Author: admin

WEALTH TAX, RIGHT OR WRONG FOR AMERICA

What is a wealth tax?  Today, wealthy Americans pay taxes on things like superyachts and fine art when they purchase them, but not after. A wealth tax would make them pay taxes on their assets every year. Elizabeth Warren would apply an annual asset tax of 2% on households worth more than $50 million and 6% of worth greater than $1 billion.

There are some significant downsides to the wealth tax that the progressive/socialist candidates fail to mention while campaigning. 

First: Rich folks do not put their excess cash under a mattress; they invest it and pay taxes on the interest and dividends.  The wealth tax takes money out of the hands of those who invest and provide the continuous flow of capital which, of course, is the fuel for capitalism.

Second: The wealth tax would apply to an estimated 75,000 households. There are already 73,500 full time IRS employees.  How many more thousands of employees would they need to expertly administer the wealth tax?  Big government getting bigger.  

Third:  Wealthy people have very competent tax lawyers who know how to apply tax avoidance measures. The only way to prevent this is to rewrite the tax code and eliminate the loopholes, which is unlikely to happen.  Additionally, the wealthy can move assets to trusts and family foundations or shift property among generations; and they will do so.

Fourth:  The wealth tax is a proven failed system.  In 1990, a dozen nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development imposed wealth taxes. By last year, it was down to three.  France was the latest casualty. 

Fifth:  A significant amount of wealth held by the rich is in hard-to-value assets, such as art.  Will the valuation be accomplished in 75,000 households by thousands of contract experts or by IRS amateurs? How will the taxpayers appeal contested valuations? Thousands of households could end up in litigation for months or years. 

Sixth, a scenario: A 40-year-old entrepreneur is worth $500 million dollars and therefore required to pay a wealth tax.  His 2% wealth tax due is $10 million. Because he consistently invests excess cash and after paying state and federal income taxes, he is short of cash to pay the wealth tax.  Not to worry, Ms. Warren says, “l have a plan.”  Rather than force the taxpayer to sell resources and pay cash, he can tender a portion of his non-liquid assists to the government.  Now he has a new business partner who may well be some nameless, faceless, possibly incompetent bureaucrat in Washington. Extend this over the next 20 or 30 years, 2% every year, and what does he have remaining?  Then he dies and his estate pays a 40% death tax on the remaining assets. This is a nightmare scenario that would play out across the country. 

Seventh:  Because of the downside reasons 1-6 above, rich people figure out how to move their wealth abroad.  It isthe principle reason other countries dropped the wealth tax. 

Eighth:  Ms. Warren has developed the wealth tax issue in response to questions about how she proposes to pay for Medicare for All.  And she sells this new tax revenue stream as if it is all that will be needed.  Wrong, really wrong. Warren’s estimates, which some liberal economists consider too optimistic, that the wealth tax on personal fortunes exceeding $50 million would raise $3.75 trillion over the next decade, ($375 billion per year).  That $375 billion would provide about 13% of what is required for one year of Medicare for All.  Will the middle class pick up the remaining 87%?

As if the above numbers are not misleading enough, Warren also claims Medicare for All will actually save money because of economies of scale for a government-run program. There is zero data to support such an outrageous claim but there are numerous examples of the incompetence of government whenever it is charged with running a large operation.  Cases in point:

In FY18 FEDEX reported a net profit of $2.97 billion and UPS had $4.79 billion while the US Postal Service had a net loss of $3.9 billion.  This is the norm and happens every year.

Government-run Amtrak has reported operating losses every year since its inception in 1971, averaging $900 million per year with 93% of its routes unprofitable. The per-ticket taxpayer subsidy over the past 5 years has been $51 per Amtrak ticket sold. 

The best relevant comparison of how Medicare for All will succeed is to look at the current Veterans Administration which has been a disaster for decades.  It is a bureaucratic, bloated, money pit that has left sick veterans to die while waiting for care.  Medicare for all would attempt to service 18 times the number of those who rely on the VA. Lots of luck saving money.  Check out the disastrous government-run medicine in the UK and Canada. 

Wake up America, it’s time to look at the whole Medicare for All story. And while you are at it, look at Ms. Warren’s list of 56 other new programs that will require more funding, more government control, more bureaucracy and more regulation. 

Marv Covault

Never before has there been a presidential campaign where one party was running on a platform of massive tax increases and unimaginable spending.

The question is, are we getting the whole story?

Statements like, “the income of the top 20% of households is 60 times as much as the bottom 20%” can be heard day after day.  Simple, direct, easy to understand, and a good media sound bite, but is it true?  No.

The bottom 20% households earn, on average, about $4900 (a very low number because so many have no income at all) while the average top 20% household earns $295,900, a ratio of 60 to 1. But it is not 60 to 1, not even close.  Here is why.

The top 20% earn an average of $295,900 and pay $109,100 in taxes; left with $186,800 in, what I will call, available resources. Conversely while the bottom 20% pay no income tax they are the principal recipients of $1.9 trillion in annual public transfer payments. The average low-income household receives $45,400 in government transfers and $3,300 in charitable funds. They pay $2,700 in sales and property taxes.

The average bottom 20% household has $50,900 available resources ($4,900 plus $45,400 plus $3.300 minus $2.700)

So, the income inequity, touted particularly by candidates Warren and Sanders, is not 60 to 1 ($295,900 vs $4,900) it is actually 3.7 to 1.

One problem with the math is that the progressive/socialist democrat candidates lay out their programs piecemeal.  Today it is X dollars for education, the next day it is green stuff, then Medicare for All, and on it goes.  As each is presented there is occasionally a feeble attempt to define how a particular program will be paid for.  But what they never do is articulate the totality of it all, spending and revenue. So, let’s take a stab at that using projected costs and revenue over the next 10 years.

Medicare for All: $32 trillion

Green New Deal/climate change: The American Action Forum estimates that the energy and environmental components would cost $10 trillion. 

Free college tuition: $800 billion

Cancel student debt: $1.6 trillion

Open borders: Illegal immigrants currently cost $116 billion per year.  Open        borders could easily multiply that by a factor of 3 or $3.5 trillion over 10 years.

