" Nancy Pelosi was right the first time. The Democrats shouldn’t have done this. They should not have tried to make the already overwhelmed American public believe that Donald Trump’s umpteenth “norms” violation was a constitutional crisis. But no, the party’s leftmost elements insisted, and the Beltway press insisted. Mr. Trump had to be impeached.

Once he had survived the Republican primaries in 2016 and then beaten Hillary Clinton by tapping into a slice of overlooked voters, most serious people got on with the business of coming to grips, if not terms, with this unconventional, pugnacious presidency.

But not these people. The political and media left convinced themselves it was somehow possible to make the Trump presidency end before its November 2020 sell-by date. So here we are, three long years later, with Adam Schiff ending his opening impeachment statement by quoting Benjamin Franklin about “a republic, if you can keep it.” That bad, huh?

The testimony by the two U.S. ambassadors was fascinating, especially the account given by Bill Taylor, who like many others had the misfortune of finding himself in the center of one of Mr. Trump’s impetuous foreign-policy decisions.

In what he admitted was a “lengthy” statement, Mr. Taylor described how the U.S.’s single-channel policy of helping Ukraine defend itself from Vladimir Putin’s Russia suddenly became “two channels” after Rudy Giuliani introduced Mr. Trump’s monomania over an earlier Ukrainian government’s possible collusion with Democrats to defeat him in 2016.

Ambassador Taylor was correct that what the U.S. had been doing in Ukraine comported with the Trump National Security Strategy of resisting persistent aggressions by Russia and China. In early 2019, that included helping Ukraine’s newly elected government and its young president, Volodymyr Zelensky, stand up to Mr. Putin’s murderous little green men in eastern Ukraine.

Mr. Taylor’s substantive point was that the Trump-Giuliani channel undercut a sound U.S. policy course when suddenly military assistance to Ukraine got caught up in Mr. Trump’s desire, or need, to have the Ukrainians investigate the Bidens.

So what else is new? Internal policy battles of this intensity are a constant of government life. Other than dragging in the Bidens, this is hardly different from a host of similar Trumpian foreign-policy interventions: his decision after the first summit with Kim Jong Un to reduce military exercises with South Korea; the 2018 decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, which caused Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to resign; his decision in 2017 to impose tariffs on virtually all the major U.S. trading partners, no matter the effect on domestic farmers and businesses; his decision last month to pull U.S. forces in northern Syria away from the Kurds, who he said “didn’t help us with Normandy.”

My own favorite of stillborn Trump foreign-policy ideas was his tweet, days before the anniversary of 9/11 this year: “Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday.” The Taliban at Camp David—now that would have been impeachable.

All these decisions, and not least the events with Ukraine, are absolutely valid voting issues for the next election. If you’re disgusted by the Trump-Giuliani Ukraine back-channel, don’t vote for him. If you think Mr. Trump’s protectionism and isolationism are bad for America’s future, don’t vote for him.

It would have been valid as well if the Democrats had chosen to conduct normal oversight hearings into the Ukraine whistleblower’s complaint—with witnesses called and questioned by both sides and the public allowed to watch and decide. But why are Americans being forced to endure the elevation of the Ukraine saga into the current impeachment melodrama?

Presumably the Democratic left and its allies believe the faux gravity of “impeachment” will grind down Mr. Trump’s support at the margin and jack up anti-Trump turnout. One wonders.

Once past the inevitable vote in the House to impeach, and then assuming Mitch McConnell bothers to hold a Senate trial, this will be over by the end of January. With impeachment, the Democrats finally will have dropped their nuclear device on Donald Trump. After that, what’s left?


No doubt many voters are sitting on the Trump bubble, uncertain whether to sign up for another spin with him or whatever the Democrats are supposed to represent now. Medicare for All? Former GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s wheel-spinning term looks like a legislative golden age compared to what Mrs. Pelosi has done with her majority.

What the speaker may have recognized this summer is that the activists’ take down Trump project was turning into three wasted years, and that voters might go looking for someone to blame for that. Once the Adam Schiff show closes, undecided voters will have about 10 months to decide if his politics of pursuit and retribution has been worth the trouble. "

" If you are in need of more evidence as to why so many Americans are cynical about politics in general and Washington in particular (and isn't current evidence sufficient?), you need look no further than the etymological shift taken by Democrats during the House impeachment hearings.

