Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Democrat Governors are Suicidal -- or They Don’t Believe in Their Own Lockdowns

A week before issuing a statewide mask mandate and a few weeks after trying to ban Thanksgiving, Governor Newsom attended a dinner party, maskless, for a lobbyist.

The size of the party, a dozen people, contravened, Newsom’s own Thanksgiving crackdown limiting gathering sizes and urging members of different households not to mingle. The photos also contravened Newsom’s 93 to wear a mask at dinner between bites.

"COVID-19 has NOT gone away. Take the new case rates seriously. We cannot let our guard down," Newsom had urged on Twitter. "Wear a mask, limit mixing with those you don't live with, and physically distance."

Photos of the dinner party showed no social distancing, no mask wearing, and no precautions.

Those attending the party included not only Newsom, but top California Medical Association officials. The CMA had lobbied to suspend “non-urgent” and “non-essential” procedures. It had also cheered Newsom’s mask mandate warning that “anti-science extremists” were “putting public health at risk” in an ad campaign released earlier this summer by the association.

The anti-science extremists apparently include the CEO of the California Medical Association.

Newsom’s dinner party comes after D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser violated her own quarantine, traveling to Delaware for Biden’s election party, one of the “high-risk” states, while partying with Democrat political operatives, before returning home and then refusing to quarantine.

Bowser claimed that she didn’t have to follow her own rules because it was “official business”.

The coronavirus is presumably obliging enough not to infect politicians who are traveling on official business to party with fellow Democrats, but knows to infect people at Trump rallies.

In Chicago, Mayor Lightfoot told residents to “cancel traditional Thanksgiving plans”, after joining a massive crowd celebrating Biden’s claim to have won the 2020 presidentia election.

“There are times when we actually do need to have relief and come together, and I felt like that was one of those times. That crowd was gathered whether I was there or not,” Lightfoot argued.

Of course all of this isn’t really news.

Governor Whitmer’s husband was already caught demanding his boat, Governor Pritzker’s family was caught traveling around the country, Governor Murphy was caught dining indoors, Governor Cuomo didn’t bother social distancing or wearing a mask at a Sharpton event, Mayor Lightfoot was caught getting a haircut, and Speaker Pelosi was caught at a hair salon.

Senator Dianne Feinstein was caught repeatedly not using a mask, and Senator Kamala Harris had no problem piling into an elevator with her entire staff. All this is just business as usual.

Even without listing the numerous Black Lives Matter marches and Biden victory parties, or the Women’s March in D.C., it’s all too obvious that Democrat leaders don’t follow the rules.

And that leads to one of two inevitable conclusions.

Either Democrat leaders are suicidal or the mask and lockdown regimen doesn’t work.

But what absolutely cannot be true is the media narrative that Democrats are following science and should be trusted to lead us through the pandemic using a regime of lockdowns and masks.

The same Democrat leadership lecturing us that masks save lives goes maskless whenever it can. And that might be forgivable if they weren’t constantly pretending that the only people not wearing masks are Republican scofflaws who are endangering all of us with their selfishness.

The only thing more unforgivable than corruption is hypocrisy.

But the fundamental question is why Governor Newsom, Governor Cuomo, Mayor Bowser, Mayor Lightfoot, and so many others are casually violating their own restrictions and guidelines.

If Governor Newsom truly believed, as he tweeted, “Wear your mask. Physically distance. Do not let your guard down. Your actions could literally save lives”, would he have joined a crowded party at the French Laundry for a lobbyist and adviser, without doing any of these things?

The only two rational conclusions are that Governor Newsom has no regard for his own life (we already know that he, like most Democrat governors on this list, has no regard for human life when he ordered skilled nursing facilities to accept coronavirus patients in a cruel act that one geriatric doctor compared to, “premeditated murder”) or he doesn’t believe his own guidance.

Are Democrat leaders particularly suicidal? That seems unlikely.

Newsom, Cuomo, Murphy, Whitmer, and Pritzker, not to mention Pelosi, Feinstein, Bowser, and Lightfoot, can be accused of many things, but a wilful disregard for their lives isn’t one of them.

That leaves us with the cold hard reality that they don’t believe the things that they’re telling us.

Some of the violations of guidance meant to stop the spread of the virus can be dismissed as selfishness that doesn’t directly put Whitmer or Pritzker at risk. But when Newsom and Cuomo, among others, casually hang out in close proximity without masks, there’s only one conclusion.

They don’t practice this stuff because they don’t think it works.

What do they know that we don’t? Mostly, that nothing they’re doing will really make a difference, but that they need to be seen to be doing something. This is a common problem in politics. President Trump suffered from poor ratings on the coronavirus because, while his administration did practical things behind the scenes, it didn’t impose abusive mandates.

Like the kind that Biden ran on.

People expect medicine that really works to taste bitter and any real approach to a crisis to cause pain. That’s why we have to take off our shoes and belts when we fly even though the TSA has not stopped a single terrorist attack after all these years of airport shoelessness.

But the TSA was never meant to stop terrorism. It was there to show that the government was taking the problem seriously. And the more miserable flying became, the tighter the security.

There’s a term for that sort of thing: security theater. And there’s a term for what we’re doing now: medical theater. All of these are subsidiaries of political theater in which governments and politicians pretend to be doing things even though they know none of it really matters.

Congress spends a lot of its time holding entirely useless hearings that only exist so that its members can tweet about how seriously they’re taking the thing that the hearing is about.

Governor Cuomo mismanaged the coronavirus in the worst way possible, lying to the public, sending thousands of infected patients into nursing homes, imposing lockdowns and bragging his way through innumerable press conferences, before illegally scapegoating Orthodox Jews for the virus ahead of the second wave, but never missed a press opportunity or book deal.

That’s why his coronavirus leadership book hit the bestseller lists ahead of the morgues.

Democrat politicians know exactly how to navigate the pandemic, not to save lives, but to maximize their approval ratings, book sales, and potential presidential runs down the road. It doesn’t matter how many people die. Arguably more people dying in your state is better.

Just ask Cuomo who still holds down a nationwide championship in coronavirus corpses.

What is really important in any crisis is to be seen taking it very seriously by holding constant press conferences and imposing pain, lockdowns, restrictions, mandates, on the public. The more people suffer, the more a politician must get credit for doing everything to fight the virus.

The governors know that what they’re doing isn’t working and they don’t know what does. Their strategy isn’t to protect the people in their states, but to protect their political careers.

To find out what people really believe, don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.

Governor Newsom knew, before imposing his statewide mask mandate, that masks don’t work. If he thought they did, he would have been wearing one while hanging out with his pals. But to a lot of people, masks provide a sense of control and so politicians happily mandate masks.

Newsom, Cuomo, Whitmer, Murphy, and the rest of the gubernatorial gang don’t have a plan to deal with the virus. Their only plan is to wait it out and come out looking good. That’s why they wear masks in front of the camera and then take them off the first chance they get.

They’re not leaders, they’re politicians, with no clue what to do in a real crisis. Except lie.