K-12 education: $800 billion

Child care plan: $1.07 trillion

New infrastructure: $1 trillion

Expanded tax credit to the poor: $2.5 trillion

Affordable housing: $1.9 trillion

Slavery reparations: Not included but estimates range from $17-50 trillion

The total cost is $54 trillion in new proposals over the next decade, on top of the $12.4 trillion deficit projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

Over the next decade the federal government is projected to collect about $4.4 trillion per year and spend about $5.6 trillion. This is without taking into account a single one of the progressive/socialist democrats’ new proposals cited above.

In order to pay for the above campaign promises, we would need to increase the federal government revenue from $4.4 to $9.8 trillion per year. That cannot possibly happen and even if it could be accomplished the national debt would still increase from today’s $21 trillion to $34 Trillion in a decade; dangerous territory. 

Then there are the proposals to “tax the rich.” Increased revenue estimates range from $9.3 trillion under the best-case scenario and, more realistically, $3.9 trillion over the next ten years.  In other words, if these politicians want to spend what they propose, they’ll have to impose enormous taxes on everyone who pays taxes including the middle class.

Additionally, draconian tax increases either across the board or just on the rich has some very scary side effects.  For example, A 70% tax rate on the rich may be smart politics, but it is not smart economics. Economists explain that higher tax rates on the rich have the potential to reduce capital formation, lower economic output, shrink the labor supply, depress levels of entrepreneurship, lead to lower middle-class wages, reduce economic mobility, drive away superstar inventors, lower levels of innovation, lead to higher taxes for everyone else, and encourage tax complexity. In other words, the potential to dramatically and negatively transform our economy.

These numbers are not partisan. They come from the Congressional Budget Office, top liberal think tanks, Wall Street Journal editorials, and various economists’ studies.  While these numbers are not exact and estimates are constantly changing, they paint a picture of the absurdity of the progressive/socialists democrat collective campaign promises.  

In every campaign we hear people say, “politicians will say anything to get elected” and just pass it off as harmless rhetoric.  These numbers are not harmless.  They are scary, dangerous and have the potential to severely alter the foundations of this country.  Wake up America.

Marv Covault

Three points need to be made with respect to the ongoing impeachment saga; constitutionality, precedent and high crimes. 

The Constitution assigns “the sole power” of impeachment to the House of Representatives.  That is, going forward from a majority vote of the whole House, not from a press conference by the Speaker. It is that simple. The full House vote is a key constitutional check, provided by the framers on the impeachment power.  Constitutionality gets an “F” from the get-go.

Second point, precedent:  1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson, House vote 126-47.  Richard Nixon, House vote, 410-4.  Bill Clinton, 258-176.  Following the full House vote, a committee is then designated to gather evidence.

Representative Schiff, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has the investigative lead.  His process has been to conduct unclassified hearings in a closed, secure facility questioning witnesses in secret then selectively leaking information to the supportive media.  House Republicans are being denied subpoena authority and access to full transcripts of the hearings.

In graphic contrast to the procedures being used today by Rep. Schiff, during the Nixon impeachment, as explained recently by Robert Doar, the Democrat Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Peter Rodino, assembled a unified staff.  The Republicans were granted joint subpoena authorization.  President Nixon’s counsel attended depositions, had access to all documentation and could cross examine witnesses and present his own witnesses.  The American public was kept fully informed throughout.  As Newt Gringrich recently explained, during the Clinton impeachment, the Republicans “adopted every single rule Rodino had used in 1973.”

Total disregard for procedural precedent also gets an “F”.

Third, where are the “high crimes”?  The president is accountable to the people and the Founders recognized the risks to democracy and the importance of protecting separation of powers by limiting Congressional powers to improperly remove a duly elected president.  The Founders considered authorizing impeachment for “maladministration”, “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice”.  In their seemingly infinite wisdom, the Founders rejected these issues as giving Congress too much power and the potential to turn impeachment into a political circus.

The current impeachment proceedings are centered on a single conversation President Trump had with Ukrainian President Zelensky.  “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.  Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.”

Several points to be made about that conversation.  One, federal bribery laws require proof of corrupt intent in the form of quid pro quo, defined by the Supreme Court in 1999 as a “specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act”.  There was no quid pro quo in the call; i.e. zero mention of the pending military aid.  The alleged quid (military aid which was delivered within weeks) was not contingent on the alleged quo, opening an investigation.  The quo was never “something of value” and furthermore never consummated.

The U.S. is the most benevolent nation in history.  We routinely give about $50 billion a year in aid around the world.  There are historical examples of most presidents asking for quid pro quo.

I have been in nearly every US State Department Embassy in the Pacific region.  Quid pro quo is daily fare; it’s what they do, be it a license to do business, port access, military facilities, shutting down terrorists’ banking, it covers the gamut.  U.S. congressmen know and understand all of this.

Finally, a point about Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney. Using a private person to carry out specific duties overseas is not a crime, not abuse of power, and has been done frequently throughout US history by multiple presidents.

So, on the third point, where are the high crimes, there aren’t any; another “F”. 

I believe the above is a reasonably strong case that what is going on in Washington is not impeachment. So, what is it?  In retrospect, we can now see a conscious, phased operation to prevent/overturn the 2016 Trump election.

Phase one was pre-election 2016 which could soon be enumerated as criminal proceedings. 

Phase two:  Within minutes of the inauguration the Washington Post published that the “campaign to impeach President Trump has begun” without any identifiable crime. 

Representative Al Green’s first motion to impeach was introduced in the House of Representatives December 2017, again no crime.

Phase 3:  Special Council Mueller’s exhaustive investigation of Russian collusion was to have been the coup de grace in 2019.  No crime.

Phase 4:  Emphasis has now shifted from removal from office to ensuring Trump will have to campaign for reelection next year as a non-convicted but at least an impeached President.

Much of what happens in government is predicated on precedent. The House abuse of power described above has the potential to set a precedent that will allow the congress to take down future administrations without just cause. And where does that leave us?

What follows is a quote from a blog by Mollie Hemmingway on 25 October.  She is a very bright and insightful gal. 