As the Washington Post first reported, the decision to replace "quid pro quo" with "bribery" when speaking of President Donald Trump's phone call to Ukraine's president came from focus groups conducted in key battleground states. Among the questions asked of people was whether "quid pro quo," "extortion" or "bribery" was the best description of the president's alleged conduct. The groups found "bribery" to be the most descriptive and "damning."

Armed with their talking points, Democrats at the House Intelligence Committee hearing, across the country and on TV programs, began using the word bribery. Listening to some of the montages compiled by conservative media is hilarious. It is straight out of "newspeak" in George Orwell's novel, "1984," which the author said was "designed to diminish the range of thought."

This represents the death rattle of a party once known for promoting big ideas. Last week, the stock market achieved another record high, the Dow Jones Industrial Average topping 28,000, fattening the savings of current and future retirees. While not everyone is invested in the market, when companies make money, they tend to hire more people. It is why unemployment is at record, or near record, lows and the number of employed at record highs. Anyone wanting a job can find one, if they are willing to accept an entry-level position and work hard to move up. Many companies offer education benefits to their employees.

Democrats are desperate to get rid of the president (though the Senate will never convict him), because one more term of prosperity, especially for minorities, who have mostly been tied to their party, could mean a shift in loyalty. If that shift in African American voters from Democrat to Republican is even as small as 10%, Democrats would be doomed in 2020 and possibly beyond.

Success is a better and more motivating theme than envy, greed and entitlement, as promoted by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The Wall Street Journal reported that under Warren's "Medicare for all" scheme, some would be taxed above 100% and that her proposals are so grandiose her "wealth tax" would fall far short of paying for it all.

Given the poor stewardship of the federal government with the record amounts of tax dollars it already receives, why does anyone believe sending more money to Washington and placing additional tax penalties on successful people would suddenly mean politicians might become fiscally responsible?

If government is the solution, how much more money does it need to solve problems, and why haven't those problems been solved by now?

It's all a sham and a scam. We hear the same rhetoric every four years, especially about the wealthy and successful needing to pay their "fair share." Democrats never tell us what they mean by fair, but it appeals to the envy and class warfare their party promotes.

America is a land of opportunity, not guaranteed outcome. There are more opportunities than ever for a good education, good jobs and so many other things that make the country unique.

Republicans have the better message. What they need is a better and more courageous way of promoting it. Desperation worked for Democrats during the Great Depression, but they have been living off inertia for more than seven decades. Desperation is not a policy, especially at a time when America is better off than it has been in decades.

If impeachment is all Democrats have, it won't be enough. "

Thanks Some Guy 

" A recent survey conducted by the Victims of Communism and polled by YouGov, a research and data firm, found that 70% of millennials are likely to vote socialist and that one in three millennials saw communism as "favorable."

Let's examine this tragic vision in light of the Fraser Institute's recently released annual study "Economic Freedom of the World," prepared by Professors James Gwartney, Florida State University; Robert A. Lawson and Ryan Murphy of Southern Methodist University; and Joshua Hall, West Virginia University, in cooperation with the Economic Freedom Network.

Hong Kong and Singapore maintained their lead as the world's most economically free countries -- although China's heavy hand threatens Hong Kong's top ranking. Rounding out the top 10 are New Zealand, Switzerland, the United States, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Mauritius. By the way, after having fallen to 16th in 2016, the U.S. has staged a comeback to being in the top five economically free countries in the world.

What statistics go into the Fraser Institute's calculation of economic freedom? The report measures the ability of individuals to make their own economic decisions by analyzing the policies and institutions of 162 countries and territories. These include regulation, freedom to trade internationally, size of government, sound legal system, private property rights and government spending and taxation.

Fraser Institute scholar Fred McMahon says, "Where people are free to pursue their own opportunities and make their own choices, they lead more prosperous, happier and healthier lives." The evidence for his assessment is: Countries in the top quartile of economic freedom had an average per-capita GDP of $36,770 in 2017 compared with $6,140 for bottom quartile countries.

Poverty rates are lower. In the top quartile, 1.8% of the population experienced extreme poverty ($1.90 a day) compared with 27.2% in the lowest quartile. Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the top quartile of economically free countries, compared with 64.4 years in the bottom quartile.