As winter is upon us, there are only two possible explanations why so many governors repeatedly violate the rules that they tell us mean the difference between life and death.

Either they’re suicidal or they’re lying to us.

Since none of them have yet grasped a noose, put shotguns in their ears, or plunged needles filled with uncut heroin in their veins, they’re not suicidal. They are corrupt and incompetent. And while they destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions, they go on partying behind closed doors.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
 
Tags: , ,
Author Image

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Quote of the Day

“I deplore … the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity and the mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.” - Thomas Jefferson described the abuses of a free press in 1814 in a letter to his friend Walter Jones

Editor's Note:  Nothing has changed, nor it will ever change, regarding the lack of integrity in the media! It has been so from their founding, and will continue to be so until the end of time.  But right now, today, because of modern communications, they have more easily, and more thoroughly, corrupted the nation's perception of reality with the stench of their morality, and stunning level of hypocritical ignorance.  

Worse yet, they work diligently to prevent anyone from exposing their perfidy!  As an example, YouTube suspended  One America News Network channel for what they're calling misinformation violations for COVID-19 policy.  That's a convenient way of saying anything that disagrees with the leftist agenda, AKA, free speech, is misinformation and must be censored.    Yet they have little trouble promoting outright lies.  Those don't count because those lies promote false leftist narratives.

Calling them sewer trout would be an insult to trout and sewers, since both serve a useful purpose.  RK

 

 

The Great American Outdoors Act

This crown jewel of the Trump Administration’s environmental record will bring many benefits 

Duggan Flanakin 

To the surprise of most Americans, and the consternation of many in the “mainstream” media, Vice President Mike Pence highlighted the Trump Administration’s environmental record during the recent VP debate. Citing the President’s signing of the historic bill, Mr. Pence lauded the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) as “the largest investment in our public lands and public parks in 100 years.”

The Associated Press said the GAOA is the “most significant conservation legislation enacted in nearly half a century.” The National Parks Conservation Association called it “a conservationist’s dream.”

Harvard Business School professor Linda Bilmes agreed, calling the GAOA “the biggest land conservation legislation in a generation.” Bilmes, who served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration, marveled that the Trump Administration won broad bipartisan support in a polarized Congress, after the President reevaluated his own stance on this groundbreaking environmental and conservationist initiative.

Bilmes explained that the new law has two major effects. First, the new National Park and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund will provide up to $9 billion over the next five years to address deferred maintenance issues in national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and other federal areas, with $6.5 billion earmarked specifically to the 419 National Park units. Second, the GAOA guarantees the statutory maximum of $900 million per year in perpetuity for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).

Bilmes explained that Congress has been stingy with parks funding, despite a doubling of annual park visitors since 1980 (excluding the COVID-marred 2020 season). Thanks to the GAOA, the $12 billion backlog of maintenance to repair roads, trails, campgrounds, monuments, fire safety, utilities and visitor center infrastructure will finally be addressed. Similarly, the LWCF, established in 1964 with an annual maximum authorization level of $900 million, has typically received less than half of that amount.

The flagship LWCF conservation program is paid for with royalty payments from offshore oil and gas production in federal waters. It helps fund the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. It also provides grants to state and local governments to acquire land for recreation and conservation. Yet many self-described environmental advocates want to shut down offshore oil activities.

An early beneficiary of the GAOA is the state of California, which will benefit from GAOA funding that provides the 50% federal share of a new program aimed at reducing wildfire risks. Both California and the U.S. Forest Service will treat at least half a million acres of forest land per year under a 20-year plan for forest health and vegetation – by reducing the fuel buildups that lead to monstrous conflagrations.

The Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California’s Forest and Rangelands, lauded by President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom, is a joint state-federal initiative to reduce wildfire risks, restore watersheds, and protect habitat and biological diversity. Sadly, Congressional bickering delayed its passage such that it came too late to help mitigate this summer’s wildfires, which caused major damage to endangered and threatened species and their habitat in California and other Western states.

The California-federal agreement requires prioritizing public safety, using real science to guide forest management, coordinating land management across jurisdictions, increasing the scale and pace of forest management projects, removing barriers that slow project approvals, and working closely with all stakeholders: local and tribal communities, environmental groups, academics, timber companies and others. Additional activities under the agreement include recycling forest byproducts to avoid burning slash piles, improving sustainable recreation opportunities, and stabilizing rural economies.

Bilmes credited the strong bipartisan support (3 to 1 margins in both houses of Congress) to the political and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. She noted that in normal years park visitor spending contributes about $40 billion to the U.S. economy and supports nearly 350,000 jobs. The GAOA will give a huge shot in the arm to communities struggling due to the loss of tourism-related jobs and income, by creating over 108,000 new jobs for repairing park infrastructure, including lodges, trails, access roads and bridges in the adjacent communities.

Bilmes estimates that the American people value national park land, waters and programs at $92 billion per year – at least 30 times the annual budget they receive from Congress. Yet, like many critics of other Trump land management decisions, she fails to appreciate that reopening small sections of public lands with lower aesthetic value to income producing activities will provide the revenue needed to pay for the increased budgets for these national treasures.

Similarly, cutbacks in offshore oil and gas activities would drastically shrink the very federal revenues needed to pay $900 million per year to the LWCF, to support federal land management programs.

This crown jewel of the Trump Administration’s environmental record will bring many benefits

Duggan Flanakin

Critics of Trump policies also ignore the fact that the United States is reducing carbon dioxide emissions at an annual rate of more than 2% and has lowered emissions of criteria pollutants by 7% since the beginning of 2017, primarily because fracking is producing low-cost natural gas to replace coal in generating electricity, Mr. Pence pointed out during his debate.

Reducing wildfire infernos is another excellent way to reduce CO2 emissions, as well as real pollution like smoke and fine particulates (soot). Emissions from these forest fires are astronomical and can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles from the fires.

Pence also cited a record number of completed Superfund cleanups during the four years he and President Trump have been in office, along with a record number of recovered endangered species.

Reflecting the President’s view that parks are for the people, the Vice President also lauded the Interior Department’s opening of over 4 million acres of Fish and Wildlife Service lands for hunting and fishing, and relocating the Bureau of Land Management headquarters to Grand Junction, CO, much closer to the vast majority of the vast federal lands it administers, nearly all in the western states.

Lastly, Pence cited the Modern Fish Act, signed in January 2019, which for the first time in federal law recognizes the differences between recreational and commercial saltwater fishing. The act also adds more appropriate management tools for policymakers to use in managing diverse federal recreational fisheries.

The popular legislation “provides an opportunity for significant, positive change on behalf of millions of recreational anglers who enjoy fishing in federal waters,” noted Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation president Jeff Crane.

Despite the bipartisan nature of these major accomplishments, and their importance to America and its magnificent natural heritage, media coverage of the GAOA signing made it quite clear that mainstream reporters were loath to give any credit to President Trump. That’s sad but not unexpected.

Whether acquiring more and more federal land is a good thing, in view of the often less than stellar way existing landholdings have been managed in recent years, only time will tell. But these new laws and joint federal-state-local-tribal land management initiatives are a solid step in the right direction.

Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

 

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Ohio Notes: Massive Political Corruption in Ohio, and DeWine Never Noticed! Imaging that!

By Rich Kozlovich 

Daniel Greenfield is one of my favorite writers, who I refer to as a friend, and who I think is brilliant!  We've exchanged e-mails over the years, and he allows me to publish his work when it appears on his personal blog,  Sultan Knish Blog.   I don't know if this will be one of them so I linked this piece from the original post on FrontPageMagazine to P&D.  How a Trump Prosecutor Took Down a Third of the Cincinnati City Council.  

Also, you may wish to review my Daniel Greenfield file. The question that keeps coming to mind as all this corruption in Ohio's political realm keeps turning up is this: How is it our last Attorney General, AKA, Governor Mike DeWine, never noticed all this corruption?  In both parties!  Did all this corruption just start after he was no longer the Attorney General?  It appears, as far as I can tell, was ongoing while he was Attorney General!   Corruption so massive every lobbyist in the state knew it was going on, but Mike DeWine didn't notice. 
To quote the kid in the Little Rascals - Remarkable! 

I found him to be contemptible when he was in Congress, and I think he's still contemptible.  Humm, it appears consistency counts to Republican leaders because they chose him to be Governor, although he just barely beat one of the most far left candidates ever to run for the Ohio Governorship.  The conservative base wasn't fooled and didn't vote for him in large numbers, and conservative friends say they will not vote for him again.... if he runs.   So what does that say about the Republican leadership? Which brings me to the second question we should be asking:  What's wrong with Ohio's Republican leadership?  

Kudos to Senators Rob McColley (R-01) and Kristina Roegner for their bill to bring DeWine's tyranny under rein.  The fact this took from May until now for this bill to come to fruition is - at least in my mind - a clear indication there's something rotten with Ohio's Republican leadership as they can't seem to find a Ronald Reagan.  

Maybe we need a Maggie Thatcher! I have more coming but I've been in so much pain I find it hard to read, to think and correspondingly, I just can't seem to write, but I've saved a ton of information regarding this fraudulent election, along with this coronavirus fraud, and I want to deal with them both this week.  In the meanwhile you may wish to review my

Monday, November 23, 2020

Cartoon and Thought of the Day

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/MC_emmy_award_web20201123014217.jpg

 
November 23, 2020 By Silvio Canto, Jr. 
'
Back in 2009, the "Nobelistas" decided to go full "anti–George W. Bush" and awarded the Peace Prize to Barack Obama.  It was so foolish that Nobel secretary Geir Lundestad admitted in 2015 that President Obama failed to achieve what the committee hoped that he would.  Apparently, the Nobelistas anticipated that Obama's words and speeches would create a reign of peace all over the world.  Peace didn't happen.............Let's show the world how much we hate President Trump by recognizing a man who does not deserve any award at all........

How a Trump Prosecutor Took Down a Third of the Cincinnati City Council

Draining the swamp in Ohio. 

Daniel Greenfield  Mon Nov 23, 2020  19

"As Donald Trump returns to Cincinnati today, I think it's important to say in my role as an elected leader for the city that he does not represent our values - not anywhere close. Indeed, he undermines them daily," Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld tweeted two years ago.

Now, P.G. Sittenfeld, the leftist mayoral candidate, whose Senate bid had been funded by Obama and Biden backers, was arrested on corruption charges. In some places that might be a shameful distinction, but in Cincinnati it just means a third of the city council has been busted.

Or 40% of the ‘Gang of Five’, the five Democrats who had illegally colluded on city business via text messaging resulting in $101,000 in fines and attorney fees to be paid for by taxpayers. When Democrat politicians violate the law, it's the taxpayers who still end up on the hook.

Sittenfeld, a young leftist, was being touted for bigger things. One of his fundraising events was hosted by Bill Burton, Obama's former deputy press secretary and the co-founder of Priorities USA, the biggest Democrat super PAC formed to support Obama and then Hillary Clinton, Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton's ex- press secretary, and Tad Devine, Bernie Sanders’ former top strategist.........

Cincinnati's city council is dominated by Democrats. David DeVillers, a Trump pick for U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, wasted little time in going after crooked politicians since taking office in 2019. ............“The fact that we had two in one year, that tells you all you need to know," DeVillers had said about the city's culture of corruption. “We’re going to prosecute those cases. Our goal is to make people nervous and stop them from doing this...............In Cincinnati, thanks to President Trump, crooked politicians who take bribes now get busted.................To Read More.....

EPA Transparency and the Deep State

By Duggan Flanakin

Ballot harvesting, behind-the-curtains ballot counting and other hijinks have made transparency a critical issue this election year.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency celebrates its fiftieth birthday, political battles continue to rage over the extent of public, executive and congressional oversight, and access to research files, original data and other information used by the agency in taking legal actions against individuals, institutions and businesses. The latest salvos involve the first-ever “transparency” requirements for EPA guidance documents – requirements likely to be tossed out by a Biden Administration.

In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order to curb what he called abuses of authority by unaccountable bureaucrats who were “imposing their private agendas” on Americans. “A permanent federal bureaucracy,” he observed, “cannot become a fourth branch of government unanswerable to American voters.” Nor should federal agencies be able to impose multi-billion-dollar regulations, while claiming studies used to justify them are proprietary, confidential or otherwise inaccessible.

This February, the EPA launched a new searchable portal to provide public access to agency guidance documents. When it was finalized in July, the EPA brought over 9,000 guidance documents out of the darkness and made the entire active guidance library available to the public for the first time.

In September, the EPA finalized a rule that significantly increases the transparency of guidance practices and amends the agency’s process for managing guidance documents. The rule establishes the first formal public petition process for asking the EPA to modify, withdraw or reinstate a guidance document.

You would think “transparency” would be universally practiced and praised. However, the Deep State, science establishment, activist and pressure groups, and Democratic Party politicians have been horrified. Some claimed the rule reveals and distorts EPA’s decision-making processes. Others said it risks exposing private medical data and other confidential information. Still others carped that the rule is a bad-faith ploy to hamstring the agency’s ability to regulate industries and individuals.

Indeed, last October, an unsigned article in Wired magazine (we can’t even have author transparency) claimed the regulation was a Zombie-like attempt to resurrect the Secret Science Reform Act. Horrors!

The proposed legislation merely attempted to end the EPA’s widespread practice of basing regulations and guidance on research whose details remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements and are not publicly accessible, and whose research data cannot be replicated or independently verified.

During Congressional hearings on the proposal, critics claimed transparency would force the EPA to exclude important studies to protect confidentiality agreements. FactCheck.org found that private data sometimes cannot be redacted. But it also acknowledged that the rule allows the EPA administrator to exempt regulations if releasing study data publicly (rarely) does conflict with protecting privacy. It also allows for alternatives to complete public release if the data actually include confidential information.

