By Onan Coca March 28, 2017
We the Internet has put together a brilliant documentary showcasing the death of free speech on one of our nation’s most prestigious campuses. Yale University was once one of the greatest centers of learning the world had ever seen, but in recent years, something has happened and it’s the same thing that is happening on college campuses across our nation and around the world. The documentary is called “Silence U” and it lays bare the liberal fascism that has undermined the primacy of education at our nation’s best schools. It’s a scary look into a massive problem, and it calls Americans everywhere to action. We must save our education system, if we don’t we’ll lose our nation.....To Read More.....
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Pesticide regulation full of bugs
By Kevin Glass / February 27, 2017 / News / 3 Comments @ California Watchdog
New pesticide regulations that have gone into effect in California may have been pushed through illegally, a result of overeager nannies who wanted to get the rules in place without the proper procedure because the public outcry would have defeated them.
Strawberry farmer Juana Vasquez has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation over rules that went into effect regulating 1,3-Dichloropropene, a pesticide commonly used on California farms.
The lawsuit alleges that the DPR didn’t follow proper procedures when it came to developing the rules, and ignored the guidance of the federal government when it came to regulating the pesticide.
The pesticide, sold under the name Telone, is considered by the federal government to be a “likely carcinogen,” but safe as long as it is limited in its volume and concentration.
The lawsuit alleges that the DPR “abused its discretion, acted in excess of its statutory power and authority, and failed to proceed in the manner required by law.”
As the Ventura County Star reported,
Vasquez’s lawsuit was joined by activist groups Californians for Pesticide Reform and the Pesticide Action Network. The rules went into effect in January.
New pesticide regulations that have gone into effect in California may have been pushed through illegally, a result of overeager nannies who wanted to get the rules in place without the proper procedure because the public outcry would have defeated them.
Strawberry farmer Juana Vasquez has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation over rules that went into effect regulating 1,3-Dichloropropene, a pesticide commonly used on California farms.
The lawsuit alleges that the DPR didn’t follow proper procedures when it came to developing the rules, and ignored the guidance of the federal government when it came to regulating the pesticide.
The pesticide, sold under the name Telone, is considered by the federal government to be a “likely carcinogen,” but safe as long as it is limited in its volume and concentration.
The lawsuit alleges that the DPR “abused its discretion, acted in excess of its statutory power and authority, and failed to proceed in the manner required by law.”
As the Ventura County Star reported,
“Pesticide regulators failed to allow for public scrutiny or heed the advice of the agency before adopting rules for the pesticide 1,3-Dichloropropene, the suit alleges. …California has been notoriously overcautious when it comes to the science and regulation of chemicals. The state lists certain chemicals in common household items like RoundUp as carcinogens and has been sued for taking a heavy-handed approach to labeling.
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring the agency to develop regulations based on the more conservative conclusions of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.”
Vasquez’s lawsuit was joined by activist groups Californians for Pesticide Reform and the Pesticide Action Network. The rules went into effect in January.
Club For the Galacticly Stupid: Schumer goes off on Trump supporter at NYC restaurant, witness says
New York Post
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., caused a scene at a Manhattan restaurant when he began yelling at a wealthy and well-connected Donald Trump supporter that the POTUS is “a liar.” Schumer,........lost his cool on Sunday night at Upper East Side restaurant Sette Mezzo, according to witnesses ........ Schumer was incensed that Hilary — the daughter of William S. Paley, the founder and chairman of CBS.......One witness said of the restaurant rant, ‘She voted for Trump!’ The Califanos left the restaurant, but Schumer followed them outside.” On the sidewalk, Schumer carried on with his fantastical filibuster: “ ‘How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar!’ He kept repeating, ‘He’s a liar!’ ............Continue Reading.....
My Take - Does anyone really believe Schumer is sane? Whether he's sane or not, his position in the Club For the Galacticly Stupid is solid. If I understand it correctly he was re-elected in 2016, which means he'll be there until 2022, and 72 years old - and he'll want to be re-elected then also. And the Republicans can only hope he keeps winning as nut jobs like Schumer in leadership positions are a gift that just keeps on giving.
Schumer, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Dianne Feinstein.....oh. ....well .....you get the idea. I always love that stupid look of moral superiority Feinstein, Hillary and the rest of the leftist loons have when they think they're trying to convince everyone just how serious they are and how important are their views. It's like they're talking to idiot children. Rep Dick Gephardt was the best at it though, especially when he had that other camera clown Maxine Waters standing beside him. If there was an Oscar for this in politics ..... they'd kill each other to get it. But if there was one for stupid - hands down -Maxine would be the yearly winner.
Gifts that keep on giving!
My Take - Does anyone really believe Schumer is sane? Whether he's sane or not, his position in the Club For the Galacticly Stupid is solid. If I understand it correctly he was re-elected in 2016, which means he'll be there until 2022, and 72 years old - and he'll want to be re-elected then also. And the Republicans can only hope he keeps winning as nut jobs like Schumer in leadership positions are a gift that just keeps on giving.
Schumer, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Dianne Feinstein.....oh. ....well .....you get the idea. I always love that stupid look of moral superiority Feinstein, Hillary and the rest of the leftist loons have when they think they're trying to convince everyone just how serious they are and how important are their views. It's like they're talking to idiot children. Rep Dick Gephardt was the best at it though, especially when he had that other camera clown Maxine Waters standing beside him. If there was an Oscar for this in politics ..... they'd kill each other to get it. But if there was one for stupid - hands down -Maxine would be the yearly winner.
Gifts that keep on giving!
Observations From the Back Row: My Take on Ted Kopple versus Sean Hannity
By Rich Kozlovich, Tags: My Media Commentaries
This article, Why CBS should #Release The Hannity Tape NOW, by: Robert Eno appeared on March 28 saying:
For years I watched 60 minutes, and like most Americans I thought they were honest reporters. As time went by I became disillusioned and stopped watching for a number of reasons.
They did a hit piece on Chlordane, a pesticide EPA irresponsibly forced off the market. It was clear they weren't telling "the" story - they were telling "their" story - and that story was inaccurate, but that inaccurate story fit the narrative of "their" story, just as did their hit piece on Alar, which was blatant journalistic corruption.
Often times 60 Minutes would do a story and state that one party (In one case it was Eli Lilly the pharmaceutical company) refused to be interviewed to tell their side of the story. This of course gave the impression they had something to hide. Well, maybe that's not "the" story after all!
Around that time Mike Wallace did a story on the Unification Church, commonly referred to as the Moonies. The church said they would do the interview but the entire interview had to be shown. Wallace, while explaining what we were going to see, scoffed saying that was impossible and that every story had to be edited for time. Okay, that makes sense, but what they finally agreed to was the Moonies would also film the interview, and that clearly rattled Wallace, because he wasn't the same interviewer in that program
It was obvious to me he was intimidated by the fact any editing they did could be debunked, and he was obviously uncomfortable. And nothing particularly shocking came out as a result. Then I realized beyond any shadow of a doubt the reason why people refused to be interviewed by these media propagandists was because these media people are corrupt.
For over 25 years I've considered 60 Minutes to be unworthy of my time, and Dan Rather was the icing on the cake for many others, and not one thing they've said or done has changed my mind about the Main Stream Media. There's a reason why news blogs - like this one - are so popular. We're only interested in telling "the" story, not some fictional propaganda to promote some left wing agenda, or any agenda for that matter. It's all about the facts and the willingness to follow them wherever they may lead.
My personal motto: De Omnibus Dubitandum - Question everything!
This article, Why CBS should #Release The Hannity Tape NOW, by: Robert Eno appeared on March 28 saying:
Last weekend on “CBS Sunday Morning,” the program tackled the problem of “The great divide: Politics in the Age of Trump” by hosting a discussion between veteran newsman Ted Koppel and Fox News’ Sean Hannity about the role of conservative voices in the direction of the country. It was readily apparent that CBS wasn’t trying to solve the divide, but rather sought to add to it.He went on to say:
Koppel railed against opinion “taking over” journalism. He went so far as saying that Hannity is “bad for America.” His reasoning is a slap in the face of the millions of American conservatives he assumes are unable to distinguish news from opinion. He further goes on to say that these conservatives’ beliefs are not fact based.Below is Hannity's response to this, and it's a good one, explaining how this interview by Ted Koppel was "fake news".
For years I watched 60 minutes, and like most Americans I thought they were honest reporters. As time went by I became disillusioned and stopped watching for a number of reasons.
They did a hit piece on Chlordane, a pesticide EPA irresponsibly forced off the market. It was clear they weren't telling "the" story - they were telling "their" story - and that story was inaccurate, but that inaccurate story fit the narrative of "their" story, just as did their hit piece on Alar, which was blatant journalistic corruption.
Often times 60 Minutes would do a story and state that one party (In one case it was Eli Lilly the pharmaceutical company) refused to be interviewed to tell their side of the story. This of course gave the impression they had something to hide. Well, maybe that's not "the" story after all!
Around that time Mike Wallace did a story on the Unification Church, commonly referred to as the Moonies. The church said they would do the interview but the entire interview had to be shown. Wallace, while explaining what we were going to see, scoffed saying that was impossible and that every story had to be edited for time. Okay, that makes sense, but what they finally agreed to was the Moonies would also film the interview, and that clearly rattled Wallace, because he wasn't the same interviewer in that program
It was obvious to me he was intimidated by the fact any editing they did could be debunked, and he was obviously uncomfortable. And nothing particularly shocking came out as a result. Then I realized beyond any shadow of a doubt the reason why people refused to be interviewed by these media propagandists was because these media people are corrupt.
For over 25 years I've considered 60 Minutes to be unworthy of my time, and Dan Rather was the icing on the cake for many others, and not one thing they've said or done has changed my mind about the Main Stream Media. There's a reason why news blogs - like this one - are so popular. We're only interested in telling "the" story, not some fictional propaganda to promote some left wing agenda, or any agenda for that matter. It's all about the facts and the willingness to follow them wherever they may lead.
My personal motto: De Omnibus Dubitandum - Question everything!
Africa BC/AC (Before and After Colonialism)
Myths of “exploitation” mask the reality of progress.
Ilana Mercer, American Renaissance, March 27, 2017
From their plush apartments, over groaning dinner tables, pseudo-intellectuals have the luxury of depicting squalor and sickness as idyllic, primordially peaceful and harmonious. After all, when the affluent relinquish their earthly possessions to return to the simple life, it is always with aid of sophisticated technology and the option to be air-lifted to a hospital if the need arises. Is there any wonder, then, that “the stereotype of colonial history” has been perpetuated by the relatively well-to-do intellectual elite? Theories of exploitation, Marxism for one, originated with Western intellectuals, not with African peasants. It is this clique alone that could afford to pile myth upon myth about a system that had benefited ordinary people.
