It sounds like the “brilliant” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has
watched a few too many Hollywood spy movies, because he literally thinks
the only people who use silencers on firearms are “criminals” and “mass
murderers.”
Blumenthal is the co-sponsor of the Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR)
Act. The act’s proposal was written “in response to a mass shooter in
Virginia Beach last month who used a silencer to help kill a dozen
innocent people.”
The proposed bill was introduced by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and
co-sponsored by Blumenthal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Sen.
Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
The rationale behind the bill, at least according to a press release earlier
this week by Menendez, is that if the government bans silencers for all
firearms, whenever there’s a public mass shooting attempt, people’s
lives could be saved because they’d be able to hear the firearm better
without the silencer.
For reference, here’s a video showing the difference in sound between “unsuppressed” and “suppressed” firearms:
Still pretty loud. It just sounds like some of the echo gets “suppressed.”
No matter, though. Blumenthal’s school of thought is that only “criminals” and “mass murderers” use silencers.
“The
only people who could reasonably oppose a ban on gun silencers are
criminals trying to avoid detection by law enforcement or mass murderers
trying to hurt as many people as possible,” Blumenthal said, according
to the press release from Menendez’s website. “Whether a firearm is
being used in a mugging or a massacre, the sound of a gunshot is a
warning that helps bystanders get to safety and allows law enforcement
to track and apprehend the shooter.”
Washington
D.C.–The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) last Wednesday
announced that in April, monthly electricity generation from renewable
sources exceeded coal-fired generation for the first time. “Renewable
sources provided 23% of total electricity generation to coal’s 20%,”
said the EIA.
In a June 25 article, Bloomberg reporter Chris Martin wrote,
“Hydroelectric dams, solar panels and wind turbines generated almost
68.5 million megawatt-hours of power in April, eclipsing the 60 million
that coal produced that month.” Martin goes on to say, “The two forms of
power have become so cheap to build that BloombergNEF is projecting
that half the world’s power may come from renewable energy by 2050.”
The problem is that the only way the EIA and Bloomberg reached the
conclusion that renewables outstripped coal was by including hydropower
generation in the calculation, something that doesn’t really fit in with
the “two forms of power” Martin claims are so cheap to build.
Hydroelectric dams are neither cheap nor easy to build, and in fact the
number of power-generating dams has been decreasing, especially in the
Pacific Northwest where many older dams have been decommissioned and
removed to restore habitat where salmon and steelhead trout spawn.
Industry experts point out that the physics of electrical generation
are unlikely to allow wind and solar to supply a majority of our power,
much less Governor Polis’ goal of achieving 100% renewables in Colorado. Complete Colorado interviewed Charles Griffey, an electric
utility resource planning consultant and former senior officer at
Reliant Energy, a Texas provider with more than 2 million customers, who
said reaching 100% renewable energy “Can’t be done with existing
technology.”
“Renewables don’t provide the capability to meet the second to second
movements in the electric system,” said Griffey. “You can’t maintain
electrical reliability, you have to have electrical capacity that moves
up and down quickly.” IT’S A MATTER OF PHYSICS– Wind farm. Courtesy of Tony’s Takes
Electric grids are complex networks and interconnections that rely on
a steady supply of electricity, but that also must maintain extremely
close control of the frequency of the alternating current.
America operates on 60 cycles per second, or 60 Hz. That grid
frequency can vary only about 2 Hz in either direction, says Griffey.
“These are small variations, but if it drops below that you start
kicking off loads,” he said. “Bad things happen and your system
crashes.”
The grid is so sensitive to these variations that power producers
must provide both reserve capacity to deal with sudden load increases
and “grid inertia” to keep the frequency stable.
“You have to have inertia on the system that helps buffer load
changes, and inertia is provided by turbines that spin. Renewables don’t
have inertia,” said Griffey.
Without the electrical inertia available from fuel-powered,
constantly-spinning generators, the entire grid can crash unexpectedly
if the wind stops blowing while the sun isn’t shining.
This means that renewables like wind and solar will always require
backup generators to provide both inertia and reliable power to take up
unexpected loads.
And how much backup is required increases with the amount of renewables in the system.
“The more intermittent capacity you have, or the more unreliable
capacity you have, you actually have to increase that reserve margin to
carry more backup,” Griffey said.
“In the case of an all-wind system you’re going to be carrying 90
percent, give or take, to back it up because [windmills] only provide 5
to 15% of equivalent capacity,” said Griffey.
By equivalent capacity Griffey means that the advertised theoretical
capacity of a wind farm of say 30 megawatts, called the “nameplate
capacity,” only ever actually produces a fraction of that amount, called
the “efficiency factor.”
Other sources place the efficiency factor of wind generators between 25% and 40%.
The efficiency of a wind farm of course varies from minute to minute
depending on wind speed. Too little wind and they stop turning, too much
wind and they have to be shut down to prevent destructive over-speeding
that can rip a windmill to pieces.
“In terms of setting reserve margins, you can’t count on non-firm
energy availability under the standards that are in place across the
United States, you have to have firm deliverable power,” said Griffey.
This is also called “base load capacity,” which means constant-power
sources that can deliver the usual amount of electricity the grid needs.
There are three kinds of reliable base load sources: Fossil fuel,
hydroelectric and nuclear generators.
Fossil fuel-driven sources provide the vast majority of base load capacity not just in the U.S., but worldwide. XCEL’S COLORADO ENERGY PLAN RUNS IN TO REALITY–
Xcel Energy was recently given permission by the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) to shut down two of the three coal-fired
generating units at the Comanche Generation Station outside of Pueblo
that provide a substantial portion of Xcel’s base load and backup
capacity and replace them with windmills, solar panels and what would be
the largest battery storage system in the U.S. Click to enlarge
The CPUC said in their decision to allow the premature closure,
“There is no dispute that Comanche units 1 and 2 plants are currently in
compliance with emissions regulations and are fully operational.”
Xcel persuaded the CPUC that prematurely retiring the Comanche plant
was a good idea because of extremely low bids submitted by contractors
to provide renewable power.
“We note that the wind bids are exceptionally low as compared to the
pricing information provided in Public Service’s previous wind resource
proceedings,” said the CPUC. “[Xcel] can take advantage of exceptional
prices for new resources without risking that such cost-competitive
resource alternatives are unavailable in another ten years.”
But Xcel’s Colorado Energy Plan (CEP) is already falling apart.
Some contractors recently told Xcel that they were withdrawing their bids because they could not afford to fulfill them.
Putting the cart before the horse, Xcel solicited bids and then
touted them to the CPUC without first determining if they were
realistic.
“[Xcel] takes these indicative bids and tries to complete an actual
contract,” said Griffey. “Quite frequently, as it appears in Colorado,
the renewable contractors are coming in at a higher price than what was
in the bids that lead to the decisions to retire the coal plant.” Click to enlarge
Both the CPUC and Xcel evidently knew this when the CEP was approved.
The plan includes an extra 2% charge on rate payer’s bills to cover
overages for more expensive renewables.
“Renewables are absolutely not cheaper. I think that was pretty well
demonstrated in the decision that the commission made to go forward with
the Colorado Energy Plan,” said Griffey. “They are in essence relying
on the extra 2% that goes towards more expensive renewables to help pay
for this plan. That’s an admission in and of itself that it’s not
cheaper.”
