Dead Cats: Carrier?, 12/02/16, (24)11: James Brody


Standing for Liberty; Trump Team PA; WFYL celebration

JANET: “Whaat!???”; WILLIAMSON – Economic stupidity; HENNINGER – A Team; HANSON – Unintended consequences.

ISSUS: JACOBS – Secret refugee deals; STRASSEL – Dem regrets.

NOTES: Mark Levin, 12/01/16; Hannity/Cunningham; Batchelor – Trump & Iran.

Subject: Citizens for Liberty: “One Cowboy’s Daughter Standing For Freedom”

“One of our board members, Karen Drum, is a friend of the late LaVoy Finicum family (as well as Citizens for Liberty’s friends, Cliven and Carol Bundy). You all remember that LaVoy was murdered in Oregon by the FBI, as they teamed up with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), while he was protecting his land that the government was trying to seize, for its uranium.

LaVoy’s daughter, Challice Finicum Finch, her husband, and their four children, want to come and talk to US about this horrific ordeal, and the imprisoned political prisoners for helping her father.

She will speak on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 7 until 9p.m. (doors open at 6:30), at the King of Prussia Volunteer Fire Company, 170 Allendale Road. This is NOT a Citizens for Liberty event, however, we are honored to sponsor this via “Liberty Rising in Pennsylvania” and hosted by Challice of “One Cowboy’s Daughter Standing For Freedom.”

This is NOT a potluck dinner buffet event. Light refreshments will be provided.

Will you come and show your support to this family? What an honor this is. We are on pins and needles!

In Freedom and Liberty,

Jane Taylor Toal, President/CEO Citizens for Liberty

Our mailing address is:

Citizens for Liberty

PO Box 782

Oaks, PA, 19456

WFYL: Greetings!

Sending out reminders to save the following date:

Monday, December 19, 2016

WFYL Christmas Open House

The station will be open from 1-7 pm to all our friends as we celebrate the reason for the season:  our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!  Come and join us for as long as you can. Light refreshments and beverage will be served.

RSVP by replying to this invitation

Kim Kennedy, WFYL Radio, “Working For Your Liberty”

2400 W. Main Street Jeffersonville, PA   19403

610-539-1783, 484-557-7655direct                   

Fox News Radio Affiliate

Janet: Whaat!???

Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list      .
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
Read to the end. 
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy — $445 million annual savings.
* Save America ‘s Treasures Program — $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland — $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation — $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts — $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities — $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program — $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies — $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs — H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U..S. Trade Development Agency — $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy — $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding — $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy — $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund — $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid — $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half — $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% — $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service — $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program — $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program — $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization — $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment — $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit — $2 billion annual savings.
*      Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts — $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants — $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning — $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission — $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration — $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act — $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy — $1.27 billion annual savings..
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership — $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program — $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt — $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development — $1.39 billion annual savings..
* General Assistance to District of Columbia — $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund — $775 million savings over ten years..
* No funding for federal office space acquisition — $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act — More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget — $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees — $1 billion total savings. WHAT’S THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees — $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of — $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies — $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN’T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program — $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program — $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program — $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs — $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program — $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place???

“Health care’s biggest cost is the practice of defensive medicine – doing things to protect yourself against lawsuits” Anthony Mazzarelli, 12/ 1/16, 4:10 PM, WPHT

Kevin Williamson, NRO: “The Economic Stupidity of the Carrier Bailout”