One of the most scandalous cases of regulatory secrecy (and presidential secrecy) involved the acid rain provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. President Bush and the EPA suppressed the findings of the 10-year, $537 million National Acid Rain Assessment Program (NAPAP), which had been authorized by President Carter.

To gain public support for the legislation, EPA scientists conjured up scary scenarios, claiming that sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants combined with water in the air to form acid rain that polluted streams, lakes and rivers and damaged trees, wildlife and buildings. The NAPAP found that the acidity of a lake is determined as much (or more) by the acidity of local soil and vegetation as it is by acidic rain. The frightening scenarios were wildly exaggerated, to justify closing power plants.

Moreover, many of these lakes were historically acidic and fishless until around 1900, when logging removed the acid vegetation and made the soil slightly alkaline. After logging slowed to a halt (around 1915), the naturally acidic decaying vegetation built up again, and the lakes became acidic again. In many cases forests were also debilitated due to insects or drought – not acid rain.

Curiously, a 1991 paper by environmental law scholar Richard Lazarus argued that Congress should let EPA be more independent, while admitting that legislators and regulators alike “have rarely known the best way to respond to an environmental pollution problem at the time a statute was passed.” Lazarus further claimed, “Statutory prescription therefore is an especially risky endeavor [that] can lead to wasteful expenditures for pollution control and … to more, rather than less, environmental degradation.”

These realities, Lazarus argued, make congressional oversight problematical, especially because the scientific options proposed by regulators for solving pollution often conflict with the political interests of lawmakers. True. But what if the legislators’ science is corrupted by “dark money” and the perpetual quest for more agency funding? Or if the regulators’ science is corrupted or weaponized by White House or Deep State biases, agendas, censoring of certain views, or manipulation or fabrication of data?

(In a republic, at least theoretically, the political leadership is informed by a citizenry that has all the needed facts, and ultimately has the authority to decide whether or not to follow the particular scientific pathways favored by regulators. In a pure democracy, minority views can be deemed or made irrelevant.)

A 2018 CFACT report assessed the extent of the public information problem, noting that EPA regulations have the force of law and constitute 25% of all federal regulations. Congress often grants regulatory bodies immense power over how people and businesses may operate, without giving targeted entities even the same level of due process that the law affords to criminal defendants. We should expect that EPA expands these overly broad mandates even further.

Indeed, the CFACT report contends, federal bureaucrats, and EPA administrators in particular, determine “who gets a permit to operate, and who does not; what technologies a business must use; what lightbulbs are available for your homes; what gas we can buy; what chemicals can be used; where companies can mine; what local land use decisions will survive; and even where a pond can be built on private property.”

It concluded: “While the President has massive powers over war and peace, and sets the operating philosophy of federal agencies, the EPA Administrator has direct power over the business operations … and thus the economy … of the entire nation.”

In creating the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau in 2010, the Democrat-controlled Congress gave its director broad powers and virtual immunity from political scrutiny – with more power than the President. The Supreme Court only narrowly recognized this as an unconstitutional grant of power to an unelected official. The EPA Administrator’s powers should be equally restrained.

In a second October 2019 executive order, President Trump required that agencies inform individuals of regulatory cases against them, acknowledge their responses, and educate businesses about new regulatory impacts. This order too should be non-controversial, but could well be axed by a President Biden.

Under current law, those whose livelihoods are assaulted by regulatory bodies can challenge an agency in court only after the agency has sullied their reputations and prosecuted their alleged noncompliance. Even then, the environmental defendant typically loses, because courts have mostly upheld the agencies if their decisions are “rational,” even if (absent long-sought transparency) the agency has concealed any or all of its “public” (but secret) data and records that do not support its “reasoning.”

Ultimately, the future of EPA transparency (and openness in all government) rides on the final outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. It’s fascinating how entities that set arbitrary and ever-changing standards for “acceptable” speech, favor crude protests over peaceful assemblies, and seek to curtail entire industries – also see no reason to inform the public of the rationale behind their politicized “scientific” decisions on issues from climate change to COVID to all manner of environmental regulation.

Via email

More On Lockdowns And Masks

November 23, 2020 By Michael D. Shaw @ HealthNewsDigest.com

In the wake of increasing cases of COVID-19, talk of more aggressive lockdowns is all the rage. California is imposing a curfew. This is supposedly justified by an uptick in the number of “cases.” In reality, this is an uptick in positive tests, which is not exactly the same thing. Kentucky is another state that has gone back to heavy restrictions.

“Los Angeles County is at a critical moment to save lives and curb the spread of COVID-19,” said L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer. “I urge our residents, businesses, and community leaders to heed this warning and follow these heightened safeguards so that additional restrictions do not need to be imposed.”

The most draconian aspect of the new California regulations would kick in if the five-day average of cases spills over 4,500, or hospitalizations top 2,000 per day. A new “Safer at Home” order would be imposed for three weeks. The order would allow only essential workers and those securing essential services to leave their homes. Ah, yes, “essential workers.” Let me assure you that an “essential worker” is anyone who supports himself or his family. Any further distinctions are patently absurd and indefensible.

Think about it. Any “essential” enterprise requires thousands of vendor-supplied goods and services—as do THOSE vendors. The very nature of an economy is that these items are all interrelated. Moreover, who’s to say that providing “frivolous” recreation for an essential worker is not also essential?

There are dissenting views on such lockdowns, as well. Renowned physician Dr. Roger Hodkinson is appalled at the overreaction to COVID-19. “It’s politics playing medicine, and that’s a very dangerous game.”

Austrian school economist Jeffrey A. Tucker has also been arguing against lockdowns. On November 13, he referred to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the results of which have not exactly been shouted from the rooftops.

Quite simply, a quarantine (lockdown) under tight Marine Corps discipline, when compared to the control group, showed very little difference in the incidence of COVID-19 cases. The study involved new recruits, 1,848 of which were in the quarantine group, and 1,554 of which were in the control group. Any of the experimental group who tested positive were placed in isolation. Rigorous mask use and sanitation were in place.

At the end, 51 of the quarantined 1,848 (2.8%) tested positive as did 26 (1.7%) of the 1554 control. So, broad- brush, the quarantine made no difference. In fact, the control group did a little better. While this was clearly the most important finding of the research, those few media outlets that did report on the study focused on the majority of the cases being asymptomatic.

As to masks, the position of the CDC is that they work. “Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.” The linked page cites several studies attesting to the efficacy of masks. Interestingly, as noted earlier, the CDC speaks largely of cloth masks, although paper masks are in wide (possibly wider) use.

Many people are uncomfortable with awarding China—the source of SARS-CoV-2—with purchases of millions of masks. And now, a made-in-America and reasonably priced alternative is available. Check out Virginia Beach based AmeriShield. Listen to co-founders Vitali Servutas and Brent Dillie:

“A face mask made in America is also a shield for all Americans. Hence our name: AmeriShield. Our disposable face masks are safe, effective, and affordable. Because we follow the CDC’s rules, because we uphold the rule of personal integrity, because we abide by the rule of professionalism in the products we manufacture and the services we provide; because of these things—and more—our face masks are a necessity in the fight against COVID-19.”

