Saturday, November 26, 2016

Farewell, America

Farewell, America

[Liberal Hack Bill Moyers]

Farewell, America

No matter how the rest of the world looked at us on Nov. 7, they will now look at us differently.
Farewell, America

The sun sets behind the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
America died on Nov. 8, 2016, not with a bang or a whimper, but at its own hand via electoral suicide. We the people chose a man who has shredded our values, our morals, our compassion, our tolerance, our decency, our sense of common purpose, our very identity — all the things that, however tenuously, made a nation out of a country.
Whatever place we now live in is not the same place it was on Nov. 7. No matter how the rest of the world looked at us on Nov. 7, they will now look at us differently. We are likely to be a pariah country. And we are lost for it. As I surveyed the ruin of that country this gray Wednesday morning, I found weary consolation in W.H. Auden’s poem, September 1, 1939, which concludes:
“Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.”

I hunt for that affirming flame.
This generally has been called the “hate election” because everyone professed to hate both candidates. It turned out to be the hate election because, and let’s not mince words, of the hatefulness of the electorate. In the years to come, we will brace for the violence, the anger, the racism, the misogyny, the xenophobia, the nativism, the white sense of grievance that will undoubtedly be unleashed now that we have destroyed the values that have bound us.
We all knew these hatreds lurked under the thinnest veneer of civility. That civility finally is gone.
We all knew these hatreds lurked under the thinnest veneer of civility. That civility finally is gone. In its absence, we may realize just how imperative that politesse was. It is the way we managed to coexist.
If there is a single sentence that characterizes the election, it is this: “He says the things I’m thinking.” That may be what is so terrifying. Who knew that so many tens of millions of white Americans were thinking unconscionable things about their fellow Americans? Who knew that tens of millions of white men felt so emasculated by women and challenged by minorities? Who knew that after years of seeming progress on race and gender, tens of millions of white Americans lived in seething resentment, waiting for a demagogue to arrive who would legitimize their worst selves and channel them into political power? Perhaps we had been living in a fool’s paradise. Now we aren’t.
This country has survived a civil war, two world wars, and a great depression. There are many who say we will survive this, too. Maybe we will, but we won’t survive unscathed. We know too much about each other to heal. No more can we pretend that we are exceptional or good or progressive or united. We are none of those things. Nor can we pretend that democracy works and that elections have more or less happy endings. Democracy only functions when its participants abide by certain conventions, certain codes of conduct and a respect for the process.
No more can we pretend that we are exceptional or good or progressive or united. We are none of those things.
The virus that kills democracy is extremism because extremism disables those codes. Republicans have disrespected the process for decades. They have regarded any Democratic president as illegitimate. They have proudly boasted of preventing popularly elected Democrats from effecting policy and have asserted that only Republicans have the right to determine the nation’s course. They have worked tirelessly to make sure that the government cannot govern and to redefine the purpose of government as prevention rather than effectuation. In short, they haven’t believed in democracy for a long time, and the media never called them out on it.
Democracy can’t cope with extremism. Only violence and time can defeat it. The first is unacceptable, the second takes too long. Though Trump is an extremist, I have a feeling that he will be a very popular president and one likely to be re-elected by a substantial margin, no matter what he does or fails to do. That’s because ever since the days of Ronald Reagan, rhetoric has obviated action, speechifying has superseded governing.
Trump was absolutely correct when he bragged that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn’t care. It was a dictator’s ugly vaunt, but one that recognized this election never was about policy or economics or the “right path/wrong path,” or even values. It was about venting. So long as Trump vented their grievances, his all-white supporters didn’t care about anything else. He is smart enough to know that won’t change in the presidency. In fact, it is only likely to intensify. White America, Trump’s America, just wants to hear its anger bellowed. This is one time when the Bully Pulpit will be literal.
The media can’t be let off the hook for enabling an authoritarian to get to the White House. Long before he considered a presidential run, he was a media creation — a regular in the gossip pages, a photo on magazine covers, the bankrupt (morally and otherwise) mogul who hired and fired on The Apprentice. When he ran, the media treated him not as a candidate, but as a celebrity, and so treated him differently from ordinary pols. The media gave him free publicity, trumpeted his shenanigans, blasted out his tweets, allowed him to phone in his interviews, fell into his traps and generally kowtowed until they suddenly discovered that this joke could actually become president.