“What we are facing now is not partisan warfare, it’s not a mystery novel, it’s not politics-as-usual. We are facing an attempt to tear down the foundations of our republic by corrupt, unelected bureaucrats who have decided the will of voters is subordinate to their will to power. It represents a fatal threat to our system of government, and if this coup succeeds — whether through impeachment proceedings, or through an election that (if the last three years are any indication) the other side is clearly willing to steal by hook or by crook — the nation will cease to be a constitutional, democratic republic.  This isn’t about Trump, or Republicans, or conservatives. It is about Washington needing to learn that political differences have to be settled at the ballot box lest they instead be settled with an undermining of our constitutional norms and institutions.”

Marv Covault

Many Americans have become increasingly disappointed in journalists in particular and journalism in general.  We are not talking about the fine work done by local papers, local radio or regional TV that keeps us informed about education, crime, local politics, traffic, business, weather, etc. It is the national main-stream media that has become the subject of debate and criticism.  

I want to get to a conclusion as to what is desperately wrong with the mass main-stream media, but first background. 

Something very interesting happened on August 15th.  Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, held a closed-door town hall meeting with his writers.  It was to have been a close-hold session but someone recorded and released it. 

Before we get back to the New York Times and Mr. Baquet, it is important to set the stage with some facts.

Fact, the collective media is a powerful institution. Fact, what people generally talk and think about is based on what they hear and/or read about on a daily basis. Survey results; 80% of journalists who are aligned with the democrat or republican parties are liberal.

Fact, in the summer of 2017 Harvard published the results of a media study.  They found that Americans were getting a negative view of what was happening in the Trump administration; CNN 93% negative, NBC 93%, CBS 91%, New York Times 87%, Washington Post 83%, Wall Street Journal 70%, Fox News 52%.  Since that time there has been polling that indicates this trend has continued unabated including MSNBC and ABC.

With 90% negativism day after day it is easy to think, well if they are all saying it, it must be true. Dangerous and upsetting, but true.

Back to Mr. Baquet and his meeting with all the New York Times journalists.  I have read the transcript, all 9600 words.  I do not recommend you read it; it is both disgusting and discouraging.  There are two elements to Baquet’s presentation and answers to his writers’ questions. Baquet explained it this way:

“Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump ……..was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story.”  Note: what does that tell us about the credibility of the Pulitzer committee? 

Baquet continues: “The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers (Baquet shifts accountability from himself to the readers) who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy s_ _ t, Bob Mueller is not going to do it. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

Note: “looks a certain way” is Baquet’s explanation for why The Times wrote for two years as if Trump’s guilt was a foregone conclusion.  Their stories looked that “certain way” because they wrote them to look that way and to convince America it was that way.  Pathetic.

Here is Baquet’s intent going forward: “I think that we’ve got to change.” He goes into a long dissertation on how to write about race in a thoughtful way? Baquet continues, “That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.” His writers have their marching orders.

Every profession, lawyers, doctors, military, educators, journalists, has an ethical basis.  That value base, that code of conduct, that mission statement, whatever form it takes, when practiced gives that profession credibility. 

Credibility is the centerpiece for journalism and credibility comes for impartiality.  Journalism is about the pursuit of truth.  Truth is not always apparent in the beginning. Basing a journalistic campaign on an assumed truth is a formula for failure.  Russian collusion was an assumed truth which led them into an empty hole and complete loss of credibility. 

If we can believe the marching orders Baquet gave his writers, The Times is headed down that same rat hole. 

Now I want to get to the point of this article. One can make a case that while the majority of the Times employees are liberal leaning, they do not have a choice in their bias given the orders from their leader. 

By extension, can we make the same observation about the other members of the negative ninety percenters; ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBE, CNN and the Washington Post?

Are there perhaps seven individuals, the leaders of those negative main-stream mass media giants, who have so corrupted the ethics of their organizations with bitterness and hostility that they are principally responsible for the greatest divide in modern America?  Have they, with their misguided power created this alternative culture of hate?  A culture of hate that is a powerful and pervasive force. 

Where is the honesty?  Where is the integrity? What happened to fair and objective?  Where is the credibility?  Ninety percent negative, think about it. 

Marv Covault

Currently most of the world runs on fossil fuels and at some point in the future we will run out of coal and oil.  It is therefore important to continue to develop renewable energy sources.  Wind and sun are the current favorites because they are accessible, free and renewable. But are they?

The problem is we cannot just stick an extension cord into the wind or out the window into the sunshine and light up the house.  We have to capture the wind and sun and therein lies the rub.  

In case you missed it, Mark Mills (a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute) wrote a short but brutally revealing article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL, 6 August, entitled, IF YOU WANT ‘RENEWABLE ENERGY’, GET READY TO DIG.  I have borrowed some of his data to make the following points. 

We need to replace gas guzzling automobiles with battery power to reduce hydro carbon buildup.  Makes sense, however, consider that one electric car battery, weighs in at about 1000 pounds.  To produce one battery requires digging up and processing about 500,000 pounds of raw materials. 

There are more than one billion automobiles in the world today. It would take 250 billion tons of materials to build a battery for every car, once. Currently, electric car battery life is about seven years and then we need to dig another 250 billion tons, and again and again, forever.

How about wind.  There are about 240,000 operating wind turbines in the world, producing about 4% of the required electricity.  When it comes to wind turbine construction, there are a lot of numbers out there.  I believe this set fairly captures the story. One, just one, wind turbine requires 350 tons of steel, 1,200 tons of concrete, 40 tons of nonrecyclable plastic and 2 tons of rare-earth elements. That is about 84 million tons of steel already used up.   

 If we want wind to produce half the world’s electricity, we will need to build about 3 million more turbines.  Now we are into hundreds of billions of tons of steel. All those zeros lead us to this question, how much hydrocarbon producing coal and oil will we burn to produce that much steel?  Better take off your rose-colored glasses because there is more bad news. 

Solar power requires even more cement and steel than wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity.  Additionally, production of solar panels requires large amounts of silver and indium.  Mining of these metals will increase by 250% and 1200% respectively over the next twenty years and, oh-by-the-way, some day we will run out of both. 