AmeriShield disposable face masks are Berry-compliant, and the company is currently producing 750,000 disposable face masks per day, with plans to gear up. The company also has government contracts for ASTM Level Two disposable face masks, and features a full assortment of personal protective equipment.

 

Sunday, November 22, 2020

Do Masks Block Coronavirus – Or Just Liberty?

The question isn’t “Do they work?” It’s “Do they make enough difference to justify forsaking freedom for a mandate?”

https://www.libertynation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Onar-Am-225x300.jpg

By Onar Ã…m Articles, Healthcare, Liberty Rewind, Politics, Science

Common sense dictates that masks contribute to reducing airborne viral infections. Despite this, many conservatives have resisted mask mandates, claiming they don’t work. Democrats have not been slow to label Trump-supporters anti-science. Who is right?

Hard to Prove

Although it is intuitively evident that masks reduce viral spread, proving and quantifying this is hard. One reason is that lab tests do not reflect real-world conditions. Also, masks may be useful in some circumstances but less effective in others. For instance, they’re expected to be far more effective in brief encounters between people who face each other at close range and talk. By contrast, if people stay in the same stuffy room together for hours, their efficacy would likely be minimal. Furthermore, if people believe they are safe with masks, they may get complacent – and careless – with social distancing and hand hygiene, thereby wiping out any benefit.

Conflicting Studies

 

These and other factors make a scientific study of the efficacy of masks notoriously difficult, and the published papers reflect that. There has been a slew of scientific articles that show both that masks work and that they don’t. For instance, a recent Danish study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that the mask recommendation did not significantly reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Such conflicting studies imply that if masks work, the effect is not massive.

By focusing on the practical issues of effectiveness, the moral dimension is set aside. When many conservatives say that masks don’t work, what they really mean is that they don’t work well enough to justify the incursion of liberty that comes with forcing people to wear them. However, so many rankled by the idea of mask mandates seem to lack the moral courage to state this explicitly because they are afraid of being attacked for “killing someone’s grandma” for the selfish reason of not wanting to “endure a slight inconvenience.”

Defend Liberty

Some things can indeed be achieved more easily with authoritarian methods, but at what cost? Wearing a mask doesn’t seem like such a big deal, but in many Muslim countries, women are fighting for the right not to be forced to cover their faces. Being free to show your face is important.

In a sense, people have been wearing a mask on the internet for many years. We know its consequences: A toxic environment where people spew hate that generally doesn’t happen face–to–face. In a masked society, the inconvenience may be the least of our problems.

There are appropriate times for wearing a mask, but in general, the incursion of liberty cannot be defended. Conservatives and libertarians should be more transparent on why they do not support mandated mask-wearing. They do work a little bit, but COVID-19 is not a sufficient danger to justify authoritarian measures.

~

Read more from Onar Ã…m.

 

Voter Fraud Deniers Contradict Themselves

What are the Democrats so afraid of?

 https://www.libertynation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/One-Gen-Headshots-027.jpg

  Articles, Election 2020, Politics, Social Issues

 The Democrats and their close friends and allies in the corporate press continue to insist that the 2020 presidential election was as pure as the driven snow, utterly free of any form of voter fraud that one could imagine. They frequently mock, lambast, and demonize anyone who dares to suggest that there was any sliver of funny business going on at the polls.

Progressives like to appear as if they are absolutely certain that there is no evidence of voter fraud, even though mounting piles of affidavits suggest there may have been. But for all their blustering, the actions of some of these individuals betray a distinct lack of confidence in their own narrative.

Leftists Harass Members of Trump’s Legal Team

According to court papers filed on Wednesday evening, Nov. 18, Philadelphia attorney Linda Kerns, who is part of the legal team representing President Trump’s campaign, has received a slew of threats from those wishing to stop the lawsuits and investigations. The documents explain that Kerns “has been the subject of threats of harm, to the point at which the involvement of police and US Marshals has been necessary to provide for her safety.”

The New York Post noted that “the stunning revelation came two days after Kerns, a solo practitioner, sought sanctions against a lawyer from the firm representing Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar for leaving her an ‘abusive voicemail’ on Saturday night.”

Kerns also stated in court documents that she had “been subjected to continuous harassment in the form of abusive emails, phone calls, physical and economic threats, and even accusations of treason — all for representing the President of the United States’ campaign in this litigation.”

This is not the only example of leftists harassing attorneys representing the president in his efforts to contest the results of the election. The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump Super PAC run by NeverTrump Republicans, launched an online harassment campaign on social media against law firms representing the president.

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, one of the firms in the Lincoln Project’s crosshairs, gave in to the pressure and withdrew from one of the president’s lawsuits. Days before, the Super PAC posted a tweet urging its followers to create LinkedIn accounts and harass employees of the firm. They told users to ask these individuals “how they can work for an organization trying to overturn the will of the American people.”

The Lincoln Project even went so far as to publish the contact information of two of the attorneys involved with the case, calling on its followers to “make them famous.” Twitter later removed this post because it violated its terms and conditions.

Why Go to These Lengths?

Despite their rhetoric, progressives are not behaving like people who are completely confident that no voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election. In fact, they seem to be outright worried that someone might find evidence that there were illicit practices that dragged Biden to supposed victory on Nov. 3.

 

If these folks were actually sure that absolutely no voter fraud occurred, why would they go to these extremes? What would be the point of trying to intimidate members of Trump’s legal team? These look more like the actions of people engaged in a desperate cover-up, not individuals who believe in what they’re selling to the American public.

The reality is that if the Democrats were so assured in their denials of voter fraud, they wouldn’t have such a problem with the matter being investigated. Indeed, they would welcome a probe into the matter because they know it would not turn up any damning evidence. Instead, they act like children with their hands caught in the cookie jar, hoping that mommy won’t find out what they have been up to.

Regardless of how this turns out, it is clear that some progressives are worried that funny business occurred at the polls, even if it wasn’t enough to be the sole cause of Biden’s apparent win. But if the investigations continue, the nation will know the truth, one way or another,  soon enough.

~

Read more from Jeff Charles.

 

What the Fake News Media Still Hides About Lee Harvey Oswald

Humberto Fontova | Nov 21, 2020 @ Townhall.com 
 
“For 15 years of my life at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community, I was involved in a world-wide disinformation effort aimed at diverting attention away from the KGB’s involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald. The Kennedy assassination conspiracy was born—and it never died.” (Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc.)

Of all the people I interviewed in New Orleans regarding the Kennedy assassination, Carlos Bringuier was the one I trusted most. I could see in his eyes he was always telling me the complete truth. (Oriana Fallaci, L, Europeo, 1969.) 

“The skinny guy walked into my store and started looking around,” recalls Carlos Bringuier about the afternoon of August 5, 1963 at the New Orleans store he managed at the time. “But I could sense he wasn’t a shopper. Sure enough, after a few minutes of browsing he came up and extended his hand. “Good afternoon,” he said. “I’m Lee Harvey Oswald.” 