The Fraser Institute's rankings of other major countries include Japan (17th), Germany (20th), Italy (46th), France (50th), Mexico (76th), India (79th), Russia (85th), China (113th) and Brazil (120th). The least free countries are Venezuela, Argentina, Ukraine and nearly every African country with the most notable exception of Mauritius. By the way, Argentina and Venezuela used to be rich until they bought into socialism.

During the Cold War, leftists made a moral equivalency between communist totalitarianism and democracy. W.E.B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature." Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman … a quiet, unobtrusive man." George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao's China and praised Mao Zedong and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor also admired Mao and declared ecstatically that "the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action." Michel Oksenberg, President Jimmy Carter's China expert, complained that "America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values," and urged us to "borrow ideas and solutions" from China.

Leftists exempted communist leaders from the harsh criticism directed toward Adolf Hitler, even though communist crimes against humanity made Hitler's slaughter of 11 million noncombatants appear almost amateurish. According to Professor R.J. Rummel's research in "Death by Government," from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Mao's Communist regime was responsible for the death of as many as 76 million Chinese citizens.


Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from that of past tyrants. They should keep in mind that the origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Those horrors were simply the result of a long evolution of ideas leading to a consolidation of power in the central government in the quest for "social justice."

" There is a telling scene in Season 3 of the Netflix drama "The Crown" about the reign of Queen Elizabeth II that can instruct contemporary America about Democrats' attempt to impeach President Donald Trump.

The episode is titled "Coup." Harold Wilson is prime minister of Britain. He has just devalued the British pound, and a bad economy has provoked street demonstrators to call for his removal from office.

A cabal ensues, led by Cecil King, the editor of the otherwise pro-Labour Party newspaper, the Daily Mirror. The plotters select Lord Mountbatten as the one they wish to replace Wilson.

Wilson hears about the coup attempt and calls Elizabeth before the plotters can get to her. She then invites Mountbatten to Buckingham Palace where she admonishes her second cousin, after which the following exchange takes place:

Mountbatten: "Why would you protect a man like Wilson?"

The queen: "I am protecting the prime minister. I am protecting the Constitution. I am protecting democracy."

Mountbatten: "But if the man at the heart of that democracy threatens to destroy it, are we supposed to just stand by and do nothing?"

The queen: "Yes. Doing nothing is exactly what we do and bide our time and wait for the people who voted him in to vote him out again if, indeed that is what they decide to do."

Mountbatten decides not to proceed. Whether this scene is accurate or not (and much of the series claims fidelity to history), it makes a point Americans should take to heart. Trump won the 2016 election in spite of many obstacles, including media opposition, meddling by Russia and corrupt elements in Ukraine, which sought to tilt the U.S. election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Unlike 1968, when the economy was bad in Britain, the U.S. economy now is booming, and consumer confidence is high. The impeachment hearings exposed disagreements over foreign policy, foreign policy the president has a right to make. They revealed a legitimate concern by the president that U.S. aid would go down a corruption rabbit hole, something the Obama administration had been concerned about because it refused to send lethal aid to Ukraine "fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions."

It appears that Trump also wanted the new leadership in Ukraine to investigate the activities of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter in Ukraine, and whether they had become tainted, something the American media and President Barack Obama's Justice Department failed to do.

If articles of impeachment are passed by the House, it could take the Senate at least until the beginning of primary election season in February to hold a trial. The process might drag on even further should Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decide to do so, and if Republicans call witnesses of their own, including the Bidens.

While impeachment is a constitutional process, democracy is a greater one. The phrase "We the people" in the preamble to the Constitution was critical to the Founders. It separated America from the notion that the state and its leader, whether kings, queens or dictators, and testimony from unelected bureaucrats is supreme. It says the people possess ultimate power.

That is why it should be up to voters this close to the next election. Wait for the people who voted Trump in either to re-elect him or vote him out. Impeaching him will likely alienate half the country and could damage faith in our electoral process.

If Democrats are right in their antipathy toward the president, and if they can sell their version of facts to voters, they should try to do so. That is the best way to protect both our Constitution and our democracy.