Just as Trump has shredded our values, our nation and our democracy, he has shredded the media. In this, as in his politics, he is only the latest avatar of a process that began long before his candidacy. Just as the sainted Ronald Reagan created an unbridgeable chasm between rich and poor that the Republicans would later exploit against Democrats, conservatives delegitimized mainstream journalism so that they could fill the vacuum.
With Trump’s election, I think that the ideal of an objective, truthful journalism is dead, never to be revived.
Retiring conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes complained that after years of bashing from the right wing, the mainstream media no longer could perform their function as reporters, observers, fact dispensers, and even truth tellers, and he said we needed them. Like Goebbels before them, conservatives understood that they had to create their own facts, their own truths, their own reality. They have done so, and in so doing effectively destroyed the very idea of objectivity. Trump can lie constantly only because white America has accepted an Orwellian sense of truth — the truth pulled inside out.
With Trump’s election, I think that the ideal of an objective, truthful journalism is dead, never to be revived. Like Nixon and Sarah Palin before him, Trump ran against the media, boomeranging off the public’s contempt for the press. He ran against what he regarded as media elitism and bias, and he ran on the idea that the press disdained working-class white America. Among the many now-widening divides in the country, this is a big one, the divide between the media and working-class whites, because it creates a Wild West of information – a media ecology in which nothing can be believed except what you already believe.
With the mainstream media so delegitimized — a delegitimization for which they bear a good deal of blame, not having had the courage to take on lies and expose false equivalencies — they have very little role to play going forward in our politics. I suspect most of them will surrender to Trumpism — if they were able to normalize Trump as a candidate, they will no doubt normalize him as president. Cable news may even welcome him as a continuous entertainment and ratings booster. And in any case, like Reagan, he is bulletproof. The media cannot touch him, even if they wanted to. Presumably, there will be some courageous guerillas in the mainstream press, a kind of Resistance, who will try to fact-check him. But there will be few of them, and they will be whistling in the wind. Trump, like all dictators, is his own truth.
What’s more, Trump already has promised to take his war on the press into courtrooms and the halls of Congress. He wants to loosen libel protections, and he has threatened Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos of Amazon with an antitrust suit. Individual journalists have reason to fear him as well. He has already singled out NBC’s Katy Tur, perhaps the best of the television reporters, so that she needed the Secret Service to escort her from one of his rallies. Jewish journalists who have criticized Trump have been subjected to vicious anti-Semitism and intimidation from the alt-right. For the press, this is likely to be the new normal in an America in which white supremacists, neo-Nazi militias, racists, sexists, homophobes and anti-Semites have been legitimized by a new president who “says what I’m thinking.” It will be open season.
This converts the media from reporters to targets, and they have little recourse. Still, if anyone points the way forward, it may be New York Times columnist David Brooks. Brooks is no paragon. He always had seemed to willfully neglect modern Republicanism’s incipient fascism (now no longer incipient), and he was an apologist for conservative self-enrichment and bigotry. But this campaign season, Brooks pretty much dispensed with politics. He seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that no good could possibly come of any of this and retreated into spirituality. What Brooks promoted were values of mutual respect, a bolder sense of civic engagement, an emphasis on community and neighborhood, and overall a belief in trickle-up decency rather than trickle-down economics. He is not hopeful, but he hasn’t lost all hope.
For those of us now languishing in despair, this may be a prescription for rejuvenation. We have lost the country, but by refocusing, we may have gained our own little patch of the world and, more granularly, our own family. For journalists, Brooks may show how political reporting, which, as I said, is likely to be irrelevant in the Trump age, might yield to a broader moral context in which one considers the effect that policy, strategy and governance have not only on our physical and economic well-being but also on our spiritual well-being. In a society that is likely to be fractious and odious, we need a national conversation on values. The media could help start it.
But the disempowered media may have one more role to fill: They must bear witness. Many years from now, future generations will need to know what happened to us and how it happened. They will need to know how disgruntled white Americans, full of self-righteous indignation, found a way to take back a country they felt they were entitled to and which they believed had been lost. They will need to know about the ugliness and evil that destroyed us as a nation after great men like Lincoln and Roosevelt guided us through previous crises and kept our values intact. They will need to know, and they will need a vigorous, engaged, moral media to tell them. They will also need us.
We are not living for ourselves anymore in this country. Now we are living for history.