What is meant by “benefited”? Naturally, the premise here is that development, so long as it’s not coerced, is desirable and material progress good. British colonists in Africa reduced the state of squalor, disease and death associated with lack of development. To the extent that this is condemned, the Rousseauist myth of the noble, happy savage is condoned. Granted, Africa’s poor did not elect to have these conditions, good and bad, foisted on them. However, once introduced to potable water, sanitation, transportation, and primary healthcare, few Africans wish to do without them. Fewer Africans still would wish to return to Native Customary Law once introduced to the idea that their lives were no longer the property of the Supreme Chief to do with as he pleased.......To Read More....
Defund Obamacare: Trump Administration Should Stop Obamacare’s Theft of Funds that Would Have Helped Middle America and Inner Cities
The inability for Congress to repeal Obamacare or replace it with an alternative brings to light another way for the Trump Administration to right the wrongs that Obamacare unleashed on the American middle class.
Families across America are threatened by an undercapitalized Fannie and Freddie because the funds were instead used to fund Obamacare. The Obama Administration took $260 Billion that would have normally helped lower and middle-class families in rural America and inner cities buy homes and instead diverted the money to pay for the failed health care plan.
This was a complete circumvention of Congress’ authority and was very likely an illegal action by the Obama Administration........To Read More.....
Republicans Need to Learn from Ronald Reagan that Good Policy Is Good Politics
March 28, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
For three decades, I’ve been trying to convince politicians to adopt good policy. I give them theoretical reasons why it’s a good idea to have limited government. I share with them empirical evidence demonstrating the superiority of free markets over statism. And I’m probably annoyingly relentless about disseminating examples of good and bad policy from around the world (my version of “teachable moments”).
But if you want to get a politician to do the right thing, you need more than theory, data, and real-world case studies. You need to convince them – notwithstanding my Second Theorem of Government – that good policy won’t threaten their reelection.
My usual approach is to remind them that Ronald Reagan adopted a bunch of supposedly unpopular policies, yet he got reelected in a landslide because reducing the burden of government allowed the private sector to grow much faster. George H.W. Bush, by contrast, became a one-term blunder because his tax increase and other statist policies undermined the economy’s performance.
I’m hoping this argument will resonate with some of my friends who are now working in the White House. And I don’t rely on vague hints. In this clip from a recent interview, I bluntly point out that good policy is good politics because a faster-growing economy presumably will have a big impact on the 2020 election.
Here’s another clip from that same interview, where I point out that the GOP’s repeal-and-replace legislation was good news in that it got rid of a lot of the misguided taxes and spending that were part of Obamacare.
But the Republican plan did not try to fix the government-imposed third-party-payer distortions that cause health care to be so expensive and inefficient. And I pointed out at the end of this clip that Republicans would have been held responsible as the system got even more costly and bureaucratic.
Now let’s shift to fiscal policy.
Here’s a clip from an interview about Trump’s budget. I’m happy about some of the specific reductions (see here, here, and here), but I grouse that there’s no attempt to fix entitlements and I’m also unhappy that the reductions in domestic discretionary spending are used to benefit the Pentagon rather than taxpayers.
The latter half of the above interview is about the corruption that defines the Washington swamp. Yes, it’s possible that Trump could use the “bully pulpit” to push Congress in the right direction, but I wish I had more time to emphasize that shrinking the overall size of government is the only way to really “drain the swamp.”
And since we’re talking about good policy and good politics, here’s a clip from another interview.
Back when the stock market was climbing, I suggested it was a rather risky move for Trump to say higher stock values were a referendum on the benefits of his policies. After all, what goes up can go down.
The hosts acknowledge that the stock market may decline in the short run, but they seem optimistic in the long run based on what happened during the Reagan years.
But this brings me back to my original point. Yes, Reagan’s policies led to a strong stock market. His policies also produced rising levels of median household income. Moreover, the economy boomed and millions of jobs were created. These were among the reasons he was reelected in a landslide.
But these good things weren’t random. They happened because Reagan made big positive changes in policy. He tamed inflation. He slashed tax rates. He substantially reduced the burden of domestic spending. He curtailed red tape.
In other words, there was a direct connection between good policy, good economy, and good political results. Indeed, let’s enshrine this relationship in a “Fourth Theorem of Government.”
For what it’s worth, Reagan also demonstrated leadership, enacting all those pro-growth reforms over the vociferous opposition of various interest groups.
Will Trump’s reform be that bold and that brave? His proposed 15-percent corporate tax rate deserves praise, and he seems serious about restraining the regulatory state, but he will need to do a lot more if he wants to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Not only will he need more good policies, but he’ll also need to ditch some of the bad policies (childcare subsidies, infrastructure pork, carried-interest capital gains tax hike, etc) that would increase the burden of government.
The jury is still out, but I’m a bit pessimistic on the final verdict.
For three decades, I’ve been trying to convince politicians to adopt good policy. I give them theoretical reasons why it’s a good idea to have limited government. I share with them empirical evidence demonstrating the superiority of free markets over statism. And I’m probably annoyingly relentless about disseminating examples of good and bad policy from around the world (my version of “teachable moments”).
But if you want to get a politician to do the right thing, you need more than theory, data, and real-world case studies. You need to convince them – notwithstanding my Second Theorem of Government – that good policy won’t threaten their reelection.My usual approach is to remind them that Ronald Reagan adopted a bunch of supposedly unpopular policies, yet he got reelected in a landslide because reducing the burden of government allowed the private sector to grow much faster. George H.W. Bush, by contrast, became a one-term blunder because his tax increase and other statist policies undermined the economy’s performance.
I’m hoping this argument will resonate with some of my friends who are now working in the White House. And I don’t rely on vague hints. In this clip from a recent interview, I bluntly point out that good policy is good politics because a faster-growing economy presumably will have a big impact on the 2020 election.
Here’s another clip from that same interview, where I point out that the GOP’s repeal-and-replace legislation was good news in that it got rid of a lot of the misguided taxes and spending that were part of Obamacare.
But the Republican plan did not try to fix the government-imposed third-party-payer distortions that cause health care to be so expensive and inefficient. And I pointed out at the end of this clip that Republicans would have been held responsible as the system got even more costly and bureaucratic.
Now let’s shift to fiscal policy.
Here’s a clip from an interview about Trump’s budget. I’m happy about some of the specific reductions (see here, here, and here), but I grouse that there’s no attempt to fix entitlements and I’m also unhappy that the reductions in domestic discretionary spending are used to benefit the Pentagon rather than taxpayers.
The latter half of the above interview is about the corruption that defines the Washington swamp. Yes, it’s possible that Trump could use the “bully pulpit” to push Congress in the right direction, but I wish I had more time to emphasize that shrinking the overall size of government is the only way to really “drain the swamp.”
And since we’re talking about good policy and good politics, here’s a clip from another interview.
Back when the stock market was climbing, I suggested it was a rather risky move for Trump to say higher stock values were a referendum on the benefits of his policies. After all, what goes up can go down.
The hosts acknowledge that the stock market may decline in the short run, but they seem optimistic in the long run based on what happened during the Reagan years.
But this brings me back to my original point. Yes, Reagan’s policies led to a strong stock market. His policies also produced rising levels of median household income. Moreover, the economy boomed and millions of jobs were created. These were among the reasons he was reelected in a landslide.
But these good things weren’t random. They happened because Reagan made big positive changes in policy. He tamed inflation. He slashed tax rates. He substantially reduced the burden of domestic spending. He curtailed red tape.
In other words, there was a direct connection between good policy, good economy, and good political results. Indeed, let’s enshrine this relationship in a “Fourth Theorem of Government.”For what it’s worth, Reagan also demonstrated leadership, enacting all those pro-growth reforms over the vociferous opposition of various interest groups.
Will Trump’s reform be that bold and that brave? His proposed 15-percent corporate tax rate deserves praise, and he seems serious about restraining the regulatory state, but he will need to do a lot more if he wants to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Not only will he need more good policies, but he’ll also need to ditch some of the bad policies (childcare subsidies, infrastructure pork, carried-interest capital gains tax hike, etc) that would increase the burden of government.
The jury is still out, but I’m a bit pessimistic on the final verdict.
CNN Liberal says Obama is “the next best thing to Jesus”
By Onan Coca
The next time you hear one of CNN’s pundits, personalities, or reporters whining about “fake news” or about being mistreated by the Trump administration, I want you to remember this moment… when you heard a CNN liberal say that Obama was “the next best thing to Jesus.”
While debating conservative Mary Katherine Ham about the ongoing Russian investigation and it’s connection to the possibility that the Obama administration had wiretapped the Trump transition team, liberal pundit and former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, Angela Rye, argued that the only reason Trump hadn’t yet been crucified was because he was white.
Rye argued that had this been Barack Obama “there would have been no end to this” [meaning speculation about Russia’s spying]. When Ham argued that no one should ever be okay with the possibility that the government was spying on an innocent American, Rye again turned the conversation back to racism..........It’s a truly disturbing bit of video because it reveals the absolute insanity that reigns within the minds of some on the left.........She cannot discuss any issue without bringing up how it is colored by racism. She cannot admit that a crime is bad, without first pointing out the racism of even speaking of the crime. It’s illogical, unproductive, and completely fallacious.........To Read More....
The next time you hear one of CNN’s pundits, personalities, or reporters whining about “fake news” or about being mistreated by the Trump administration, I want you to remember this moment… when you heard a CNN liberal say that Obama was “the next best thing to Jesus.”
While debating conservative Mary Katherine Ham about the ongoing Russian investigation and it’s connection to the possibility that the Obama administration had wiretapped the Trump transition team, liberal pundit and former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, Angela Rye, argued that the only reason Trump hadn’t yet been crucified was because he was white.
Rye argued that had this been Barack Obama “there would have been no end to this” [meaning speculation about Russia’s spying]. When Ham argued that no one should ever be okay with the possibility that the government was spying on an innocent American, Rye again turned the conversation back to racism..........It’s a truly disturbing bit of video because it reveals the absolute insanity that reigns within the minds of some on the left.........She cannot discuss any issue without bringing up how it is colored by racism. She cannot admit that a crime is bad, without first pointing out the racism of even speaking of the crime. It’s illogical, unproductive, and completely fallacious.........To Read More....
Study Finds Sweeteners Lead Fire Ants To A Bitter End
by
By Josh Lancette Researchers from China have discovered that some sweeteners can be lethal to the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), a devastating pest found South America, the United States, Australia, Asia, and on many Caribbean islands. In a test, ants that were fed erythritol, aspartame, and saccharin had a mortality rate higher than […]
Read more of this post
Stalinist North Korea Blasts Trump’s Immigration Policies: Treating Aliens 'Like Criminals'
By Patrick Goodenough | March 24, 2017 President Trump’s executive orders pausing immigration from six countries and proposing wall along the southern border attracted criticism Thursday from an unusual source – North Korea’s Kim Jong-un regime.
