Displaying posts published in

November 2016

Donald Trump’s Environmental Reset Republicans look to liberate U.S. energy from destructive green regulations. By Kimberley A. Strassel

Anti-Trump protests continue to swell across the country, but what best sums up the president-elect’s challenge was a Monday night tantrum barely noticed by the press. Climate activists in Washington, D.C., waited until dark, then beamed huge images onto the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency. Their demand? That Donald Trump pick someone other than Myron Ebell to lead the EPA.

Mr. Ebell is a whip-smart policy wonk at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has spent years at the epicenter of conservative efforts to combat backward environmental regulations. His appointment to manage Mr. Trump’s EPA transition team was an inspired and encouraging surprise.

On the left it provoked a complete meltdown. Environmental groups whipped up tens of thousands of petition signatures demanding Mr. Trump ditch the “climate denier.” Students at Georgetown and Harvard demonstrated against the appointment. There’s even an online hashtag: #RebelAgainstEbell.

The political class is obsessed with whom Mr. Trump will pick for plum cabinet posts: the future secretaries of state, defense, Treasury. Inside activist groups and corporate boardrooms, the preoccupation is who will occupy the positions with the greatest bearing on the economic bottom line: the secretaries of labor, health and human services, energy.

The biggest battle lines will be drawn over the dismantling of Mr. Obama’s environmental regime. This is where the president’s crushing rules have arguably done the most broad-based damage to the economy. It is also where the progressive left is most organized—and most emotional.

Lifting environmental burdens is (along with tax reform) where conservatives see the most sweeping upside for growth. Talk to Mr. Trump’s economic advisers: They understand that the advent of fracking and new drilling techniques—the ability to tap untold reserves of oil and gas—represents a global paradigm shift that can reset America’s economy and foreign dealings. President Obama’s willful decision to ignore this was as if Bill Clinton had opted the country out of the internet revolution. CONTINUE AT SITE

A Trump U.S. Energy Boom The next President can open Arctic and Atlantic drilling that Obama has shut down.

Donald Trump this week released a video detailing the plans for his Administration’s first 100 days, and one bright spot is his agenda for American energy. The President-elect promised to peel away government obstacles, and he will have plenty of work after President Obama’s eight-year regulatory onslaught.

“I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high-paying jobs,” Mr. Trump said in his two-minute clip. “That’s what we want, that’s what we’ve been waiting for.”

Here’s one place to look: Last week the Obama Administration finished a five-year plan for offshore drilling contracts and canceled planned leases in the Arctic through 2022. That retreat is a reaction to protests from environmental groups, which melted down after a March Bureau of Ocean Energy Management draft included a sliver of drilling in the frozen North.

Leases off the Atlantic Coast were already excluded, and green groups hope Mr. Obama will make these diktats permanent under an arcane clause of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. But that executive overreach is unlikely to stand up in court.

Mr. Obama says there’s no reason to drill in the Arctic because oil prices are so low, as if the government can predict energy prices five or 10 years from now. The Arctic region is thought to hold 90 billion barrels of oil, and up to 30% of the world’s untapped natural gas. Exploration and drilling would create thousands of jobs, and most resources lie in relatively shallow waters fewer than 100 meters deep.

Regulation is already crushing: A report last year by the National Petroleum Council noted that a company needs permits from some 12 federal and state agencies merely to dig an exploration well in the Arctic. Recall that Shell spent seven years and $7 billion trying to exploit leases it had already paid for off Alaska’s Arctic coast before giving up. Russia is already exploring in the Arctic and won’t be deterred by American moralizing.

Fidel Castro, Cuba Revolutionary, Dies at 90 Castro inspired millions with his promises of justice and progress but presided over an oppressive state By José de Córdoba

Fidel Castro burst on the world scene in 1959, spawning the very image of a revolutionary with his scruffy beard, rifle and cigar, ruling Cuba for a half-century while rankling 11 U.S. presidents and helping bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Mr. Castro, who was suffering from undisclosed illnesses, died at 90 years old, his brother, President Raul Castro, announced Friday.

Mr. Castro, nicknamed the “guerrilla prince” by one of his many biographers, animated millions in Cuba and across the world with his promises of democracy, social justice and economic progress. Early in his reign, Mr. Castro forged an anti-Washington stance, allying with the Soviet Union and supporting guerrilla movements from Latin America to Africa.

But by the time he formally resigned in 2008 as Cuba’s president and handed power to his younger brother, Raúl, he had come to embody all the contradictions of his movement.