“Xcel cut the deal with the renewable groups and then got it
approved, but it only works with the extra revenue,” Griffey continued.
“If this deal wasn’t approved Xcel would have to pay the extra costs, so
it’s clearly more expensive. It comes out of customer’s bills.”
But even if Xcel can provide the promised renewable energy, the claim
that it’s moving towards Polis’ goal of “100 percent renewables by
2050” is dubious at best, given the physics of electrical generation and
grid operation.
More than 19 million black unborn babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. (Photo: Resolution Productions/Getty Images)
In recent months, multiple states like Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana have passed laws to curb access to abortion.
The left and the mainstream media are spinning a narrative that a
draconian cabal of lawmakers is unjustly trying to take power away from
women, and that under these laws women will face unspeakable horrors as
they make their way to backroom alleys to have abortions performed with
coat hangers.
Loud is the outrage and sharp is the criticism from women’s groups, college students, and prominent Democratic leaders.
But the fact of the matter is that over 61 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Over 19 million of those babies were African American.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.Find out more >>
The left loves to play identity politics when it suits their agenda,
but the uncomfortable facts on abortion cut against their narrative:
While blacks only make up 13% of the population, they account for over
one-third of all abortions in the U.S.
Of all the people talking about abortion, I want to hear from the
church. Where does the body of Christ stand on these new abortion laws
sweeping the nation? In particular, I want to hear from the black
church.
Over 61 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Over 19 million of those babies were African-American.
Throughout our nation’s history, and through all our struggles to
become a more perfect union, the church has led the charge as a voice
for morality and righteousness. From the abolitionists who fought to end
slavery to the suffragists who fought to give women equal access to the
ballot box, the church historically has been the heartbeat of justice.
Yet today, many pastors seem more concerned about losing church
members than saving babies, and are silent when the only right thing to
do is to speak out. They preach under a misguided view of separation of
church and state, thinking their moral voice should not apply to any
political issue.
There is so much wrong with this line of thinking. I could easily
spend a month of Sunday sermons unpacking it—but let me try in a few
words.
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in either
the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. What we have is the First
Amendment’s “establishment clause,” which prohibits setting up an
official state church.
Somehow, “separation of church and state” has soaked into our
collective consciousness and brainwashed us into thinking the church
must never insert itself into political discourse or public policy. It
is actually the other way around: The point of the First Amendment is
that the government must get out of the church’s business.
The point of the First Amendment is that the government must get out of the church’s business.
Preachers and politicians have been playing the telephone game with
the Constitution. Remember that childhood game where you whisper into a
can tied to a string, and after a message is passed on multiple times,
you see if the original message remotely resembles the final message?
Well, that’s what we’ve done to the Constitution’s original message about the relationship between the church and the state.
The original message in the First Amendment is that “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Somehow that has
become garbled into, “The church should completely separate itself from
politics, policy, and the moral teachings that guide lawmakers.”
In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave this direct warning to people of faith:
The church must be reminded that
it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the
conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the
state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its
prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral
or spiritual authority.
Today, we forget that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the Reverend Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. The organization he founded, SCLC, stood for the
Southern Christian Leadership Council. It was as a Christian leader,
standing unashamedly on the authority of Scripture, that King spoke
truth to power and called out racism and bigotry in society.
It was with that same authority that licensed minister and
abolitionist Frederick Douglass spoke out against slavery and in favor
of women’s suffrage.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, knew the power
and influence of the black church. As she prepared to exterminate black
babies through her “Negro Project,” she wrote to a colleague, “We do not
want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,
and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever
occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Parishioners, politicians, and certainly my fellow preachers and I,
should be judged not only for what we believe about abortion, but also
for how we respond to the abortion crisis.
Will we stick our heads in the sand and mumble about the church being
a no-politics zone? Or will we actually admit that there are no zones
from which the church and its influence should be barred?
In
1927, several socialist-leaning American academics visited the Soviet
Union, anxious to bring back stories of how successful the new Communist
regime had been in its decade of infancy, and how it was exceeding
American prosperity by cobbling a technocratic, redistributive path into
the future. Many
returned with fantastic stories about how America was, by contrast,
backward in its reliance upon free markets and aversion to Soviet-style
economic principles. But among those mildly disillusioned by the trip
was Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union,
who seemed to recognize that, despite whatever fondness he held for
redistributionist economic policies, the Soviet Union lacked something
which was most fundamental in America, and, incidentally, would lead to
the horrific injustices that the Soviet Union would later inflict upon
its people. That
is, in America, we’ve long held the notion of individual liberty as
sacrosanct. The “social justice” promised by Soviet Communism offered
no such protections to its people. Like
many in America, Baldwin was a critic of the treatment of Italian
anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti. Soviet propaganda had made the two
immigrants the poster boys of American capitalists’ intolerance and
political tyranny. When Baldwin spoke to a group of airplane factory
workers about the injustices in America, the Soviet workers began to
chant “Sacco and Vanzetti,” as the two had been executed since Baldwin
had left America. Baldwin
felt compelled, however, to tell the Soviet factory workers that Sacco
and Vanzetti had “enjoyed the full defense of the law.” He then related
a contrary story, according to Amity Shlaes, in her excellent book, The Forgotten Man. Baldwin said to the Soviet factory workers:
But
what about yourselves? Two months ago, a group of bank clerks were
arrested at two o’clock in the morning.” Here, the interpreter stopped
and refused to go on…. “They were tried at four o’clock and executed at
six. Where was their right to assemble witnesses, to engage counsel, to
argue their case, and, if convicted, appeal?”
What
Baldwin would “remember for decades” is a woman “approaching him with a
countering argument” afterward. “You only talked about individual
justice,” she said. “This is a bourgeois idea.” But
it is not just a “bourgeois idea.” Individual liberty, the very crux
of the American idea, cannot exist without the notion of justice being
applied at the level of the individual. Unless individual guilt can be
discerned, punishment of that individual is unequivocally unjust. This is one, among the many, fronts upon which proponents of collectivized “social justice” in America morally fail. Recently, we witnessed
a farce on Capitol Hill when a number of black activists suggested that
white American taxpayers should pay monetary “reparations” to black
American descendants of the ancient institution of slavery. And now,
several leading Democratic candidates for the presidency have voiced
their support for “studying” such reparations. This is a curious choice by these candidates, considering that a recent poll
by Rasmussen shows that only 21% of likely American voters support
redistributive measures to pay reparations to descendants of slaves. Of
course, the value in supporting reparations is not in the popularity of
this unique issue, but the political currency which comes with
virtue-signaling one’s progressive bona fides. What we saw on Capitol
Hill, and what we see when Democratic presidential hopefuls support
reparations, is nothing more than a collectivized show trial against
white Americans. Democrats are seeking to use the court of public
opinion to indict millions of these innocent Americans for crimes they
did not commit, and punish them by robbing them of their individual
rights to property, in order to pay millions of others for oppression
which they never endured, and which would, furthermore, be impossible to
monetarily quantify. There
is no coherence to that argument, but there doesn’t have to be.