The regime mouthpiece Rodong Sinmun in an editorial lashed out at the Trump administration for “building the walls so that the immigrants can’t enter, and handcuffing those who are already in the U.S. to deport the immigrants,” according to NK News, which monitors Pyongyang’s media. It charged that the U.S. was “accusing them of being ‘terrorists’ and treating them like criminals.”.....To Read More.....
My Take - Imagine that. All that compassion! Here we have a fat little Korean Mao who's killed a number of people in his own family, has told his malnourished and even starving people they're going to have to tighten up their belts in order for the "revolution to continue". I wonder what revolution he's talking about since he's the third Commie boss from the same family to run the country - I think they called that a dynasty when these types were called kings.
The people of N. Korea have been so malnourished they're smaller than their Southern cousins - and he feels the need to worry about American immigration policy. Just goes to show - you can't judge a tyrant's compassion on how many of his own people's lives he destroys.
Of course N. Korea has no immigration problem because no one wants to go there. The only immigration problem they face are from those who are trying to escape, and like all commies they force them to stay. Imagine that. Forcing starving people to stay in a commie paradise.
That must be what it means to Feel the Bern. Hmmmmm, I wonder if Bernie would be willing to sell his brand new $600,000 house and move there? No one will prevent him from escaping from America to go and live there. Actually, no one is prevented from "escaping" from America? A great many are prevented from escaping to America. But I wonder - if socialism breeds utopia and capitalism breeds dystopia, why do they want to leave all these socialist people's paradises and come to America with it's horrible and corrupt capitalist system? Imagine that!
Just a thought!
My Take - Imagine that. All that compassion! Here we have a fat little Korean Mao who's killed a number of people in his own family, has told his malnourished and even starving people they're going to have to tighten up their belts in order for the "revolution to continue". I wonder what revolution he's talking about since he's the third Commie boss from the same family to run the country - I think they called that a dynasty when these types were called kings.
The people of N. Korea have been so malnourished they're smaller than their Southern cousins - and he feels the need to worry about American immigration policy. Just goes to show - you can't judge a tyrant's compassion on how many of his own people's lives he destroys.
Of course N. Korea has no immigration problem because no one wants to go there. The only immigration problem they face are from those who are trying to escape, and like all commies they force them to stay. Imagine that. Forcing starving people to stay in a commie paradise.
That must be what it means to Feel the Bern. Hmmmmm, I wonder if Bernie would be willing to sell his brand new $600,000 house and move there? No one will prevent him from escaping from America to go and live there. Actually, no one is prevented from "escaping" from America? A great many are prevented from escaping to America. But I wonder - if socialism breeds utopia and capitalism breeds dystopia, why do they want to leave all these socialist people's paradises and come to America with it's horrible and corrupt capitalist system? Imagine that!
Just a thought!
McCain: Nunes has 'a lot of explaining to do'
By Mallory Shelbourne The Hill March 28, 2017
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) needs to explain his visit to White House grounds one day before briefing President Trump on surveillance affecting his transition team.
"I think there needs to be a lot of explaining to do," McCain told "CBS This Morning." "I've been around for quite a while and I've never heard of such thing."........Continue Reading.....
My Take - Yes, he's been around a long time - too long. He should have been kicked out after the Keating Five scandal. I will say this again: Having once been a hero doesn't give someone a pass on the rest of life. McCain is a disgrace and has been a disgrace for a big part of his life. Oh, one more thing - I wonder if he ran over anyone rushing to get in front of that camera? The most dangerout spot in the world to stand if McCain or Shumer is anywhere near a camera is between them and the camera.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) needs to explain his visit to White House grounds one day before briefing President Trump on surveillance affecting his transition team.
"I think there needs to be a lot of explaining to do," McCain told "CBS This Morning." "I've been around for quite a while and I've never heard of such thing."........Continue Reading.....
My Take - Yes, he's been around a long time - too long. He should have been kicked out after the Keating Five scandal. I will say this again: Having once been a hero doesn't give someone a pass on the rest of life. McCain is a disgrace and has been a disgrace for a big part of his life. Oh, one more thing - I wonder if he ran over anyone rushing to get in front of that camera? The most dangerout spot in the world to stand if McCain or Shumer is anywhere near a camera is between them and the camera.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Press Release: GWPF Calls On Government To Come Clean On Cost Of Renewable Energy
Press Release 28/03/17
The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is calling on the Government to release the uncensored report on the total system costs of renewable energy which was published last Friday in a version that deleted all quantitive cost estimates.
After an unexplained delay of a year since completion the UK’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) last Friday published a report by Frontier Economics on the total system costs of uncontrollably variable renewable generators, a topic of crucial importance in understanding the cost-effectiveness of current climate policies.
The study is not only very late, but contains no quantitative estimates of additional system costs. However, examination of the peer reviews, which are published with the study, reveals that an entire table of numerical cost estimates, some of which were described by the external reviewer as “very high”, were in fact present in the version sent out for comment in mid 2015, but have been subsequently removed.
Remarkably, the document is dated February 2016, and the peer reviews are dated late July to very early September 2015. The Department has been in possession of the final work for over a year before releasing it to the public, and aware of its conclusions for something like a year and a half.
It appears that the consultants, Frontier Economics, are not to blame for this omission, since their draft as sent to the Department of Energy and Climate Change in mid-2015, did in fact include such cost estimates.
Dr John Constable, the GWPF’s energy editor said:
‘Given the sensitive nature of the subject, it is entirely reasonable to suspect deliberate suppression of embarrassing estimates. BEIS should without delay publish the unredacted study so that the interested public can assess the true cost of renewable energy.’
More information about the Frontier Economics report here:
http://www.thegwpf.com/is-the-uk-government-concealing-very-high-renewables-system-cost-es timates/
Contact
Dr John Constable
GWPF Energy Editor
john.constable@thegwpf.com
The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is calling on the Government to release the uncensored report on the total system costs of renewable energy which was published last Friday in a version that deleted all quantitive cost estimates.
After an unexplained delay of a year since completion the UK’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) last Friday published a report by Frontier Economics on the total system costs of uncontrollably variable renewable generators, a topic of crucial importance in understanding the cost-effectiveness of current climate policies.
The study is not only very late, but contains no quantitative estimates of additional system costs. However, examination of the peer reviews, which are published with the study, reveals that an entire table of numerical cost estimates, some of which were described by the external reviewer as “very high”, were in fact present in the version sent out for comment in mid 2015, but have been subsequently removed.
Remarkably, the document is dated February 2016, and the peer reviews are dated late July to very early September 2015. The Department has been in possession of the final work for over a year before releasing it to the public, and aware of its conclusions for something like a year and a half.
It appears that the consultants, Frontier Economics, are not to blame for this omission, since their draft as sent to the Department of Energy and Climate Change in mid-2015, did in fact include such cost estimates.
Dr John Constable, the GWPF’s energy editor said:
‘Given the sensitive nature of the subject, it is entirely reasonable to suspect deliberate suppression of embarrassing estimates. BEIS should without delay publish the unredacted study so that the interested public can assess the true cost of renewable energy.’
More information about the Frontier Economics report here:
http://www.thegwpf.com/is-the-uk-government-concealing-very-high-renewables-system-cost-es timates/
Contact
Dr John Constable
GWPF Energy Editor
john.constable@thegwpf.com
Feel the Bern: Emaciated Venezuelan elephant becomes latest symbol of food crisis
An apparently malnourished African elephant in a Venezuelan zoo — her ribs showing through her sagging skin — has become the latest symbol the deep economic crisis in what was once one of Latin America’s most prosperous nations. As pictures of an emaciated 46-year-old elephant named Ruperta in the Caricuao Zoo began circulating in newspapers and social media, Venezuelans have launched a food drive to save the pachyderm.....This Appeared Here.....
Which Is Worse: Postmodernism or Anti-Intellectualism?
By Alex Berezow — March 23, 2017
Every discussion about postmodernism quickly devolves into accusations that the writer doesn't know what postermodernism is1. Of course, that's true, because nobody knows what postmodernism is. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy agrees2. As the ultimate manifestation of intellectual and cultural relativism, postmodernism means whatever its adherents want it to mean.
Yet, this nebulous concept poses an existential threat to science and technology. How so? Because postmodernism is largely characterized by a rejection of objective truth. This is antithetical to scientific inquiry.
Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), has made it part of his life's work to fight against the corrosive effects of postmodernism. He's back again in the pages of Trends in Biotechnology. He perceptively writes:......To Read More.....
Every discussion about postmodernism quickly devolves into accusations that the writer doesn't know what postermodernism is1. Of course, that's true, because nobody knows what postmodernism is. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy agrees2. As the ultimate manifestation of intellectual and cultural relativism, postmodernism means whatever its adherents want it to mean.
Yet, this nebulous concept poses an existential threat to science and technology. How so? Because postmodernism is largely characterized by a rejection of objective truth. This is antithetical to scientific inquiry.
Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), has made it part of his life's work to fight against the corrosive effects of postmodernism. He's back again in the pages of Trends in Biotechnology. He perceptively writes:......To Read More.....
Mayo Clinic's CEO Speaks an Uncomfortable Truth About Gov't Ins.
By Chuck Dinerstein — March 20, 2017
“We’re asking ... if the patient has commercial insurance, or they’re Medicaid or Medicare patients and they’re equal, that we prioritize the commercial insured patients enough so ... we can be financially strong at the end of the year to continue to advance, advance our mission,” said John Noseworthy, the CEO of the Mayo Clinic.
Given a choice, says Noseworthy [1], Mayo Clinic prefers patients with private insurance over those receiving government insurance.
When I read his statement, I was gobsmacked, mostly because this behavior is illegal, and it looks bad for a non-profit charitable trust. Those facts explain why Dr. Noseworthy is “walking back” his comments. Yet though this behavior is, on its face, unethical, violating our obligation to treat all people equally, fairly, and impartially, a less emotional response shows there is another ethical principle involved - beneficence, the obligation to bring about good in all our actions....... To Read More....
My Take - This piece may have an emotional appeal, but it isn't necessarily a reflection of my views, so please be sure and read the comments.
“We’re asking ... if the patient has commercial insurance, or they’re Medicaid or Medicare patients and they’re equal, that we prioritize the commercial insured patients enough so ... we can be financially strong at the end of the year to continue to advance, advance our mission,” said John Noseworthy, the CEO of the Mayo Clinic.
Given a choice, says Noseworthy [1], Mayo Clinic prefers patients with private insurance over those receiving government insurance.
