Displaying posts published in

April 2018

Time to End the Resistance of the Swamp By Leo Goldstein

Donald Trump has promised us to drain the swamp – not to drown in it!

The ongoing Mueller “investigation” is not a legal matter. It’s a continuation of abuse of power by the Obama administration, which behaved as if Democrats were going to reign forever. The extent of their abuse started to come to light only after the elections.

After the 2016 elections, the culprits should have relied on traditional American forgiveness. President-Elect Trump fully demonstrated it when he graciously offered Hillary Clinton an opportunity to heal instead of being prosecuted. Unfortunately, the mainstream Democratic Party and its allies allowed the far-left elements to drag them into the “resistance” and escalation. Instead of a smooth transition of power, which has been an unbroken tradition since the founding of this country, they grabbed as much power as they could and directed it against Trump and his supporters. Thus, they have burnt their bridges.

The president and his trusted advisers are either being investigated or threatened with investigation. The best public servants appointed are flooded with death threats, and neither the FBI nor the DOJ does anything about that. Scott Pruitt and Ajit Pai are the first names that come to mind. These threats are backed by actions, such as the mass murder attempt in which Representative Scalise was injured. Violence against lesser known persons standing in the way of the Democratic Party agenda is not reported by the mainstream media. In a few days, it will be the anniversary of the shooting of the offices of Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, two outstanding climatologists whose research debunks climate alarmist claims.

We know who incited these crimes. We know who covered these crimes. We don’t know all connections between the instigators and the triggermen. And we will never know if the FBI and DOJ will continue investigating and prosecuting people for being Trump-supporters while turning a blind eye to the Democratic seditionists, oath-breakers, and other miscreants emboldened under Obama’s administration. Not to mention blackmail – a federal crime that is routinely ignored in the current political atmosphere and has been perfected by groups linked to the Democratic Party and used against businessmen, judges, and other men deemed Trump-supporters or potential supporters in their war against the elected government. The new Democratic Party and its allies openly collude with foreign governments and political parties against the U.S., as clearly shown by their behavior related to the Paris climate “accord.”

Climate Activists Are Lousy Salesmen By Stewart Easterby From turgid battle cries to hypocritical spokesmen, it’s no wonder they turn so many Americans off.

Politicians, bureaucrats, activists, scientists and the media have warned Americans for decades that the Earth is headed toward climate catastrophe. Yet surveys consistently show that less than half of U.S. adults are “deeply concerned” or “very worried” about climate issues. If, as Leonardo DiCaprio insists, climate change is the “most urgent threat facing our entire species,” why do a large percentage of Americans not share his fear? Climate crusaders tend to lay fault with nonbelievers’ intransigence. But this is its own form of denial and masks the real reason: poor salesmanship.

The promotional efforts of the climate catastrophists have lacked clarity, credibility, and empathy. These are the cornerstones of effective persuasion. Successful advocacy campaigns use lucid names to frame and sell their issues—“living wage,” “welfare queen” or “death tax.” Climate can be confounding; it is long-term weather, but environmentalists chide anyone who dares call it that. Since Earth’s climate is always fluctuating, the word “change” muddles it with redundancy. Swapping between “climate change” and “global warming” confuses the public.

A good battle cry can rally the troops, but the Paris Agreement’s aim is “to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.” That is a far cry from “Remember the Alamo!” And Americans are always turned off by the use of metric units. In the U.S., Toyota wisely markets the 2018 Prius’s fuel economy as 52 miles a gallon, not 22 kilometers a liter.

American TV audiences bought Carl Sagan’s explanations of how the universe works because of his obvious scientific expertise. Bold statements about complex systems are always more plausible when they are made by people with impeccable credentials. As a Harvard sophomore, Al Gore received a D in a natural=sciences course. Mr. DiCaprio dropped out of high school in 11th grade.

The rank hypocrisy of many of the environmental movement’s superstars also alienates potential followers. Messrs. Gore and DiCaprio lead lavish, jet-setting lives. It is hard to heed Tom Steyer’s demand to ban offshore oil and gas drilling when Farallon, his hedge fund, invested hundreds of millions of dollars in coal mining. Climate change activists tend to be aggressive advocates, but over-the-top selling doesn’t sway people who are undecided. This is as true for political surrogates attributing society’s ills to the other party’s candidate as it is for green activists linking all manner of extreme weather to climate change.

The Regressive State of America Federal income data offer a tragic lesson in bad policy: Connecticut.

The 50 American states have long competed for people and business, and the 2017 tax reform raises the stakes by limiting the state and local tax deduction on federal returns. The results of bad policy will be harder to disguise.

A case in point is Connecticut’s continuing economic decline, and now we have even more statistical evidence as a warning to other states. The federal Bureau of Economic Analysis recently rolled out its annual report on personal income growth in the 50 states, and for 2017 the Nutmeg State came in a miserable 44th.

The progressive paragon’s performance is even worse when you look at the details. The nearby chart shows that the state’s personal income grew at the slowest pace among all New England states, and not by a little. Governor Dannel Malloy’s eight-year experiment in public-union governance saw income grow by a meager 1.5% for the year, well below Vermont (2.1%). The state even trailed Maine (2.7%) and Rhode Island (2.4%), which are usually the New England laggards.

The only states to do worse than Connecticut were Alaska (0.4%), which is heavily dependent on oil and gas production, and Kansas (1%), Nebraska (1.4%), Iowa (0.3%) and North (-0.3%) and South Dakota (1.4%), all farm states that struggled with low commodity prices. National income growth was 3.1%.