Mr. Castro pursued egalitarian ideals of free health care, housing and education, while outlawing free speech, jailing dissidents and banning fair elections. He played world politics with the skill of a grandmaster, but embraced an ideology that ultimately failed. He overthrew one dictator in 1959 only to become Latin America’s longest-ruling one, 49 years.

He sought to free Cuba of its dependence on sugar and make it a wealthy country, only to bankrupt the island and make it dependent first on the largess of the Soviet Union, and then of Venezuela. But Venezuela’s economic crisis has curtailed aid to Cuba.

When Mr. Castro stepped down, many had hoped the more pragmatic Raul would quickly launch economic and political overhauls to ease Cuba into the global economy and introduce a more democratic system. But he has only taken a few hesitant steps in that direction. Instead, the elder Castro developed a second career as a Cassandra-like commentator, raging against the U.S. and frequently predicting an inevitable nuclear war. CONTINUE AT SITE

UK: Two Systems of Justice by Douglas Murray

Tommy Robinson has not been — as Choudary was — at the heart of a nexus of terrorists and terrorist-supporters going back years. He has not been on friendly terms with numerous people who have beheaded civilians and carried out suicide bombings.

Robinson is in an exceptionally unfortunate position. He is not a radical Islamist and nor is he from any discernible minority. He is a white working-class man who, it appears, can thus not only be harassed by certain authorities with impunity, but can find few if any defenders of his rights among the vast panoply of people in in our societies who are only too keen to defend the rights of Islamists.

Civil liberties groups such as “Liberty,” which are so stringent in protecting the rights of Islamist groups such as “Cage,” are silent on the case of Tommy Robinson.

So farewell, then, Anjem Choudary. For two and half years at least. On September 6, the radical cleric was sentenced by a British judge to five and a half years in prison for encouraging people to join the Islamic State. If he behaves himself in prison he could be out in half that time, although whenever he emerges, it is unlikely that it will be as a reformed character. But the law has taken its course and in a rule-bound society has responded in the way that a rule-bound society ought to behave — by the following due process. So it is useful to compare the experience of Anjem Choudary and the way in which the state has responded to him with the way in which it has responded to another person.

It is now seven years ago that a young British man from Luton going by the name of Tommy Robinson formed the English Defence League (EDL). He did so after he and other residents of the town of Luton were appalled by a group of radical Muslims who protested a home-coming parade for British troops. There is some interesting symmetry here in that the Islamists present in Luton that day were members of Anjem Choudary’s group, al-Muhajiroun. Robinson and other residents of Luton were not only taken aback by the behaviour of the radicals but by the behaviour of the police who protected the radicals from the increasingly angry local residents.

Whatever its legitimate grievances when it began, the EDL did undoubtedly cause trouble. Protests often descended into thuggery, partly because of some bad people attracted to it and partly because “anti-fascist” counter-demonstrators often ensured that EDL protests became violent by starting fights with them. But through most of the time that Robinson led the EDL, there did appear to be — confirmed by third-party observers including independent journalists — a sincere and concerted effort to keep genuinely problematic elements out of the organisation. To those who said that Robinson and his friends had no right to organise protests, there are two responses. The first is that they had as much right to be there as anyone else. And second, that the problems they were objecting to (hate-preachers, grooming-gangs and so on) are real issues, which the state has increasingly realised are such in the years that followed.

Europe: Let’s Self-destruct! by Judith Bergman

A reasonable question that many Europeans might ask would be whether it is not perhaps time to review priorities?

Perhaps the time has come to look at whether it remains worth it, in terms of the potential loss of human life, to remain party to the 1961 Convention, which would prohibit a country from stripping a returning ISIS fighter of his citizenship in order to prevent him from entering the country?

The terrorist as poor, traumatized victim who needs help seems to be a recurring theme among European politicians. But what about the rights of the poor, traumatized citizens who elected these politicians?

Roughly 30,000 foreign and European Islamic State fighters from around 100 different countries, who have gone to Syria, Iraq and Libya, could spread across the continent once the terror group is crushed in its Iraqi stronghold, warned Karin von Hippel, director-general of the UK military think tank, Royal United Services Institute, speaking to the Express on October 26:

“I think once they lose territory in Iraq and Syria and probably Libya… they will likely go back to a more insurgent style operation versus a terrorist group that wants to try and hold onto territory… There has been about 30,000 foreign fighters that have gone in from about 100 countries to join. Not all of them have joined ISIS, some have joined al-Qaeda, Kurds, and other groups, but the vast majority have gone to join ISIS. These people will disperse. Some of them have already been captured or killed but many will disperse and they’ll go to European countries…They may not go back to where they came from and that is definitely keeping security forces up at night in many, many countries”.