Evidence of individual victimhood or guilt are incidental considerations
when set against the imperative to advance “social justice.” Social
justice, as the left imagines it, must be applied in a very specific
fashion. First, a collectivized victim class must be established, and
collectivized guilt must be assigned. Second, a punishment must be meted
out by a broad government hammer, without evidence of either individual
victimhood or individual guilt. Such collective solutions, you see,
demand that there be no consideration to the individual. How
else could one reach the conclusion that a poor white American must
provide financial restitution to far more financially successful black
men like Ta-Nehisi Coates for some historical oppression that was
neither individually borne by the supposed “victim,” nor individually
perpetrated by the poor white American? None
of this is truly about race, it should be noted. It is about securing
and normalizing the mechanism for seizure of property from one class of
people, collectively deemed “guilty” by the State, in order to provide
that stolen property to others who are collectively deemed “victims” by
the State. This is the only possible recipe for communism, socialism,
or its more popular and openly acceptable American cousin, social
justice. But
social justice is not now, and has never been, actual justice. Social
justice is the unadulterated corruption of the only justice that matters
– individual justice. What we are witnessing is the continuing quest
to replace our government, which exists to protect individual liberty,
with one that has the power to disregard individual liberty in order to
advance its own interests by appeasing selected and preferred political
classes through redistribution. The
federal government seizing my wealth, simply because of my skin color,
for crimes that I most certainly did not commit, would be an absolute
injustice and an affront to my liberty. That’s
never been a “bourgeois idea.” It’s the simplest of facts. And in
America, we should easily recognize that as the most fundamental issue
with any effort to advance redistributive reparations.
Sea ice can take on a variety of textures. When waves buffet the
freezing ocean surface, characteristic "pancake" sea ice forms. This sea
ice was photographed near Antarctica. Credit: Ted Scambos, NSIDC
What is sea ice?
Sea ice is frozen ocean water. It forms, grows,
and melts in the ocean. In contrast, icebergs, glaciers, and ice shelves
float in the ocean but originate on land. For most of the year, sea ice
is typically covered with snow.
Why is Arctic sea ice important?
Arctic sea ice keeps the polar regions cool and
helps moderate global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface; 80 percent
of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As sea ice
melts in the summer, it exposes the dark ocean surface. Instead of
reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent of
the sunlight. The oceans heat up, and Arctic temperatures rise further.
A small temperature increase at the poles leads to still greater
warming over time, making the poles the most sensitive regions to
climate change on Earth. According to scientific measurements, both the
thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a
dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with
observations of a warming Arctic. The loss of sea ice also has the
potential to accelerate global warming trends and to change climate
patterns.
For more on the ways sea ice interacts with other Earth systems, including global ocean circulation, people, and animals, see All About Sea Ice: Environment.
The 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, on September 16, 2012, reached the
lowest ice extent in the satellite record. Credit: National Snow and Ice
Data Center
What is sea ice extent, and why do you monitor that particular aspect of sea ice?
Sea ice extent is a measurement of the area of ocean where there is
at least some sea ice. Usually, scientists define a threshold of minimum
concentration to mark the ice edge; the most common cutoff is at 15
percent. Scientists use the 15 percent cutoff because it provides the
most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations.
Scientists tend to focus on Arctic sea ice extent more closely than
other aspects of sea ice because satellites measure extent more
accurately than they do other measurements, such as thickness. For more
on sea ice extent, see Frequently Asked Questions About Arctic Sea Ice: "What is the difference between sea ice area and extent?"
What is the Arctic sea ice minimum?
The Arctic sea ice minimum marks the day, each year, when the sea ice
extent is at its lowest. The sea ice minimum occurs at the end of the
summer melting season.
The summer melt season usually begins in March and ends sometime during
September. The sea ice minimum has been occurring later in recent years
because of a longer melting season. However, ice growth and melt are
local processes; sea ice in some areas will have already started growing
before the date of the sea ice minimum, and ice in other areas will
still shrink even after the date of the minimum.
Changes in the timing of the sea ice minimum extent are especially
important because more of the sun's energy reaches Earth's surface
during the Arctic summer than during the Arctic winter. As explained
above, sea ice reflects much of the sun's radiation back into space,
whereas dark, ice-free ocean water absorbs more of the sun's energy. So,
reduced sea ice during the sunnier summer months has a big impact on
the Arctic's overall energy balance.
For more information on current sea ice conditions see the Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Web page. To read NSIDC press releases on past Arctic sea ice minima,
see the Arctic Sea Ice Press Announcements Archive on the Arctic Sea Ice
News & Analysis Web page.
Seen from January through December, this timeseries shows the natural
waxing and waning of the Arctic sea ice cover with the seasons. The
maximum extent generally occurs in March, the minimum extent in
September. Sea ice extent in 2015 (blue) fell well below the 1981 to
2010 long-term average (gray) and was above 2012 (dotted light green),
in which the lowest summer minimum to date occurred. Credit: NSIDC
What is the Arctic sea ice maximum?
The Arctic sea ice maximum marks the day of the year when Arctic sea
ice reaches its largest extent. The sea ice maximum occurs at the end of
the winter cold season.
The Arctic cold season usually begins in September and ends in March.
Monitoring winter sea ice is important to understanding the state of the
sea ice. Scientists have found that Arctic sea ice has been recovering
less in the winter, meaning the sea ice is already "weak" when the
summer melting season arrives. A possible cause is that the underlying
ocean is warmer.
To read NSIDC press releases on past Arctic sea ice maxima, see the Arctic Sea Ice Press Announcements Archive on the Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis Web page
How do scientists monitor the Arctic sea ice?
Obtaining reliable measurements of sea ice as it changes was
difficult until the satellite era began in the early 1970s. To monitor
Arctic sea ice, NSIDC primarily has used the NASA Advanced Microwave
Scanning Radiometer–Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) instrument on the
NASA Aqua satellite and the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I)
instrument on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)
satellite. The satellites pass over the polar region several times each
day to gather data; researchers can then form the data into images for
analysis and publication. Because the AMSR-E instrument is no longer
functioning, NSIDC now relies on DMSP data.
Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in late 1978 with the
launch of NASA's Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR)
satellite. When scientists compare average sea ice conditions between
years, they often use a 30-year reference period of 1981 to 2010. This
reference period allows a consistent comparison of changes in extent
over individual years.
Is Antarctic sea ice important, too? Is it shrinking?
Strong winds caused sea ice to crack and buckle off the coast of Greenland. Credit: Andy Mahoney, NSIDC
Scientists monitor both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but Arctic sea
ice is more significant to understanding global climate because much
more Arctic ice remains through the summer months, reflecting sunlight
and cooling the planet.
Sea ice near the Antarctic Peninsula, south of the tip of South America,
has recently experienced a significant decline. The rest of Antarctica
has experienced a small increase in Antarctic sea ice.
Antarctica and the Arctic are reacting differently to climate change
partly because of geographical differences. Antarctica is a continent
surrounded by water, while the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land.
Wind and ocean currents around Antarctica isolate the continent from
global weather patterns, keeping it cold. In contrast, the Arctic Ocean
is intimately linked with the climate systems around it, making it more
sensitive to changes in climate.
