Sunday, March 26, 2017

Are The ‘Green 20’ Suppressing Scientific Dissent?

By Hank Campbell — March 22, 2017 @ American Council on Science and Health

If you know a local politician has accepted a small fortune, $300,000, from corporations with a specific agenda, would you believe:
(1) They are compartmentalizing their decisions so funding does not matter;
(2) They are simply getting donations for beliefs and work they've already done, so it does not sway them or;
(3) They are engaged in pay-for-play.
If you are at politically-motivated, dark-money-funded sites like Mother Jones or Sourcewatch, or at one of the 300 corporate marketing groups (US Right To Know et al.) that are propped up by Organic Consumers Association, the answer will always be (3) because you sell stories of conspiracies and evil corporations and scientists being bought off.

How about if I add a wrinkle? What if I note that the politician in question is a Democrat, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and the corporate donors are environmental corporations rather than the for-profit kind, and that he is in a war with Exxon-Mobil? Is the politician still being bought off as a Denier For Hire or is he no longer a Merchant Of Doubt because he matches the political party those groups endorse, and it's about the only science (climate change) they claim to accept, and that he is against a corporation?

No, as experience has shown they frame the issue much differently when it matches the political goals of their funders. There is a reason for the easy switch and it strikes to the core of their agenda. They are not about defending science, they are instead about suppressing science dissent. And it may be why they support A.G. Schneiderman - he can accomplish using judicial means what activist groups cannot using the fearmongering kind.

The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has issued subpoenas to Schneiderman because the supporters of his effort to suppress dozens of science groups with legal threats look a lot like his donors. Well, they are his donors.


Mainstream media, and especially environmental groups, love what legitimate science media like to call "The Myth Of The Oppressed Underdog" where some lone advocate stands up against insurmountable odds. Examples are a vegetable that can do for free what Big Pharma charges for medicine, a chemical company preventing damaging evidence of a carcinogen from seeing daylight, or a fired employee who hands a bunch of stolen documents over to Mother Jones about pro-science consumer advocates (that one actually happened to us) so they can weave a fairy tale about secret funding.

Oh, and that oil companies knew the ice caps were melting 40 years ago and suppressed it.

Mother Jones loves to write about that stuff, those Goldsmith Prizes won't win themselves, and pretty soon, everyone among their political allies, from Scienceblogs to NYU journalism professors, chimes in and no one ever asks the awkward question legitimate journalists ask; is any of it true?

A running joke in science circles about the conspiracy tales woven by partisan academics like Naomi Oreskes and supposed "science" tweeters, is that if scientists are so easily bought off - they routinely claim Monsanto has subverted the biology and food research community using money - why can't Exxon, with 15X the revenue, buy off climate scientists? It fails basic common sense. Yet as we have seen thanks to Freedom of Information Act request documents, anti-science activists have created a real conspiracy to combat a manufactured one. They not only promote their work inside their "echo chamber", they even call it an echo chamber and gladly amplify each other's conspiracy stories.


It happened again a few weeks ago. A cabal of environmentalists, including many in the 'Green 20', demanded that USA Today not publish our scientists and doctors - they created a petition to demand actual censorship - insisting we are an "industry front group" because we defend science. Any examination of our Form 990, and the fact that we have 1/1000th the revenue of the anti-science groups signing the petition, shows their claim is an obvious fabrication. Yet people inside the echo chamber pitched in to help anyway.

A few days later, Harvard's Naomi Oreskes demanded that Nature magazine not publish our examination of credible versus non-credible science sites. When she wasn't devoting her Twitter feed to retweeting progressive anti-science billionaire Tom Steyer, that is.

She helps because bans and suppression match the agenda of the groups she politically supports. And they dutifully cheered her on. A Seattle Times journalist and partisan professors at New York University joined in to endorse censorship as well, they all even used the exact same verbiage they read in that organic marketing group email asking people to create an echo chamber and get us banned. They hope that if a lie is repeated often enough, it will look like truth.

In a sense, they are correct for believing they can manufacture a truth out of lies. They have done it many times. Last year, a group of Attorneys General listed us on a subpoena, claiming we were paid shills to undermine climate science.

Who was first among them? A.G. Schneiderman, who got $300,000 from organizations opposed to science - all science except global warming, that is.
It was an odd stance. What do we not write about here? Climate science.

Yet despite that, a few state attorneys wanted to bring the full force of their governments down on us, to mire us in legal paperwork, to drain our small budget fighting a conspiracy story that was manufactured due to some old documents which were written by people at Exxon (as early as 1951, and in the 1970s by internal advocates for electric cars, synthetic oil, etc.) Had Attorney Scheiderman done any research, he would know we didn't undermine global warming any more than a malaria group that works in Africa did. Instead, his donors groomed him to take us on by providing our name on a list for him. They wanted to make sure that we were not covering any science issues that their supporters do not accept. It wasn't about climate change; environmental groups don't want us defending vaccines, they don't want us defending affordable energy policies, they don't want us defending agriculture. It's their eugenics beliefs repurposed for the modern age.

It didn't work, we fought back and one Attorney General dropped the case when we mobilized outrage among the public who agree that government attorneys should be fighting real problems in their states, not acting as proxies for their environmental group donors. The public agree these officials certainly should not be smearing science groups in order to solicit donations from billionaires and boost their prestige for a run at the governor's office, as Schneiderman has done.
Emails obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests show that Attorney Schneiderman’s office even encouraged at least one green group lawyer to specifically not mention their coordination to the press.


It has to be regarded as odd that Attorney Schneiderman seeks to penalize science groups using Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws while his office behaves like the mafia do. Almost $300,000 in campaign donations from environmentalist donors opposed to science. The list of wealthy anti-science progressives he has curried is long, including members of the the Soros family and the same Tom Steyer that elite academics follow around.

It isn't just pro-science groups who object to this attempt to create an "icy chill" effect about science education. Other Attorneys General across the nation have been uniformly critical. Even one from New York. “It all smacks of politics,” said former New York AG Dennis Vacco. “What’s unsettling to me about this probe is that many of Attorney General Schneiderman’s supporters are investors in alternative-energy companies and enemies of Exxon.”

Unconcerned by this obvious conflict of interest. All those academics who never seem to notice when it is one of their political allies.