Perhaps these scenarios are really keeping security forces up at night in many countries. Judging by the continued influx of predominantly young, male migrants of fighting age into Europe, however, one might be excused for thinking that European politicians themselves are not losing any sleep over potential new terrorist attacks.

According to a report by Radio Sweden, for example:

“Around 140 Swedes have so far returned after having joined the violent groups in Syria and Iraq. Now several municipalities are preparing to work with those who want to defect. This could include offering practical support to defectors.”

The municipality of Lund has dealt with this issue, and Malmö, Borlänge and Örebro have similar views. As Radio Sweden reports:

“Lund’s conclusion is that defectors from violent extremist groups should be handled like defectors from other environments, such as organized crime. After an investigation of the person’s needs, the municipality can help with housing, employment or livelihood.”

According to Sweden’s “national coordinator against violent extremism,” Christoffer Carlsson:

“…You need to be able to reintegrate into the job market, you may need a driver’s license, debt settlement and shelter. When people leave, they want to leave for something else, but they do not have the resources for it, so it is difficult for them to realize their plan. If they do not receive support, the risk is great that they will be unable to leave the extremist environment, but instead fall back into it.”

“Hate Speech” Then and Now : Edward Cline

It is interesting that a number of signatories of the Declaration of Independence later in their careers took actions that jeopardized the foundations of liberty, and specifically of freedom of speech, or the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The greatest enemy of liberty is fear. When people feel comfortable and well protected, they are naturally expansive and tolerant of one another’s opinions and rights. When they feel threatened, their tolerance shrinks. By 1798, the euphoria surrounding the American Revolution, the sense of common purpose and a common enemy, was gone. Everyone agreed that the new nation, founded amid high hopes and noble ideas was in danger of collapse. The one thing they could not agree on was who to blame. (p. 1)

What went on in the mid- to late-1790s has reverse parallels today. Where the Mainstream Media (MSM) today, by its own admission, intervened to slander, libel, and smear presidential candidate Donald Trump (now the President-Elect), to aid in and guarantee the election of a criminally irresponsible, scandal-rich, unstable Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, the writers and newspapers of the 18th century came under vicious attack from the government and the Federalists, the party of John Adams, who as President signed the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. The MSM failed ingloriously in its efforts. But Adams, who was the main target of criticism by “Republican” (the name of the early Democratic Party) writers and newspapers, unleashed the dogs of censorship on them when he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts on June 18th, 1798.

The Sedition Act outlawed what one could call the 18th century equivalent of “hate speech.” It was impermissible and punishable now to hate President John Adams (the second President after George Washington) and the Federalists and their national and foreign policies, and to voice one’s anathema for them in print or vocally. Those who did so and drew the attention of large numbers of people were arrested and jailed. Adams and the Federalists would not otherwise have heard or read the dissatisfaction but for informers who reported the transgressions to Adams and his political allies.

A history of that time, Liberty’s First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech, by Charles Slack, came my way and further educated me on the pernicious consequences of the Sedition Act of 1798 and the scope of the evil. The consequences and injustices were wider than I had previously imagined. As Slack points out, one need not have been a conspicuous, widely known opponent of Adams, the Federalists, and the Sedition Act to attract the attentions of the 18th century speech “police.” An idle, disparaging remark overheard and reported by a neighbor could land the speaker in jail and earn an enormous fine, as well.

Here is the key section of the Sedition Act under which several men were prosecuted and jailed for “blaspheming” the government, President Adams, and other individuals in the government.

An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States.”

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. [Italics mine}

CAROLINE GLICK: THE ADL’S NEW BEDFELLOWS

n an interview this week with the Australian media, Jordan’s King Abdullah became the latest Arab leader to express hope that President- elect Donald Trump and his team will lead the world’s to date failed fight against jihadist Islam.

Like his counterparts in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Abdullah effectively ruled out the possibility that President Barack Obama will take any constructive steps to defeat the forces of global jihad in his last months in power. Speaking of the humanitarian disaster in Aleppo for instance, Abdullah said, “I don’t think there’s much we can do until the new administration is in place and a strategy is formulated.”

Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi was among the first Arab leaders to welcome Trump’s victory.

Sisi has been largely shunned by the Obama administration.

President Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime that Sisi and the Egyptian military overthrew in 2013.

Sisi was the first foreign leader to speak to Trump after his victory was announced. He released a statement to the media saying that he “looks forward to the presidency of president Donald Trump to inject a new spirit into the trajectory of Egyptian-American relations.”

