DEMOCRATS HARASS PRESIDENT—UNDERMINE GOVERNMENT

DEM POLITICAL HARASSMENT OF THE PRESIDENT— A BAD IDEA

“Time Magazine (April 30, 2019) Trump sues Banks to Block Subpoenas for Financial Records”

Two House committees secretly subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capital One for the President’s past financial records  in an effort to investigate the President and others  “foreign influence on the US political process”.  The President and his family and business have sued to prevent this release of personal and private information with a timeline that goes back before the President was a candidate. The President’s lawsuit seeks to block the banks from releasing the information. 

The Founding Fathers were wise in their deliberations over the Constitutional  distribution of powers.  They gave the President executive powers, and the Congress purview over the purse and an ability to oversee the executive.  Perceptive that there may likely develop  an antagonistic political dynamic between the executive of one political persuasion and another in the Congress and also acutely aware that the executive branch—to function— required  freedom to make critical decisions for the betterment (or even the survival) of the Nation, they limited the ability of Congress to “hog tie” the executive or use their powers to further their own political objective to intimidate, annoy, coerce the executive so as to interfere with his or her valid functions of state.  

The Founders did give a powerful  opportunity for the Congress (the House) to pursue a President who had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”.  Impeachment.  However, in light of the the recent revelations of the Mueller Report—we now know—after nearly two years—$35 million dollars spent and over 450 pages of report— that there were no crimes of that sort.   If they can not or will not invoke a vote of impeachment the Democrats must “get off the pot” and begin to serve the nation in the manner and for the reason for which   they were elected.  

The Democrats in Congress in continuing to harass the President by subpoena have now stepped over the bounds of rationality in their pursuit of the President and his family —all for very obvious venal  and self serving political purposes.  Attempting to investigate the long past financial activities of Mr. Trump and his family serve no valid purpose other than political motivated harassment. This coercion of the executive undermines the nation as a whole and hurts the People who the Democrats have sworn to serve.  

The nation’s voters want our members of Congress on both side of the aisle  to devote the limited time and energy they spend at their desks and in office (at great cost to the taxpayers) working actively for the People — to the real problems that face the nation—to insuring a robust economy, and full employment for all, to clean up the immigration mess on our borders, to address the problem of our crumbling infrastructure, and environmental issues—such as water and air pollution, and the underlying and pervasive income and wealth inequality.

The Democrats should focus on the needs of the People and not their personal desire for reelection and the power of their political party.

Let our elections decide who governs at the ballot box!    

DEMS TOO FAR LEFT—BOO BERNIE

THE DEMS HAVE SEALED THEIR FATE AS A MINORITY PARTY

I learn today (April 25, 2019) from CNN that Senator Bernie Sanders was roundly booed by a group of women at a “She The People” rally in Houston Texas.  Apparently, Bernie  had the bad taste and temerity to state that he had marched with Dr. Martin Luther King 56 years ago. 

It was at this Houston rally in which  Bernie responded to a question from a Ms Sayu Bhojwani, apparently the first and former NYC Commissioner of Immigrant Affairs, who was an attendee.  Ms Bhojwani’s query spoke to the “rise of white nationalism and what a President Sanders would do about it”.  Bernie responded in part  by “name dropping” (as CNN termed it) using a reference to the reverend Dr Martin Luther King.  It’s true Bernie was on the March on Washington in 1963 when he was a college student.  But that courageous act of youth got him no “cred” with the gals in Houston. Apparently, being an old  white guy even one with a life long history of support for racial equality and progressivism was still strictly verboten for these radical fringe women.  

To this author, Bernie’s response was honest and appropriate. He prefaced his remark by stating that he was “dating himself” when he mentioned the march with King almost sixty years ago...but he continued on claiming that—that the long-ago incident established the veracity of his claim (not possible to be made by any other Dem candidate for 2020) that for “all of his life” he has supported the rights of minorities and has worked to make life better for blacks, Hispanics and immigrants.  This was not good enough for these Democrat women.  Bernie was soundly booed from from the audience and in a subsequent interview on CNN, Ms. Bhowlwani  further slimed Bernie claiming she was “not satisfied  with his response and his  “name dropping”.  Too bad for Bernie,  a truly honest and sincere guy—a rarity for a politician. 

But the incident only underscores the massive —I can not call it “drift”—but more of a tidal wave the Dems have made toward the far left fringe.  For these Democrat women, even life long Socialist Bernie—probably one of the few honest long-term politician in DC—is not radical enough for them.  

The modern 2019 Democrats have morphed into the party of the far-left fringe. Their constituency consists of the anti-religious, the radial feminists, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, inner city urbanites, the LBGTQ “community” and others of similar ilk clinging like flotsam to the the Atlantic and Pacific coasts in our densely urbanized shorelines. Old fashioned unionists, farmers, family men and women, and working class Democrats need not apply. The new Dems are ignoring your needs and your vote.  