“It’s not conservative, but rather a rejection of economic reality.
“One particularly tough and indigestible nugget of talk-radio stupidity afflicting the guts of conservatism is the idea that there is some sort of fundamental difference between bribing a business with tax cuts and bribing it with a wheelbarrow full of cash. The Trump-Pence bailout of Carrier’s operations in Indiana provides an illustrative case.
“This is an example of banality hardening into orthodoxy, the worst habit of the pop-con mind. It started with a good point. Once upon a time, U.S. personal-income tax rates were very high: 91 percent in the Eisenhower years, though hardly anybody paid that rate. Democrats such as John Kennedy and Republicans such as Ronald Reagan believed that these rates were far too high. Both Kennedy and Reagan made what we might broadly call “Laffer curve” arguments for tax cuts, though Reagan’s actual budget proposals were not quite as sunny as Arthur Laffer tends to be on the question of the real budgetary effects of tax-rate reductions. Milton Friedman took a more gimlet-eyed view with his advice that if tax cuts produce revenue growth, then you haven’t cut them enough.
“But most Democrats, being reflexively big-government men, liked those 91 percent tax rates that nobody paid, because you could make people and businesses jump through all sorts of political hoops to keep from paying them. That still applies, which is why the United States has one of the highest notional corporate-tax rates in the developed world but a rather low effective corporate-tax rate: Businesses will do a lot to take that 40 percent bite down to 12 percent — or, if you’re a politically connected firm like General Electric, down to 0.00 percent in some years. Because Democrats liked those high rates, they complained, in their habitually dishonest way, that we couldn’t afford the cuts Republicans had proposed. This was pretty transparent stuff: For one thing, it allowed Democrats to partly neutralize Republican budget-hawkery, which was politically potent, while the subsequent demand for offsetting spending cuts made tax cuts a less attractive political proposition.
“Part of the Republican response to this was based on Lafferism, and generally on a very naïve version of Lafferism: “You can’t call that notional $1 billion tax cut a $1 billion expenditure, because the tax cut will produce growth effects that add to tax revenue.” That is true as far as it goes — which is generally not as far as Republicans take it. There are commonly observed growth effects from cuts in tax rates, but they generally amount to something like 20 percent of the revenue “lost” under the static-projection model. Sometimes they have been more than that. But the pop-con belief that growth effects frequently amount to more than 100 percent of forgone revenue — that tax cuts “pay for themselves” or pay for themselves and then some — is not sustained by the evidence, and certainly not from the evidence of modern, advanced economies with tax rates that already are relatively low both by world standards and by historical standards. (emph added, jb) . .”

Daniel Henninger, WSJ: “Trump’s A-Team”

“The president-elect is assembling a who’s who of conservatives for his cabinet.

“In the seven days since Thanksgiving, President-elect Trump has named the respected schools reformer Betsy DeVos from Michigan as Secretary of Education. Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and a committed reformer of ObamaCare, is Secretary of Health and Human Services. Elaine Chao, who was George W. Bush’s reformist Labor Secretary for eight years, is the new Secretary of Transportation.

“Two businessmen will enter the cabinet. Former Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin is Treasury Secretary and Wilbur Ross, an investor in distressed industries, will be Commerce Secretary.

“Retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, one of the most able officers to serve in Iraq and later head of the U.S. Central Command, is within a hair of being Secretary of Defense.

Going deeper into the policy weeds, Mr. Trump selected Indiana Medicaid reformer Seema Verma to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. The main Supreme Court adviser visiting Trump Tower has been Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

“”Bob Woodson, one of this generation’s smartest and most productive black conservatives, has been in to discuss with Mr. Trump how to make good on his campaign promise to champion the inner cities.

“If instead of these individuals, the visitors to Trump Tower had been the alt-right activists of so many progressive night sweats, it would have been reported across the New York Times’ front page and on CNN round the clock, as if Godzilla and Mothra were trundling up Fifth Avenue.

“Instead, the Trump transition has been talking to and appointing some of the most accomplished and serious individuals in Republican and conservative politics. Donald Trump isn’t pulling rabbits out of a hat. Somebody at team Trump has a first-rate Rolodex.

“By now, it should be obvious that the Trump operation exists in two parts. One half is the operation’s face, Donald Trump. The other half is the operation behind the face. Mr. Trump’s persona has often made it difficult to take the entire Trump phenomenon seriously. That, we learned, is a mistake.  . .”

Victor Davis Hanson, RCP: “Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences”

“The mix of politics and culture is far too complex to be predictable. Even the best-laid political plans can lead to unintended consequences, both good and bad — what we sometimes call irony, nemesis or karma.

“Take the election of 2008, which ushered Barack Obama and the Democrats into absolute control of the presidency, House and Senate, also generating popular goodwill over Obama’s landmark candidacy.

“Instead of ensuring a heralded generation of Democratic rule, Obama alienated both friends and foes almost immediately. He rammed through the unworkable Affordable Care Act without a single Republican vote. He prevaricated about Obamacare’s costs and savings. Huge budget deficits followed. Racial polarization ensured. Apologies abroad on behalf of America proved a national turnoff.