Rural Americans would be serfs if we abolished the Electoral College
Trent England, Opinion contributor
Published 7:00 a.m. ET May 23, 2019 | Updated 2:11 p.m. ET May 27, 2019
Elections are confusing. Learn what the Electoral College is in under a minute.
If
the National Popular Vote drive kills the Electoral College, rural and
small town Americans who supply our food and energy will lose their
voice.
Should
rural and small-town Americans be reduced to serfdom? The American
Founders didn’t think so. This is one reason why they created checks and
balances, including the Electoral College. Today that system is
threatened by a proposal called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV.
Rural America produces almost all our country’s food, as well as raw materials like metals, cotton and timber. Energy, fossil fuels but also alternatives like wind and solar come mostly from rural areas. In other words, the material inputs of modern life flow out of rural communities and into cities.
This
is fine, so long as the exchange is voluntary — rural people choose to
sell their goods and services, receive a fair price, and have their
freedom protected under law. But history shows that city dwellers have a
nasty habit of taking advantage of their country cousins. Greeks
enslaved whole masses of rural people, known as helots. Medieval Europe had feudalism. The Russians had their serfs.
Credit
the American Founders with setting up a system of limited government
with lots of checks and balances. The U.S. Senate makes sure all states
are represented equally, even low-population rural states like Wyoming
and Vermont. Limits on federal power, along with the Bill of Rights, are
supposed to protect Americans from overreaching federal regulations.
And the Electoral College makes it impossible for one population-dense
region of the country to control the presidency.
Skipping the constitutional amendment process
This
is why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Instead of winning over small-town
Americans, she amassed a popular vote lead based on California and a few big cities.
She won those places with huge margins but lost just about everywhere
else. And the system worked. The Electoral College requires more than
just the most raw votes to win — it requires geographic balance. This
helps to protect rural and small-town Americans.
Now
a California millionaire named John Koza is trying to undo this system.
He is leading and funding the National Popular Vote campaign. Their
plan is to get state governments to ignore how their own citizens vote
in presidential elections and instead get them to cast their electoral
votes based on the national popular vote. If it works, this will be like getting rid of the Electoral College but without actually amending the Constitution.
'2 wolves and a lamb' voting on lunch
California has already passed NPV, along with 13 other states plus Washington, D.C. Nevada, with six electoral votes, could
be next. NPV only takes effect if it is joined by enough states that
they control 270 electoral votes, which would then control the outcome
of all future presidential elections. If that happens (NPV needs 81 more
electoral votes), and if the courts do not strike it down, big cities
will gain more political power at the expense of everyone else.
The
idea that every vote should count equally is attractive. But a quote
often attributed to Benjamin Franklin famously reminds us that democracy
can be “two wolves and a lamb
voting on what’s for lunch.” (City dwellers who think that meat comes
from the grocery store might not understand why this is such a big
problem for the lamb.) And when you think about it, every check on
government power, from the Electoral College to the Bill of Rights, is a
restraint on the majority.
The Electoral College
makes it even harder to win the presidency. It requires geographic
balance and helps protect Americans who might otherwise have their
voices ignored. All Americans should value constitutional protections,
like the Electoral College, that remind us that the real purpose of
government is to protect our individual rights.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders unveiled his vision of "democratic socialism" during a recent speech at George Washington University. Unfortunately, he did more to confuse the meaning of democratic socialism than to clarify it. The words capitalism and socialism have
meanings, so let's get things clear up front. Capitalism is an
economic system based on private ownership of property coordinated
through voluntary exchange in markets. Socialism
is an economic system that abolishes private property in the means of
production — the land, capital, and labor used to make everything — and
replaces it with some form of collective ownership. Whenever socialism
has been implemented at a national level, collective ownership in
practice has meant state ownership, and government plans have replaced
markets as the primary mechanism to coordinate economic activity. Capitalism
and socialism can be thought of as two poles of a spectrum. Some
countries are more capitalistic, and some are more socialistic, but all
fall somewhere between these two poles. This is where Sanders starts
mucking things up. He
claims that "unfettered capitalism" is causing economic problems in
United States. The reality is that capitalism in the United States is
far from "unfettered." The Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report is
the best measure of where on the socialism-capitalism spectrum a
country lies. In the most recent rankings, the United States scored an
8.03 out of a possible 10 points, and even a 10-point score would fall
short of "unfettered." However,
this score does rank the United States the sixth most capitalist in the
world. The five countries ahead of us — Hong Kong, Singapore, New
Zealand, Switzerland, and Ireland — are all pretty nice places. This
fits with research that overwhelmingly finds that greater economic
freedom (i.e., capitalism) produces good socioeconomic results. Meanwhile,
Sanders contrasts his democratic socialism with the "movement toward
oligarchy," which he conflates with unfettered capitalism. The problem
is that none of the six authoritarian regimes he calls out — Russia
(87th), China (107th), Saudi Arabia (102nd), the Philippines (49th),
Brazil (144th), Hungary (59th) — is close to the capitalist end of the
spectrum. More
disturbingly, he leaves socialist countries off his list of
authoritarian regimes. Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela explicitly
identify as socialist and come closest in the world today to practicing
real socialism. The governments in these countries own and/or control
much of the means of production and attempt to direct and plan their
economies. Sanders stated that he faces attacks "from those who attempt to use the word socialism as
a slur." But it is not "red-baiting" to recognize that socialism means
a particular form of economic organization and that those authoritarian
countries come closest to using that form of organization. I visited
them while researching a new book,
and they are all economic disasters as well as authoritarian
nightmares. It's incumbent on Sanders to recognize these countries as
socialist and explain how his socialism would differ. So
does Sanders want real socialism? The closest he got to specifics was
to argue that his democratic socialism would entail an "economic bill of
rights," which would include the right to a decent job that pays a
living wage, quality health care, a complete education, affordable
housing, a clean environment, and a secure retirement. But
listing aspirations tells us nothing about how he would achieve
them. Based on his voting record and advocacy, his program would likely
involve massive new interventions that would curtail our economic
freedoms and place greater reliance on government planners. Would those interventions be enough to label them socialist? They would likely make the United States less capitalistic than the Nordic countries that are often labeled democratic socialist. Yet
those countries — Denmark (16th), Norway (25th), Sweden (43rd) — all
rank high in economic freedom, so they likely don't represent the right
standard. Whatever the answer to my question, a national debate would
be more productive if both Sanders and his critics were clearer on the
definition of socialism and on whether his policies are, or aren't, socialist.