In 1963 the CIA regarded the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE) “the most militant and deeply motivated of all the Cuban exile organizations seeking to oust Castro." Carlos Bringuier was their representative in New Orleans. It was DRE agents who infiltrated Cuba and brought out the first reports of Soviet missile installations--to the scoffs of the White House's Best and Brightest. It took two months for anyone to finally take them seriously. A U-2 flight then confirmed every last detail of what the DRE boys had been risking their lives for months to report.

“Oswald approached me because my name was so often linked to anti-Castro activities in the local (New Orleans) news,” recalls Bringuier. “He even jammed his hand in his pocket and pulled out a roll of bills, offering to contribute to the anti-Castro cause. I was suspicious and declined, but he kept blasting Castro and Communism in very colorful terms the whole time he was in the store. He returned the next day, snarled out a few more anti-Castroisms and dropped off his training manual for the anti-Castro fight, Guidebook for Marines.” 

Two days later Bringuier was astounded to spot Oswald a few blocks away from his store distributing Fair Pay for Cuba pamphlets. Carlos approached, accepted a pamphlet, ripped it to pieces and a scuffle ensued. The cops arrived, the scuffle made the news, and a few days later Bringuier and Oswald debated on New Orleans radio and TV. 

Dozens of books, movies, articles and TV specials depict these events. What they DON’T depict is how, between their scuffle and debate, Bringuier and a friend Carlos Quiroga turned the tables on Oswald. Posing as a Castro-sympathizer eager to join Oswald’s Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Quiroga (who had not been in the store or involved in the scuffle) visited Oswald at his home and they commiserated for hours. “You read everyplace that Oswald was dumb, a flake, a patsy, a set-up,” says Bringuier. “Nonsense. He was a smooth operator and spoke fluent Russian.” 

Quiroga noticed that Oswald’s living room was filled with Fair Pay For Cuba Committee literature. From one stack Oswald pulled an application to join the Committee and offered it to Quiroga. Yet during the Warren Commission circus The Fair Play for Cuba Committee repeatedly denied that Oswald had any links with them. 

Among the things that caught Quiroga's eye during his visit was Oswald speaking Russian with his wife and daughter. "Its good practice," explained Oswald. "I'm studying foreign languages at Tulane University." He was lying. Also keep in mind the date: this was 3 months before the assassination. Oswald’s stint in Russia was virtually unknown at the time. 

On the very night of Nov. 22, 1963, Carlos Bringuier went public on American radio and TV: “We don’t know yet if Lee Harvey Oswald is President Kennedy’s assassin. But if he is, then Fidel Castro’s hand is involved in this assassination." 

Fidel Castro immediately called a press conference to denounce Carlos Bringuier by name and kick off the media disinformation campaign that finally peaked as high comedy with Oliver Stone’s JFK. 

So while Pacepa acknowledged his involvement, Carlos Bringuier was on to the disinformation campaign from its very birthday. 

“Oliver Stone interviewed me for hours while researching for his movie JFK,” recalls Bringuier. “This was almost 30 years ago. Stone’s loony–left credentials weren’t yet blatant. I figured he was after the truth. So I went along, telling him everything. Well, his movie comes out --and turns out I’M involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK!” Bringuier laughs. “For 50 years the media has either ignored or turned everything I’ve told them upside down,” says Bringuier. “Finally I got sick of it so when a couple years back "60 Minutes" asked me for an interview, I told them: 'Sure. I’ll do an interview—but this time it has to be LIVE, no editing.' That ended whatever relationship I had with CBS producers.” 

"U.S leaders who plan on eliminating Cuban leaders should not think that they are themselves safe!" warned Castro on Sept 7, 1963. "We are prepared to answer in kind!" 

For 34 years Markus Wolf was the chief of East Germany's foreign intelligence service, a branch of the STASI with many contacts and operations in Castro's Cuba. It was the STASI rather than the KGB that undertook the training of Castro's police and intelligence services. Wolf's autobiography is titled, "Man Without a Face" and subtitled, "The Autobiography of Communism's Greatest Spymaster." Most intelligence experts agree that the subtitle fits. Wolf was once asked about the Kennedy assassination and quickly replied. "Don't ask me – ask Fidel Castro.”

 

Will Biden Resuscitate Obama’s Reprehensible “Operation Choke Point”?

Some policies will improve with Biden in the White House, most notably trade, but also government spending (not because Biden is good, but rather because Republicans will go back to pretending to be fiscally conservative).

But some policies will move in the wrong direction. Biden is awful on tax policy, for instance, though I expect Republicans in the Senate will block his class-warfare agenda.

Biden is also very bad on regulatory issues. Unfortunately, this is an area where the new President (and his appointees) will have plenty of authority to shift policy in the wrong direction.

I’m especially worried that Biden will resuscitate an Obama-era policy of strong-arming banks so they won’t do business with unpopular industries. This video, which I first shared back in 2016, explains this reprehensible policy.

Norbert Michel of the Heritage Foundation, in a column for Forbes, provides some additional background on the policy.

Choke Point consisted of bureaucrats in several independent federal agencies taking it upon themselves to shut legal businesses – such as payday lenders and firearms dealers – out of the banking system. Given the nature of the U.S. regulatory framework, this operation was easy to pull off. Officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for instance, simply had to inform the banks they were overseeing that the government considered certain types of their customers “high risk.” The mere implication of a threat was enough to pressure banks into closing accounts, because no U.S. bank wants anything to do with extra audits or investigations from their regulator, much less additional operating restrictions or civil and criminal charges. Banks are incredibly sensitive to any type of pressure from federal regulators, and they know that the regulators have enormous discretion.

In a column for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, Phil Gramm and Mike Solon elaborated on the left’s campaign to politicize the banking system.

Banking was used as a weapon against legal, solvent businesses by the Obama administration during Operation Choke Point, a program to deny the disfavored access to banking services. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. labeled certain businesses “high risk,” including firearms and ammunition dealers, check-cashers, payday lenders and fireworks vendors. Unelected regulators, not Congress or courts, marked these industries as “dirty business” and made it “unacceptable for an insured depository institution” to offer them banking services. …With Democrats unable to ban guns legislatively, Rep. Carolyn Maloney admonished banks at a recent hearing to not “finance gun slaughter.” When she urged JPMorgan to deny credit for legal firearm sales as other banks had done, the CEO responded, “We can certainly consider that. Yes.” At the same hearing, Rep. Rashida Tlaib challenged bank CEOs: “Will any of your banks make a commitment to phase out your investments in fossil fuels and dirty energy?” The CEOs declined to defend fossil fuels… Letting political intimidation dictate the availability of private credit endangers freedom and stifles productivity growth and job creation. …The use of political intimidation to allocate capital is an assault on economic efficiency and freedom.

There is, however, a bit of good news.

The Trump Administration ended Operation Choke Point back in 2017.

And, although it is happening at the last minute, the Trump Administration is now trying to strengthen the rule of law so banks won’t feel pressured to discriminate against certain industries in the future.

In a column published yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, Brian Brooks and Charles Calomiris of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) explain the new rule that their agency has unveiled.