Solar panels require other “rare-earth” elements which are not currently mined in the US.  Demand for these elements is expected to rise 250-1000% by 2050.  Access to these metals is questionable.  For example, the Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt and China controls 90% of cobalt refining. 

The Netherlands government recently sponsored a “Green” study and concluded that their country’s Green objectives would consume a major share of the global metals required.  The Netherlands population is about 17 million.  The world population is about 7.5 billion. 

Keep in mind that one of the major objectives of the Green revolution is to drastically reduce the emotion of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Building enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity will require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel and two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades. Also alarming is the fact that about 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electric grids.

And what do we do when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?

Also, whatever lofty goals we may set for the world in order for it to survive, they are shared by only a fraction of the countries. China and India, with a combined population of 2.7 billion, are among the worst offenders.

When I write articles, it is normally my intent to define a problem and then offer up a viable solution.  But not here, this is way beyond my ability to comprehend the way ahead.   

Obviously, the need to do something is pressing but I would leave you with this thought.  As one of the world’s greatest cynics when it comes to politicians, we should not be captured by the one-liner solutions.  Remember that old saying, for every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is usually wrong.  The devil is in the details.

marv covault

 
THIS IS GOING AROUND CYBER SPACE TODAY. I DON’T KNOW WHO WROTE IT BUT IT IS WORTH READING AND PUTS A LOT OF THINGS IN THEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE:

Life is not a fairy tale. If you lose your shoe at midnight, you’re drunk.
 
If women are upset at Trump’s naughty words, who in the hell bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray?
 
Jim Comey answered, “I don’t know,” “I don’t recall,” and “I don’t remember” 236 times while under oath. 

But he remembered enough to write a book.
 
President Trump should nominate Hillary Clinton for the next opening on the supreme court. Then he can finally get her investigated.
 
Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.
 
No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. You figured it out yet?
 
Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.
 
SOCIALISM: An idea that is so good that it has to be mandatory. Bernie Sanders walks into a bar and yells… “Free drinks for everyone!” looks around and says “Who’s buying?”
 
What is the difference between an Illegal immigrant and E.T.? E.T. learned to speak English and went home.
 
And just like that they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.
 
Watching the left come up with schemes to “catch Trump” is like watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.
 
President Trump’s wall cost less than the Obamacare website alone. Let that sink in, America.
 
We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.
 
They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.
 
60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.
 
Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!
 
Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.
 
A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint … Yet!
 
How do you walk 3,000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?
 
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.
 
Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.
 
I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the President of the United States of America.
 
The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning now tells me Trump’s approval 

ratings are low.
 
“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher
 
Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.
 

Trump — They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way

Marv Covault

Too often we say, “That’ s just politicians spouting off” when they say something outrageously off-track or untrue. Why should they get a pass? Why don’t we hold them accountable to a higher standard?

Cases in point:

For the past two years democrat/liberal/progressive/socialist leaders and candidates have insisted, “There is no crisis on the border.” They have since transitioned to, “The crisis on the border has been manufactured by Trump.” However, the numbers tell the truth: 63,624 UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN so far this year (more than all of FY 18) and total apprehensions is 780,000 so far this year vs 521,000 for all of last year. Yes, the facilities are overcrowded and unsatisfactory but it is not a “concentration camp” as alleged by the vocal left. Where is the intellectual honesty when every senior Home Land Security and Border Patrol chain of command leader has been begging congress for funds to improve conditions.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez lit up the media with her pronouncement that, “Women at a border facility are being forced to drink out of toilets.” While the nation is left with that mental image, one network finally showed a picture of what AOC actually saw during her border tour. Yes, it was a toilet but the water tank on the back is extended upward to include a drinking fountain on the top. Referring to the hundreds of honest, hard-working, compassionate Border Patrol officers as “concentration camp guards” is the ultimate insult. While the Border Patrol concentrates their efforts every day to care for thousands of illegal immigrants in facilities designed for hundreds, AOC goes back to Washington and votes AGAINST funding for improved border facilities.

The democrats will not say the words “amnesty for all” or “open borders” but all of their rhetoric and actions point directly to that intent. Current studies suggest that at least 150 million adults world-wide want to immigrate to the US. With amnesty and open borders they would come and those numbers would overwhelm our nation’s welfare, medical and educational systems and destroy America. The democrats are intelligent enough to understand the ramifications of amnesty and open borders yet they persist in telling us that it is the “moral” thing to do. Destroy America to make a moral point? Is that intellectually honest?

The democrat presidential candidates conveniently depart from the truth when they tell us, “The Trump economy is only benefiting the wealthy while minorities are left behind and the middle class is suffering.” The reality is that wages are rising at the fastest rate in a decade for lower-skilled workers and unemployment among less-educated Americans and minorities is near a record low. Nearly one million more Black Americans and two million more Hispanics are employed than when Obama left office and minorities account for more than half of all new jobs created under the Trump presidency. Yet I do not see the media fact checking this daily barrage of misinformation by the candidates.

The democrats like to remind us that, “we are a nation of laws.” Yet, when federal judges issue approximately 1 million FINAL DEPORTATION ORDERS and expect them to be executed the democrats go crazy. Speaker Pelosi held a news conference to instruct illegals on how to avoid being taken into custody. ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for executing the judges’ orders. Democrat candidates and political leaders call for the elimination of ICE. Do they honestly believe ICE is a, “menace to society?”

Affordable government funded Medicare for all is what many of the democrats are telling us we need. But, have they done the math? Currently, the total annual federal tax revenue is around $3.5 trillion, which is about the same amount government-funded Medicare for all is estimated to cost per year. Do they believe we are so stupid they can get away with these kinds of promises?

“The Trump tax cut was just a tax cut for the rich”, they say. Actually, according to the joint Tax Policy Center, Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute, Americans in the top 20 percent paid an estimated 87 percent of income taxes for 2018. This was UP from 84 percent in 2017 which means that the Trump tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive. We will hear that lie from the candidates hundreds of times leading up to the November, 2020 elections.

The point of these few observations is to offer the question, what has happened to intellectual honesty and common sense? What has taken candidates to the point of political desperation that those seeking office feel obliged to offer up solutions that are unworkable, beyond unreasonable and cannot be paid for?