The concern by other attorneys is warranted. How are they supposed to look like public defenders of their citizens when high-profile counterparts in states that routinely demonize science use their offices to remove the rights of people their donors happen not to like?

Brain Transplant Humor - or - The Price is Right

Via E-Mail From Maury and Dog

A family member lay gravely ill, the relatives gathered in the waiting room.  Finally, the doctor came in looking tired and somber.  "I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news," he said as he surveyed the worried faces.  "The only hope left for your loved one at this time is a brain transplant.  It's an experimental procedure, very risky, but it is the only hope.  Insurance will cover the procedure, but you will have to pay for the brain."

The family members sat silent as they absorbed the news.

After a time, someone asked, "How much will a brain cost? The doctor quickly responded, "$5,000 for a Democrat's brain; $200 for a Republican's brain."The moment turned awkward.  Some of the Democrats actually had to try not to smile, avoiding eye contact with the Republicans.

A man unable to control his curiosity, finally blurted out the question everyone wanted to ask, "Why is the Democrat's brain so much more than a Republican's brain?" The doctor smiled at the childish innocence and explained to the entire group, "It's just standard pricing procedure.  Do you know how many Democrats it takes to make a whole brain?

We also have to price the Republicans' brains a lot lower because they're used."

Study Shows Millions of Non-Citizens Were Registered To Vote

Jeff Dunetz 9 Feb 2017

The leftist media disparages President Trump’s claim that widespread voter fraud prevented him from winning the popular vote in the recent presidential election. In fact, when he called for an investigation into people who aren’t supposed to be voting, registering and voting in national elections, TV hosts such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo or Snotty Shepard Smith at Fox News ripped Trump’s call an investigation.

At the time they claimed there was no proof.  Other major media outlets pounced on Trump’s comment. “The New York Times, for example, reported that “virtually no evidence of such improprieties has been discovered.” The Times editorial board then called Trump’s statement “a lie,” and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker declared “this is a bogus claim with no documented proof.”

The truth is there is a proof of millions of non-citizens registered to vote, but there isn’t proof that without those votes Trump would have won the popularvote. But looking for the truth is the whole reason for Trump’s call for an investigation.

But what if there was proof? What if there was some indication of non citizens voting? No, but there is however, proof that they were registered to vote, and in very large numbers. A 2013 study published by the journal Electoral Studies does just that, it provides enough evidence that President Trump is correct in saying an investigation is necessary. According to that survey nearly 2 million non-citizen Hispanics illegally registered to vote (and non-Hispanics would add more to that total).......To Read More.....

No More Stealing by Government? A Long-Overdue Attack on Asset Forfeiture

May 15, 2014 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

Since I’m a public finance economist, I realize I’m supposed to focus on big-picture issues such as tax reform and entitlement reform. And I do beat those issues to death, so I obviously care about controlling the size and power of government.

But I like to think I’m also a decent human being. And this is why I get even more agitated when politicians and bureaucrats engage in thuggish behavior against comparatively powerless citizens.

Some of the worst examples of government thuggery are the result of “asset forfeiture,” which happens when governments confiscate the property of people who haven’t been convicted of any crime. Heck, sometimes they’re not even charged with any crime.

*Such as when the government wanted to steal someone’s truck because a different person was arrested for drunk driving.
*Such as when the government tried to steal the bond money a family has collected to bail out a relative.
*Such as when the government seized nearly $400,000 of a business owner’s money because it was in the possession of an armored car company suspected of wrongdoing.
*Such as when the government sought to confiscate an office building from the owner because a tenant was legally selling medical marijuana.
*Such as when the government killed a man as part of an anti-gambling investigation undertaken in hopes of using asset forfeiture to steal other people’s cash.
 
But we do have a bit of good news. All these horror stories seem to be causing a backlash.

Fox News has a very revealing article on how this system is under assault. The story begins by explaining how asset forfeiture is an open invitation for abuse and grossly inconsistent with the Constitution.
Civil forfeiture is when police and prosecutors seize property, cars or cash from someone they suspect of wrongdoing. …authorities don’t have to prove guilt, file charges or obtain a conviction before seizing private property. Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse, and one which leaves citizens little means of fighting back. “You breed a culture of ‘take first, ask questions later,’” Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, told FoxNews.com. “It’s thuggish behavior.” …civil forfeitures represent a dangerous area of the U.S. justice system where, by law, a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.
The report from Fox cites a couple of reasons why asset forfeiture is misguided. One major problem is that it gives cops a budgetary incentive to steal.
In Tennessee, local law enforcement agencies get to keep 100 percent of all property seized through civil forfeiture – an incentive some say can tempt police to go after property for the wrong reasons.
Fortunately, people are now fighting this horrible procedure. The story explains that a former law enforcement official who is now a state lawmaker, Barrett Rich, is trying to reform Tennessee’s awful bill.

And Minnesota actually has eliminated this odious tactic. Here are some excerpts from a Forbes column.
In a big win for property rights and due process, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton signed a bill yesterday to curb an abusive—and little known—police practice called civil forfeiture. Unlike criminal forfeiture, under civil forfeiture someone does not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose his or her cash, car or home. …Now the government can only take property if it obtains a criminal conviction or its equivalent, like if a property owner pleads guilty to a crime or becomes an informant. The bill also shifts the burden of proof onto the government, where it rightfully belongs.
Wyoming’s state legislature also is considering reform, so there are positive developments in many different states.

For more information, click here for a very good introductory video about civil asset forfeiture.
If you like videos, click here for a horrifying video about the government stealing $17,000 from an innocent man.

And here’s another video, this one about the government stealing money from a family grocery store.

Last but not least, if you want to get more upset, here are some additional examples of non-forfeiture related government thuggery.
Gee, it’s almost enough to make a person a libertarian!

The Whistleblower Devin Nunes Must Hear From

By Larry Klayman WND.com March 24, 2017
 
Last Monday, I delivered to Chairman Devin Nunes and all the members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence a letter urging them to investigate widespread illegal surveillance, not just of President Donald J. Trump and his team both before and after his inauguration but also of hundreds of millions of other innocent Americans by the intelligence agencies.