This is a sad state of affairs.  

    

MUELLER: “NO CRIME”, THUS NO OBSTRUCTION

FUGGETABOUDIT!!!

Mr. Mueller’s long awaited report is out.  After two years, millions upon millions of tax dollars and tens of thousands of hours of investigations, and court hearings, as well as untold hours of work  by the huge and determined special council team— has found nothing of import.  Mueller concluded that no one in the Trump Administration (“no American”) committed any crimes.   The”resistance” Democrats, the politicized Deep State, the FBI, CIA and elements in the Justice Department  have nothing left to stew over but stale air and moldy verbiage. 

But a faint if futile hope remains to them. That is that they can somehow claim that President Trump committed  “obstruction of justice”.   Mr. Mueller failed to make any investigative call on that issue—leaving the conclusions for Mr. Barr—the present Attorney General to draw on his own (or to “hold the bag”).    In my view, Mr. Mueller tossed this little bone of contention to the fanatical Democrats and thier minions just to give them something to snarl and growl over and perhaps to give cover to the author himself (Mueller) to facilitate  a secretive retreat from public scrutiny.  Mueller must have been  well aware that his lack of candor on this (obstruction) issue was a tactical smoke screen.  He well knew that finding no crime on the “collusion investigation ” would mean that there could be NO OBSTRUCTION charge as well. His last shot  at the President was to leave behind this little bit of slime.  

Obstruction of justice requires prosecutors (or Congress) to prove INTENT— intent to interfere with or prevent an investigation.  But since the President has been cleared of committing any crime,  attempting to demonstrate that he had “intent” becomes impossible \.  How could he have an “intent” to obstruct if he had no crime to hide.  That charge went out the window with the collusion charge. 

Now it’s time to move on!

But (sadly) don’t bet on it. 

DUMB STUFF AT BOEING AND FAA

DUMB AND DEADLY STUFF AT BOEING AND FAA

I read this week (March 31,2019) in Der Spiegel (on line) that China has just concluded a 30 billion Euro ($34 billion) deal with the French-German Airbus company for 300  of its 320 neo airliners.  Our own USA company Boeing didn’t get the contract with its newer (2017) 737 Max 8.  Boeing has been roiled with conflict and controversy as a result of the two recent crashes of its new airliner and the  international grounding of the Max 8 airplane.  These  two ill fated “brand new” planes met disaster under very similar circumstances.  The first in October of last year in Indonesia and the recent (March 10) flight  in Ethiopia.   The tragic accidents  took the lives of a total of 346 passengers.       

At the time of the crashes, Boeing had delivered 350 Max 8s world wide in 2017. Of these  72 were in service in the USA, at  American, Southwest and United airlines.  Boeing had signed orders for about 5000 worldwide and other potential sales may have brought that number to as  high as 8000 planes.  The potential sales for Boeing prior to the crashes might   have been worth as much as1.6 x10 12th  or $1.6 trillion dollars.  Those figures represented an enormous incentive to cut corners.  

The probable causes of these aviation disasters seems to be the result of decisions made with less than adequate regard for safety at Boeing and more egregiously, the results of lack of manpower and laxity at the FAA—our US government agency.  The FAA—with a reputation as the best in the world—is charged with advancing the aviation industry—AND as well a being the guarding and overseeing our nation’s airline safety.   This was a bad combination.  Here is how this author sees it.  

USA’s Boeing and the EU’s Airbus are the two aviation giants and are fierce competitors.  Both build planes for the  hugely profitable and essential aerospace domestic and foreign transportation industry. Both companies  are also acutely aware of the massive new markets for their products especially that which is developing in China (1.4 billion population) and the third world nations. 

Sometime prior to about 2011, Boeing’s EU competitor Airbus designed and began production of a new addition to their fleet, known as the Airbus A320 neo. The new model was planned  to be sold to airlines for use in the world’s  most common and profitable routes, and to compete directly with Boeing’s workhorse and immensely popular  737 model, which was first produced in the 1960s.  The most common design used by the world’s carriers on these routes is the single aisle, @ 200 seat, “slim line” planes with flying ranges of about  2000-6000 miles.   Consequently, Airbus’ new 320 neo was completely redesigned from fuselage on up, Airbus also installed a new class of turbo fan-jet engines—the CFM Leap X.  This new engine, a USA-French designed and built, incorporated cutting-edge technological advances in design as well as  lighter, stronger materials to produce more efficient fuel to power conversion.  The new, more powerful—with larger diameter “nacelles” (its forward air scoop)  yet efficient, engines permitted Airbus to promise purchasers a 7%-15% reduction in fuel consumption, (a practical guarantee to more profitable operation).  As well as more fuel efficiency, the new engines were so designed to  significantly reduce “down time” for maintenance and repairs.  The new Airbus claimed its customers would have  the  the potential to  increase profits by a jaw dropping 15%. These new additions to the market were a threat to Boeing’s market dominance.