The data are even more depressing if you strip out dividends and government transfer payments and consider only wages and salaries. Connecticut had essentially no growth (0.1%), which was worse than every state save Alaska (-1.6%). The figure for the U.S. was 3.3%. Total nonfarm earnings in Connecticut were also the second worst in the country after Alaska.

Lest you think this was a one-year anomaly, we looked at the personal income figures for every year since 2011. That’s the year Mr. Malloy took office, and the state rebounded well from the recession with 4.9% income growth, the best in New England.

Comey’s Loyalty Isn’t to the Truth Vital facts are missing from his accounts of two episodes from the Bush presidency. Karl Rove

For 10 days, former FBI Director James Comey has been on a high-profile media tour to promote “A Higher Loyalty.” With more than 600,000 copies sold in the first week, the book leaves competing “resistance” favorites “What Happened” and “Fire and Fury” in the dust. But behind the aw-shucks, I-was-the-only-honest-man-in-the-room persona, Mr. Comey’s book demonstrates his real higher loyalty is to self-aggrandizement.

Consider two episodes from George W. Bush’s presidency. Mr. Comey writes that in 2003 he was drawn into the Valerie Plame investigation when administration officials leaked the identity of “a covert CIA employee,” allegedly as retaliation for a critical op-ed written by Ms. Plame’s husband. Mr. Comey, then deputy attorney general, appointed special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and writes that he stands by the decision to charge Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, with false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice. Mr. Libby was convicted in 2007.

But vital facts are missing from Mr. Comey’s account. The most important is that no one revealed a covert CIA agent’s name. Though Mr. Comey refers to Ms. Plame seven times as a “covert agent,” she was not. That’s why Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who revealed Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak, was never indicted.

Mr. Comey also fails to note that the star witness against Mr. Libby, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, recanted her testimony in 2015. She said Mr. Fitzgerald misled her and withheld exculpatory evidence that would have kept her from “unwittingly giving false testimony.” In a rebuke to Messrs. Fitzgerald and Comey, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals cleared Mr. Libby to practice law again in 2016, well before President Trump pardoned him earlier this month.

North Korean summit calls for a hard line from Trump By Lawrence J. Haas

With more freedom to maneuver on foreign than domestic affairs, and with their eyes focused squarely on their legacies, all modern U.S. presidents have sought to craft the elusive deal that will solve a protracted global conflict. So, with dismal prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace, we shouldn’t be surprised that President Trump is now pursuing a deal to end North Korea’s nuclear program.

The coming summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un presents the riskiest of situations for the United States, however, for it pits the least knowledgeable modern-day president on foreign affairs against a shrewd young dictator who’s maintaining the family dynasty in the same iron-fisted way as his father and grandfather.

That raises the stakes immeasurably for the United States, which seeks a full rollback of North Korea’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and a warming of relations between the two nations – and it has huge implications for U.S. relations with China and such American allies as South Korea and Japan.

Worse, Trump will square off against a leader whose predecessors cut multiple deals of a similar, though less ambitious, nature with Washington – a North Korean freeze or partial rollback of its nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid – only to see Pyongyang renege and later resume its nuclear advancement.

Republican Lesko Wins Arizona Eighth District Special Election By Bob Christie & Anita Snow

GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) — It took a big money push from the Republican Party, tweets by the president and the support of the state’s current and former governors, but the GOP held onto an Arizona U.S. House seat they would have never considered endangered in any other year.

Tuesday’s narrow victory by Republican Debbie Lesko over a Democratic political newcomer sends a big message to Republicans nationwide: Even the reddest of districts in a red state can be in play this year. Early returns show Lesko winning by about 5 percentage points in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District where Donald Trump won by 21 percentage points.

“Debbie will do a Great Job!” the president tweeted Wednesday.

The former state senator defeated Hiral Tipirneni, a former emergency room physician who had hoped to replicate surprising Democratic wins in Pennsylvania, Alabama and other states in a year where opposition to President Trump’s policies have boosted the party’s chances in Republican strongholds.

Republican political consultant Chuck Coughlin called Tuesday’s special election margin “not good” for national Republicans looking at their chances in November.

“They should clean house in this election,” said Coughlin, longtime adviser to former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. “There’s a drag on the midterms for Republican candidates that’s being created by the national narrative. And it would be very hard to buck that trend if you’re in swing districts, much less close districts, if you can’t change that narrative between now and November.”

Hospitals Pulling the Plug Against Families’ Wishes By Betsy McCaughey

Who decides whether your sick child lives or dies? You or the hospital? On Monday, the parents of 23-month-old Alfie Evans, who has extensive brain damage, were told their son’s life would be terminated by hospital staff. That night, the hospital turned off his ventilator. The hospital decreed “once all external signs of life have ceased,” doctors would confirm “that death has occurred.” Many hours have passed, and Alfie clings tenuously to life.

To avert this crisis, Alfie’s parents tried appealing to British courts, but judges ruled on April 20 that “the hospital must be free to do what has been determined to be in Alfie’s best interests.” Determined by whom? Not his parents, who wanted to maintain life support. “He isn’t suffering, he isn’t in pain, he isn’t diagnosed,” his father explains. “It’s a straight up execution.”

Alfie isn’t the first child sentenced to die by a British hospital. Last year it happened to 11-month-old Charlie Gard, and more recently to a toddler named Isaiah Haastrup. Can it happen in the U.S.? You bet. It depends on what state you live in.