…there have been too many allegations of banks cutting off vital services, credit and capital that legal businesses rely on to create jobs, meet community needs and support the economy. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, where we serve as acting comptroller and chief economist, respectively, on Friday proposed a rule to prevent banks from discriminating against legal businesses and individuals. The rule would require bankers to do what they do best: assess risk and underwrite credit decisions. …politically driven discrimination against particular industries has threatened fairness in banking. Under the Obama administration, Operation Choke Point, in which the OCC did not take part, involved regulators discouraging banks from serving legal and constitutionally protected businesses such as payday lenders and gun and ammunition sellers. …the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 added to the OCC’s traditional mission of safety and soundness the obligation to ensure fair access to financial services… Banks may not exclude entire parts of the economy for reasons unrelated to objective, quantifiable risks specific to an individual customer.

Sadly, if Biden has the same attitude as Obama about the rule of law, a future OCC can reverse anything Trump’s people adopt.

I’ll close with a libertarian-minded observation.

Because I believe in freedom of association, I think banks should have the liberty to discriminate against specific businesses, or even entire industries.

But there’s a big difference between banks choosing to discriminate and being coerced into such behavior by government regulators.

So it was disgusting that Obama’s regulators went after industries they didn’t like, such as gun dealers.

But it would be equally reprehensible if a Republican Administration went after an industry it didn’t like, such as legal marijuana.

P.S. The broader lesson to learn from Operation Choke Point is that regulatory power for governments is a vehicle for corruption and malfeasance.

 

Fighter vs. Failer

Biden falsely claimed that he had "graduated with three degrees from college", was "the outstanding student in the political science department", that he "went to law school on a full academic scholarship", that he was "in the top half" of his class. None of that ever happened.

Robinette was a bad law student and he did not make a good lawyer, bouncing from one firm to another, working briefly as a public defender without leaving any impression, and managing a pool. Successful young attorneys on their way up do not take jobs managing swimming pools.

Instead Biden went into politics and continued failing his way upward by crawling through the corrupt underbelly of Delaware politics. His first bid for the White House failed miserably, so did his second bid, and it seemed like he would become just another aging senator looking for an exit strategy to a lobbying firm or an industry trade group that would pay him a lot of money.

And then Obama decided to make Biden his number two, not because he liked him, but because he held the old white male politician in contempt. The final insult came when Obama picked Hillary to succeed him while offering Biden a Rose Garden press conference for his ego.

“And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden,” Obama sneered this time around.

During the primaries, Biden was forced to pretend he had asked Obama not to endorse him.

Joe Biden is a failer and he’s always been one. His career comes down to political grease and dumb luck. There has never been anyone at this position who has not accomplished a single thing except being in the right place at the right time, before invariably screwing it up.

Biden, as a young man, got into the Senate, and it didn’t take him long to become a national laughingstock, confining his career prospects to Delaware for a generation. Obama plucked him from obscurity, and Biden messed that up, getting dumped for Hillary. Now that he’s calling himself president-elect, the one thing to remember is that Biden always messes it up in the end.

Biden is a failer. He’s a C student who gets by on luck and then it all comes apart until someone takes pity on him, and he hangs on long enough to try for something bigger and messes that up.

President Trump is a fighter. Unlike politics, the free market is much less forgiving of failures. Nobody stays a billionaire because his investors, like Delaware voters, can’t be bothered to find a better prospect than a crooked old hack who gropes their wives and takes their money.

In business, you either make money or you don’t. In politics all you have to do is steal money.

Biden made money for other people, including his crooked family, by wetting his beak in a vast ocean of taxpayer money that was just there. President Trump had to turn profits using money that people were actually attached to, instead of vast reserves of misappropriated tax revenues.

President Trump has been in tough spots over and over again, and bounced back from them using grit, smarts, and determination. Biden never really learned to bounce back from anything. Politics is just a river that carried him along, and when he failed, as he invariably did, he just spent another decade in politics and then another one after that until an opportunity arrived.

Biden doesn’t know how to fight, but he is the greatest coaster in American politics.

Early in his failing career as a lawyer, Biden hooked up with the biggest crime organization in this country. The Democrat organization, sensing a certain gift for gab, a glib facility for lying indispensable to an otherwise failed law student and lawyer, put him up for public office, and carried him for a fifth of the age of the government of our great constitutional republic.

It’s still carrying him now.

Biden could barely manage to campaign or get through an interview without a gaffe. There would have been nothing for him if Democrat organizations in Philly, Detroit, and key cities hadn’t conspired to up the ante on the ballot fraud to an absurd and catastrophic degree. It’s that same organization and its media apparatus that is fighting to drag him to the White House.

The Democrat organization carries Biden, but in this fight, Trump is carrying the GOP.

The natural Republican inclination isn’t to fight an election result. Nixon didn’t. If Florida had gone just as narrowly for Gore, as it did for Bush, would he have challenged the results?

And then the Democrats would have been in charge of America after September 11.

But President Trump’s natural instinct is to fight. And he’s dragging Republicans into the fight with him. That’s the definition of leadership. Nobody would ever accuse Biden of leading his party anywhere. Biden gets ideas all the time, like splitting up Iraq or sending $200 million to Iran, but nobody actually pays any attention to them. They nod politely and go on ignoring him.

If Biden were to ever get back into the Oval Office, he might have the title, but he would still be the crazy uncle whose Obamanoid staffers would humor him by listening to his rambling stories.

And then they would do what they were going to do all along anyway.

That’s also what the rest of the world would do every time they got a call from Joe Biden about anything that didn’t involve funneling money to his son, his brothers, or other Biden relatives.

Nobody has ever ignored President Trump. Failers get ignored: fighters are acknowledged.

One reason Obama respected Hillary and despised Biden is that she gave him a good fight. But Biden isn’t a fighter. He’s still the C student who tries to claim that he had a full scholarship.

In a fight to the finish, do you bet on the fighter or on the failer?

That’s the great question of American politics now. In a match between a street fighter and an organization man, who will prevail? Biden has the organization: and it is a vast organization encompassing not just the official structure of the Democrats, or the far greater network of activist groups funded by the wealthiest leftists in this country, or the media, but also a huge chunk of the oligarchy from Big Tech to Wall Street. But President Trump has the determination.

Presidents, like all leaders, can’t be organization men. That’s by constitutional design. Even when a weak politician is carried into the White House, he falls apart once he’s inside.

Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Anyone who gets to that level, good or bad, needs the innate drive and instincts to wield power. And Americans rarely make the mistake of choosing men so weak that, like Carter, they’re entirely unfit for the task at hand because of their weakness, rather than their bad character.

There’s a drive and a determination that takes men places. Some men make their destinies while others are fortunate enough to become made men. In a fight between a failer and a fighter, it’s the man who can fight who succeeds even when the odds are against him.

Biden never had the drive to succeed. He was a failure as a student, as a lawyer, as a politician, and managed to fail his way out of the White House the last time he was lucky enough to be there. “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden,” Obama said this election cycle.