When I read his statement, I was gobsmacked, mostly because this behavior is illegal, and it looks bad for a non-profit charitable trust. Those facts explain why Dr. Noseworthy is “walking back” his comments. Yet though this behavior is, on its face, unethical, violating our obligation to treat all people equally, fairly, and impartially, a less emotional response shows there is another ethical principle involved - beneficence, the obligation to bring about good in all our actions....... To Read More....
My Take - This piece may have an emotional appeal, but it isn't necessarily a reflection of my views, so please be sure and read the comments.
A Naturopath's Human Experiment Ends In Death
By Julianna LeMieux — March 23, 2017
It is one thing for a naturopath to push turmeric, the latest fad in fancy snake oils, as a cure all for everything from your bad sex life to diabetes. Because turmeric is metabolized so quickly in the stomach (it is used in food, after all) it is generally not dangerous and amounts to a lot of false hopes and wasted money.
It is another thing entirely for these 'healers' to hook a healthy person up to an IV and pump turmeric into their veins.
Unfortunately, that is what happened to Jade Erick, a 30 year-old woman who is dead because she opted for 'holistic health' to treat her eczema. Our vascular surgeon, Dr. Charles Dinerstein, suggests that, based on the information we have, "it seems that she may have suffered from an allergic reaction resulting in a cardiac arrest." Indeed, the San Diego County Medical Examiner went one step further to link that cardiac arrest directly to the IV. They ruled that the cause of her death was “anoxic encephalopathy due to prolonged resuscitated cardiopulmonary arrest due to adverse reaction to infused turmeric solution.”.......To Read More.....
It is one thing for a naturopath to push turmeric, the latest fad in fancy snake oils, as a cure all for everything from your bad sex life to diabetes. Because turmeric is metabolized so quickly in the stomach (it is used in food, after all) it is generally not dangerous and amounts to a lot of false hopes and wasted money.
It is another thing entirely for these 'healers' to hook a healthy person up to an IV and pump turmeric into their veins.
Unfortunately, that is what happened to Jade Erick, a 30 year-old woman who is dead because she opted for 'holistic health' to treat her eczema. Our vascular surgeon, Dr. Charles Dinerstein, suggests that, based on the information we have, "it seems that she may have suffered from an allergic reaction resulting in a cardiac arrest." Indeed, the San Diego County Medical Examiner went one step further to link that cardiac arrest directly to the IV. They ruled that the cause of her death was “anoxic encephalopathy due to prolonged resuscitated cardiopulmonary arrest due to adverse reaction to infused turmeric solution.”.......To Read More.....
The EU is Doomed!
Brexit Happened for a Reason: EU Members Like Poland Ought to Reassess, By Marek Jan Chodakiewicz
Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło wrote a curiously desperate letter of last resort to the European Union to prevent the re-election of her Eurocrat predecessor, Donald Tusk. She appealed to democracy and national sovereignty. This must have sounded like a joke to the Eurocratic team that decided whom to choose. But all was in vain. Poland alone cast the dissenting vote. Representatives of twenty-seven other EU countries voted for the reelection of Tusk. ....... Read More
Major’s Major Mistakes, By Alexandra Phillips
The man responsible for putting pen to paper over the infamous Maastricht Treaty in 1992 tried to tell the country that they were the ones who had been wrong to back Brexit. John Major, part of the crack team of European leaders that assented to the creation of the disastrous Euro and the triumvirate three pillar structure of the EU, bound the UK by the supremacy of unelected judges within the European Courts of Justice. John Major who, thanks to UK democracy was stopped short of dragging the UK into the single currency and the Social Chapter by the number of vociferous Tory rebels outnumbering his Conservative Party majority enough to see the downfall of his administration had he not buckled to their demands. Major had the nerve to label promises over Brexit ‘unreal’ and ‘over-optimistic’ and shrilly said Theresa May could do with ‘a little more charm and a lot less cheap rhetoric’. Of course, it’s not the first time Major has butted heads with a strong female Conservative leader...... Read More
EU in the Exit Era: the Greek Case Renewed, By Georgiana Constantin
The truth for Greece is simply that the status quo – globalization – has failed many and they do not want to be a part of a broken system anymore. They have come to realize that Grexit may be their only solution.....Read More
Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło wrote a curiously desperate letter of last resort to the European Union to prevent the re-election of her Eurocrat predecessor, Donald Tusk. She appealed to democracy and national sovereignty. This must have sounded like a joke to the Eurocratic team that decided whom to choose. But all was in vain. Poland alone cast the dissenting vote. Representatives of twenty-seven other EU countries voted for the reelection of Tusk. ....... Read More
Major’s Major Mistakes, By Alexandra Phillips
The man responsible for putting pen to paper over the infamous Maastricht Treaty in 1992 tried to tell the country that they were the ones who had been wrong to back Brexit. John Major, part of the crack team of European leaders that assented to the creation of the disastrous Euro and the triumvirate three pillar structure of the EU, bound the UK by the supremacy of unelected judges within the European Courts of Justice. John Major who, thanks to UK democracy was stopped short of dragging the UK into the single currency and the Social Chapter by the number of vociferous Tory rebels outnumbering his Conservative Party majority enough to see the downfall of his administration had he not buckled to their demands. Major had the nerve to label promises over Brexit ‘unreal’ and ‘over-optimistic’ and shrilly said Theresa May could do with ‘a little more charm and a lot less cheap rhetoric’. Of course, it’s not the first time Major has butted heads with a strong female Conservative leader...... Read More
EU in the Exit Era: the Greek Case Renewed, By Georgiana Constantin
The truth for Greece is simply that the status quo – globalization – has failed many and they do not want to be a part of a broken system anymore. They have come to realize that Grexit may be their only solution.....Read More
Cartoon of the Day
- President Trump to Sign Executive Order “Dismantling” Obama’s Climate Agenda
- US Ambassador Nikki Haley warns the United Nations that “There’s a New Sheriff in Town”
- Jeff Sessions Vows To Fight Back Against Sanctuary Cities
- President Trump Gave Germany’s Merkel a $370 BILLION Bill for NATO!
- The Media’s Trump Derangement Syndrome
- Are the Trump haters creating 1968 all over again?
- Jared Kushner takes on the intractable federal bureaucracy
- Trump, the doer
- Stand Strong Against the Lunacy of the Left
‘Biggest Oil Discovery In UK Waters This Century’
UK Energy Policy Will Be About Cutting Costs,
Not Emissions, Says Government Chief
Brought to you by Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Forum
Hurricane Energy has made a further oil discovery west of the Shetland Islands days after Royal Dutch Shell and BP won exploration licences in an area the UK is counting on to breathe new life into its struggling oil and gas industry. The latest find adds to a series of successful wells drilled by Hurricane in a geological formation that analysts say looks likely to be the biggest new oil discovery beneath UK waters this century. Hurricane is expected to announce that initial data from its Halifax well indicates the presence of a 1km-deep oil column and that, crucially, it appears to be part of “a single large hydrocarbon accumulation” connected to the company’s adjacent Lancaster field. This would increase confidence behind the London-listed explorer’s claim to be sitting on the largest undeveloped discovery on the UK continental shelf and aid efforts to attract investment in the field from international oil majors. --Andrew Ward and Nathalie Thomas, Financial Times, 26 March 2017
The Government’s energy policy will focus on cutting costs to business as a Whitehall official admits it has ‘neglected industry for too long’. Nigel Pargiter, acting head of energy supply chains at BEIS (Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy), told a North East audience that the emphasis is now on cutting energy costs to homes and businesses. “We have neglected industry for too long and we now have to have a keen focus on costs.” In his earlier address to the conference he said: “The key challenge for us all is how do we get costs down and away from the subsidy regime. This is the biggest challenge we face and one that can be tackled by Government and industry working together.” --Peter McCusker, Newcastle Journal, 23 March 2017
Gas has won approval for a new shale gas exploration project from Nottinghamshire County Council. The firm, one of Britain’s leading shale explorers, has been granted planning consent to develop a hydrocarbon well site and to drill one exploratory well at the Tinker Lane site in North Nottinghamshire. IGas, like other onshore operators around the country, is working to find out if the large quantities of shale that exist in Britain are in the right formations to be commercially prospective, said Stephen Bowler, chief executive of IGas. “The UK is at a critical juncture in the future of our energy mix and supply as we move away from coal towards lower carbon energy sources. We rely significantly on gas in the UK, not just for electricity, but also in heating eight out of 10 homes and as a raw material in the manufacture of many everyday products.” --Courtney Goldsmith, City A.M., 22 March 2017
The heart of Europe’s gas market may finally get a helping hand from the American shale revolution as fuel is poised to cross the Atlantic to replenish depleted inventories after the coldest January in seven years. Northwest Europe, one of the biggest trading regions for the fuel, hasn’t yet attracted any liquefied natural gas cargoes from the U.S., which the shale boom turned into the world’s biggest gas producer. So far, sellers have favored markets in South America and Asia where prices have been higher. But that may be about to change with spring weather poised to damp demand and prices in the biggest consuming region of Japan and South Korea moving closer to those in the U.K. and the Netherlands. Supplies from the U.S. may arrive in the coming months to help replenish European stocks at their lowest level since 2013, according to Houston-based Cheniere Energy Inc., which is expanding its export plant in Louisiana. --Bloomberg, 24 March 2017
OPEC’s worries about the booming U.S. oil production have increased significantly with the big three oil companies’ interest in shale. 2017-19 is likely to see the largest increase in mega projects’ production in history. Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and Chevron Corp., are planning $10 billion of investments in shale in 2017, a quantum jump compared to previous years. All the naysayers who doubted the longevity of the shale oil industry may have to modify their forecasts. OPEC lost when they pumped at will as lower oil prices destroyed their finances, and now they are losing their hard-earned market share as a result of cutting production. Shell’s declaration that they can “make money in the Permian with oil at $40 a barrel, with new wells profitable at about $20 a barrel” is an indication that Shell is here to stay, whatever the price of oil. --Rakesh Upadhyay, Oil Price, 24 March 2017
In global manufacturing, fortunes are starting to shift in America’s favor. That’s despite Donald Trump’s angry election rhetoric about China “raping” the U.S., and his threats to forcibly bring home manufacturing jobs by slapping across-the-board tariffs of 45% on Chinese imports. The trends were clear well before Mr. Trump started rallying his blue-collar base with alarmist messages of protectionism. Job-creating investment from China is booming in particular. Last year, it tripled to $45.6 billion from a year earlier, according to the Rhodium Group. Industrial land in the U.S. is often cheaper than in Chinese coastal cities. The shale-gas revolution has dramatically lowered U.S. energy costs. But the real key is technology: Advanced manufacturing is leveling the playing field. --Andrew Browne, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March 2017
The Paris-Based OECD (Financed by American Tax Dollars) Urges Bigger Government in the United States
March 27, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
I wrote yesterday about how the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is pushing for bigger government in China. That’s a remarkable bit of economic malpractice by the Paris-based international bureaucracy, especially since China is only ranked #113 in the latest scorecard from Economic Freedom of the World. The country very much needs smaller government to become rich, yet the OECD is preaching more statism.
