tax credit to $1,600. The exemption for the estate tax would be doubled and the estate tax would be repealed after six years. The plan also keeps the popular retirement savings vehicle, the 401(k) account, which some Republicans had hinted could be eliminated.

The plan’s treatment of the mortgage interest deduction is sure to be controversial. The bill would limit this popular deduction to newly purchased homes less than $500,000. Realtor associations are already gearing up to oppose this change.

Republicans also maintained the deduction for state and local taxes. The new plan allows taxpayers to write off up to $10,000 in state and local property taxes, which critics say subsidizes states with high tax levels. Republicans from high tax states sought to preserve this deduction, but the limit is less than property taxes in many blue states.

The tax rate cuts would be offset by the elimination of targeted tax loopholes that favor certain industries and activities. The details of the loopholes to be closed are not yet available.

There are other questions that have yet to be answered as well. There was no clear indication on whether the tax rate cuts would be permanent or have a sunset clause as the 2001 Bush tax cuts did.

The bill also reportedly contains elements to discourage corporations from relocating to other countries. These details also have yet to be revealed.

There was also no word on whether the border adjustment, a tariff on imports, was part of the final plan. Tim Phillips, the president of Americans For Prosperity, had previously warned against the import tax, saying, “We strongly oppose adding a new tax that would raise prices on everyday goods while disproportionally hurting the poor and middle class.”

A weakness of the bill is the failure to lower the top tax rate. While cutting taxes for the wealthy is politically unpopular, per OMB Director Mick Mulvaney the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay 95 percent of the taxes. These taxpayers will benefit from rate cuts to lower brackets, but a cut in the top rate would also be beneficial.

Now that the Republican tax plan is written, the next step is to sell it to the country. Democrat disinformation is already being used to attack the reform proposal with the result that Americans oppose the plan out of the gate by 35-25 percent in a new NBC News  poll. The good news is that almost 40 percent have not made up their minds.

If Republicans can unite and if Donald Trump can stay focused on the issue at hand, tax reform may turn out to be the first real GOP legislative victory of the Trump era. Republicans need this win badly.

Son of a Mitch! McConnell Voted Least Popular Senator in Poll

The votes are in, the ballots counted, and now it’s official.  The GOP’s very own Mitch McConnell—up until now, known primarily for his razor sharp political instincts and his rakish wit—is America’s least popular senator:

According to Morning Consult’s latest Senator Approval Rankings – compiled from a poll of 255,120 registered voters in 50 states from July 1 to Sept. 30 – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is yet again America’s least popular senator.

In Kentucky, one-third of voters approve of McConnell’s job performance, while 55 percent of voters said they disapprove — more than any other senator.

McConnell’s net approval, the difference in his approval and disapproval percentages, dropped 15 percentage points, the third-largest drop in the Senate, from the second quarter, according to the survey. The slide came as he failed to advance Obamacare repeal — a key pillar of the GOP’s political agenda since the law’s enactment in 2010.

This ranking, by the way, puts McConnell well behind Democrat Bob Menendez, who registered only 41% disapproval from his constituents—and he’s on trial for corruption.  Granted, Menendez is from New Jersey so they grade on a curve over there, but come on!  A guy who’s about to spend the next three to five years playing Shawshank with a hairy cellmate named Dutch is outpolling the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky?  For the second time?  Right about now, Harry Reid must be kicking himself for retiring.

Still, it’s not all bad news.  Congress is held in somewhat low esteem by most of the American people—at around 13% approval, their popularity hovers somewhere between OJ Simpson and Harvey Weinstein—so it’s not like McConnell is alone in his public disdain.  On the other hand, to be the most reviled in that particular rogues gallery is quite the achievement.  It’s kind of like being voted the Uday Hussein of the Senate:  “You thought the other guys are bad, but look at me!”  If not for all the Chamber of Commerce and insurance company lobbyists on Capitol Hill, McConnell might start to feel unloved.

Might I suggest some couples therapy, before Republican voters get tired of waiting for McConnell to break it off with the establishment and keep his campaign vows?  Actually advancing a conservative agenda would be a good show of faith.  Right now, tax reform is out there like a big bouquet of flowers and a yuge box of chocolates, just waiting to charm the pants off your base.  They won’t play hard to get if you’re ready to show them some real commitment.