Key to this investigation is a whistleblower by name of Dennis Montgomery, who as a former National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractor left the spy agencies with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which was classified, and came forward, under grant of immunity, to FBI Director James Comey. This information, according to Montgomery, shows that the intelligence agencies, particularly under former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Obama CIA Director John Brennan and their minions, spied illegally and unconstitutionally on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other SCOTUS justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen like Donald Trump and even yours truly............ Continue Reading.....

Is the ocean ‘land owned or controlled’ by feds? Antiquities Act lawsuit aims to find out

By   /   March 24, 2017  /   News  /   2 Comments  @Watchdog.org

Despite a lifetime of fishing off the New England coast, Eric Reid was like a fish out of water when President Barack Obama grabbed a piece of his livelihood.

“I’m just a fish guy but I learned a lot about politics in a big hurry,” said Reid, general manager of Seafreeze Shoreside Inc., a seafood processing facility in Rhode Island.

He is referring to Obama’s September 2016 designation of nearly 5,000 square miles of ocean as the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument, using his unilateral authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906.

PHOTO CREDIT: Pacific Legal Foundation
PHOTO CREDIT: Pacific Legal Foundation
WATER GRAB: A national monument
designation in the final months of the Obama
administration puts 5,000 square miles of
fish-rich ocean off limits to a major
New England industry.
‘Losing opportunity’

The area 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod is the first national monument in the Atlantic Ocean. It’s also rife with fish that have fed New Englanders — and the New England economy — for generations.

But the monument designation makes commercial fishing off limits.

“We’re losing opportunity as we speak,” Reid told Watchdog.org. “It could easily be millions of dollars just this winter.”

Reid is part of a coalition of New England fishing organizations suing the federal government over the designation. The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the coalition in Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association v. Ross. PLF attorney Jonathan Wood says the economic impact is magnified when considering the shoreside businesses that have grown up around the commercial fishing industry.

“It’s not just the fishermen. It’s all the bait dealers, the mechanics and the marinas and all the businesses that only exist because there’s a commercial fishing industry,” he told Watchdog.org.
The PLF complaint argues that the president was out of line because the ocean is beyond the reach of the Antiquities Act.

“The statute only authorizes monuments on ‘land owned or controlled by the federal government,’ said Wood. “And the ocean, particularly this far out, is not land and it’s not owned or controlled by the federal government.”

President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law in 1906 to protect antiquities and artifacts from looting and prevent the destruction of Native American sites in the Southwest. Devil’s Tower in Wyoming was the first national monument created under the law. Others include familiar sites such as Fort McHenry and the Statue of Liberty.

In recent decades, the law has been used mostly to bring land, rather than historic sites, under federal control.

In 2006, President George W. Bush created the 139,797 square miles Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the Pacific Ocean. According to the National Ocean Service, it was created “to protect an exceptional array of natural and cultural resources.”

Obama more than quadrupled the size of Papahānaumokuākea in August, to 582,578 square miles — twice the size of Texas — saying in his proclamation the protection provides opportunities “including understanding the impacts of climate change on these deep-sea communities.”

All told, Obama’s 34 new or expanded monument designations covered 533 million acres of federal land and water, the most of any president.

And as with the New England fishermen, monument status limits what state and local people can do on these public lands.

Not a coral in sight

Reid says the monument in the Atlantic Ocean was purportedly to protect coral, but in parts of the protected area, there’s not a coral in sight.

“Once the designation was given to us a few days before the actual written proclamation itself, it was pretty evident to us that there was quite a bit of political pressure put in by environmental organizations to get a pretty large area closed off that made no sense if in fact corals were the target,” he said.

Wood calls it an attempt by the president to try to establish his legacy with environmental groups who wanted to stake a claim in the Atlantic Ocean, especially because the federal Council on Environmental Quality ignored work already underway by the New England Fisheries Management Council to protect coral while continuing to allow commercial fishing.

The council is one of eight established in 1976 under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs marine fishery management in federal waters up to 200 nautical miles from shore. The councils are charged with fostering long-term biological and economic sustainability, and include  scientists, environmentalists, fishermen and government representatives.
Reid serves on the New England council. He says his group told the president’s Council on Environmental Quality they could do a better job than a marine monument could of managing the area.

“It would be done in a much more informed manner,” he said. “There’s a lot of analysis that has to be done, National Environmental Policy Act analysis and economic analysis on what would happen to impact the industry.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council was a driving force behind the monument, a National Geographic blogger wrote in September.

“The NRDC’s push for the monument began in 2001 and ran up until … the president announced the establishment of the protected area. … NRDC created online petitions, geospatial analyses, technical research, polling events, media outreach, meetings and a letter-writing campaign,” according to the post.

A June 30, 2016 letter, for example, addressed to Obama and copied to a number of lawmakers, urged the monument’s creation.

“While the area is largely untouched and wild today, it is highly vulnerable to disturbance and should be protected now from the push to fish, drill, and mine in ever deeper and more remote places. As climate change and ocean acidification continue to affect ocean life, it also becomes more and more urgent to establish blue parks in important and relatively pristine ocean habitats such as this one,” the NRDC wrote.

Neither the NRDC nor the Council on Environmental Quality responded to Watchdog.org requests for comment on the lawsuit.

In the meantime, Wood says while there’s essentially no limit to what the president might do under the  Antiquities Act, there is irony in what the statute cannot do, such as prevent navigation in the area or laying of cables and pipelines through it.

“So they are essentially forbidding fishing that has no impact on the coral while doing nothing to prevent oil tankers from going through the area or other nations from laying telecommunications cables that actually destroys the coral,” he said.

In addition to the lawsuit, some legislative relief may be on the way for the fishermen.

Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee vowed to repeal the Antiquities Act, following the late December creation of a 1.35 million acre Bears Ears National Monument in the southern part of his state.  That would end future unilateral monument  proclamations by presidents; but it would take additional congressional action to abolish existing designations.

PHOTO CREDIT: Pacific Legal Foundation
PHOTO CREDIT: Pacific Legal Foundation
MONUMENTAL OVERREACH: Lawsuit,
lawmakers step up efforts to fight Obama’s
Antiquities Act abuse and save fishing jobs
Another Utah Republican, Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, took a fact-finding trip to the New England area where he spent some time with Reid.
“We spoke for a very nice, long time,” Reid said. “Rep. Bishop is extremely well-versed in the Antiquities Act.”