But nobody should be surprised. The OECD, perhaps because its membership is dominated by European welfare states, has a dismal track record of reflexive support for bigger government.
It supports higher taxes and bigger government in Asia, in Latin America, and…yes, you guessed correctly…the United States.
And here’s the latest example. In a new publication, OECD bureaucrats recommend policy changes that ostensibly will produce more growth for the United States. Basically, America should become more like France.
In other words, we’re paying more taxes to have a bunch of international bureaucrats urge that we get hit with even higher taxes. And to add insult to injury, OECD bureaucrats are exempt from paying taxes!
Maybe that’s why they’re so blind to the harmful impact of bad tax policy.
It’s especially discouraging that the bureaucrats are even advocating greater levels of discriminatory taxation of saving and investment. Here are some blurbs from a report in the Wall Street Journal.
The fact that capital is “mobile across countries” was something that constrained politicians from imposing bad tax policy. In other words, tax competition promoted better (or less worse) policy.
But now that tax havens and tax competition have been weakened, politicians are pushing tax rates higher. And the OECD is cheering this destructive development.
Here are some passages from the OECD report on this topic.
And here’s a flowchart from the OECD report. Keep in mind that “inclusive growth” actually means less growth. I’ve helpfully put red stars next to the items that involve more transfers of money from the productive sector of the economy to the government.
That flowchart shows what the OECD wants.
But if you want a real-world example, just look at Greece, France, and Italy.
Which brings me to my final point. To be blunt, it’s crazy that American taxpayers are subsidizing a left-wing overseas bureaucracy like the OECD.
If Republicans have any brains and integrity (I realize that’s asking a lot), they should immediately pull the plug on subsidies for the Paris-based bureaucracy. Sure, it’s only about $100 million per year, but – on a per-dollar spent basis – it’s probably the most destructive spending in the entire budget.
P.S. The OECD even wants a type of World Tax Organization.
I wrote yesterday about how the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is pushing for bigger government in China. That’s a remarkable bit of economic malpractice by the Paris-based international bureaucracy, especially since China is only ranked #113 in the latest scorecard from Economic Freedom of the World. The country very much needs smaller government to become rich, yet the OECD is preaching more statism.But nobody should be surprised. The OECD, perhaps because its membership is dominated by European welfare states, has a dismal track record of reflexive support for bigger government.
It supports higher taxes and bigger government in Asia, in Latin America, and…yes, you guessed correctly…the United States.
And here’s the latest example. In a new publication, OECD bureaucrats recommend policy changes that ostensibly will produce more growth for the United States. Basically, America should become more like France.
Income inequality has continued to widen… Public infrastructure is not keeping pace… Promote mass transit… Implement usage fees based on distance travelled…to help fund transportation… Expand federal programmes designed to improve access to fixed broadband. …Expand funding for reskilling… Require paid parental leave… Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and raise the minimum wage.To be fair, not every recommendation involves bigger government.
Adopt legislation that cuts the statutory marginal corporate income tax rate…But even that single concession to good policy is matched by proposals to squeeze more money from the private sector.
…and broaden the tax base. …Continue with measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting.By the way, even though European nations dominate the OECD’s membership, American taxpayers provide the largest share of funding for the OECD.
In other words, we’re paying more taxes to have a bunch of international bureaucrats urge that we get hit with even higher taxes. And to add insult to injury, OECD bureaucrats are exempt from paying taxes!
Maybe that’s why they’re so blind to the harmful impact of bad tax policy.
It’s especially discouraging that the bureaucrats are even advocating greater levels of discriminatory taxation of saving and investment. Here are some blurbs from a report in the Wall Street Journal.
The Paris-based think tank has just junked the conventional economic wisdom on tax it had been promoting for years. …“For the past 30 years we’ve been saying don’t try to tax capital more because you’ll lose it, you’ll lose investment. Well this argument is dead…,” Pascal Saint-Amans, the OECD’s tax chief, said in an interview. …Since the 1970s economists had argued capital income should be taxed relatively lightly because it was more mobile across countries and attracting investment would boost economic growth, ultimately benefiting everyone.Actually, the argument on not over-taxing capital income is based on the merits of a neutral tax system that doesn’t undermine growth by punishing saving and investment.
The fact that capital is “mobile across countries” was something that constrained politicians from imposing bad tax policy. In other words, tax competition promoted better (or less worse) policy.
But now that tax havens and tax competition have been weakened, politicians are pushing tax rates higher. And the OECD is cheering this destructive development.
Here are some passages from the OECD report on this topic.
…there have been calls to move away from a narrow focus on economic growth towards a greater emphasis on inclusiveness. …Inclusive economic growth…implies that the benefits of increased prosperity and productivity are shared more evenly between people… More specifically with regard to tax policy, inclusive economic growth is related to managing tradeoffs between equity and efficiency. Growth-enhancing tax reforms might come at certain costs in terms of meeting equity goals so tax design for inclusive growth requires taking into account the distributional implications of tax policies.In other words, the OECD wants to shift away from policies that lead to a growing economic pie and instead fixate on how to re-slice and redistribute a stagnant pie.
And here’s a flowchart from the OECD report. Keep in mind that “inclusive growth” actually means less growth. I’ve helpfully put red stars next to the items that involve more transfers of money from the productive sector of the economy to the government.
That flowchart shows what the OECD wants.
But if you want a real-world example, just look at Greece, France, and Italy.
Which brings me to my final point. To be blunt, it’s crazy that American taxpayers are subsidizing a left-wing overseas bureaucracy like the OECD.
If Republicans have any brains and integrity (I realize that’s asking a lot), they should immediately pull the plug on subsidies for the Paris-based bureaucracy. Sure, it’s only about $100 million per year, but – on a per-dollar spent basis – it’s probably the most destructive spending in the entire budget.
P.S. The OECD even wants a type of World Tax Organization.
A Week of Diversity and Terror
On Saturday, Ziyed Ben Belgacem pays a visit to Orly Airport in Paris. He grabs a female soldier from behind and grapples for her rifle while holding a pellet gun to her head. He warns the other soldiers to drop their rifles and raise their hands.
He shouts, "I am here to die in the name of Allah ... There will be deaths."
He’s mostly right. It’s the plural part he gets wrong. The soldier goes low. Her friends shoot him dead. But he’s not entirely wrong either. There will be deaths. Even if they aren’t at Orly Airport.
French Police go on to investigate the motive of the Tunisian Muslim settler. His father insists that he wasn’t a terrorist. The media rushes to blame drugs for his attack. It reports widely on the drugs in his system rather than the Koran found on his body. No one asks if he was on drugs or on Jihad.
Ziyed Ben Belgacem had been in and out of prison. He was known to the authorities as a potential Jihadist and had been investigated for “radicalization” back in 2015. He had been suspected of burglaries last year and had been paroled in the fall. The system had failed all over again.
Prince William and Kate had been in Paris meeting with victims of the Bataclan Islamic terror attack. They returned to the UK, but media reports emphasize that the latest attack wouldn’t change their plans. But the UK was no refuge from Islamic terror. Not even Westminster Palace was.
On Wednesday, Khalid Masood, a Muslim convert, rents a car in a town near Birmingham from an Enterprise rent-a-car shop sandwiched between a Staples and a beauty salon offering walk-in eyebrow waxing. Over a fifth of Birmingham is Muslim and by the time the bloodshed was over and Masood was in the hospital, police raided a flat over a restaurant advertising “A Taste of Persia”.
Because diversity is our strength.
Masood’s victims were certainly diverse. The men and women he ran over or pushed off Westminster Bridge included Brits, Americans, Romanians, Greeks, Chinese, South Koreans, Italians, Irish, Portuguese, Polish and French. That is the new form that diversity takes in the more multicultural cities.
The victims are diverse. The killers are Muslim.
Prime Minister May spoke of it as a place where “people of all nationalities and cultures gather to celebrate what it means to be free.” But not all nationalities and cultures. Some come there to celebrate what it means to kill infidels for the greater glory of Allah. Just as some pray for London and others pray for the flag of Islam to fly over Westminster Palace.
Khalid Masood, like Ziyed Ben Belgacem, had been in and out of prison. Like France’s Tunisian Muslim terror settler, the UK’s Muslim terror convert had been investigated for “violent extremism”.
Nothing came of it.
For thirty years, Masood went in and out of prison. And one fine day he rented a car and began killing. He was on the radar, but nothing was done. And now some are dead and others are wounded. And the politicians who could have prevented it give their speeches and celebrate the magnificent diversity that filled hospitals with the citizens of a dozen nations.
"As I speak, millions will be boarding trains and aeroplanes to travel to London, and to see for themselves the greatest city on Earth,” Prime Minister May declared, throwing in a pitch for tourism. “It is in these actions - millions of acts of normality - that we find the best response to terrorism."
Come to London. Stroll and see the sights. You probably won’t get Allahuakbared to death. And if you do, the best response is a million acts of normality, apathy and denial.
Mayor Sadiq Khan vowed that after a brief vigil, it would be "business as usual".
He was right.
On Thursday, Mohammed, a Tunisian Muslim tries to drive a car through a pedestrian mall on a major shopping street in Antwerp. It was right around the anniversary of the Brussels bombings in which Moroccan Muslim settler terrorists had killed 32 people and wounded 300.
And a year later it was business as usual.
On Wednesday, King Philippe had dedicated a memorial in Brussels titled, ‘Wounded But Still Standing in Front of the Inconceivable’. "We have to stand up and say 'no' to those acts that are not believable, that are not bearable," its sculptor insisted.
But the seventh King of the Belgians had a somewhat different message. “It’s the responsibility of each and every one of us to make our society more humane, and more just. Let’s learn to listen to each other again, to respect each other’s weaknesses,” he said. “Above all, let us dare to be tender.”
The Tunisian Muslim driving into a pedestrian mall did not dare to be “tender”. He didn’t respect the weaknesses of a society that tolerated him.
Belgian soldiers deployed for the anniversary spotted him. The police gave chase. Pedestrians scurried out of the way. The Muslim settler from France was taken into custody for endangering the public. It is hoped that the arrest was made in a properly tender fashion.
Police found a riot gun, knives and fake passports in his car.
The Antwerp police chief said that Mohammed had been known to the police and had been involved in the illegal possession of weapons in France. But official reports blamed the drugs and alcohol in his system. Like fellow Tunisian Ziyed Ben Belgacem, he wasn’t a terrorist, just a drunk and a junkie.
The police urged everyone to keep calm and return to normalcy. Everything was being done to ensure the safety of Antwerp residents and tourists.
Business as usual.