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour equates climate ‘deniers’ with proponents of ‘ethnic cleansing and genocide’ | Climate Depot

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour equates climate ‘deniers’ with proponents of ‘ethnic cleansing and genocide’

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour equates climate ‘deniers’ with proponents of ‘ethnic cleansing and genocide’


By: - Climate DepotNovember 25, 2016 5:18 PM with 9 comments
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour equated climate change skeptics with the purveyors of “ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia” and “unspeakable crimes.” She also declared that the media should not give voice to those who reject the alleged “consensus” of man-made climate fears.  Amanpour warned of a “Tsunami of fake news.”
Amanpour was honored with the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), for her extraordinary and sustained achievement in the cause of press freedom on November 22, 2016.  (Email: press@cpj.org) She is the Chief International Correspondent for CNN and host of CNN International’s nightly interview program Amanpour.
Amanpour said the following about “global warming” and “press freedom” at 4:35 into the video: Note: The transcript at the Real Clear Politics link (slightly different from what she actually says in the video) includes the following:

Key Excerpt of Christiane Amanpour speech:
“It appeared much of the media got itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth. We cannot continue the old paradigm–let’s say like over global warming, where 99.9 percent of the empirical scientific evidence is given equal play with the tiny minority of deniers.
I learned a long, long time ago, covering the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, never to equate victim with aggressor, never to create a false moral or factual equivalence, because then if you do, particularly in situations like that, you are party and an accomplice to the most unspeakable crimes and consequences.
So I believe in being truthful, not neutral.”
End excerpt.


Wikipedia states that “The CPJ International Press Freedom Awards honor journalists or their publications around the world who show courage in defending press freedom despite facing attacks, threats, or imprisonment.”
As  Climate Depot reader Tony Kondaks noted: Neither Amanpour or the CPJ “was aware of the irony that an award for ‘press freedom’ is going to an individual who feels that defending press freedom means that journalists must self-censor and RESTRICT their readers’ access to countering and opposing views.”
Amanpour also noted the oft repeated incorrect claim of a 97% consensus about “global warming” but she even juiced that number to 99.6%.
For the truth about the 97% “consensus” claims, see below.
97% Climate Consensus?
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who in a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists. However, it was then whittled down to 77. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists – but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
In 2013 and 2014, other claims of an alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’ emerged, prompting UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol to publish a critique and declare: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.” The new 97% claim by climate activist John Cook was so “so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate skeptics.” Another researcher, Andrew Montford, commented: “The [97%] consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.”
Lord Christopher Monckton’s analysis found that “only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1%” actually endorsed the claim that “more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic.”
Bjorn Lomborg wrote: “Do you remember the ‘97% consensus,’ which even Obama tweeted? Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data. It has always been a dodgy paper. Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97%.”
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’ – Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’ – 97 Consensus? Dr. Lindzen: ‘They never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce co2 etc. If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?’

97% Climate Consensus?


97% Climate Consensus?
 
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who in a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists. However, it was then whittled down to 77. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists – but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
In 2013 and 2014, other claims of an alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’ emerged, prompting UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol to publish a critique and declare: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.” The new 97% claim by climate activist John Cook was so “so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate skeptics.” Another researcher, Andrew Montford, commented: “The [97%] consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.”
Lord Christopher Monckton’s analysis found that “only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1%” actually endorsed the claim that “more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic.”
Bjorn Lomborg wrote: “Do you remember the ‘97% consensus,’ which even Obama tweeted? Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data. It has always been a dodgy paper. Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97%.”
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’ – Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’ – 97 Consensus? Dr. Lindzen: ‘They never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce co2 etc. If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?’