Long live the queen! "

" Impeachment is a political process. No sentient being, after all, believes that Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are good-faith guardians of constitutional order. And judging the process strictly on political grounds, it hasn't been a success for Democrats.

For one thing, impeachment, if it happens, will effectively end up being a partisan censure of the president. Democrats haven't gotten any closer to convincing a single Senate Republican to remove the president. Certainly not Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who says there will be a quick trial. Not even Sen. Mitt Romney, who, at this point, is aptly troubled but uncommitted.

It's highly probable that a Senate trial run by Republicans, with new witnesses and evidence, would further corrode the Democrats' case. Liberals, of course, will pretend that Senate Republicans are members of a reactionary Trump cult, putting party above country, but if there had been incontrovertible proof of "bribery," a number of them would be compelled to act differently. No such evidence was provided.

Adding an obstruction article, based on the Mueller report, would only make the proceedings even more intractably partisan. Yet, the recent push to force attorney Don McGahn to testify suggests Democrats could be headed in that direction.

In any case, what we can look forward to in a Senate trial is more Ukrainian drama. Far from weakening Trump in 2020, the story might end up dragging Joe Biden into a defensive posture. Journalists perfunctorily refer to anything related to Ukrainians or the Bidens as a "conspiracy theory," but it's clear that Hunter Biden was cashing in on his father's influence, and it's still unclear what Joe Biden did about it. Republicans have already requested transcripts of conversations between Biden and then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko over the vice president's requests to fire Viktor Shokin. It's going to become a difficult story to ignore.

So what is the upside? At first, Democrats claimed that polls were irrelevant because impeachment was a moral and patriotic imperative. Once national support spiked, numbers suddenly mattered very much, and the usual suspects couldn't stop talking about them. What most polls now confirm is that while Americans were paying attention to the breathless media coverage, public support for the inquiry is at best stagnant and probably declining.

The FiveThirtyEight average for support among independents topped out at 47.7% in late October. It sank to 41% during the hearings. Last week's Politico/Morning Consult poll found that voter opposition to the impeachment inquiry is at its highest point since it started asking the question: "Today, 47 percent of independents oppose the impeachment inquiry, compared to 37 percent who said the same one week ago." Put another way, more people -- not just independents, but everyone -- viewed the construction of Trump's wall on the Mexican border as a higher priority than impeaching Trump.

Even the best poll for impeachers, one conducted by CNN, saw no change during the dramatic hearings. The Morning Consult poll "didn't do much to move the needle," and still finds support below where it was before the hearings. Will support for impeachment miraculously surge upward in places such as Wisconsin as the election approaches? It seems unlikely.

In a deep dive into recent polls for Vanity Fair, Ken Stern summarizes the perspective of independents: "Impeachment reflects the agenda of the political establishment and the media" and represents "a continuation of the partisan bickering and media excess that began even before his inauguration." By constantly over-promising and under-delivering, Democrats have guaranteed not only skepticism but apathy from voters outside their own tribe.


Take Schiff, who once claimed to be privy to hard evidence -- which never materialized -- of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russian government. In his closing statement in the impeachment hearings, he argued that Trump's actions toward Ukraine go "beyond anything Nixon did." At first Democrats set out to prove a quid pro quo charge, which has since been revised to "bribery." The rationale was that it was a criminal concept that Americans could more easily grasp. Indeed, most people understand what constitutes "bribery," but Schiff couldn't provide the evidence for it. Instead, he offered a slew of witnesses that depicted a self-serving, volatile and impulsive Trump.

None of that is a surprise to anyone who's ever heard the president speak.

If lame-duck Republicans such as Will Hurd, who hasn't been afraid to be critical of the president, saw no "compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous" evidence of "bribery or extortion," who are they convincing exactly? To be sure, Hurd may change his mind. It's also possible that vulnerable Democrats will change theirs first. Rep. Brenda Lawrence, D-Mich., said this week she favored censuring, not impeaching, Trump: "We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don't see the value of taking him out of office.

She backpedaled Tuesday. But she may have stumbled onto a solution. If Democrats back out of impeachment, they will be scorned by the base as a bunch of simpering cowards. But the anger of the resistance fighter can never be satiated anyway. With censure, Democrats would be able to continue to condemn Trump without putting their vulnerable members in danger.