Meanwhile the Antwerp Town Hall had gone from flying British colors in solidarity with the victims of the London attack to worrying over an attack at home. Just as William and Kate had come from terror in France to terror at home.
British authorities claimed that they foiled a dozen terror attacks last year. There are arrests for terror plots in France and Germany. Every week there is either a terror plot or a memorial for the last terror attack before we are told to go on with our million acts of normalcy.
Some days the terrorists screw up. They pick what they think is an easy target, but she refuses to let go of the rifle. Or they overestimate how much alcohol and cocaine they need to nerve themselves up to kill and die. Other times they get it right. Or right enough. And the news flashes around the world.
Somewhere along the way it wasn’t life that became normal, but terror. And the insistence on normalcy just normalizes the terror. A week with three terror attacks across Europe is no longer extraordinary. We have come to expect that there will be men trying to stab and run us over from Paris to Antwerp to London. And we have come to expect another Islamic terror plot targeting Kansas City, Miami, Columbia, New York, San Bernardino, Boston, Tampa, Dallas, Rochester, Springfield and any city.
We don’t know when or where the next attack will come. But we know whom it will come from.
The question is what are we going to do about it? We can pretend to be baffled the next time some Jihadi with a rap sheet taller than the London Eye and longer than London Bridge goes on a killing spree. We can nod our heads while the politicians throw a vigil and encourage a million acts of apathy.
Or we can end the flow of future terrorists and deport the existing ones.
Because they can’t run us over if we don’t let them in. They can’t bomb us if we don’t let them stay.
We can listen to King Philippe and “dare to be tender”. Decades of such tenderness are what led us here. Or we can dare to make the hard choices that will make us and our children safe for generations.
Saturday. Wednesday. Thursday. How many more days will it take?
He shouts, "I am here to die in the name of Allah ... There will be deaths."
He’s mostly right. It’s the plural part he gets wrong. The soldier goes low. Her friends shoot him dead. But he’s not entirely wrong either. There will be deaths. Even if they aren’t at Orly Airport.French Police go on to investigate the motive of the Tunisian Muslim settler. His father insists that he wasn’t a terrorist. The media rushes to blame drugs for his attack. It reports widely on the drugs in his system rather than the Koran found on his body. No one asks if he was on drugs or on Jihad.
Ziyed Ben Belgacem had been in and out of prison. He was known to the authorities as a potential Jihadist and had been investigated for “radicalization” back in 2015. He had been suspected of burglaries last year and had been paroled in the fall. The system had failed all over again.
Prince William and Kate had been in Paris meeting with victims of the Bataclan Islamic terror attack. They returned to the UK, but media reports emphasize that the latest attack wouldn’t change their plans. But the UK was no refuge from Islamic terror. Not even Westminster Palace was.
On Wednesday, Khalid Masood, a Muslim convert, rents a car in a town near Birmingham from an Enterprise rent-a-car shop sandwiched between a Staples and a beauty salon offering walk-in eyebrow waxing. Over a fifth of Birmingham is Muslim and by the time the bloodshed was over and Masood was in the hospital, police raided a flat over a restaurant advertising “A Taste of Persia”.
Because diversity is our strength.
Masood’s victims were certainly diverse. The men and women he ran over or pushed off Westminster Bridge included Brits, Americans, Romanians, Greeks, Chinese, South Koreans, Italians, Irish, Portuguese, Polish and French. That is the new form that diversity takes in the more multicultural cities.
The victims are diverse. The killers are Muslim.
Prime Minister May spoke of it as a place where “people of all nationalities and cultures gather to celebrate what it means to be free.” But not all nationalities and cultures. Some come there to celebrate what it means to kill infidels for the greater glory of Allah. Just as some pray for London and others pray for the flag of Islam to fly over Westminster Palace.
Khalid Masood, like Ziyed Ben Belgacem, had been in and out of prison. Like France’s Tunisian Muslim terror settler, the UK’s Muslim terror convert had been investigated for “violent extremism”.
Nothing came of it.
For thirty years, Masood went in and out of prison. And one fine day he rented a car and began killing. He was on the radar, but nothing was done. And now some are dead and others are wounded. And the politicians who could have prevented it give their speeches and celebrate the magnificent diversity that filled hospitals with the citizens of a dozen nations.
"As I speak, millions will be boarding trains and aeroplanes to travel to London, and to see for themselves the greatest city on Earth,” Prime Minister May declared, throwing in a pitch for tourism. “It is in these actions - millions of acts of normality - that we find the best response to terrorism."
Come to London. Stroll and see the sights. You probably won’t get Allahuakbared to death. And if you do, the best response is a million acts of normality, apathy and denial.
Mayor Sadiq Khan vowed that after a brief vigil, it would be "business as usual".
He was right.
On Thursday, Mohammed, a Tunisian Muslim tries to drive a car through a pedestrian mall on a major shopping street in Antwerp. It was right around the anniversary of the Brussels bombings in which Moroccan Muslim settler terrorists had killed 32 people and wounded 300.
And a year later it was business as usual.
On Wednesday, King Philippe had dedicated a memorial in Brussels titled, ‘Wounded But Still Standing in Front of the Inconceivable’. "We have to stand up and say 'no' to those acts that are not believable, that are not bearable," its sculptor insisted.
But the seventh King of the Belgians had a somewhat different message. “It’s the responsibility of each and every one of us to make our society more humane, and more just. Let’s learn to listen to each other again, to respect each other’s weaknesses,” he said. “Above all, let us dare to be tender.”
The Tunisian Muslim driving into a pedestrian mall did not dare to be “tender”. He didn’t respect the weaknesses of a society that tolerated him.
Belgian soldiers deployed for the anniversary spotted him. The police gave chase. Pedestrians scurried out of the way. The Muslim settler from France was taken into custody for endangering the public. It is hoped that the arrest was made in a properly tender fashion.
Police found a riot gun, knives and fake passports in his car.
The Antwerp police chief said that Mohammed had been known to the police and had been involved in the illegal possession of weapons in France. But official reports blamed the drugs and alcohol in his system. Like fellow Tunisian Ziyed Ben Belgacem, he wasn’t a terrorist, just a drunk and a junkie.
The police urged everyone to keep calm and return to normalcy. Everything was being done to ensure the safety of Antwerp residents and tourists.
Business as usual.
Meanwhile the Antwerp Town Hall had gone from flying British colors in solidarity with the victims of the London attack to worrying over an attack at home. Just as William and Kate had come from terror in France to terror at home.
British authorities claimed that they foiled a dozen terror attacks last year. There are arrests for terror plots in France and Germany. Every week there is either a terror plot or a memorial for the last terror attack before we are told to go on with our million acts of normalcy.
Some days the terrorists screw up. They pick what they think is an easy target, but she refuses to let go of the rifle. Or they overestimate how much alcohol and cocaine they need to nerve themselves up to kill and die. Other times they get it right. Or right enough. And the news flashes around the world.
Somewhere along the way it wasn’t life that became normal, but terror. And the insistence on normalcy just normalizes the terror. A week with three terror attacks across Europe is no longer extraordinary. We have come to expect that there will be men trying to stab and run us over from Paris to Antwerp to London. And we have come to expect another Islamic terror plot targeting Kansas City, Miami, Columbia, New York, San Bernardino, Boston, Tampa, Dallas, Rochester, Springfield and any city.
We don’t know when or where the next attack will come. But we know whom it will come from.
The question is what are we going to do about it? We can pretend to be baffled the next time some Jihadi with a rap sheet taller than the London Eye and longer than London Bridge goes on a killing spree. We can nod our heads while the politicians throw a vigil and encourage a million acts of apathy.
Or we can end the flow of future terrorists and deport the existing ones.
Because they can’t run us over if we don’t let them in. They can’t bomb us if we don’t let them stay.
We can listen to King Philippe and “dare to be tender”. Decades of such tenderness are what led us here. Or we can dare to make the hard choices that will make us and our children safe for generations.
Saturday. Wednesday. Thursday. How many more days will it take?
Monday, March 27, 2017
Trumping the State Department
Reining in the budget and activities of this bloated bureaucracy is essential
Scot Faulkner
President Trump’s budgetary assault on the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is long overdue. He is forcing a rethinking that will benefit America and the world.
The State Department is one of the most bloated of federal bureaucracies. Front line consular officers, many just starting their careers at State, actually help Americans abroad. However, there are also countless “Hallway Ambassadors” who aimlessly roam from irrelevant meeting to obscure policy forum, killing time and our tax dollars.
Legions of these taxpayer funded drones fill the State Department. Some are reemployed retirees who travel to overseas missions conducting “inspections” to justify their additional salaries.
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) is to the State Department what the Teacher Unions are to public education. It exists to protect tenure and to prevent any accountability or reduction among the State Department drones.
The Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance (AVC) is a uniquely harmful part of State. This Bureau’s main mission has been to create photo ops of treaty signings. The arms control treaties have usually been unenforceable with sworn enemies of America. The Bureau’s agreements with the Soviet Union undermined U.S. security. Its bureaucrats developed elaborate procedures for justifying the minimizing or overlooking of blatant treaty violations. They are using this same play book for the Iranian Nuclear deal.
Headquarters waste and dysfunction are just the beginning of State Department ineffectiveness. In the mid-1980’s, I viewed State Department field operations personally while serving as Director of the U.S. Peace Corps in Malawi.
The most egregious problem was the un-American culture that permeates career Foreign Service Officers. Except for toasting America at the July 4th Embassy party each year, being pro-American is viewed as unprofessional. Long serving Americans would advise me that rising above nationalism and acting “world wise” was the mark of a seasoned diplomat.
Not only did these U.S. foreign bureaucrats avoid Americanism, they avoided the host country. The Embassy team members spent their business and recreational time with diplomats from the other Embassies and with European expatriates living in Lilongwe, Malawi’s capital city. Their only sojourns outside the capital were to Salima, the lakeside resort, or to the Ambassador’s vacation home on the Zomba Plateau.
As Country Director, I eliminated the chauffer-driven luxury car used by my predecessor and reallocated the chauffer to other duties. At the wheel of a Nissan Patrol, I spent the majority of my time in the field with my seventy-five volunteers. This meant absorbing in depth knowledge of Malawi and its people.
State Department versus reality was proven many times over. The most blatant was the 1985 fuel shortage. Malawi was land-locked. The Mozambique Civil War closed off its closest ports. A problematic network of rail lines brought goods, including gasoline, to Malawi via South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia. My volunteers told me a Zimbabwean labor dispute was going to cause a five week disruption of fuel to Malawi. I dutifully reported this to the Embassy Team. They scoffed, assuring me that their British friend running Mobil-Malawi was telling them no disruption would occur. I directed my staff to begin stockpiling gasoline.