Bishop, along with Delegate Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa), sent a letter to President Donald Trump on March 7 urging him to remove all marine monument fishing prohibitions and allow fisheries to be managed through the existing regional fishery management councils.

“Using the Antiquities Act to close U.S. waters to domestic fisheries is a clear example of federal overreach and regulatory duplication and obstructs well managed, sustainable U.S. fishing industries in favor of their foreign counterparts. You alone can act quickly to reverse this travesty,” the letter read.

And on March 15, the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held a hearing to examine the creation and management of marine monuments.

The hearing included written testimony from Jon Mitchell, the Democratic mayor of New Bedford, Mass. Mitchell said the Port of New Bedford generates $9 billion in direct and indirect economic output each year, and encouraged Congress to return the New England Fisheries Council to its “rightful place as the critical arbiters of fisheries management matters.”

Unless the president or Congress acts, Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association v. Ross will proceed.
“President Obama was the biggest abuser of the Antiquities Act in presidential history,” said Wood. “This marine monument is beyond the nation’s territory. The Antiquities Act simply doesn’t fit this far out.”

Kathy Hoekstra is a national regulatory reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact her atkhoekstra@watchdog.org and @khoekstra.
 


 
 is the regulatory policy reporter for Watchdog.org. Before joining Watchdog, she was a senior communications manager and Michigan state director for Job Creators Network, an advocacy organization that focuses on employee education. She has also been a TV news reporter and anchor, a contributor to the Detroit News and occasional guest-host for Frank Beckmann on WJR Radio in Detroit, and was an investigative reporter for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. She lives in Michigan and is a member of Investigative Reporters and Editors.

Observations From the Back Row: Obamacare Stands....Like a Drunken Sailor, Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

As was to be expected the appeasers of the Republican Party are practically frothing at the mouth because the Freedom Caucus actually held the Republican Party's feet to the fire and demanded they do what they've been promising to do for eight years. Repeal Obamacare!

David Catron in this American Spectator article refer to them as "disgusting" saying:
"These people held out for the impossible — full repeal of Obamacare in one fell swoop".
Impossible?  So why is this impossible?  It was passed into law by the Congress why can't it be passed out of law by the Congress? That's what they ran on and promised America for for eight years.  If that was impossible why didn't they say that before they were elected?

He goes on to say of conservatives:
"[they] have thus destroyed the only realistic opportunity their party will have in the near future to eradicate the law’s individual and employer mandates, enact entitlement reform, expand HSAs, defund Planned Parenthood, halt the metastasis of Medicaid, and cut its myriad taxes."
What a load of Horse pucky!

Then he attempts to make the argument this action is making a mockery of the name by which they call themselves claiming they're:
"perpetuating the increasingly oppressive and powerful administrative state, leaving their constituents to the tender mercies of Beltway bureaucrats whose contempt for the taxpayers who support them is exceeded only by the breathtaking incompetence with which they mismanage everything they touch".
So according to Catron these "disgusting" conservatives are guilty of mismanagement, contempt and incompetence!  And he claims they're the ones who left the taxpayers at the mercy of the bureaucrats! And so that's why they're disgusting!

Do I understand that corrrectly?

But those in the Republican leadership who've been lying to the people about Obamacare repeal aren't disgusting? 

Do I understand that correctly? 

So those in the leadership who've done little or nothing to stop the bureaucratic predations of the Obama administration are just a wonderful and amazingly competent bunch.

Do I understand that correctly?

But, isn't it the leadership, and not the conservatives, who's been managing things with contempt to the nation by putting together a piece of legislation that will not end this massive govenment interference in medical care, nor really fix it in any meaningful way?  Yet, according to Catron it's the conservatives who are the incompetent mis-managers betraying America.  And that's what we're supposed to believe?  Right!

Do I understand that correctly?

Let me ask one question - just in order to attain some clarity - name one big government program promoted by George Bush that was overturned by Republican leadership!

He goes on to call them the “100-Percent-of-Nothing Caucus". It's amazing how this "do nothing" group just cleaned the clock of Trump, Ryan and the rest of the RINO leadership.

As I read this article I kept thinking - this irrational line of logic has a familiar ring to it.  Then I realized, this is the same kind of twisted logic used by the Democrats when someone does something they don't like.

Not all writers are in the tank for Ryan and the rest.  Robert Eno published this article, saying:
 "Instead of [Ryan] owning up to the American people that his plan does not actually repeal the most onerous parts of Obamacare, Ryan is relying on his allies in the establishment side of the right of center media to attack his real enemies: the House Freedom Caucus. How dare a group of conservative members of Congress hold their party’s feet to the fire to do what they promised they would do."
He goes on to say:
 "In 2016, the GOP-controlled Congress passed a clean repeal bill through the reconciliation process. It was sent to Barack Obama, who vetoed it, as CNN reported at the time. In 2017, Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has offered a bill that does many of the same things, as the 2016 legislation."
This "disgusting" "do nothing" caucus have at least been open and consistent from the beginning.

There's another aspect of this that's clearly alien to modern writers, most of whom are from a generation that seems incapable of reading a history book, and too young to remember important history.  This conservative caucus may end up getting help from a new "loyal opposition". The Democrats. 

On March 25, Donald Mazzella published the article, There Is Power To Gain For Democrats Who Support Obamacare Reform, saying:
"Democratic leaders would do well to study the tenure of Senator Dirksen who was successful despite his minority status. Among the things they would learn is that being the loyal opposition provides great power to shape events and laws. Often it is more powerful than the present effort to delegitimize the present administration."
Do I think this will happen? No, not en masse, but there will be a few who will abandon  party positions that are being framed by radical, raging, frothing at the mouth resistance rather than well thought out policy. But make no mistake about this. Both parties are going to go through changes none of the leadership are wanting, nor are they capable of dealing with them.

In spite of any shifting of positions of individuals in the Democratic Party, it seems to me in four years the Democrats will be farther left than ever, and the Republicans will be farther right than ever.  And it seems to me the biggest changes will be in the leadership.   By this time four years from now I will be amazed if any of them are still in the leadership, including Ryan, Pelosi, McConnell or Shumer even if they're still in office. 