Marv Covault

Calling someone a coward is an ugly thing to do.  I do not take the subject lightly and do not do so without due consideration of the facts surrounding his service as a Special Prosecutor over the past two years. 

His mission was straight forward: 

One, did Candidate Trump collude with the Russians to gain an advantage resulting in his election as president of the United States in 2016?

Two, has President Trump misused his power and obstructed justice?

I am not implying the task was easy but it is important that the mission statement be clean, clear and unambiguous.  It is.  

Mueller accepted the challenge and our country waited impatiently for almost two years for the following statements:

Evidence shows that Candidate Trump did (or did not) collude with the Russians during the 2016 Presidential election campaign. 

There is sufficient evidence to conclude that President Trump has (or has not) obstructed justice. 

Mueller did OK on the first requirement but he punted on the second.  He accomplished 50% of what he was explicitly tasked to do.  In my up-bringing, a 50% grade is an “F”, as in failure.

Why did he fail?  Was it because he lacked the resources?  It does not seem so.

 Time: Unlimited.

 Budget:  Over $30 million spent.

Manpower: He was provided a huge, experienced, hand-picked staff of 19 lawyers and at least 40 investigators; over 200,000 manhours of work.

 Evidence: Over a million documents provided and reviewed.

Authority: He issued over 2800 subpoenas, executed 500 search warrants, issued 230 orders for communications records, requested evidence from 13 foreign governments and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The bottom-line question from this massive, exhaustive effort is, how could there possibly be any additional evidence to consider? Answer, there probably isn’t any.

During the 22 months Bob Mueller led the effort, we did not hear a word from him and that was as it should be.  And all the while we were assured by most Republicans and Democrats alike and by the media that Mueller is a good man. He is fair and impartial.  He will do a good job.  He has vast experience and his reputation is impeccable.

He may be some of those but the bottom line is, he is a coward.  When it came time to do the nation’s bidding, to stand up as a patriot, to act professionally, to answer the two questions that hung over the nation and the Trump administration for two long agonizing years, when all was said and done Mueller folded under the pressure.  He let us all down. 

In the days that have followed the release of the report, we have all learned that under a Justice Department memorandum a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office as it would interfere with a chief executive’s constitutional responsibilities. 

That was the crutch that Mueller leaned on.  Why, he rhetorically asked us, should I answer the question as to whether the president obstructed justice when charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider?

The answer, Bob, is that if you could have found one example of obstruction and put it in your report the process would have, most certainly, moved directly to impeachment.  Look at your mission statement!!

Prosecutors, all prosecutors, do one of two things.  One, they conclude there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with having committed a crime; or, two, they conclude there is insufficient evidence to charge a person.  That’s it.  All he had to do was pick one and say it. 

He certainly had enough resources to reach a conclusion one way or the other.  But he took the coward’s way out; over to you Congress, you sort it out.  As if the amateur-hour congressional investigative committees can devote a fraction of the effort, expertise and time that Mueller had at his fingertips for 22 months.

So, where does that leave us?  It leaves the nation divided on the critical question of obstruction. It leaves the Trump Administration with a cloud hanging over it. It leaves the Congress hopelessly divided on impeachment. It gives the congress license to “investigate” ad-nauseum.

Mueller’s words, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” What a pile of crap.  You had all the recourses one could possibly hope for and you can either cite an example of obstruction or you can’t.  Which is it?

Thanks for nothing Bob, you have just done our great nation a grievous disservice.

 Lieutenant General, US Army retired, Marvin L. Covault is the author of Vision to Execution, a book for leaders

I have a guest blogger today, my older brother Jerry.  Background: He spent his entire professional life with the US Forest Service, mostly leading huge national forests in Colorado and Montana. After “retiring” he taught in the Forestry Department at the University of Montana and has been a prolific author and thinker about trees, plants, air, water and dirt. He is also a sought-after national expert on forest fires, when/where/why/how to fight them.

The following is designed to scare the hell out of you as you think about the future for your grandkids (my words, not his).  I do recall a few decades ago reading a proclamation that most future wars will be fought over water rights.  Maybe the future is right around the corner. 

400 Generations?  Think About It.

by Jerry Covault

May 2019

People’s economic systems and the Earth:

The previous economic system on the North American Continent, the hunter-gather economy, managed the natural resources; water, air, soil, plants and animals to sustain the people’s way-of-life for 10,000 years.  The natural resources this economic system left in place have been the driving source for the economic system that followed, that system is capitalism.

In ten generations, 245 years, capitalism, has been startlingly efficient in converting natural resources to military strength, a nation-wide infrastructure, industry, energy production and personal comforts for people.  The cost has been terrible with possible irreversible damage to the basic natural resources of the continent; water, soil, air, plants, animals and minerals.  The damage to the resources is so severe that the Earth may not be able to sustain the way people are living now. Many years ago, I read an article that said if China reached the standard-of-living of the US, it would take the resources of six Earths to support the people.  That may or may not be true, but it is worth thinking about. 

Capitalism, our present, successful, power producing economic system was defined by Adam Smith in his 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations.  Adam Smith, as I understand it, identified the ideas of division of labor, productivity and free markets.    Under these descriptions, and individual can do whatever he or she wants and if the goods or services the individual produces are in demand by others, the “market place” will set the price for those goods or services.  The ideas were revolutionary. They raised the material wealth and comfort of those who successfully worked the system.  This Capitalism has become so ingrained in American culture that we cannot draw a line between ourselves as individuals, the economy, and our government. 

It makes sense that American Democracy and Capitalism are inseparable by most of us, they came to the world in the same year, 1776.  Democracy and capitalism have grown-up together on the same continent, shaping the values and understanding of a nation of people, Americans. 

About Capitalism:

Adam Smith basically said when every person has the right to do what is best for him or herself, there will be more goods and services for everyone.  And for 245 years it has worked out that way. 