The disruption occurred. The Embassy team kept dismissing my reports and telling themselves the disruption would be short-lived. By week four, the Embassy motor pool was without fuel. Staff was delivering messages via bicycle. By week five, the Ambassador asked to purchase fuel from the Peace Corps, which had remained fully operational.
The Embassy was blind-sided on an even more important issue. Air Malawi announced it was going to purchase a new fleet of passenger jets along with a comprehensive parts and maintenance agreement. At this point the State Department replaced the Embassy’s Commercial Attaché with a Hispanic who could barely speak English. Instead of sending this person to Spanish-speaking Equatorial Guinea, they posted him to the most Anglophile country in Africa. He was miserable and totally ineffective.
Alternatively, the German Ambassador moved about Malawi’s 28 regions, equaling my zeal for the field. When Boeing’s sales team arrived they were given a proper, but cool reception. The Fokker team arrived to a hero’s welcome and the multi-million dollar deal was signed shortly thereafter. American business lost a huge contract.
USAID has spent over $1 trillion on overseas projects since its founding in 1961. Empty buildings and rusting tractors are silent testaments to its failures. What funds were not diverted to corrupt government officials went for unsustainable efforts, driven more by academic theories than practicality.
State Department and USAID need a fundamental review and a day of reckoning. This is fertile territory for President Trump and Secretary Tillerson to implant business principles and common sense.
Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and on Reagan’s White House Staff. He advises global corporations and governments on strategic change and leadership.
(Editor's Note: Emphasis added by me. RK)
Scot Faulkner
President Trump’s budgetary assault on the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is long overdue. He is forcing a rethinking that will benefit America and the world.
The State Department is one of the most bloated of federal bureaucracies. Front line consular officers, many just starting their careers at State, actually help Americans abroad. However, there are also countless “Hallway Ambassadors” who aimlessly roam from irrelevant meeting to obscure policy forum, killing time and our tax dollars.
Legions of these taxpayer funded drones fill the State Department. Some are reemployed retirees who travel to overseas missions conducting “inspections” to justify their additional salaries.
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) is to the State Department what the Teacher Unions are to public education. It exists to protect tenure and to prevent any accountability or reduction among the State Department drones.
The Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance (AVC) is a uniquely harmful part of State. This Bureau’s main mission has been to create photo ops of treaty signings. The arms control treaties have usually been unenforceable with sworn enemies of America. The Bureau’s agreements with the Soviet Union undermined U.S. security. Its bureaucrats developed elaborate procedures for justifying the minimizing or overlooking of blatant treaty violations. They are using this same play book for the Iranian Nuclear deal.
Headquarters waste and dysfunction are just the beginning of State Department ineffectiveness. In the mid-1980’s, I viewed State Department field operations personally while serving as Director of the U.S. Peace Corps in Malawi.
The most egregious problem was the un-American culture that permeates career Foreign Service Officers. Except for toasting America at the July 4th Embassy party each year, being pro-American is viewed as unprofessional. Long serving Americans would advise me that rising above nationalism and acting “world wise” was the mark of a seasoned diplomat.
Not only did these U.S. foreign bureaucrats avoid Americanism, they avoided the host country. The Embassy team members spent their business and recreational time with diplomats from the other Embassies and with European expatriates living in Lilongwe, Malawi’s capital city. Their only sojourns outside the capital were to Salima, the lakeside resort, or to the Ambassador’s vacation home on the Zomba Plateau.
As Country Director, I eliminated the chauffer-driven luxury car used by my predecessor and reallocated the chauffer to other duties. At the wheel of a Nissan Patrol, I spent the majority of my time in the field with my seventy-five volunteers. This meant absorbing in depth knowledge of Malawi and its people.
State Department versus reality was proven many times over. The most blatant was the 1985 fuel shortage. Malawi was land-locked. The Mozambique Civil War closed off its closest ports. A problematic network of rail lines brought goods, including gasoline, to Malawi via South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia. My volunteers told me a Zimbabwean labor dispute was going to cause a five week disruption of fuel to Malawi. I dutifully reported this to the Embassy Team. They scoffed, assuring me that their British friend running Mobil-Malawi was telling them no disruption would occur. I directed my staff to begin stockpiling gasoline.
The disruption occurred. The Embassy team kept dismissing my reports and telling themselves the disruption would be short-lived. By week four, the Embassy motor pool was without fuel. Staff was delivering messages via bicycle. By week five, the Ambassador asked to purchase fuel from the Peace Corps, which had remained fully operational.
The Embassy was blind-sided on an even more important issue. Air Malawi announced it was going to purchase a new fleet of passenger jets along with a comprehensive parts and maintenance agreement. At this point the State Department replaced the Embassy’s Commercial Attaché with a Hispanic who could barely speak English. Instead of sending this person to Spanish-speaking Equatorial Guinea, they posted him to the most Anglophile country in Africa. He was miserable and totally ineffective.
Alternatively, the German Ambassador moved about Malawi’s 28 regions, equaling my zeal for the field. When Boeing’s sales team arrived they were given a proper, but cool reception. The Fokker team arrived to a hero’s welcome and the multi-million dollar deal was signed shortly thereafter. American business lost a huge contract.
USAID has spent over $1 trillion on overseas projects since its founding in 1961. Empty buildings and rusting tractors are silent testaments to its failures. What funds were not diverted to corrupt government officials went for unsustainable efforts, driven more by academic theories than practicality.
State Department and USAID need a fundamental review and a day of reckoning. This is fertile territory for President Trump and Secretary Tillerson to implant business principles and common sense.
Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and on Reagan’s White House Staff. He advises global corporations and governments on strategic change and leadership.
(Editor's Note: Emphasis added by me. RK)
Observations From the Back Row: Obamacare Stands......Like a Drunken Sailor, Part III
By Rich Kozlovich
This is Part III in this ongoing series - and as time goes by I'm sure it won't be the last. What the Republican leadership and writers who villified conservatives for stopping O'Ryancare don't seem to undersand - they want Obamacare repealed - and they're not going to stop until it is. So I think it's important to define this whole mess in order to get clarity.
posted this article, The Five Biggest Losers in the Health Bill Debacle on March 26 saying the "blame game commences after GOP effort to repeal-replace Obamacare ends in disaster". He makes some points worth viewing, but it's my opinion and most of them are wrong.
Using his article as a touchstone, let's start with defining who are the winners and losers in this mess, and what are the long term consequences.
President Trump:
Trump apparently had little to do with drafting this bill and that clearly was a mistake on his part. I wonder who he listened to in this matter causing him to think he could trust the House Republicans to do the right thing - presumably since they've been living with this for eight years. Surely they must have understood what was needed. But did they understand what was right? Apparently they didn't understand either.
Trump will not be impacted by this in the short term and any efforts he may exert to get tax reform through will be supported - strongly - by the conservative Freedom Caucus that played a major role in defeating O'Ryancare. Those who are promoting the idea this will "tarnish his image as the ultimate deal maker" are mistaken at this point. Furthermore he now knows the RINOs can't be trusted and can't deliver.
He tried to make light of Republican resistance by saying, “We were very close,.....“It was a very, very tight margin. We had no Democrat support. … So it’s a very difficult thing to do.”
Horsepucky - the Democrats passed Obamacare without one Republican vote. If this bill had the support of the party it would have flown through passage.
Lesson's learned: He will reach across the aisle to Democrats and out to the conservative caucus to get his next deal done. And it will get done! And in spite of the author claiming this was a failure for Trump - well that's relative. In reality I see this as a successful - and painful - step in the President's education, and he won't forget it. Nothing teaches as well as failure.
This is a win in the long term for Trump.
Speaker Ryan:
Kirby says: "failure to pass the bill reflects, perhaps, most directly on Ryan. He is speaker, in large measure, because his predecessor failed to keep the party’s various factions in line. After years of enmity, former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally had enough and walked away in 2015." Well, that's only partially true.
Boehner failed to keep the factions in line because the only line he wanted led to more taxes, more regulation and more government. So how has Ryan been any different? He's viewed by the author as "big, fat failure" because he couldn't rescue O'Ryancare, aka, the American Health Care Act.
Well, he's right, he's a failure, but not because he couldn't save AHCA but because he and his coterie crafted it, pushed it, and introduced it. With little or no thought for the rest of the House, especially the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
He's quoted as saying: “I will not sugarcoat this,” Ryan told reporters. “This is a disappointing day.” He may find this is going to be a disappointing year. And now it seems to me no one can trust him.
As Mark Levin states:
"Mr. Ryan, you continue with your mantra, that the GOP is now a governing party not an opposition party. These are words that apply to you.
This was a loss of monumental proportion for Ryan.
House Freedom Caucus:
The author notes: "some will praise members of the House conservative group for standing on principle. But a failure to rally around repeal will only reinforce its reputation for intransigence and a lack of realism."
More horsepucky.
He did note Trump didn't criticize the Freedom Caucus, while quoting him as saying he was surprised and “we learned a lot about loyalty.” He's right. Now he knows these conservatives are loyal to a fault - to doing the right thing. To making sure what politicians claim they're going to do are done.
As for him going after then in the next election - This in my opinion is wishful thinking on the part of RNIOs and leftists in both parties. Trump has a reputation for loyalty and appreciates real loyalty, but not stupidity. In his business life he has one rule - perform - and you stay on the job. He's now learned these people have integrity and they will be the backbone in his efforts to fix government. They will perform, and that's what he likes. He will reach out to them a lot more from this point on, and he will reach out to any Democrats who will support his efforts.
This was a major success for the House Freedom Caucus.
This is Part III in this ongoing series - and as time goes by I'm sure it won't be the last. What the Republican leadership and writers who villified conservatives for stopping O'Ryancare don't seem to undersand - they want Obamacare repealed - and they're not going to stop until it is. So I think it's important to define this whole mess in order to get clarity.
posted this article, The Five Biggest Losers in the Health Bill Debacle on March 26 saying the "blame game commences after GOP effort to repeal-replace Obamacare ends in disaster". He makes some points worth viewing, but it's my opinion and most of them are wrong.
Using his article as a touchstone, let's start with defining who are the winners and losers in this mess, and what are the long term consequences.
President Trump:
Trump apparently had little to do with drafting this bill and that clearly was a mistake on his part. I wonder who he listened to in this matter causing him to think he could trust the House Republicans to do the right thing - presumably since they've been living with this for eight years. Surely they must have understood what was needed. But did they understand what was right? Apparently they didn't understand either.
Trump will not be impacted by this in the short term and any efforts he may exert to get tax reform through will be supported - strongly - by the conservative Freedom Caucus that played a major role in defeating O'Ryancare. Those who are promoting the idea this will "tarnish his image as the ultimate deal maker" are mistaken at this point. Furthermore he now knows the RINOs can't be trusted and can't deliver.