We have got the get clarity on this.  The United States is in the midst of a war.  A philosophical war to capture the hearts and minds of a people and a nation.  What happens over the next four years will determine if the United States survives as a nation and a culture.

One more thing - in the 2018 election Democrats must defend 25 Senate seats versus Republicans who will defend 8. If each loses half those seats (4 for the Republicans and 12 or 13 for the Democrats, which would be 52-4+12=60) that will give Republicans a 60 vote majority. 

The pendulum of history is swinging and once gravity takes hold - there's no stopping it. The key will be how the United States deals with the upcoming worldwide massive economic and social upheaval that I believe will occur in the next five years.  And we need to get this - no matter what everyone says - we don't really need the rest of the world.  We can arm ourselves without the world, we can feed ourselves without the world, we can fuel ourselves without the world.  We don't need the world.  They need us, badly, and in the next few years that "need" will become a whine pleading for our help. 

There's a much bigger reason than immigration issues as to why Merkel was so unhappy when she was here.  She, as well as the rest of the EU leadership, realize (privately) they're heading into the dumper and want the U.S. to bail them out. With the Clintonites out - that time has passed.

I predict the EU will be gone in five years, and probably less, Europe will be in the midst of a major economic downturn, social unrest will be so severe there will be an outright civil war, or revolution, all throughout western Europe. Eastern Europe will all that will be left to salvage European stability and culture. And once again Poland will have to save the west from Muslim invasion. I also predict in all this turmoil there will eventually be mass deportations of Muslims from Western Europe, or Western Europe will cease to exist.

However, Europe faced down Muslim invasion when they believed in something. Having accepted leftist secular humanism they no longer have a solid moral foundation to fight a religious war, and make no mistake about this - this is a religious war - because Muslims have made it so, and Europe is unarmed.

Obamacare: My two cents

By Jon Ray @ Dissecting Leftism

 GOP congressmen are presently divided into two: One lot who want Obamacare completely repealed because of its huge costs and  reduction in access to health care for many.  The other lot fear that if they change too much they might lose the votes of those who currently benefit from Obamacare.  So the abolitionists won't vote for the wishy-washy Ryancare and the nervous nellies won't vote for abolition.  It looks like a stalemate.

But I think there may be a way out:  Vote for Obamacare to cease as of the end of this year and in the meanwhile work on one of the many replacements that have been proposed -- so that a new system begins when Obamacare finally expires.

Hope that a brand-new system might not sacrifice GOP votes lies in both the huge costs of Obamacare and the fact that  most people who have enrolled in health insurance for the first time have done so via the expanded access to Medicare and Medicaid that Obamacare enabled.  So follow up on that by taking the savings from an abolished Obamacare and putting them into expanded Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Long before Obama, America had extensive provisions to get healthcare to the poor and the old so Obamacare was to some extent a solution in search of a problem.  Where there was a problem was that many middle income families could not easily afford health insurance and got no government help with that.  But expanded eligibility for Medicaid should fix most of that problem -- leaving only those who are really well-off to pay their own way.

I can't see many lost votes under those circumstances. There must of course be a limit to another expansion of Medicaid so my proposal for that would be to limit it to what was saved by abolishing the Obamacare octopus.  Whole Obamacare agencies could go.

My proposal is of course nowhere near ideal but something like it may at the moment be the only way of lifting the many Obamacare burdens.  Obamacare gave healthcare to some while taking it away from others.  My proposal should genuinely expand access to healthcare.

Gov't-funded art not needed -- we have capitalism!

Carl Jackson visits festival where competition allowed for affordable paintings


Capitalism will do more to create new artists than the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) could ever do to preserve art. Having said that, the left is doing its very best to portray President Trump as cruel and heartless for proposing to nix federal funding for both the NEA and the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH) altogether.

Last weekend my wife and I attended a very prestigious art festival in Winter Park, Florida (Orlando’s Beverly Hills if you ask me). I was amazed at the level of talent on full display for everyone to see. Equally impressive was the size of the crowd. The venue was packed full of people willing to shell out their hard-earned cash to purchase exquisite art. Plenty of spectators like myself lined the streets as well. Oddly enough, the only thing that seemed to be missing were NEA collection plates and donation booths. Do you know why? The reason is simple – they weren’t needed...........Here’s the bottom line: Except for building up a national military, whatever government can do, we can do better..............Read more

The whistleblower Devin Nunes must hear from

Larry Klayman works to hold Clapper, Brennan, Obama accountable

Larry Klayman About | Email | Archive

Last Monday, I delivered to Chairman Devin Nunes and all the members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence a letter urging them to investigate widespread illegal surveillance, not just of President Donald J. Trump and his team both before and after his inauguration but also of hundreds of millions of other innocent Americans by the intelligence agencies.

Key to this investigation is a whistleblower by name of Dennis Montgomery, who as a former National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractor left the spy agencies with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which was classified, and came forward, under grant of immunity, to FBI Director James Comey.

This information, according to Montgomery, shows that the intelligence agencies, particularly under former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Obama CIA Director John Brennan and their minions, spied illegally and unconstitutionally on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other SCOTUS justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen like Donald Trump and even yours truly. Indeed, in addition to the mass surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden, these spy agencies, during the Obama administration, spied on “anyone who was anyone” in terms of their perceived status in society.

The presumed and logical likely purpose of this spying? The potential for extortion and blackmail by the Obama administration................Read more



Hillary's email scandal not over yet

Lawsuit filed after feds refuse to do routine evaluation of harm from 'extremely careless' handling

Alicia Powe About | Email | Archive

Donald Trump joked during the presidential campaign that the Russians should try to find the missing emails of Democrat Hillary Clinton, who used an unsecured server while she was secretary of state, and that perhaps he would authorize an investigation that might put her in jail if he became president.  But since Trump’s huge victory over Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, he’s largely been quiet about any misdeeds she committed in violation of the trust Americans gave her when she was appointed by Barack Obama.

Others, however, have not.............Read more

Macedonia to George Soros and USAID: Go Away

Here’s an opportunity for President Trump and Secretary Tillerson to pay some serious attention.