“By the final pushback of 2016, the Obama administration had proven to be a rare gift to the Republican Party. The GOP now controls the presidency, Congress, governorships and state legislatures to a degree not seen since the 1920s. “Hope and change” ebullition in 2008 brought the Republicans salvation — and the Democrats countless disasters.

“The Republican establishment hated Donald Trump. So did the conservative media. His unorthodox positions on trade, immigration and entitlements alienated many. His vulgarity turned off even more. Pundits warned that he had brought civil war and ruin to the Republican Party.

“But instead of ruin, Trump delivered to the Republicans their most astounding political edge in nearly a century. The candidate who was most despised by the party unified it in a way no other nominee could have. . .”


“Newt was on the radio the other day with Laura Ingraham. He said: ‘There’s a scene in Pretty Woman where Richard Gere goes up to the salesman on Rodeo Drive and says: ‘We need a little sucking up here.’ You have never, ever, in your career seen a wealthy adult who is independent, has been a presidential candidate, suck up at the rate that Mitt Romney is sucking up.” Rushbo

Melissa Jacobs, Fox: “Obama administration stiff-arms lawmakers questioning secret refugee deal”

“Nearly 2,500 refugees from terrorism hotspots around the world are bound for the U.S. after being rejected by Australia, but not even top lawmakers can get answers about who they are.

In an unprecedented move, the U.S. State Department has classified details on refugees to be resettled in America via a secret deal made with Australia. The bi-lateral agreement, which Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called a “one-off,” involves 2,465 people currently being held in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who will now be transferred onto U.S. soil.

““This is a backroom deal, wheeling and dealing with another country’s refugee problem,” Center for Immigration Studies fellow Don Barnett told “I don’t believe for a moment it’s a one-time deal. That’s for public consumption.”

Kimberley Strassel, WSJ: “Democrats Send Their Regrets”

“Blowing up the filibuster, keeping Pelosi in charge—the list of mistakes is long.

“Regrets? Delaware Sen. Chris Coons has a few—and not too few to mention. At the top of his list is his party’s decision in 2013 to blow up the filibuster for most presidential nominees.

“Many of us will regret that in this Congress,” a dejected Mr. Coons told CNN on Tuesday. “Because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down the confirmation of extreme nominees.”

“Cue Sinatra and “My Way.” That’s how former Senate leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and President Obama ruled for eight years. They planned each charted course, each careful step. Now, they’re not finding it so amusing. . .”


Mark Levin (12/01/16)

“On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, It appears that President-elect Donald Trump has a pen and a phone too. The president doesn’t have the power to control the economy and businesses, yet Trump wants to punish businesses who want to move overseas. This is a statist move that is in the mold of FDR, Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson. If a president can browbeat a company like Carrier, than he can browbeat anyone. This attack on the private sector is not something that we as conservatives should support. On one hand the Trump administration wants to unleash the economy but on the other hand they want to use the iron fist to control it.

“Later, General James Mattis would be an excellent choice for Defense Secretary.

“The big question is the State Department. Do we want a mush as Secretary of State like Mitt Romney or Gen David Petraeus who doesn’t have a good understanding of foreign policy? Then we have Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton. Bolton will control the bureaucracy and has a solid understanding of foreign policy. He is the stand out choice for Secretary of State.”

Hannity/Cunningham (12/1/16)

“SEAN HANNITY (HOST): One of my long, long, long, long time friends, he’s one of the great radio talents of all time. He’s a great — he yells when he’s in his studio, his name is Bill Cunningham, he’s a great American. Everybody that calls in, I want a full report, and he literally stands back — he rocks in his chair, and he shouts into the microphone the entire time.

BILL CUNNINGHAM: Sean Hannity, how are you?

HANNITY: That’s exactly like that.

CUNNINGHAM: Let me give you some perspective on Indiana and Carrier.

HANNITY: Yes sir, I am prepared, my friend.

CUNNINGHAM: The $51 million that Carrier’s going to spend is not gonna be money into the ether. It’s the butchers, the bakers, the candlestick makers, the drywallers, the plumbers, the electricians, the concrete makers, the architects, the lawyers, the engineers. The $51 million in capex is going into middle of the American economy.

HANNITY: Thank you. Hey —

CUNNINGHAM: It’s nothing, it’s a drop in the bucket.