Otherwise, they’ll just keep asking, “What have you done for me lately?”  And they’re not going to like the answer.

Canada Passed Assisted Suicide Bill Last Year and is now Considering Child Euthanasia

It was only last year that Bill C-14 passed in Canada, which legalized physician assisted suicide. Now they are already they are looking into the same for minors.

A report was released last week giving some preliminary results based on surveys sent to pediatricians. From the CBC article:

“Almost half the respondents surveyed (46 per cent) said they were in favour of extending assisted death to mature minors ‘experiencing progressive or terminal illness or intractable pain.’

“But fewer pediatricians (29 per cent) believed medically assisted death should be available to children or youth with “an intolerable disability.” One-third opposed assisted death for patients under 18 years of age under any circumstances.

“Thirty-five pediatricians said they had “exploratory discussions” with a total of 60 patients under the age of 18 in the preceding year. Nine pediatricians received “explicit requests” for assisted death from a total of 17 minors.

“Out of the 1,050 pediatricians who responded, 118 said they had exploratory discussions about assisted death with the parents of sick children, involving 419 kids in all.

“Forty-five respondents said they had received explicit requests for assisted death from parents, involving a total of 91 children. More than half of the requests involved a child under a year old.”

We need to keep in mind that these parents were having these conversations while it is not currently legally permitted. When and if it becomes law, a certain level of moral acceptance always follows, so there is no doubt these numbers would rise significantly.

At the outset we can all acknowledge that no one—ever—wants to be in this position. We all have compassion on suffering children and their parents. As a parent myself, I thank God Almighty that I have never had to endure watching my child suffer in such a way.

At some point, however, I think the question needs to be asked: Is anything wrong with anything?

Here in the United States we’re not currently facing any such Sophie’s Choice, but the people of Canada likely soon will be, and we’re often not far behind.

Here we haven’t entirely banished God from our national consciousness—yet—and there, too, Canada is further down that road. We still pay occasional lip service to some traditional acknowledgement of Him—usually after a tragedy, and occasionally at Christmas and Easter. Like a mascot.

But with tacit rejection of God and His moral laws, how do we make decisions fraught with such extreme pain?

Influential agnostic British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, when asked how to judge between good and bad answered, “On the basis of feeling, what else?”

Is that it? Is that what we’re going to go on for moral decision-making? God, help us. (That was an actual prayer.)

Here are some problems I see with this:

First, even if you disregard God and His authority over all life and, therefore, believe adults have the right to take their own lives, please acknowledge the slippery slope of where this has led and where it may lead.

The Netherlands were the first to pass doctor assisted suicide, and that led to seniors being fearful to go into hospitals, not knowing whether or not they’d come back out (alive). So, yes, that has happened. And now we’re talking about children.

Can we admit that people are imperfect and don’t always make the best decisions? Sometimes we make decisions before we have other facts which might cause us to choose differently.

Do we think children are in a great position to make literal life and death choices? Have they acquired wisdom? Good judgment? Knowledge of how it would affect everyone around them? Or would their choice be solely based on the pain they’re suffering now?

Of course it would.

What about putting it in the hands of their parents who, hopefully, would have wisdom, good judgment, etc. Why would we do that to parents who are themselves suffering so greatly watching their child suffer, wishing there was anything—anything—they could do about it.

But now they would be forced to decide the fate of their own child? What if their son begged them for death, knowing they were the ones who had to decide? If that violated their conscience, they would be in the position of not only having to watch him in pain day after day, but they would know it was their decision that kept them there.

Speaking of conscience, what about the guilt parents will be racked with if they make the decision to end their child’s life? No matter how merciful they thought the decision was, they will be forced to live for the rest of their lives knowing that they were the ones who chose. It is not kind to put people who are already suffering in that position.

But now that we’ve untied ourselves from our moral moorings, these are the decisions we’re increasingly faced with.

So I’ll ask it again: Is anything wrong with anything? And on what basis do we make that determination? On the basis of feelings, like Bertrand Russell?

We’d better figure it out soon.