Victor Gaetan March 24, 2017

Small but mighty Macedonia is the mouse that roared this year, declaring war on George Soros, 86, and his U.S. Government handmaidens, who, incredibly, have financed a left-wing agenda to divide the nation and bring a socialist-Muslim coalition to power.  It was the kind of Obama Administration manipulation that was so routine that it passed unnoticed in 2012, when USAID/Skopje selected Soros’ Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to manage $2.5 million in taxpayer dollars earmarked for oxymoronic “democracy building,” an amount increased to $4.8 million two years later..............He continued, “In my opinion, this directly contradicts what President Trump said in his Inaugural address, that we want to let other nations put their own interests first. Instead, in Macedonia, we have an activist ambassador, Jess Baily, working with and funding the Soros organizations saying that no, you don’t have a right to put your own interests first.”.......To Read More....

Nebraska Dems welcome refugees with voter registration forms

By Thomas Lifson March 24, 2017

The Nebraska Democratic Party is welcoming refugees with open arms, welcome baskets … and voter registration forms.  Is it illegal to solicit non-citizens to register and vote in American elections?  Do Nebraska Democrats actually believe that foreigners are entitled to vote in our elections, or are they in a criminal conspiracy to defraud voter rolls? Evil or stupid?.........More


Venezuela justifies its troops invading Colombia

By Thomas Lifson  March 25, 2017

You’ll never guess the excuse that Venezuela is using to explain why its troops illegally entered the territory of its neighbor, Colombia: You’ll never guess the excuse that Venezuela is using to explain why its troops illegally entered the territory of its neighbor, Colombia: Julián Villabona Galarza reports in the Panam Post:..........Well, at least they didn’t say they were searching for some toilet paper.........Read more

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Observations From the Back Row: Obamacare Stands....Like a Drunken Sailor

By Rich Kozlovich

Well, it's clear - O'Ryancare will not replace Obamacare and the news is throbbing with excitement.  Some are comparing this with the explosion of the Hindenburg for Trump and his administration.  Some are saying this was wonderful, one woman saying ""Yessssss,"  "I'm excited, I think it's a good thing," others just being happy this didn't pass - on both sides of the aisle - and for different reasons, but one thing is absolutely clear - at least to me - O'Ryancare was doomed form the start.  And that's what we need to focus on  - why?

Trump jumped on board and even threatened those in the House who didn't vote for it.  I have serious doubts it would have passed the Senate, but that's neither here nor there now.  Trump has got to understand one foundational fact that is incontestable.  As an able negotiator he sees compromise as a win, and in many situations in the future, that will be true.  However he's now dealing with elected members of the House and Senate who've been forced to compromise for decades, and they now understand and fully realize they don't and won't compromise on some things at all any longer.  And Obamacare was one of them.  

Trump and all the Republicans ran on one absolute imperative - we will repeal Obamacare immediately after taking control of the Congress and the Presidency.  That was a lie for most of them, and they knew it.  Most of them don't have the guts or the fortitude.  Sure, the Republican passed a number of bills repealing Obamacare while Obama was President, but that was a safe vote because they knew they couldn't overturn a Presidential veto, and so it wasn't going to happen.  This way they could proclaim to the world - see, we're doing our job, but we can't succeed without the White House.....in short.....it's not our fault!

The news is saying Trump is sorry he didn't start with tax reform, as if this is going to effect that effort - this failure of O'Ryancare will not impact that at all.  The conservatives know tax reform has to be an effort in negotiations and compromise, along with all other efforts to drain the federal swamp.  They will support the President - more heartily than the O'Ryancare Republicans - on all of these efforts.

So what's the difference?  Obamacare is now and has always been a moral issue beyond compromise for conservatives, and Obama is responsible for that himself.  There was no openness or negotiation, or compromise.  It was imposed by a radical and stunningly corrupt Democratic Congress and administration.  

An outright repeal is a moral imperative for conservatives, and they will not allow the Republican Party, who've treated legitimate conservatives as pawns for decades because there was no where else to go, to continue to do so.  Conservatives have the numbers, and they are solidly supported by far more Americans than the power brokers like.  The conservative movement in the Republican party is growing.  They're going to be joined by more in 2018 and 2020.  The face of the Republican Party has changed and will continue to do so.  Those who don't like it will join the Democrats, Independents, or perhaps the Transhumanist Party.  But on thing is clear - conservatives have made their bed and they're fully prepared to lay in without fear. 

This was a conservative shot over the bow of the Republican Party saying - stop the lying, stop the corruption, and stop playing political games with the future or else! 

Observations From the Back Row: Throwing Stones From Glass Houses

By Rich Kozlovich

Ever since the election results came in it's been the left's theme Trump only won because Putin illegally influenced the election. There wasn't one iota of evidence of that yet the media practically frothed at the mouth defending that narrative.  And worse yet - there still isn't one iota of evidence and in point of fact - it's just the opposite - it now appears it was the left who was in bed with the Russians, and the Russia/Trump connection is about to reach back and snake bite them. 

This article of March 22, John Podesta, in bed with the Russians all along, accusing Podesta of being hypocritically "more pious, ......more inclined to stroke his chin and intone for guarding national security in the wake of the WikiLeaks revelations than Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta? Turns out the wily Democrat operative was neck-deep with the Russians he intoned against all along, through a Russian-financed company called Joule."

While he was hip deep into Russian corruption he constantly pushed what he absolutely knew to be a false narrative Podesta self-righteously proclaimed:
  • "We now know that the CIA has determined Russia's interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump,"
  • "This should distress every American."
  • Podesta issued his statement in response to letter from Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine, a voting member of the electoral college, to request a security briefing before she casts a ballot.
  • "We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States," Pelosi's letter read.
  • Podesta's statement floats the suggestion that electors could theoretically select a different candidate for president than Donald Trump.
  • "The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,"
  • "Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed."
The author uses a phrase I love to describe this self-serving clabber - horse pucky!  The article says the people he consorted with are "so dirty even Putin is after them". 

So now we know what he was up to.  In order to hide his involvement - and who knows who else's - with all these corrupt Russians he clearly must of thought he could actually overturn the election.  It's been amazing to me how many people clearly "needed" Hillary to be elected - not just thought she's be elected - needed her to be elected in order to cover up so much corruption.