He tried to make light of Republican resistance by saying, “We were very close,.....“It was a very, very tight margin. We had no Democrat support. … So it’s a very difficult thing to do.”
Horsepucky - the Democrats passed Obamacare without one Republican vote. If this bill had the support of the party it would have flown through passage.
Lesson's learned: He will reach across the aisle to Democrats and out to the conservative caucus to get his next deal done. And it will get done! And in spite of the author claiming this was a failure for Trump - well that's relative. In reality I see this as a successful - and painful - step in the President's education, and he won't forget it. Nothing teaches as well as failure.
This is a win in the long term for Trump.
Speaker Ryan:
Kirby says: "failure to pass the bill reflects, perhaps, most directly on Ryan. He is speaker, in large measure, because his predecessor failed to keep the party’s various factions in line. After years of enmity, former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally had enough and walked away in 2015." Well, that's only partially true.
Boehner failed to keep the factions in line because the only line he wanted led to more taxes, more regulation and more government. So how has Ryan been any different? He's viewed by the author as "big, fat failure" because he couldn't rescue O'Ryancare, aka, the American Health Care Act.
Well, he's right, he's a failure, but not because he couldn't save AHCA but because he and his coterie crafted it, pushed it, and introduced it. With little or no thought for the rest of the House, especially the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
He's quoted as saying: “I will not sugarcoat this,” Ryan told reporters. “This is a disappointing day.” He may find this is going to be a disappointing year. And now it seems to me no one can trust him.
As Mark Levin states:
"Mr. Ryan, you continue with your mantra, that the GOP is now a governing party not an opposition party. These are words that apply to you.
- You failed to develop a plan that embraced market capitalism..
- You did not involve the GOP conservatives in the early phases of drafting your plan.
- You tried to force this plan through, adopted a few changes, but mostly continued with big-government ideas and much of Obamacare's essential elements.
This was a loss of monumental proportion for Ryan.
House Freedom Caucus:
The author notes: "some will praise members of the House conservative group for standing on principle. But a failure to rally around repeal will only reinforce its reputation for intransigence and a lack of realism."
More horsepucky.
He did note Trump didn't criticize the Freedom Caucus, while quoting him as saying he was surprised and “we learned a lot about loyalty.” He's right. Now he knows these conservatives are loyal to a fault - to doing the right thing. To making sure what politicians claim they're going to do are done.
As for him going after then in the next election - This in my opinion is wishful thinking on the part of RNIOs and leftists in both parties. Trump has a reputation for loyalty and appreciates real loyalty, but not stupidity. In his business life he has one rule - perform - and you stay on the job. He's now learned these people have integrity and they will be the backbone in his efforts to fix government. They will perform, and that's what he likes. He will reach out to them a lot more from this point on, and he will reach out to any Democrats who will support his efforts.
This was a major success for the House Freedom Caucus.
Money and Blaming Whites Not A Remedy For Black Unemployment
Black Muslim front group in Chicago blames whites for the ills of blacks.
By on March 21, 2017 in Daily Rant, Economy & Finances, Education, Politics, Race and Politics
The Black Star Project is a Black Muslim front group in Chicago that trades upon blaming government and specifically whites as being responsible for the ills of blacks. Equipped with the usual accusations, and a complete dismissal of personal responsibility for bad decision making, they reason that the solution to black problems lies with sizable pecuniary investments into their group. All this under the guise of so-called “black education.”
Ignore for the moment that according to “blackdom” the greatest community organizer since Satan himself, i.e., Obama, came out of Chicago. That said, in his eight years in the White House and his time in Congress Obama did nothing for “blacks” in Chicago. Albeit he did blame the body count from gangbangers and hoodlums on mythical vanloads of guns being surreptitiously brought into Chicago by white people from Indiana. But I digress.
The group’s website recently referenced an article by Michael Lucci titled: “Illinois Ended 2016 With Highest Black Unemployment Rate Of Any State.” (3/2/2017) Apparently, blacks killing blacks isn’t recognized as employment in government employment statistical data. Sarcasm intended.
From said article they state: “The article…is only part of the story. 89% of 16- to 19-year-old young Black men in Chicago are not working. 43% of 20-to 24-year-old young Black men in Chicago are not working. Only 7% of 8th-grade Black boys in Chicago read at a proficient level. Black people have a harder time finding jobs in Illinois than in any other state in the country. Chicago had 762 murders and 4331 shootings in 2016, mostly young Black men killing young Black men, many because of the economics and violence associated with drug dealing. Few people or organizations or foundations or government agencies are working on solutions to these issues.”
The group like every one of its kind, including the federal government, which has no Constitutional authority to be involved in the education process to begin with, begins its dialogue from flawed and fallacious suppositions.
Every one of their so-called remedies flows from a narrative based upon skin color juxtaposed from a narrative of propriety, personal responsibility, and the consequences of bad decisions.
I contend, and nothing dissuades me, that the remedy to the problems regurgitated in Lucci’s article will never be found as long as skin color is the focus. Quoting George Kelly from his book on Personal Construct Theory: “Psychological disorder is any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent invalidation,” i.e., repeating the same action(s) failure after failure is a psychological disorder and in this instance an abuse of taxpayer dollars as well.
My argument is based upon empirical evidence and unimpeachable facts. They argue skin color as the primary causal factor for the failings of so many blacks. They seek as remedy for failings everything but behavioral modification.
Dr. Walter Williams once wrote: “The best way not to be poor is to not have children before you can afford them.” That means not having multiple children out of wedlock with no job and no means to provide for them. Dr. Williams also wrote: “The best way not to be poor was to finish school and learn a marketable trade.” That doesn’t happen by hanging on corners and exercising bad decision making that guarantees bad consequences.
Black women in massively disproportionate numbers have children out of wedlock, which leads to dysfunctional homes? This pattern has been replicated generation after generation to the point that dysfunction is the accepted norm.
If simply being poor was conducive to a life of gangs, drug dealing, killing, ad nauseum, with America’s poverty rate being 14.3 percent, the approximate 43.1 million poor people would be criminals.
I submit that “Occam’s razor” is the better philosophical reasoning approach to remedy than blaming whites and skin color. “Occam’s razor” put succinctly, states that when there exists two explanations for an occurrence, the simpler explanation is usually better. In other words, the more potential assumptions you create, the more unlikely an explanation is to be correct and/or workable.
Specific to that point, the message that should be going forth is one that defines sexual responsibility as abstinence. The message that should be going forth is that it’s not about the color of skin it is about priorities and proper behavior. The message that goes forth should not be encased in skin color and exhibited by a chip on the shoulder, it should be about reading books and renouncing the “booty culture.”
That which I have said not only factually works, with my family and friends being proof of same, but it doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime. In fact it saves taxpayers money because they are not paying for the consequences of bad decisions. But that also means groups like the one mentioned herein, wouldn’t be able to prostitute skin color for political and pecuniary gain.
By on March 21, 2017 in Daily Rant, Economy & Finances, Education, Politics, Race and Politics
The Black Star Project is a Black Muslim front group in Chicago that trades upon blaming government and specifically whites as being responsible for the ills of blacks. Equipped with the usual accusations, and a complete dismissal of personal responsibility for bad decision making, they reason that the solution to black problems lies with sizable pecuniary investments into their group. All this under the guise of so-called “black education.”
Ignore for the moment that according to “blackdom” the greatest community organizer since Satan himself, i.e., Obama, came out of Chicago. That said, in his eight years in the White House and his time in Congress Obama did nothing for “blacks” in Chicago. Albeit he did blame the body count from gangbangers and hoodlums on mythical vanloads of guns being surreptitiously brought into Chicago by white people from Indiana. But I digress.
The group’s website recently referenced an article by Michael Lucci titled: “Illinois Ended 2016 With Highest Black Unemployment Rate Of Any State.” (3/2/2017) Apparently, blacks killing blacks isn’t recognized as employment in government employment statistical data. Sarcasm intended.
From said article they state: “The article…is only part of the story. 89% of 16- to 19-year-old young Black men in Chicago are not working. 43% of 20-to 24-year-old young Black men in Chicago are not working. Only 7% of 8th-grade Black boys in Chicago read at a proficient level. Black people have a harder time finding jobs in Illinois than in any other state in the country. Chicago had 762 murders and 4331 shootings in 2016, mostly young Black men killing young Black men, many because of the economics and violence associated with drug dealing. Few people or organizations or foundations or government agencies are working on solutions to these issues.”
The group like every one of its kind, including the federal government, which has no Constitutional authority to be involved in the education process to begin with, begins its dialogue from flawed and fallacious suppositions.
Every one of their so-called remedies flows from a narrative based upon skin color juxtaposed from a narrative of propriety, personal responsibility, and the consequences of bad decisions.
I contend, and nothing dissuades me, that the remedy to the problems regurgitated in Lucci’s article will never be found as long as skin color is the focus. Quoting George Kelly from his book on Personal Construct Theory: “Psychological disorder is any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent invalidation,” i.e., repeating the same action(s) failure after failure is a psychological disorder and in this instance an abuse of taxpayer dollars as well.
My argument is based upon empirical evidence and unimpeachable facts. They argue skin color as the primary causal factor for the failings of so many blacks. They seek as remedy for failings everything but behavioral modification.
Dr. Walter Williams once wrote: “The best way not to be poor is to not have children before you can afford them.” That means not having multiple children out of wedlock with no job and no means to provide for them. Dr. Williams also wrote: “The best way not to be poor was to finish school and learn a marketable trade.” That doesn’t happen by hanging on corners and exercising bad decision making that guarantees bad consequences.
Black women in massively disproportionate numbers have children out of wedlock, which leads to dysfunctional homes? This pattern has been replicated generation after generation to the point that dysfunction is the accepted norm.
If simply being poor was conducive to a life of gangs, drug dealing, killing, ad nauseum, with America’s poverty rate being 14.3 percent, the approximate 43.1 million poor people would be criminals.
I submit that “Occam’s razor” is the better philosophical reasoning approach to remedy than blaming whites and skin color. “Occam’s razor” put succinctly, states that when there exists two explanations for an occurrence, the simpler explanation is usually better. In other words, the more potential assumptions you create, the more unlikely an explanation is to be correct and/or workable.
Specific to that point, the message that should be going forth is one that defines sexual responsibility as abstinence. The message that should be going forth is that it’s not about the color of skin it is about priorities and proper behavior. The message that goes forth should not be encased in skin color and exhibited by a chip on the shoulder, it should be about reading books and renouncing the “booty culture.”
That which I have said not only factually works, with my family and friends being proof of same, but it doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime. In fact it saves taxpayers money because they are not paying for the consequences of bad decisions. But that also means groups like the one mentioned herein, wouldn’t be able to prostitute skin color for political and pecuniary gain.
TAKE ACTION: Every $10 helps The Daily Rant reach 1,000 new readers with this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)