However, as I understand Smith’s ideas, he failed to consider and deal with two critical factors that are presenting themselves in the 21st century.  Those two factors are; limited natural resources, and human greed.  The Earth’s air is filling with pollutants that are changing climate and making it unhealthy to breath.  Water supplies are less than what are needed and becoming more polluted throughout the Earth.  Soil, that grows our food, is polluted with fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides and eroded of its texture throughout the Earth.  The United Nations tells us more than a million living species on Earth are facing extinction and the oceans are becoming polluted and less supportive of a variety of life. Capitalism has been the vehicle for tremendous national power and comfort for citizens and it is painfully evident that it has caused so much damage to the Earth that the life-style it has enabled is unsustainable. 

Increasing technology produced by the capitalistic system cannot offsets lack of water, atmospheric pollution, soil depletion, extinct species of plants and animals and other irreversible impacts on basic Earth resources.

Morality of it all:

Capitalism is amoral, it has no moral compass, whatever an individual (person or company) can do to make money is ok with capitalism.  Government is the institution that has the authority and responsibility to determine what is right, legal and moral within a society.  We are well aware of laws and regulations that limit personal and corporate behavior in relationship with other people or companies. These laws and regulations are boundaries to capitalism’s behavior.  However, governments have established very few laws that address respectful treatment and rights for non-human life.  There are few laws limiting how non-human life and natural resources (such as air and water) can be used, abused, or sustained.  This is because these non-human lives and inarticulate resources do not have “standing” in the human legal systems.  As a result, the health of Earth is threatened with more than one million living species in danger of extinction, Earth’s diseases are getting worse and they are caused by people.

There needs to be changes, but change can only occur if we people care about future people and the Earth as much or more than we care about NOW.

The Economics profession

Capitalism will not change itself.  The gatekeepers of the economy, economists, have been co-opted by the lords of industry and banking.  Economists are trained and committed to studying the minutia of economies to provide information that will benefit those with enough wealth to manipulate the entire economy to their advantage.  Government economists are often complicit in these efforts to concentrate wealth. The profession should be developing economic strategies that will lead to long term sustainability of the basic earth resources and sustainability of human societies that will provide health, comfort and peace with all life on Earth.  But they’re not interested in the next century, their efforts are toward economic growth and the next quarter’s profit, or loss.  Economists don’t seem to know that NOTHING GROWS FOREVER, and certainly not an economy.  Long-term (a century plus) thinking and planning needs to be incorporated into every economic strategy, but economists are not leading that way.

Governments:

Democratic government will not approach the problem of limited natural resources.  Government’s primary responsibility is to the security of the citizenry:  military security; security from crime, violent crime and monetary and white-collar crime; security of safe food and medicine.  Governments do not look generations ahead, in a democracy, the people’s representatives are elected for short terms (2 to 6 years at a time) and their interests do not extend beyond their term. 

Governments have the power, and responsibility, to limit the use and abuse of all-natural resources so that future generations will be sustained.  But they won’t.  Whether they are, democracies, autocracy, dictatorship, theocracies, socialist or whatever, they will do what is most beneficial to individuals in power, in the short-term. 

Governments have the power to limit the amount of pollutants in the air, water, soil and oceans, the destruction of plants (forests) and animals, but they won’t because, at this time, we people are not demanding it.  

A way toward sustainability:

Democracy is the form of government that can make changes with the least amount of domestic violence.   The formula for change is, Public Awareness, followed by Public Education, followed by Public Voting.   With the exception of America’s Civil War, this formula has been the process for great civil changes in national values, policies and direction in America.

As far as I can see, there are three institutions in our culture that have a chance to focus public attention on the long-term imperatives that we must live within to protect the productivity of the Earth’s natural resources,

These institutions are:  our education system, the news media, and the entertainment industry.  These three institutions have the potential to raise public awareness of the urgency of addressing the Earth’s illnesses, and educate the public about the issues, and to show what is at stake.  When the public is committed to a course of corrective action, the votes for change will be there and politicians in a Democracy will act on behalf of the people and the Earth as well as their own interests. 

A vote is a statement of hope.  This strategy is a long-shot, but possibly the only one our grandchildren and beyond have for a peaceful and comfortable life on Earth.  

Who’s going to do it and why?

Only the United States can move the world to help heal the Earth, because:

• The US is a Democracy and can and will respond to public pressure, i.e. votes.
• The US can change, no other country in history or present has been able to change as drastically and as rapidly as the US has demonstrated.
• The US has strong institutions served by competent and honest bureaucracies.
• The US has such a strong economy it can influence world-wide policies through rewards, sanctions, and other non-military means.

Why?  Because, if actions are not taken to heal the Earth, generations, beginning with the Millennials, will begin to face issues the world is now seeing in Yemen.  War over resources, food insecurity and mass starvation.  The United States will not be insulated from these issues as resources become more scarce throughout the world.

We need to get our priorities right and to that end, we must recognize that economic growth is not the answer to a sustainable future.  We must instead, insist that our government representatives consider the Earth’s ecology with as much or more urgency as they consider our economy.

And there you have it from my big brother, Jerry.  A very thoughtful piece.  And if you liked this article, there is a lot more.  A couple years ago he published a book, FORESTS AND PEOPLE.  If you are at all interested in world history and some answers to the questions, (why is the earth the way it is today and what were the factors that caused it to be this way?) then I’m sure you will enjoy his book, I certainly did and so did my wife.  It is down-to-earth (no pun intended) interesting reading with a lot of personal anecdotes about the wonders of nature. 

Marv Covault 

B

April 25^th, Joe Biden threw his hat in the ring and became the 20^th democratic candidate for president. 

HERE ARE BIDEN’S THOUGHTS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO:

OK, that’s it, I am going to run for president again but I believe it will be best if I just let the anticipation and will-he/won’t-he debate raise expectations for a few months.  I’ll let all the newbies jump in early and get a sense of what they are promising.  Sometime next April seems to be about the right time to declare. 

But rather than waste time, I might as well work on the first draft of my coming-out speech.  And since I was this country’s number two guy for eight years, there has to be a lot I can talk about. 

I COULD BEGIN WITH THE ECONOMY:

As I recall, we struggled the whole eight years to get to a 2% GDP growth.  But our economists were telling us 2% was the “new normal” and we had a campaign going to convince the American people of this. It seemed to be working. 

Manufacturing kept departing overseas but there didn’t seem to be any way to stop it. We were definitely moving towards a service economy.  What can I say good about that? Hmmm.