He still doesn’t. Trump does.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Tags: ,  

Author Image  

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the


Preventing future forest infernos

Getting past the climate scapegoat, and taking steps that could actually make a difference 

By Paul Driessen

 The 2020 fire season is nearing its end. But monstrous wildfires continue to rage across America’s western states, devastating towns and habitats, and killing hundreds of people and millions of animals. Politicians and environmentalists continue to rage that climate change is the primary factor, allowing few responsible, commonsense forest management actions that could actually reduce the risks.

Manmade climate change is a convenient scapegoat, but it cannot be separated from natural climate fluctuations and effects. Moreover, even assuming fossil fuel emissions play a dominant role in the human portion of this equation – and even if the Pacific Northwest or entire USA eliminated coal, oil and natural gas – China, India and scores of other nations will not do so anytime soon.

And they will certainly be using fossil fuels to manufacture the wind turbines, solar panels and batteries envisioned by Green New Dealers – and to mine and process the raw materials those technologies require.

The key ingredient in these monstrous, devastating forest fires is fuel. A century of Smokey the Bear fire suppression, coupled with half-century bans on timber harvesting, tree thinning and even insect control has filled western forests with dense concentrations of brush, fallen branches, needles and leaves, skinny young trees and huge older trees – many of them dead or dying – ready to be turned into conflagrations under hot, dry summer and autumn conditions that prevail most years in California and other western states.

It’s a recipe for disasters like the 1871 Peshtigo Fire, 20 miles north of where I grew up in northeastern Wisconsin, on the very same day as the Great Chicago Fire. Blistering flames a mile high moved south at 100 mph, creating “fire tornados” that threw houses and rail cars into the air. Over a million acres of forest were obliterated in two days; up to 2,500 people died, many of them cremated into little piles of ash.

I also recall how American and British bombers deliberately turned Hamburg, Germany into an inferno in July 1943. The first waves of planes dropped “blockbuster” bombs that leveled arms factories and parts of the city known to have mostly wooden structures. They were followed in subsequent days by attacks with incendiary bombs, which turned the wood debris into a firestorm, with tornado winds up to 150 mph, and temperatures of nearly 1500 F. Operation Gomorrah killed over 40,000 people.

A few days ago, I picked up my latest issue of Wired magazine. Daniel Duane’s 12-page article “The fires next time” made a couple now-obligatory references to climate change, but was one of the most detailed and insightful articles I’ve read on the causes and nature of these horrific wildfires. He vividly explains why we are witnessing a “trend toward fires dramatically more catastrophic” than in the past.

Above all, the reason is fuel buildup. CalFire, he notes, has some 75 aircraft and 700 fire engines, and is very good at extinguishing thousands of wild-land fires annually. But CalFire has virtually no fuel-management authority and must simply watch the trees and other fuel get “more and more dense,” creating prime conditions for ever-worsening crown fires that US Forest Service scientist Mark Finney says are big because landscapes are full of tinder and long-burning, heavy fuels. Ditto in other states.

More trees of course generate more roots competing for the same water, further drying everything out. In California alone, this and the 2011-2016 drought and pine bark beetles killed 150 million trees!

Another key ingredient, Duane writes, is the simultaneous burning of many small fires (caused by multiple lightning strikes, eg) that combine light and heavy fuels over a large area, amid mild ambient winds. “As that broad area continues to burn with glowing and smoldering embers over many hours, the separate convective columns of all those many little fires begin to join into a single, giant plume.”

As hot air in the plume rises, air at its base is replaced by air “sucked in from all directions. This can create a 360-degree field of wind howling directly into the blaze ... oxygenating the fire and pushing temperatures high enough to flip even ... giant construction timbers and mature trees into full-blown flaming combustion. Those heavy fuels then pump still more heat into the convective column.... [which] rises ever faster and sucks in more wind, as if the fire has found a way to stoke itself.” The timbers, branches and entire trees become “firebrands” that can be carried high into the air, a mile or more from the primary fire, then dropped into timber stands and homes, igniting still more firestorms.

Smaller blazes can be controlled, even extinguished. But massive firestorms can be impossible to suppress, saving homes equally hopeless. The primary order of business with mass fires is getting people out of harm’s way, before escape routes are clogged, cars run out of gas, and walls of flame close in.

That means building more escape roads from communities through forests to safety, even in the face of environmentalist opposition and lawsuits. Roads are far less intrusive or harmful than conflagrations. Yet radical greens battle these roads, while praising these unnatural conflagrations as “nature’s way.”

People lived in these areas long before pressure groups, politicians and courts made conflagration conditions this horrific. Actions need to be taken now to prevent more deadly fire cataclysms. That has to begin with removal of diseased, dead and excessive trees and brush. It will take years, decades even, and a lot of effort and money. But failure to halt and reverse the buildup of fuel in our forests is undeniably irresponsible – and deadly. Apache Indian forestry programs prove sound management saves forests.

Blaming climate change is useless and irresponsible. It means waiting 30-50 years or more, just to see if China and India finally replace fossil fuels, perhaps with nuclear power – in the hope that reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide actually reduces climate change, droughts, extreme weather and infernos.

Policymakers, land management agencies and regulators, Native tribes, community associations, industry groups and less obdurate environmental groups should seek collaboration and cooperation, especially on forest management and tree thinning. This is already happening but needs to be expanded greatly.

Educational programs should teach homeowners how to harden and fireproof houses and other buildings against small to midsized fires – and teach judges and politicians the hard realities of modern fires. Above all, those with ultimately life-or-death decision-making authority must understand that the price of bans on timber harvesting and responsible forest management is too often measured in homes and habitats obliterated, wildlife and humans killed, soil organisms incinerated, soils washed away by rainstorms and snowmelts, and millions of acres denuded and desolate for decades.

Tougher building codes for new construction in these areas would save homes, heirlooms and lives. Roofs especially should be made of fireproof or fire-resistant materials. Special financing and low-interest loans would make such new homes and hardened existing homes and buildings more affordable.

Local, state and federal budgets are already stretched to their limits. Funding will have to be redirected from other programs. Another approach could require forestry work for welfare checks. Besides saving habitats and lives, that would build skills, self-esteem and strong work ethics, improve physical fitness, replace a sense of entitlement with a sense of accomplishment, and create connections and opportunities

Another source of funds could be billionaires like Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who recently gave $791 million to climate activist groups, as part of his commitment to his $10-billion Earth Fund. Certainly, helping to stop these deadly fires – and the incalculable air pollution, soil erosion, and habitat and wildlife destruction they cause – would be one of the boldest and most effective actions anyone could take to protect Earth’s future, including the majestic at-risk forests in his own backyard.

The bottom line is so simple we shouldn’t even have to state it.

If we don’t act, nature will. We have created this massive fuel-for-fires problem. We can and must fix it. Either we thin out trees, or nature will – with devastating consequences. For people who claim to care deeply about saving our forests for Bambi, spotted owls and other beloved creatures, guaranteeing horrific infernos is quite literally a hellish way to demonstrate our love for Mother Earth.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.