It's my belief there must be someone in the Justice Department whose been keeping track of what's been going on without letting the corrupt people under Obama being aware of it.  That's the way things happen, that's how corruption is uncovered.  I think this is going to be one of the most interesting first term presidencies in the history of the United States, and the former President may find himself charged with serious crimes, and exposure of those crimes will start with the flunkies who carried out the criminal activity - starting with the intelligence agencies, then the Justice Department and the IRS. 

If you think the left is frothing insanely at the mouth now - watch the left and the race baiters really go insane then!

Zeihan on Geopolitics



Trump's Early Days

The Donald has been president for a couple of months now. Here's what I've got, broken into bits as I'm able to piece things together. I apologize if this is somewhat stream of consciousness but as we all know, prognosticating about the new American president is not your normal spectator sport.

Part VII: Keystone and the Method to Trump’s Madness

President Donald Trump formally signed off on the Keystone XL pipeline on March 24.

While there will undoubtedly be ongoing legal and environmental wrangling (that’s just the nature of pipeline politics these days), the presidential waiver was the final formal step of the approval process. Construction will begin in short order, with completion likely in about two years.

Three things come to mind:

1) The economics of Canadian crude in a world of U.S. shale is questionable, but at least now they aren’t so ridiculous.

U.S. shale is very low in contaminants. In a normal system it would sell for a massive premium, but the speed at which shale crude has come on-line has overwhelmed not just American infrastructure, but global energy trends. From-scratch, shale wells can now begin production in less time than OPEC states take to bring pre-existing spare production back online. The result is that despite its sky-high quality, U.S. shale actually sells for a slight discount to international norms.

Canadian oil sands is more traditional from a pricing point of view. It is thick and gooey and packed with sulfur; it’s one of the lowest quality crudes in the world and as such sells at a steep discount. It also gets sold almost exclusively into the U.S. Midwest, the same area that is awash with U.S. shale crude. The result is that Canadian crudes typically sell at a $10 a barrel discount to U.S. shale at least, and more than that to global norms.

The real problem (for Canadian crude) is production costs. U.S. shale oil full-cycle costs are now below $40 a barrel. Canadian heavy is about double that… and that’s before you consider that Canadian heavy often needs to be railed because there isn’t sufficient pipe transport capacity. The transport difference alone adds $5-10 a barrel more to Canadian heavy’s cost. Keystone XL will reduce that shipping cost to the $2-3 range, in theory making Canadian heavy more competitive over the long term. The production cost differential is still wide enough to likely dissuade any new volumes of Canadian heavy coming online anytime soon, but at least the economics of production will be a bit less out of whack vis-à-vis shale.

 

  2) U.S. industry needs to formally adjust for new crude mixes.

Ten years ago everyone knew that crudes like Canadian heavy were the future, and so everyone retooled their refineries to run on heavy, sour crudes. Then shale popped up and wrecked everyone’s well-laid and expensively-funded plans. Now in some ways U.S. refiners faces the best and worst of all worlds. Best in that the two major input streams -- Canadian heavy and shale -- can be purchased at discounts to the global norm. Worst in that the two crude streams are about as far apart as concerns quality as is possible and so cannot be run in the same facility.

The solution is blending facilities that mix the two along with a few other inputs to make something a bit more regularized, preferably with enough flexibility that refineries can custom-order a blend that matches their technical requirements as well as the market needs of the day. The problem isn’t just tank farms and dedicated pipelines, but those “other inputs” that help the blend remain blended. Otherwise the mixed crude tends to separate like salad dressing. Spoiler alert: Keystone XL guarantees that such blending facilities are going to be a big growth industry for the next decade.

3) Trump is not a normal president, and he’s becoming less so by the day.

That Trump moved quickly on Keystone XL doesn’t surprise me. What surprises me is that the announcement today came without Trump’s Elon-Musk-style leadup and fanfare. While many media like to lampoon him as, well, eminently lampoonable, the fact is that he is a shifting target who shows no sign of establishing a normal order of business. In the meantime, he is forcing the government to work the way he wants them to.

My contacts in the refining world have already detected a 180-degree shift in the way the Environmental Protection Agency operates. Under Obama, EPA inspectors would drop in unannounced and demand to see everything. Now they are giving weeks of notice for information requests and volunteering that even these looser reporting deadlines are more like squishy guidelines…and that’s before Trump’s 30%+ funding cut to the Agency kicks in.

The State Department has had minimal contact with its own Secretary, Rex Tillerson, who has emphasized personal diplomacy over institutional diplomacy. Both styles have pluses and minuses, but the Trump team is very clearly laying the groundwork for a broad-scale elimination of many of the levers of government power. People criticize Trump for seeming to still be floundering after two months on the job, but I see the greatest civil deconstruction in the history of the Republic. At the speed Trump is moving, it would take a generation of effort to rebuild the bureaucracy should future presidents attempt to turn back the clock. Trump may well have the greatest impact of any president on the structure of government since the New Deal.

Buckeye Institute Press Release

Contact: Daniel Dew, Criminal Justice Fellow
(614) 224-4422 or Daniel@BuckeyeInstitute.org 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE    March 24, 2017

The Buckeye Institute is Leading Charge to Cut Stifling Regulations, Rollback Red Tape, and... Yes, Drain the Washington Swamp Using a Carefully Chosen Tool for the Job: the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
 
COLUMBUS, OH--On Friday morning, The Buckeye Institute announced its metaphorical use of the axe that is the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
 
The high temperatures in Columbus the next few days are expected to be in the low 70s.  With the arrival of warmer weather brings a natural desire to do some spring cleaning, and your Buckeye Institute is well prepared for this dirty job. While the Washington establishment types are taking feather dusters in to do some light touching up and dust removal here and there, your Buckeye Institute is making use of a mighty axe (the CRA) to cut the devastating regulations hurting our citizens, our businesses, and our families in Ohio and states across this great nation.
 
In the moments before President Trump's Joint Address to Congress a few weeks back, the Wall Street Journal broke the news of Pacific Legal Foundation's project Red Tape Rollback.
 
Today, The Buckeye Institute is pleased to share our exciting role as a founding partner in this national effort to eliminate devastating regulations.  Red Tape Rollback is a cooperative venture and the result of a partnership of several prominent national think tanks, policy organizations, and the oldest public interest law firm on the right to reduce regulations through the use of the CRA.
 