For
two and half years, the media predicted that President Trump would be
impeached, possibly jailed, once the special counsel wrapped up his
investigation. So when the Mueller report not only fails to charge the
president, but exonerates him, a dazed media establishment reels from
the news — Russian collusion was a hoax! Seriously? Does
anyone really believe that the media didn't know about the conspiracy
to frame the president? Ha! Not only did they know about the coup, but
they're leading the coup. But
that's ridiculous, you say. The press doesn't have the power to use
government, courts, and Congress to illegally oust a sitting
president. The media could never launch and execute a coup without
government. True, and government could never launch and execute a coup
without the media. "The
first thing dictators do is finish free press, to establish
censorship. There is no doubt that a free press is the first enemy of
dictatorship." —Fidel Castro Done! Free press in America is dead. We now have what the late Andrew Breitbart labeled a "Democrat Media Complex" (DMC), an imperium even more powerful than our government. After
all, media effectively control who serves in government, can play
kingmaker or assassin with information they release or
withhold. Politicians know that a coordinated racism, sexism, or #MeToo
charge can destroy the most powerful official, sink the most promising
candidate. Gaslighting
is another tactic the press uses to sway election and suppress the
vote. Media release phony polls to make the Republican candidate appear
a lost cause, the Democrat inevitable. And
our government can't (yet) invade Americans' homes, remove forbidden
literature, and enforce state propaganda. They can't (yet) round up
Americans and ship them to re-education camps to restrict information
and block opposing views, to instill the progressive doctrine. Yet the
press can and virtually does all the above, a superpower, omnipresent,
ever-present, and invincible Omnipresent
— Everywhere at once. Today's media reach into every home, car,
workplace, school, airport, anywhere there's a TV, internet, or a phone. Ever-present — Always here — 24-hour news, our daily paper, hourly reports on radio and internet, media are in our ears, dusk to dawn. Invincible — Safely ensconced behind the very Constitution they seek to eradicate, the media are untouchable. These
weaponized media attack America from within spiritually and morally;
divide us by race, sex, and religion; and transmute American culture. Spiritually/Morally The press staunchly defends abortion, effectively spawning sociopaths who "lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience" (60 million U.S. abortions since Roe v. Wade). Many women who can't so easily rationalize taking an innocent life suffer serious psychological and emotional damage. Yet
millions of Americans, men and women, demand the right to take out a
contract on their own children, to pay a third party (doctor) to do the
wet work. Divide Americans by Race In 2014, networks reported that an unarmed black man, Michael Brown (the gentle giant), was shot in the back by a white cop while trying to surrender. Investigators later found that Brown, the 6'5", 289-lb. raging bull, was charging when shot in the front, not back. But the exculpatory evidence came too late; the lie stuck. To
this day, black activists wear t-shirts with "Hands Up/Don't Shoot"
logos, and NFL players "take a knee," opposing their own flag, anthem,
and country to protest the fake news from Ferguson, Mo. Eradicate Our Culture/Strip Our Identity: The press elevates the trans agenda
(men who "identify" as women are women despite anatomy; ditto for women
who think they're men). Any who "misgender" the man, woman, or child
may become a social outcast, lose his job, or even be jailed for refusing to participate in the delusion. And
yes, it's delusional. Yet media are so influential that they convince
people to deny reality, validate the fiction, and share in the
psychosis. This staggering power is used to weaken our country, to prepare America for surrender. The media use loaded language to push "sensible gun laws" (gun control), "comprehensive immigration reform" (open borders), "Medicare for all" (socialized medicine), "women's reproductive health" (abortion), and "popular vote" (extraconstitutional elections. Their cleverly worded
arguments convince Americans to stand down while the Left chips away at
our Constitution, to willingly disarm and passively surrender our
independence. To
allow this enemy press to take asylum in the Constitution is like
giving Satan sanctuary in a church. Both despise the very institution
that gives them safe harbor, will not stop until it is burned to the
ground. These
traitors are able to preach sedition and advocate the overthrow of our
president because they claim the sanctity of free press, but also
because they're firing on us from within our ranks. The enemy is within
the gates, a trusted friend, one of our own. "The
traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely[.] ... For the
traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his
victims, and he wears their face and their arguments[.]" —Marcus
Tullius Cicero But
they're not one of us, not patriots, not even loyal Americans. They
loathe our country, despise our people, and abhor our
Constitution. They use psychological weapons (psyops, propaganda, thought control, and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals) against their own people. American patriots in the Revolutionary War and soldiers
throughout our history fought bloody battles to establish and defend
our freedom. They were attacked by fierce enemies with swords, guns,
cannons, and bombs, were tortured, maimed, and killed in defense of our
liberty. They gave their lives, sacrificed their futures to preserve a
free country for those who would come behind them. Now
our freedom is slipping away — not taken at gunpoint or lost in bloody
wars, but surrendered to arguments, defeated by rhetoric, talked out of
liberty. We
owe it to those who came before us and those who will come after us to
defeat this most dangerous enemy, to fight with every ounce of our
being. "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." —Thomas Jefferson The clock is ticking. Our Republic is at stake.
One
look at the lineup of Democrat presidential candidates and I have to
wonder what we’re coming to -- is this the best the party can come up
with? Really? If the Democrats make up roughly half the population, then
why are these people the cream that’s risen to the top? If they’re the
top, what on God’s green earth is at the bottom?But
what about religious beliefs? Even religion should be subjected to the
verification requirement -- why would we want to believe something
false? Any god worth his salt would leave a trail of evidence. As a
Christian I have no trouble lining up the historical/archeological
substantiation for the claims made by the doctrines of my faith. It
isn’t blind. Even the Resurrection stands the test of logical reality
(See the writings of J. Warner Wallace or Lee Strobel). Christians have
no need to harden into belligerent, dangerous ideologues. We don’t have
to kill those who disagree with us. We don’t need to rape their
daughters or knife them in the streets. Ironically, the existence of
those who do these things merely verifies the Christian doctrine of
original sin and the teachings about idolatry. In
fact. idolatry is a major contributor to the current plague of
ideologues. We have made idols out of celebrity, of wealth, of movements
(Antifa, Pro-choice, even the Earth itself) and if we can’t achieve
whatever we think demonstrates the approbation of these gods we become
desperate and frozen, unable to crawl out of the hole we have dug for
ourselves. Democrats have made such shibboleth of Trump’s Russian
collusion, that even in the face of complete exoneration, they can’t let
go – partly because they have always known it wasn’t true. Our craven
need for the approval of these demigods turns us into mental statues
incapable of movement or curiosity much like what happened to the
characters in Narnia who were turned into statuary by the White Witch. The
most dangerous idolatry of all is the leftists’ tendency to idolize
themselves. They shut their eyes to the clearly present God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and place their own puny selves on the altar and then
run around trying desperately to prove that they’re deserving of that
position. Virtue signaling has become a plague on our society. The
worshippers of self don’t care at all if their “good” deeds actually
accomplish an alleviation of suffering, in fact their actions can, for
all they care, actually make things worse -- note the homeless problem
as an example. They just want their “compassion” duly noted and
photographed. But
they will defend to the death (of someone else, not themselves) their
right to draft their own rules for living, allowing any activity they
find pleasure in and denouncing anything that chips away at their
turtled shells of self-righteousness. I suspect that it is this fear of
being deshelled and exposed as the reprobates they are that makes them
so hate Donald Trump; he is the symbol of all of us who continue to
place God, country, and family above ourselves. If Trump continues
winning, they lose not only political power, but the power to believe in
their unicorn fairytale; they will have to face the fact that nothing
they’ve based their lives on is true. They will have to admit that
they’ve been loons.