The support that the incoming Trump administration is garnering in the Arab world stands in stark contrast to the near wall-to-wall opposition to Trump expressed by the American Muslim community.

According to a survey of Muslim American opinion taken in October by the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), 72% of American Muslims supported Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump was supported by a mere 4% of the Muslim community.

RUTHIE BLUM; A PROMISING US PICK FOR UN AMBASSADOR

If confirmed by the United States Senate, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley will become the next ‎American ambassador to the United Nations, replacing Samantha Power in that role.‎

Because the U.N. has become worse than a bad joke — giving despotic regimes a say and vote on ‎issues the international body was established to tackle — its U.S. representative has the particularly ‎tricky and important job of leading the West in setting the right moral tone

It is thus not a diplomatic position in the conventional sense. On the contrary, the best U.S. ‎ambassadors have those who make repeated and concerted efforts to put their ill-deserving ‎counterparts in their place, not only through votes and vetoes, but rhetorically, from the podium.‎

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeane Kirkpatrick and John Bolton are prime examples of shining beacons in ‎the Midtown Manhattan snake pit. Whether Haley lives up to that standard is anyone’s guess. But ‎there is reason to hope that she might, in spite of what critics are pointing to as her lack of experience ‎in matters of foreign affairs.‎

It is clear from Haley’s record, and meteoric rise to her position as the youngest serving governor in ‎the U.S. at the moment, that she possesses the kind of clarity on controversial issues that is required ‎in an arena filled with people whose key purpose is to cloud the distinction between good and evil. ‎

She is a fierce opponent of raising taxes, including — get this — on cigarettes. ‎

She supports school choice and monetary incentives for teachers, to foster excellence.‎

New Book Re-Examines Christian Zionism a Review by Andrew Harrod

The “standard narrative about Christian Zionism,” is a “result of bad exegesis and zany theology,” writes Anglican theologian Gerald R. McDermott in The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel & the Land. Developed from a 2015 conference hosted by the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), this recent book belies such stereotypes with solid Christian Zionism apologetics appealing to both layman and expert alike.

McDermott in his contributions to the book’s chapter essays debunks the common assumption that “all Christian Zionism is an outgrowth of premillennial dispensationalist theology.” In reality the “vast majority of Christian Zionists came long before the rise of dispensationalism in the nineteenth century.” Additionally, “many of the most prominent Christian Zionists of the last two centuries had nothing to do with dispensationalism.”

“Much if not most of modern Christian Zionism in the United States originated primarily in mainline Protestantism,” IRD President Mark Tooley historically documents in particular, a surprise for many modern readers. “Christian Zionism in the United States has long since migrated from mainline Protestantism to evangelicalism” as the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) illustrates. Now a “leading proponent of anti-Israel divestment,” MFSA’s founders included liberal Methodist bishop Francis J. McConnell, a strong Christian Zionist in the 1930s. “By the start of the twenty-first century, liberal Protestantism had not only abandoned Christian Zionism; it was denouncing it as a heresy,” Tooley notes.

Giving Thanks for the End of the Pro-Crime Presidency Obama’s Thanksgiving gift to America: putting an unprecedented number of criminals back on the streets. Matthew Vadum

This Thanksgiving, Americans can give thanks for the termination of one of the most pro-criminal administrations in American history, though the damage done to the criminal justice system may far outlast outgoing President Barack Obama’s tenure in office.

To date, President Obama has now freed more than a thousand prisoners as part of his crusade against a criminal justice system he considers to be racist.

With fewer than 60 days remaining in his second and final term of office, the most felon-friendly president in American history just “reduced the sentences of 79 people in prison for non-violent drug crimes,” bringing his total to 1,023 commutations of prison sentences, Quartz reports.

“Unlike pardons, commutations don’t officially constitute forgiveness of a crime. They reduce a prisoner’s sentence but don’t necessarily let them go free immediately. The details of the most recent 79 commutations weren’t immediately clear.”

The 1,023 figure does not include the 6,112 allegedly non-violent drug offenders freed a year ago under retroactively applied federal sentencing guidelines.

The president’s pardon power is unreviewable in any court in the land and cannot be modified by Congress. When it comes to federal offenses, the president is free to pardon or commute the sentence of anybody for anything anywhere in America.

To Obama the fact that African-Americans are the most incarcerated group in the U.S. is proof not that they commit a lot of crimes but that they are innocent victims of racist, systemic discrimination in a country where race relations haven’t improved much since Jim Crow.