Here is a pertinent question someone might want to poll: "Based on everything you have seen, read, or heard about the allegations against President Trump and Ukraine, which of the following is the best way for Democrats to proceed? 1) Impeach. 2) Censure. 3) Nothing." I suspect there's a good chance Lawrence's position would be the most popular. "

" U.S. stock index futures rebounded on Tuesday after The Wall Street Journal reported the U.S. plans to delay the implementation of additional tariffs on Chinese goods.

Around 8:40 a.m. ET, Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were up 47 points, indicating a gain of 29 points at the open. S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 futures also pointed to a slightly higher open.

The additional levies were set to kick in on Dec. 15. The Journal’s report added U.S. negotiators have asked Chinese officials to commit to some agricultural purchases up front before moving forward with a deal. Meanwhile, China wants its agricultural purchases to be proportional with the amount of tariffs the U.S. rolls back.

The U.S. is also reportedly pushing for a quarterly review of the promised purchases. The world’s two largest economies have imposed tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of one another’s goods since the start of 2018, battering financial markets and souring business and consumer sentiment.

Dow futures were down more than 100 points earlier in the day after the South China Morning Post said China and the U.S. are unlikely to reach a trade deal this week.

That report said chances of a deal on that front are falling as the U.S. focuses on finalizing a trade deal with Mexico and Canada. Sources told CNBC on Monday that House Democrats and the Trump administration are close to a tentative deal that would replace North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trade bellwethers Apple and Boeing rose 0.6% and 0.1%, respectively, erasing earlier losses.

Investors will also closely monitor the Federal Reserve as the central bank kicks off its last two-day monetary policy meeting of the year. The Fed is expected to hold rates steady. "

" I don’t blame millennials and Generation Z for mocking baby boomers with the trending “OK boomer” meme. I’ve had my issues with baby boomers, too.

“OK boomer,” reports dictionary.com, “is a viral Internet slang phrase used, often in a humorous or ironic manner, to call out or dismiss out-of-touch or close-minded opinions associated with the baby boomer generation and older people more generally.”

I feel those younger folks’ pain. Technically, I’m a boomer, born near the tail end of that generation, which began in 1946 and concluded in 1964, but 18 years is far too lengthy to accommodate a single generation.

Sociologist and author Jonathan Pontell argues that Americans born between 1954 and 1965 are actually part of their own Generation Jones. Boy, is he right. I have little in common with front-end boomers.

When front-end boomers were indulging in drugs and free love, we tail-enders were doing our homework.

While they were traveling the country in VW Beetles and partying at Woodstock, we were doing our chores.

While they dreamed of changing the world, we dreamed of getting collegiate business degrees and good-paying jobs.

Front-enders have criticized, dismissed and condescended to us tail-enders for years.

It’s human nature: Older people always complain that younger people aren’t doing things right.

I know younger generations worry about their six-figure college loans, climate change and many other issues — I know you blame preceding generations for these woes.

But this tail-ender doesn’t see gloom and doom. Sure, we need to address lots of things, but the truth is there has never been a better time to be alive. There is evidence that the world is doing better than ever.

Our economy, envy of the world, is expanding. Technological innovation, already massive, is increasing rapidly. I can’t wait to see the solutions for disease, poverty and climate change it will bring in the not-so-distant future.

According to Cafehayek.com, today’s typical middle-class American lives better than billionaire John D. Rockefeller did 100 years ago. He didn’t have air conditioning, sophisticated medical treatments, safe, fast travel or limitless dining and entertainment options.

Here’s more to be hopeful about: Bill Gates’ charity reported in 2018 that childhood deaths fell from 12 million in 1990 to 5 million in 2017. More than 90% of children now attend primary school. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty declined from one-third in 1990 to one-tenth.

Younger generations have much to look forward to. They’ll do lots of good work with powerful tools. We all should agree on that.

Hey, I’m a tail-end boomer who’s heard plenty from my elders about shortcomings. If you’re young, I hope you’ll take my well-intentioned optimism about your generation in that spirit, rather than dismiss it with a trendy catch-phrase.

But I can understand why you might meet my optimism with a quick “OK tail-end boomer.”

I just hope you’ll be as understanding when your generation one day goes codger and your children’s generation dismisses your generation with a humorous catch-phrase of its own. "