Wind
energy is infinite, clean, a friend of climate, and the future of our
energy sector. That is the green gospel we hear from renewable-obsessed
environmentalists and politicians every day. If
wind energy is what they claim it is, why are the economic powerhouses
of the world increasingly turning toward fossil fuels and nuclear, not
toward wind? If wind is affordable and efficient, as they claim, why
does it need subsidies to flourish? The answers to these questions reveal that wind energy is not what it is portrayed to be. Intermittent Generation and Hyper-Sensitiveness to Weather It
is a well known fact that wind energy is intermittent — i.e., it can
generate stable electricity only when the wind speed is at an optimum
level. This is known as rated wind speed, which is around 26–30 miles
per hour, or 12–14 meters per second. A little slower, and the
generation is inefficient. A little faster, and turbines risk getting
damaged. Unfortunately,
average wind speeds are not stable, so neither is the energy
generated. Wind changes direction and speed minute by minute for various reasons. Furthermore, geographical regions have different wind-generating capabilities during different seasons. Some turbines remain non-operational for months when average wind speeds are lower than 10 miles per hour. Energy generation can also be affected by cold weather and storms. This was the case earlier this year when the cold weather from a polar vortex affected wind operation in America's Midwest, impacting the only season when wind energy generation is optimum there. Besides rendering them incapable of generating electricity, the cold weather also damages the turbines and other parts. Canada, a country familiar with cold weather limitations of wind, estimates that cold weather accounts for a loss of $85 million USD annually. The
loss is attributed to three main factors: accumulation of ice on wind
turbine blades, resulting in reduced power output and increased rotor
loads; cold weather shutdown to prevent equipment failure; and limited
or reduced access for maintenance activities. The Cost: Loss of Money, Increased Power Prices, and Blackouts Despite
the seasonal variation and no assurance of a stable wind speed, the
wind industry has managed to grow rapidly, thanks to the restrictive
climate change policies that favor renewables against fossil fuels. As
a result of this blind love for wind energy, countries have lost a lot
of money invested into the wind sector. The U.S. Energy Information
Agency's annual energy outlook states
that wind (and solar) energy contributed a mere 3 percent of total
energy consumption in the U.S. last year, despite consuming a
cumulative $50 billion in subsidizes. Moreover, some territories like Scotland compensate wind energy companies if
electricity generated exceeds the demand. The government makes up for
the financial loss by increasing the electricity bills of consumers. Furthermore, the increased cost of generation and transmission has resulted in increased power prices. Environmental commentator Michael Shellenberger noticed that
electricity prices have risen dramatically in countries that rely
heavily on wind: "Electricity prices increased by 51 percent in Germany
between 2006 and 2016 (wind and solar) and over 100 percent in Denmark
since 1995 (mostly wind)." This renewable-driven sharp rise in electricity prices is also observed in numerous states in the U.S. (especially California) that made heavy investments in wind and solar. The
highly seasonal and intermittent nature of renewable electricity means
that some countries also run the risk of a complete energy blackout when
wind fails. The 2016 blackout in Australia caused by wind energy
failure is a classic example. Hazardous to Birds, Humans, and the Environment Besides
being inefficient and expensive, wind energy has also been found to be
hazardous during its manufacturing phase and operational phase. A
generator for a high-end wind turbine requires as much as 4,400 pounds
of neodymium-based permanent magnet material. When neodymium is
produced, the carcinogenic and radioactive waste is dumped into lakes,
making both the water and the surrounding air toxic. It is estimated
that seven million tons of waste a year are dumped into a single lake in
China, which is the largest producer of neodymium. Wind turbines are the largest killers of birdlife globally. They have a special liking for raptors and are infamous for adversely affecting many endangered species. An operational wind turbine is a certified bird-killer. Wind turbine accidents are also becoming increasingly common. In the U.K. alone, hundreds of accidents are reported every year. Globally, thousands of wind structural collapses and related accidents occur annually. All
these factors make wind energy untenable. Even in the best operating
seasons, wind has no competitive edge over conventional energy sources. Some countries are already moving away from wind. Poland aims to
scrap all its operational wind factories by 2035. (They're not farms,
by the way. Farms grow plants and animals.) China has refused to approve further wind projectsdue to their inefficiency and higher costs. Aside
from isolated local applications not yet served by major electric
grids, wind has little future in a world moving toward technological
finesse in energy generation technologies. Wind makes us rely on a
resource that is highly volatile and not under our control, thereby
making it unsustainable no matter our advances in turbine technology. Any
hopes of a wind energy–powered utopian future are gone with the wind,
literally. The wind sector functions solely to feed the pride of
renewable crusaders, at taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense, and has been
a burden to the world that is pushing toward energy development.
Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation
Days
after the F.B.I. closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton in 2016,
agents began scrutinizing the presidential campaign of her Republican
rival, Donald J. Trump.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
Days
after the F.B.I. closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton in 2016,
agents began scrutinizing the presidential campaign of her Republican
rival, Donald J. Trump.CreditCreditAl Drago for The New York Times
WASHINGTON
— Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s
ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of
agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of
officials were kept in the dark.
Their
assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the
Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s
advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense
deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials
broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander
Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the
campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.
The
agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to
Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened.
Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago
Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a
small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
The name, a reference to the Rolling Stones lyric
“I was born in a crossfire hurricane,” was an apt prediction of a
political storm that continues to tear shingles off the bureau. Days
after they closed their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a
private email server, agents began scrutinizing the campaign of her
Republican rival. The two cases have become inextricably linked in one
of the most consequential periods in the history of the F.B.I.
This
month, the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release
the findings of its lengthy review of the F.B.I.’s conduct in the
Clinton case. The results are certain to renew debate over decisions by
the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, to publicly chastise
Mrs. Clinton in a news conference, and then announce the reopening of the investigation days before Election Day. Mrs. Clinton has said those actions buried her presidential hopes.
Those
decisions stand in contrast to the F.B.I.’s handling of Crossfire
Hurricane. Not only did agents in that case fall back to their typical
policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former
government officials and a review of documents show that the F.B.I. was
even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known. Many
of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.
Agents
considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which
might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence
of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not
solve the case before Election Day, which made them only more hesitant
to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing
the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy.
Fearful
of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street
at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent,
explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too
“tasty” to resist sharing. “I’m not worried about our side,” he wrote.
Only
about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the
case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be
briefed on a major national security case.
The
facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr.
Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as
was his campaign chairman. One adviser appeared to have Russian
intelligence contacts. Another was suspected of being a Russian agent
himself.
In the Clinton case, Mr.
Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency. But in the face of
questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. declined to
tip its hand. And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of
the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned
against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case.
Mr.
Comey has said it is unfair to compare the Clinton case, which was
winding down in the summer of 2016, with the Russia case, which was in
its earliest stages. He said he did not make political considerations
about who would benefit from each decision.
But
underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs.
Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as
withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that
any overt actions against Mr. Trump’s campaign would only reinforce his
claims that the election was being rigged against him.
The
F.B.I. now faces those very criticisms and more. Mr. Trump says he is
the victim of a politicized F.B.I. He says senior agents tried to rig
the election by declining to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, then drummed up the
Russia investigation to undermine his presidency. He has declared that a
deeply rooted cabal — including his own appointees — is working against
him.
That argument is the heart of
Mr. Trump’s grievances with the federal investigation. In the face of
bipartisan support for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr.