HANNITY: And they’re going to spend, from what I hear, at least $16 million on this plant, Mike Pence said today, and a total of $35 million in investment.

CUNNINGHAM: Big money.

HANNITY: Big money, and 1,100 jobs were saved.

CUNNINGHAM: That doesn’t make any difference to that Behar — Burhar (sic) woman, that ugly broad on The View. Who in the hell is that?

HANNITY: I got the tape —

CUNNINGHAM: She needs a muzzle. Someone should muzzle her.

HANNITY: How do you feel, Bill?

CUNNINGHAM: I don’t feel too hard at all, I don’t like that woman.


HANNITY: You know, only idiots in the mainstream media can actually complain that 1,100 Americans are actually going to have a good Christmas. they’ll be able to keep their homes, cars, and send their kids to college, and they’re whining as if this is a bad thing.

CUNNINGHAM: Sean Hannity, let’s send Carrier air conditioning to the armpits of Whoopi Goldberg. Let’s get her calmed down a little bit.

John Batchelor (12/1/16): Trump & Iran

Will Donald Trump fire the Iran nuclear deal?  The election victory by Donald Trump, a billionaire businessman who has never held political office and is a neophyte on foreign policy, has left many observers wondering about the future direction of U.S. policy abroad. Against that backdrop, supporters of Israel are immediately focusing attention on Trump’s approach to the much-discussed Iran nuclear deal, which was approved by the Obama administration and five other Western governments in July 2015.
As a presidential candidate, Trump made a variety of comments regarding his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, ranging from calls for stronger inspections to entirely nixing the Obama administration’s signing of the pact.
“You’d have to have onsite inspections anytime, anywhere, to start off with, which we don’t have at all. The whole deal is a terrible deal. There’s no way the Iranians are going to adhere to any deal we make,” Trump said in an interview with in June 2015, shortly after he had announced his presidential candidacy and before the Iran deal was signed.

President-elect Trump “has cultivated a fair amount of ambiguity towards how he would approach the Iranian nuclear deal,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank.
“Whether this was intentional or not cannot be deduced at this point,” Ben Taleblu told “This ambiguity is best exemplified by Trump’s claims of both renegotiating and tearing up the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran deal’s formal name).”
FDD’s Ben Taleblu believes that Trump will likely resolve to keep the accord intact and instead prioritize cracking down on Iran’s other troubling behavior in the Middle East, such as the Islamic Republic’s sponsorship of terrorism, something for which the Obama administration has often been criticized for not addressing.
“I would say [Trump] will keep the accord but feel less restricted about using coercive financial measures to target the rest of Iran’s bad behavior. Whether this is rolled into a larger attempt to renegotiate the accord remains to be seen, as that would involve coordination with the other P5+1 members,” Ben Taleblu told
As far as the Iran deal is concerned, there are inherent challenges with inspections and enforcement that may pose problems for a Trump administration, Ben Taleblu explained.
“The JCPOA set quite a low bar for Iranian compliance,” he told
For instance, said Ben Taleblu, “a violation of the deal requires something called ‘significant non-performance’ to occur, which is a vague term. But while the IAEA has offered less data about the Iranian program in the aftermath of the deal, it has routinely attested that Iran was fulfilling its deal related obligations.”
As such, Ben Taleblu believes that Iran has been “flouting the spirit of the deal,” and the issue of the Islamic Republic’s heavy water production indicates it is “engaging in incremental cheating.”
“This reflects poorly on the deal, as it has no mechanism to formerly punish this,” he said.
Regardless of what President-elect Trump will choose to do vis-à-vis the nuclear deal, Iran will also pose a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East through its direct involvement in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, as well as through its threats to Israel, America’s closest ally in the region.
“Given the broad range of issues that separate the U.S. and Iran, I think it is fair to say that Tehran will continue to pose a national security challenge to the next American administration,” Ben Taleblu said.
“It too soon to speculate how a different U.S. policy in Syria or other theaters of the Middle East would affect relations with Tehran,” he added, “but Iranian hardliners have so far been trying to recast this entire election to their advantage.”:


About jamesbrody

Psychologist, photographer, biker, and writer posing as a political activist.
This entry was posted in Conservative, Impeachment, Pennsylvania, TEA Party and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s