The economic stability of the middle class kept slipping downward but we were doing the best we could. 

The millions on food stamps set new highs every year but maybe I shouldn’t bring that up. 

The problem as I see it right now is this: unemployment is at all-time lows, wages are up, the GDP is over 3% growth, hundreds of thousands of new jobs are created every month, our “identity voting groups”, like women, black Americans, and Hispanics now have jobs, are making good money and coming off food stamps by the millions.

On second thought I don’t believe the folks out there really understand economics anyway so maybe I won’t bring that up on day one.  (however, I do need to make a note to myself to figure out how in the hell Trump did a total economic turnaround in his first year and maybe I can find a way for Barack and me to take credit for it. 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND FOREIGN POLICY: 

OK, here is familiar territory since before being VP I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee.

In retrospect, Barack’s 10-speech “apology tour” right out of the starting blocks may have set us back a little as all our allies and enemies were saying, “what is that all about; is the US with us or not?”

Our focus was on the Middle East.  We told everyone exactly when we were going to pull out of Iraq and by golly we did it.  I thought of it as our “cut and run” policy.  Kind of a catchy phrase but maybe not quite right for the coming out speech.  How could we possible have known that it would become the “GO” signal for ISIS?

Barack sent me to Iraq to put together a Status of Forces Agreement.  What a waste of time; I just sort of blew that one off.  Just because a Status of Forces Agreement has been the center piece for decades in our very successful relations with Germany, Japan and South Korea, that is no reason the think we needed one in Iraq. Or is it?

Barack and I were sure he hit just the right tone when he called ISIS, “The JV squad”.  How were we expected to know ISIS would grow, carve out a country, establish a government, collect taxes, sell oil to finance expansion into 40 countries and terrorize the world? 

We knew China was a key element in our foreign policy but were caught up a little short when Barack went to China and they would not provide steps to get off Air Force One.  Well, any way he crawled out the back end, had his meeting with (what’s his name) the Chinese leader and lectured him about humanitarian rights. 

The “red line” ultimatum we made over Assad’s use of chemical weapons against thousands of his own people, seemed really Presidential and a good idea.  I still don’t understand why all our allies made such a big deal out of the fact that Assad did it again and we did nothing.  What were we supposed to do, nuc em? 

As I recall we had a pretty cool relationship with the Saudi King; not sure how all that came about.

Our real focus was to cozy up with Iran at any cost, literally.  There was the $400 million in cash on pallets aboard what was to have been a secret middle-of-the-night unmarked airplane arrival. I thought we had that one nailed tight. If we hadn’t been caught the four American prisoners released the next day would have looked like the result of great White House diplomacy.  Oh well what’s done is done. 

Then someone leaked that Barack and I fixed up a deal for a $1.7 billion cash payment to Iran in a settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim.  Congress was a little upset because they had not been consulted but they got over it and the press didn’t hammer us too bad.  A bunch of republicans were complaining that we should not be giving billions in cash to the world’s number one state-sponsor of terrorism but we had to do something to keep them negotiating our nuclear agreement, even if there would eventually be American blood on that cash.

Ultimately, we got the Iran agreement and a lot of good press with it.  But it didn’t seem to Barack and me that we could risk sending it to Congress for ratification because the loop holes may actually allow Iran to build a nuc in 12 years.  But 12 years is a long way away.  Maybe I should just avoid that one; after all most people just don’t understand how to conduct foreign affairs. 

I believe the hands-off approach with North Korea was all we could do.  How were Barack and I to know that after they nearly completed their nuclear and long-range missile testing, the NK foreign minister would stand before the United Nations Assembly and say, “a North Korean strike against a major US city is inevitable”. 

Barack made a speech once about NATO nations not living up to their signed agreement to budget 2% of their GDP for defense while the US paid most of NATO funding.  It was a good speech, what else could we do?

Looking back, maybe I will save my foreign affairs accomplishment for later in the campaign.  Maybe I will get lucky and it won’t even come up. 

IMMIGRATION:

Open borders seemed like a good policy or at the very least catch-and-release.  Immigration has been at the heart of America since our founding.  What’s different today?  Maybe some drugs, gang members, fugitives, terrorists, sex slaves and cartel backing today but still it’s the American way.  I think.

I’m sure this will be an issue but maybe I shouldn’t lead with it. 

TRADE AGREEMENTS: 

 All the big ones, China, Europe, NAFTA, seemed to be moving along with no complaints from our trading partners.  I could see no reason for Barack and me to put that on the front burner.  There was the half-trillion-dollar annual trade deficit for the US but we didn’t seem to have any trouble borrowing the money to pay for it. 

But, there again, maybe I should not be the one to bring it up. I’ll let one of the newbie candidates open that can of worms.  

OUR SCANDAL-FREE ADMINISTRATION FOR EIGHT YEARS:

This may be my opener; we made sure the Executive Branch was squeaky clean and absolutely transparent.  

Most folks have forgotten that in 2013 the IRS revealed that it had selected over 400 conservative political groups for intensive scrutiny based on their names and political themes.  Anyway, I recall Barack issuing a statement that the IRS shouldn’t do that.  Let sleeping dogs lie.

The Justice Department program to give guns to the cartels seemed like a good idea.  It still might have worked if one of the guns had not been used to kill one of our agents.  Anyway, no one was supposed to know about the program. 

Also, I wish our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, would have been a little more discrete when she met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona at what was to have been a secret meeting.  The problem was that Bill and Hillary were, at the time, subjects in an FBI investigation.  Somehow not all Americans believed they just, “talked about our grandchildren.”   The mainstream media pretty much gave us a pass on that one also so not a big deal. 

The one that really galled me was on 5 July, 2016 when FBI Director, Comey, addressed the nation on the year-long investigation concerning Hillary’s unsecured server.  He spent about ten minutes telling us in great detail how many times she violated the US Code and published some of our highest classified information in the clear. Then he concluded she was not guilty.  Comey’s presentation was just too messy, unprofessional, and ill-timed because it was exactly when Barack was making speeches telling Americans “Hillary Clinton is the best qualified candidate for president in history.” 