Trump and his allies have made a priority of questioning how the
investigation was conducted in late 2016 and trying to discredit it.
“It’s a witch hunt,” Mr. Trump said last month on Fox News. “And they know that, and I’ve been able to message it.”
Advertisement
Congressional
Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, have
begun to dig into F.B.I. files, looking for evidence that could
undermine the investigation. Much remains unknown and classified. But
those who saw the investigation up close, and many of those who have
reviewed case files in the past year, say that far from gunning for Mr.
Trump, the F.B.I. could actually have done more in the final months of
2016 to scrutinize his campaign’s Russia ties.
“I
never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the
bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” said
Mary McCord, a 20-year Justice Department veteran and the top national
security prosecutor during much of the investigation’s first nine
months.
Crossfire Hurricane spawned a
case that has brought charges against former Trump campaign officials
and more than a dozen Russians. But in the final months of 2016, agents
faced great uncertainty — about the facts, and how to respond.
A Trump campaign rally in August 2016 in Texas. Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election.
A Trump campaign rally in August 2016 in Texas. Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
Anxiety at the Bureau
Crossfire
Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but
if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the
president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. “I cannot
believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive
connections,” Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.
The
mood in early meetings was anxious, former officials recalled. Agents
had just closed the Clinton investigation, and they braced for months of
Republican-led hearings over why she was not charged. Crossfire
Hurricane was built around the same core of agents and analysts who had
investigated Mrs. Clinton. None was eager to re-enter presidential
politics, former officials said, especially when agents did not know
what would come of the Australian information.
The question they confronted still persists: Was anyone in the Trump campaign tied to Russian efforts to undermine the election?
Advertisement
The
F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those
early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four
men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr.
Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. Each was scrutinized
because of his obvious or suspected Russian ties.
Mr.
Flynn, a top adviser, was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s
media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian
president, Vladimir V. Putin. Mr. Manafort, the campaign chairman, had
lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate
who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.
Mr.
Page, a foreign policy adviser, was well known to the F.B.I. He had
previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting
one in Moscow during the campaign.
Lastly,
there was Mr. Papadopoulos, the young and inexperienced campaign aide
whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off
the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he
had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton. But
even if the F.B.I. had wanted to read his emails or intercept his calls,
that evidence was not enough to allow it. Many months passed, former
officials said, before the F.B.I. uncovered emails linking Mr.
Papadopoulos to a Russian intelligence operation.
Mr.
Trump was not under investigation, but his actions perplexed the
agents. Days after the stolen Democratic emails became public, he called
on Russia to uncover more. Then news broke that Mr. Trump’s campaign
had pushed to change the Republican platform’s stance on Ukraine in ways favorable to Russia.
The
F.B.I.’s thinking crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director
at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey
showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016
presidential election. Intelligence agencies began collaborating to
investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of
that group but largely operated independently, three officials said.
Senator
Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the
investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw
no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.
Advertisement
“There
was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting
to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our
elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said
in an interview. “That’s what they did.”
Andrew
G. McCabe in December in Washington. Mr. McCabe, the former deputy
F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty,
giving ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I. cannot be
trusted.
Andrew
G. McCabe in December in Washington. Mr. McCabe, the former deputy
F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty,
giving ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I. cannot be
trusted.CreditChip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Abounding Criticism
Looking
back, some inside the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say that Mr.
Comey should have seen the political storm coming and better sheltered
the bureau. They question why he consolidated the Clinton and Trump
investigations at headquarters, rather than in a field office. And they
say he should not have relied on the same team for both cases. That put a
bull’s-eye on the heart of the F.B.I. Any misstep in either
investigation made both cases, and the entire bureau, vulnerable to
criticism.
And there were missteps.
Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, was cited by
internal investigators for dishonesty about his conversations with
reporters about Mrs. Clinton. That gave ammunition for Mr. Trump’s
claims that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted. And Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page,
an F.B.I. lawyer, exchanged texts criticizing Mr. Trump, allowing the
president to point to evidence of bias when they became public.
The
messages were unsparing. They questioned Mr. Trump’s intelligence,
believed he promoted intolerance and feared he would damage the bureau.
The
inspector general’s upcoming report is expected to criticize those
messages for giving the appearance of bias. It is not clear, however,
whether inspectors found evidence supporting Mr. Trump’s assertion that
agents tried to protect Mrs. Clinton, a claim the F.B.I. has adamantly
denied.
Mr. Rubio, who has reviewed
many of the texts and case files, said he saw no signs that the F.B.I.
wanted to undermine Mr. Trump. “There might have been individual agents
that had views that, in hindsight, have been problematic for those
agents,” Mr. Rubio said. “But whether that was a systemic effort, I’ve
seen no evidence of it.”
Advertisement
Mr.
Trump’s daily Twitter posts, though, offer sound-bite-sized accusations
— witch hunt, hoax, deep state, rigged system — that fan the flames of
conspiracy. Capitol Hill allies reliably echo those comments.
“It’s
like the deep state all got together to try to orchestrate a palace
coup,” Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said in January
on Fox Business Network.
The
Kremlin in Moscow. Two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior
American intelligence officials told him that Russia had tried to sow
chaos in the election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr.
Trump win.
The
Kremlin in Moscow. Two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior
American intelligence officials told him that Russia had tried to sow
chaos in the election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr.
Trump win.CreditMladen Antonov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Cautious Intelligence Gathering
Counterintelligence
investigations can take years, but if the Russian government had
influence over the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. wanted to know quickly.
One option was the most direct: interview the campaign officials about
their Russian contacts.
That was
discussed but not acted on, two former officials said, because
interviewing witnesses or subpoenaing documents might thrust the
investigation into public view, exactly what F.B.I. officials were
trying to avoid during the heat of the presidential race.
“You do not take actions that will unnecessarily impact an election,” Sally Q. Yates, the former deputy attorney general, said in an interview.
She would not discuss details, but added, “Folks were very careful to
make sure that actions that were being taken in connection with that
investigation did not become public.”
Mr.
Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one
official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election
interference. The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial
decisions for Mr. Comey to make.
Advertisement
Top
officials became convinced that there was almost no chance they would
answer the question of collusion before Election Day. And that made
agents even more cautious.
The F.B.I.
obtained phone records and other documents using national security
letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one
government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr.
Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a
politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning
whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap
campaign officials.
Looking back, some
at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. now believe that agents could
have been more aggressive. They ultimately interviewed Mr. Papadopoulos
in January 2017 and managed to keep it a secret, suggesting they could
have done so much earlier.
“There is
always a high degree of caution before taking overt steps in a
counterintelligence investigation,” said Ms. McCord, who would not
discuss details of the case. “And that could have worked to the
president’s benefit here.”
Such
tactical discussions are reflected in one of Mr. Strzok’s most
controversial texts, sent on Aug. 15, 2016, after a meeting in Mr.
McCabe’s office.
“I want to believe
the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s
no way he gets elected,” Mr. Strzok wrote, “but I’m afraid we can’t
take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you
die before you’re 40.”
Mr. Trump says
that message revealed a secret F.B.I. plan to respond to his election.