Former Congressman David McIntosh (now of The Club for Growth) and his old friend and Capitol Hill staffer Todd Gaziano (now of Pacific Legal Foundation) who wrote the Congressional Review Act were keen to employ this tactic to dismantle the foundation of the regulatory state.  The Buckeye Institute has joined them in identifying regulations that are problematic in the states, for small businesses, and families, and we are leading the charge to eliminate them for good.
 
Why is the CRA so powerful?  As explained on Red Tape Rollback:
 
1)   Agencies are required to report agency rules, policy memoranda, guidance documents, dear colleague letters, etc. to Congress.  Congress then has the option of disapproving these regulations within 60 days.  Here is the kicker: there are thousands of these rules that went unreported during the Obama administration. Are you even surprised?  What about the filibuster, you ask? We don't need no stinkin' filibuster.  In fact, the CRA provides that the filibuster doesn't even apply to the review of these nasty regulations!

2)   You say that Congress is a bunch of do-nothings who take feather dusters to do their deep spring cleaning?  We can't argue with you there, but under the CRA, rules do not take effect until the reports are sent to Congress.  So the Trump administration could indeed abandon these regulations without Congress.
 
What can you do to assist this effort?  Go to Red Tape Rollback.  Find the regulation that has been harming your business or family, and check to see whether it was ever reported to Congress.  If it was not, enter it on that same webpage so that we can add it to the list of regulations to repeal.  If you'd rather not get your hands dirty, but prefer to help us do this spring cleaning, we can always use financial support.  This effort is costly in terms of time, staff, and research, and we cannot do it without your help.
 
The Buckeye Institute's President Robert Alt said of this project, "In states across the country, the proliferation of problematic regulations has slowed economic growth, killed jobs, and oppressed small businesses and families. Ironically, we now know that the same Washington government agencies promulgating these onerous regulations did not follow the rules themselves. That ends today. The Buckeye Institute is proud to be a founding partner of the Red Tape Rollback project to ensure that the Congressional Review Act is vigorously enforced, agencies follow the rules that Congress put into place, and that job-killing and other harmful regulations are eliminated expeditiously."
 
Boom.



# # #

BACKGROUND:  Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution--a think tank--whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.
 
The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code.  As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government.  The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.

Libertarian Jesus Strikes Again

March 24, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

It’s time to make a very serious point, albeit with a bit of humor and sarcasm.
A couple of years ago, I shared an image of Libertarian Jesus to make the point that it’s absurd to equate compassion and virtue with government-coerced redistribution.

We all can agree – at least I hope – that it is admirable to help the less fortunate with our own time and/or money. Indeed, I’m proud that Americans are much more likely to be genuinely generous than people from other countries (and it’s also worth noting that people from conservative states are more generous than people from leftist states).

But some of our statist friends go awry when they think it’s also noble and selfless to support higher tax rates and bigger government. How is it compassionate, I ask them, to forcibly give away someone else’s money? Especially when those policies actually undermine progress in the fight against poverty!

With this in mind, here’s another great example of Libertarian Jesus (h/t: Reddit).


Amen (pun intended), I’m going to add this to my collection of libertarian humor.

But don’t overlook the serious part of the message. As Cal Thomas succinctly explained, it’s hardly a display of religious devotion when you use coercion to spend other people’s money.

This is why I’ve been critical of Pope Francis. His heart may be in the right place, but he’s misguided about the policies that actually help the less fortunate.

For what it’s worth, it would be helpful if he was guided by the moral wisdom of Walter Williams rather than the destructive statism of Juan Peron.

P.S. I’m rather amused that socialists, when looking for Christmas-themed heroes, could only identify people who practice non-coercive generosity.

P.P.S. On a separate topic, Al Gore blames climate change for Brexit.
Brexit was caused in part by climate change, former US Vice-President Al Gore has said, warning that extreme weather is creating political instability “the world will find extremely difficult to deal with”.
I’m beginning to lose track and get confused. Our statist friends have told us that climate change causes AIDS and terrorism, which are bad things. But now they’re telling us climate change caused Brexit, which is a good thing.

Maybe the real lesson is that Al Gore and his friends are crackpots.

Pray for Sanity

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 16 Comments Thursday, March 23, 2017 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Pray for London, Brussels and Paris. Then pray for Berlin, Nice and London again. And when you’re done, it might be your city’s turn to be on the wrong end of that hashtag.

Pray that on the way to work you don’t get run over, shot or stabbed by a man yelling “Allahu Akbar”.

Pray that your government doesn’t decide to open the borders to as many migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and any other terror state as can make their way over. Pray that the next government doesn’t do it either. And pray that if it does, they don’t move in near you.

 Because they can’t run you over, if you don’t let them in. They can’t stab you while shouting, “Allahu Akbar” if they never get a visa. They can’t shove you into the water, if they get deported. They can’t blow you up if they can’t get in.

 Pray that the local diplomats actually do some basic checks of the visa application for the next terrorist showing up at the local consulate. Pray that they do a better job than they did before September 11.

Pray that the next Muslim mass murderer comes in at just below the refugee quota. Pray that he doesn’t get in with the 50,000 cap for this year. Or the year after and year after that.

Pray that the local refugee non-profit doesn’t resettle him next door to you. Or the block over. Pray that the angry bearded man living across the street doesn’t decide that today would be a good day to cash in his chips for 72 virgins. Pray that he doesn’t decide that tomorrow. Or the day after.

Pray that he just keeps on collecting welfare without killing anyone. Especially you or anyone you know. Pray really hard.

Pray that when your government comes out with its traditional statement about how the terrorists can’t kill our diversity (though they can kill people of every race, gender, non-Islamic religion and sexual orientation) it comes packaged with some sort of immigration reduction and deportation plan.

Pray that the plan doesn’t get shut down by a judge and a coterie of human rights activists. Pray that the first time the future terrorist gets sent to prison for dealing drugs, he gets deported. Or at least the second or third times. Pray that when he goes off to Syria to visit ISIS, we don’t let him back in.

Pray that we have a government that kicks him out the first time he posts an Anwar Al-Awlaki video. Pray that your government finds some common sense when the terror attack is no longer just targeting random people, but targeting it.

Pray that common sense returns to politics. Pray for border security. Pray for mass deportations.

Pray for sanity.