Boeing had maintained preeminence over many decades in new airplane sales with its immensely  popular 737 model.  But by 2014-15 these early 747s  had now seen  20-30 years of service  and carriers around the world were seeking to replace them.  At Boeing headquarters the threat of this new Airbus entry to the market had to be addressed as rapidly as possible.  Thousands of new orders for replacement planes were going to be made within a short number of years and as well there was the growing market in China.  Boeing officials were (I suspect)  determined to keep their company in the lead.  

Thus when American Airlines announced (2014?) that it was considering purchasing the new Airbus 320neo the top “decision makers” at Boeing headquarters realized  that it was too late  to redesign a completely new plane.  What had to be addressed from a profit perspective  was the threat of increased efficiency of the new Airbus neo.  Thus, it was essential that Boeing’s new addition had to include the new more powerful, bigger and efficient US-French engines.   Boeing, responding to market exigencies and time factors made the decision to simply install the new  engines on their well-established long in-use 737 fuselage. This was a corporate response —a “quick fix”— to catch up with the threat to sales from the Airbus’ 320neo. Adding a new engine—particularly a bigger engine—such as Leap X—to a complex structure such as an airplane would normally entail redesigning fuselage, wings, landing gear, etc. and other elements of the airframe  to complement the new more powerful engines. Boeing did no do that.  

Tasked with making the changes, Boeing engineers did the best they could when they installed the new, larger Leap X engines on the existing 737 fuselages to create what was then called the 737Max 8 (there is also a Max 7-10). The new engines were larger in diameter and had to be positioned on the low slung wings of the 737 in such a way as to prevent their air scoops from being too close to the ground.  But the new engine installations and their new wing-positions changed the complex aerodynamics of to the plane  Air trials of the new Max 8 revealed that with this new powerful engine configuration the Max 8 had a tendency to poke its nose up too high as it was taking off.  This could cause what is called a “stall”.  Not like a stall in an automobile.  The airplane stall is more sinister—it causes it to lose lift and to fall taoward earth.  

What is a stall and how do wings crate lift?  The wings of an airplane are not flat.  Wings have a flat bottom but are bowed over the top surface,  In normal flight this wing cross-section forces the air to flow over the top of the wing more rapidly than over lower surface. The result is a decrease in atmospheric pressure all along the wing’s upper surface.  In effect the lowered pressure on the wing upper surface  “sucks” the wings upward—or produces “lift”— as a result of lower pressure on to top of the wing and higher pressure underneath.   The cross sectional shape shape of the wing (called an “airfoil”) gives the plane its lift.  (The same effect of low pressure develops in the leading surface of full sail of a moving sailboat)    Recall pictures of early model airplanes.  These early models were built with robust struts (or strong wires)  on the underwings to prevent the powerful forces of low air pressure on the upper surfaces (lift) from bending  the wings upward— like flapping wings of a crow or bluebird.    

In some circumstances the wing can lose its lift.  For example when Ice forms on the leading edge of a wing it can disrupt the smooth airflow over the top surface and decrease or obliterate lift. The leading edges of most planes have means of dislodging ice to prevent this.  In other circumstances if  a pilot tries to raise the nose of the aircraft too steeply, the air flowing over the top of the airfoil wing (its “angle of attack”) disrupts sloth air flow and causes  irregular flow called “turbulence”.  Turbulence over the top of the wing destroys lift.  Th will cause a stall.  If the plane stall it actually falls toward the earth responding to gravity.  It’s wings no longer providing adequate lift.  At high altitudes planes can easily recover from a stall—but not when they are close to the earth such as in a take off.  

As a result of this fault in the 737 Max 8. plane’s new design Boeing engineers were tasked with making a correction in the plane’s automatic pilot controls.  They installed an automatic pilot on the plane that would automatically take over when sensors on the nose detected that the plane was rising too steeply (as in take offs).  This system would take control of the plane mechanics and force the nose of the pane downward—toward to level it and prevent a stall.  Sadly this was not adequate to prevent two disastrous crashes and the loss of hundreds of lives.  

One must question the decision making process at Boeing where completion for market share may have played too powerful a role. But we can expect that from corporate leaders.  But government regulators charged with maintaining passenger safety can not be excused so easily.   At best we can conclude that the formerly lauded FAA perhaps was not as concerned about safe airplane design and passenger safety as they should have been.  

This does not