“‘We’ll go to Phase 2 and we’ll get this guy out of office,’” he told The Wall Street Journal. “This is the F.B.I. we’re talking about — that is treason.”
Advertisement
But
officials have told the inspector general something quite different.
They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace,
especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that
anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s
claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.
Mr.
Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low —
like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.
Mr.
Strzok had similarly argued for a more aggressive path during the
Clinton investigation, according to four current and former officials.
He opposed the Justice Department’s decision to offer Mrs. Clinton’s
lawyers immunity and negotiate access to her hard drives, the officials
said. Mr. Strzok favored using search warrants or subpoenas instead.
In both cases, his argument lost.
As
agents tried to corroborate information from the retired British spy
Christopher Steele, reporters began calling the F.B.I., asking whether
the accusations in his reports were accurate.
As
agents tried to corroborate information from the retired British spy
Christopher Steele, reporters began calling the F.B.I., asking whether
the accusations in his reports were accurate.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
Policy and Tradition
The
F.B.I. bureaucracy did agents no favors. In July, a retired British spy
named Christopher Steele approached a friend in the F.B.I. overseas and
provided reports linking Trump campaign officials to Russia. But the
documents meandered around the F.B.I. organizational chart, former
officials said. Only in mid-September, congressional investigators say,
did the records reach the Crossfire Hurricane team.
Mr.
Steele was gathering information about Mr. Trump as a private
investigator for Fusion GPS, a firm paid by Democrats. But he was also
considered highly credible, having helped agents unravel complicated
cases.
In October, agents flew to
Europe to interview him. But Mr. Steele had become frustrated by the
F.B.I.’s slow response. He began sharing his findings in September and
October with journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The
New Yorker and elsewhere, according to congressional testimony.
Advertisement
So
as agents tried to corroborate Mr. Steele’s information, reporters
began calling the bureau, asking about his findings. If the F.B.I. was
working against Mr. Trump, as he asserts, this was an opportunity to
push embarrassing information into the news media shortly before the
election.
That did not happen. Most
news organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the
F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.
Congress was also increasingly asking questions. Mr. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, had briefed top lawmakers that summer
about Russian election interference and intelligence that Moscow
supported the Trump campaign — a finding that would not become public
for months. Lawmakers clamored for information from Mr. Comey, who
refused to answer public questions.
Many
Democrats see rueful irony in this moment. Mr. Comey, after all, broke
with policy and twice publicly discussed the Clinton investigation. Yet
he refused repeated requests to discuss the Trump investigation.
Mr. Comey has said he regrets his decision to chastise Mrs. Clinton as “extremely careless,”
even as he announced that she should not be charged. But he stands by
his decision to alert Congress, days before the election, that the
F.B.I. was reopening the Clinton inquiry.
The
result, though, is that Mr. Comey broke with both policy and tradition
in Mrs. Clinton’s case, but hewed closely to the rules for Mr. Trump.
Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the
House Intelligence Committee, said that alone proves Mr. Trump’s claims
of unfairness to be “both deeply at odds with the facts, and damaging to
our democracy.”
Carter
Page in December 2016. He had previously been recruited by Russian
spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the 2016
presidential campaign.CreditPavel Golovkin/Associated Press
Carter
Page in December 2016. He had previously been recruited by Russian
spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the 2016
presidential campaign.CreditPavel Golovkin/Associated Press
Spying in Question
Crossfire
Hurricane began with a focus on four campaign officials. But by
mid-fall 2016, Mr. Page’s inquiry had progressed the furthest. Agents
had known Mr. Page for years. Russian spies tried to recruit him in 2013,
and he was dismissive when agents warned him about it, a half-dozen
current and former officials said. That warning even made its way back
to Russian intelligence, leaving agents suspecting that Mr. Page had
reported their efforts to Moscow.
Advertisement
Relying
on F.B.I. information and Mr. Steele’s, prosecutors obtained court
approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page, who was no longer with the Trump
campaign.
That warrant has become
deeply contentious and is crucial to Republican arguments that
intelligence agencies improperly used Democratic research to help
justify spying on the Trump campaign. The inspector general is reviewing
that claim.
Ms. Yates, the deputy
attorney general under President Barack Obama, signed the first warrant
application. But subsequent filings were approved by members of Mr.
Trump’s own administration: the acting attorney general, Dana J. Boente,
and then Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.
“Folks
are very, very careful and serious about that process,” Ms. Yates said.
“I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.”
After
months of investigation, Mr. Papadopoulos remained largely a puzzle.
And agents were nearly ready to close their investigation of Mr. Flynn,
according to three current and former officials. (Mr. Flynn rekindled
the F.B.I.’s interest in November 2016 by signing an op-ed article that
appeared to be written on behalf of the Turkish government, and then
making phone calls to the Russian ambassador that December.)
In
late October, in response to questions from The Times, law enforcement
officials acknowledged the investigation but urged restraint. They said
they had scrutinized some of Mr. Trump’s advisers but had found no proof
of any involvement with Russian hacking. The resulting article,
on Oct. 31, reflected that caution and said that agents had uncovered
no “conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian
government.”
Advertisement
The
key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad
investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the
Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.
A
year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr.
Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the
Russian government’s disruptive efforts. But the article’s tone and
headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to
Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just
beginning.
Democrats say that article
pre-emptively exonerated Mr. Trump, dousing chances to raise questions
about the campaign’s Russian ties before Election Day.
Just as the F.B.I. has been criticized for its handling of the Trump investigation, so too has The Times.
For
Mr. Steele, it dashed his confidence in American law enforcement. “He
didn’t know what was happening inside the F.B.I.,” Glenn R. Simpson, the
founder of Fusion GPS, testified this year. “And there was a concern
that the F.B.I. was being manipulated for political ends by the Trump
people.”
James
B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, in January 2017. He assured Mr.
Trump, who at the time was the president-elect, that the bureau intended
to protect him as Mr. Steele’s reports were about to be published by
news outlets.
James
B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, in January 2017. He assured Mr.
Trump, who at the time was the president-elect, that the bureau intended
to protect him as Mr. Steele’s reports were about to be published by
news outlets.CreditAl Drago/The New York Times
Assurances Amid Doubt
Two
weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior American intelligence
officials briefed him at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Russian hacking and
deception. They reported that Mr. Putin had tried to sow chaos in the
election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr. Trump win.
Capitalism
and socialism can be thought of as two poles of a spectrum. Some
countries are more capitalistic, and some are more socialistic, but all
fall somewhere between these two poles. This is where Sanders starts
mucking things up. 
But
what about religious beliefs? Even religion should be subjected to the
verification requirement -- why would we want to believe something
false? Any god worth his salt would leave a trail of evidence. As a
Christian I have no trouble lining up the historical/archeological
substantiation for the claims made by the doctrines of my faith. It
isn’t blind. Even the Resurrection stands the test of logical reality
(See the writings of J. Warner Wallace or Lee Strobel). Christians have
no need to harden into belligerent, dangerous ideologues. We don’t have
to kill those who disagree with us. We don’t need to rape their
daughters or knife them in the streets. Ironically, the existence of
those who do these things merely verifies the Christian doctrine of
original sin and the teachings about idolatry.