That damned Comey, if he would have nailed Hillary like he should have, she would have been forced to quit her campaign, I would have swept into the Democratic Convention and been nominated.  I would be president today with Elizabeth Warren VP and wouldn’t have to go through all this again.  Barack should have fired Comey that very afternoon for stupidity if nothing else. 

Also, I’m thinking this campaign isn’t going to be much fun because I can’t be seen hugging all the pretty girls.  In this “me to” environment someone is likely to call me on it. 

That reminds me, I better think through that whole Clinton/Trump campaign thing in case the Mueller investigation doesn’t turn out the way we expect it to.  We certainly don’t want anyone looking too closely at why Trump got investigated.  But, not to worry, Mueller will come through for us.

Maybe we were not completely scandal free.  I have a few months to think about it. Also makes me wonder what Barack is actually going to put in his library. 

MILITARY READINESS:

It is always a positive to say good things about the military; greatest in the world, best trained fighting men and women, etc. Good stuff. 

I doubt that anyone will go back and look at the military readiness at the end of our eight years.  Is it a big deal that only three of the US Army’s 58 brigade combat teams were ready for combat?   The Navy’s fleet was the smallest in nearly 100 years.  Eighty percent of Marine aviation units did not have the minimum number of aircraft they need for training and basic operations.  The air force is the smallest and oldest it has ever been, each aircraft averaging 27 years old and less than half are prepared to conduct combat operations.

These statistics on the military readiness were somewhat understandable after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war 30 years ago.  But for this to happen while engaged in a global war on terrorism may be a hard sell.  I would hate for some young whipper snapper reporter to bring up those stats in the first few days.  I’ll just plan to make some military remarks later on. 

Another thing to think through is my age.  It is a fact that I will be a few decades older than most except Bernie during the initial part of the campaign.  I need some catchy statement……let me think……maybe something like, I will not make age an issue in this campaign.  I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents’ youth and inexperience.  Sounds great, hmmm, and a little too familiar.  Maybe someone has already used that.  More work to do.

HEALTH CARE:

In almost every poll, health care is always one of the top three concerns of the American people.  I thought Barack and I did a good job of rolling out Obamacare with the hard sell that it would save the average family $2500 a year, allow you to keep your current health plan and keep you doctor.  In retrospect some of that may have been a little over-stated; well maybe a lot overstated.  In fact, none of it actually happened and health care costs for the average family skyrocketed, in some states increasing 100% a year. 

But the good news on health care is that the democrats have done a fabulous job of brainwashing the American people into believing the high costs they are suffering through for health care are the fault of the Republicans because they cannot come up with a plan to fix Obamacare.  The press will be with us all the way so if we just keep hammering away blaming the republicans, we should be OK.  Health care may be my lead-off topic.

FAST FORWARD TO THE FIRST OF APRIL, 2019.  BIDEN IS THINKING THROUGH HIS CANDIDENCY LAUNCH VIDEO. 

I spent a lot of time on that first draft but somehow it seems to ring a little hollow.  And after listening to the other nineteen democrat/liberal/progressive/socialist candidates, it seems the trend is to do one of three things.  One, go beyond far-left with a bunch of outlandish, undefinable, unaffordable hair-brained new policies.  Or two, just talk around the major issues facing America today and, in effect, say nothing.  Or three, join the crowd and just attack Trump. 

All that stuff in the first draft can be left for later.  The objective is to defeat Trump then get on with what I really want to do as President.  Irrespective of the praise Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton heaped on Donald Trump a few years ago for his decades of work helping minorities and the poor, the vocal left and the press have millions of Americans believing trump is a racist.  While I have no knowledge that it is true, we can keep a full-court-press on the issue.  If enough people say it is true, more will believe it and racism will take on a life of its own. 

SO ON 25 APRIL, 2019 JOE BIDEN SAID: “We are in a battle for the soul of this nation.”

He joined the hatemongers of the democratic/liberal/progressive/socialist left because the bottom line is, that is about all he has to work with. 

JOE BIDEN’S THINKING THIS PAST WEEKEND:

This next year is going to be a real drag arguing with all those other strange-name want-a-be candidates who are mostly clueless and don’t have a chance of getting the nomination. 

SAYING TO HIMSELF:  Just remember Joe, you don’t have to win every primary.  You just have to do enough to get to the 2020 Democratic Convention.  If my age has become too much of an issue, I will tell the attendees that I am only planning to serve four years.  Also, I will ask Michele Obama to be my Vice President and she can then run and take over in 2024 for eight years.  They will go crazy.  It will be a slam dunk. 

JOE, REMINDER TO SELF: While I’m thinking about the convention, I need to make a note to insure we have an American flag on the stage this time.  I recall at the beginning of the 2016 convention The Daily Caller reported that, “It doesn’t look like there are any American Flags.  The stage is bland and grey, with no red, white or blue present. A thorough look at the crowd present also turns up no American flags”.

FINALLY, IN CLOSING:

MEMO TO JOE BIDEN

Date: 26 April, 2019

From:  The American People

Subject:  How to Not Win

Joe, four things you need to lock into your brain and believe:

One, Americans are sick and tired of the culture of hate the Left and Media have perpetrated on us and continue to do so.  Remember, those on the Right, have no one to hate.  The Republicans are not a part of the hatemonger movement.  If you take a deep breath, site back and be intellectually honest with yourself you will begin to understand that. The best way to, “win the battle for the soul of this nation” is to lead the democrat/liberal/progressive/socialists away from the hate culture. 

Two, if you believe you can win an election by just hammering on the baseless theme that, “Trump is a racist” you will be sorely disappointed.  Your cohorts and the media are doing a good job of pursuing a campaign to get millions saying, “Trump is a racist”, in the hope that the remainder will sign up to that thesis because of the brainless tactic, “If everyone is saying it, it must be true.”

Three, if you want to win you have to acknowledge that we the people are better off today than we were in 2016; much better.  Then you have to convince us that you can build on that situation better than President Trump can.  Lots of luck with that.   If you don’t, you fail again. 

Four, “third time is a charm” is just a senseless saying with no basis in fact. 

Signed:  WE THE PEOPLE

Marv Covault