Viewpoint: What the DAPL protesters aren't telling you

Viewpoint: What the DAPL protesters aren't telling you 

Viewpoint: What the DAPL protesters aren't telling you

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio—With the help of celebrities and professional activists, protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota attracted international attention. The shouting and violence have drawn sympathy from people who are hearing only one side of the story — the one told by activists.
Were the full story to be heard, much, if not all, of that sympathy would vanish.
The activists tell an emotionally charged tale of greed, racism and misbehavior by corporate and government officials. But the real story of the Dakota Access Pipeline was revealed in court documents in September, and it is nothing like the activists' tale. In fact, it is the complete opposite.
The record shows that Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, spent years working diligently with federal, state and local officials to route the pipeline safely and with the fewest possible disruptions. The contrast between the protesters' claims and the facts on record is stunning.
Protesters claim that the pipeline was "fast-tracked," denying tribal leaders the opportunity to participate in the process. In fact, project leaders participated in 559 meetings with community leaders, local officials and organizations to listen to concerns and fine-tune the route. The company asked for, and received, a tougher federal permitting process at sites along the Missouri River.
This more difficult procedure included a mandated review of each water crossing's potential effect on historical artifacts and locations.
Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met many times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.
Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders, only to be rebuffed over and over. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.
In September 2014 alone, the Corps made five unsuccessful attempts to meet with Standing Rock Sioux leaders. The next month, a meeting was arranged, but "when the Corps timely arrived for the meeting, Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended," according to a federal judge.
At a planned meeting the next month, the tribe took the pipeline off the agenda and refused to discuss it. This stonewalling by tribal leaders continued for a year and a half.
Typical of the misinformation spread during the protests is a comment made by Jesse Jackson, who recently joined the activists in North Dakota. He said the decision to reroute the pipeline so that it crossed close to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe's water intake was "racism."
He did not mention, possibly because he did not know, that the company is paying to relocate the tribe's water intake to a new spot 70 miles from the location of the contested pipeline crossing.
The pipeline route was adjusted based on concerns expressed by locals — including other tribal leaders — who met with company and Army Corps of Engineers officials.
The court record reveals that the Standing Rock Sioux refused to meet with corps officials to discuss the route until after site work had begun. That work is now 77 percent completed at a cost of $3 billion.
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Standing Rock Sioux, the court documented "dozens of attempts" by the corps to consult with the tribe. It documented the legal and proper approval process the corps used to permit all of the contested construction sites the tribe claimed were improperly permitted. It even documented evidence that the corps had exceeded the minimum legal requirements during its earnest and lengthy efforts to receive the input of tribal leaders on the pipeline.
Pipeline protesters may have a tight grip on media coverage of the pipeline, but they have a demonstrably loose grip on the facts. The truth — as documented not by the company but by the federal court system—is that pipeline approvals were not rushed, permits were not granted illegally, and tribal leaders were not excluded.
These are facts upheld by two federal courts.
If only this side of the story were getting the same attention as the other side. Perhaps judges should start announcing their rulings by megaphone while standing beside a few media-attracting celebrities.

Fidel Castro's greatest atrocities and crimes - Part 1

Fidel Castro's greatest atrocities and crimes - Part 1 

Fidel Castro’s greatest atrocities and crimes – Part 1

FCcrimesbanner2

Fidel Castro’s firing squads in Cuba
Fidel Castro is often portrayed as the “benevolent” dictator of Cuba, such portrayals are unarguably wrong. The evidence of his bloodthirsty and murderous nature is unequivocal and available for anyone who wants to know the truth. Unfortunately such evidence is rarely discussed by the news media and at schools. There’s perhaps no more grizzly atrocity committed by Fidel Castro than the firing squads which he implemented. Beginning as a rebel, before he would eventually take power in Cuba, Fidel Castro used firing squad executions to enforce discipline, punish followers deemed disloyal or intimidate potential opposition. At the beginning of the Castro regime there was a reign of terror typical of revolutions in which the firing squad was used prominently but the executions continued for decades.
The Cuba Archive which documents deaths and disappearances resulting from Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution has documented 3,615 firing squad executions conducted by the Cuban state since Castro took over on January 1, 1959.
Opponents of the death penalty should be horrified at the amount of death Fidel Castro and his accomplices have directly caused. It’s important to note that in Revolutionary Cuba there are none of the due process guarantees found in a western-style democracy. Most of Castro’s firing squad victims were afforded only a perfunctory show trial the outcome of which was predetermined, some didn’t even get that. Ernesto “Ché” Guevara is a popular culture icon, his face adorns posters and t-shirts around the globe. Most people don’t realize that he was Fidel Castro’s chief enforcer and had a personal hand in at least 100 firing squad executions, often delivering the coup de grace personally. In response to questions about Castro’s firing squads Guevara once said, “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution. And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”
Film of a Castro show trial and execution during the reign of terror below:
In addition to the firing squad executions 1,253 extrajudicial killings have been attributed to the Castro regime.
Below is a photograph of a firing squad victim being blindfolded by a young Raul Castro. It’s important to note that Raul the current Cuban dictator who is often touted as a soft-hearted and pragmatic man has as much blood on his hands as his older brother, Fidel.
RaulGettingReady
More ghastly photographs of Castro’s firing squads are available at TheRealCuba.com and LatinAmericanStudies.org.
Here is film of Colonel Cornelio Rojas being executed by a Castro Firing Squad.
More about the mob atmosphere surrounding the trials and executions available in an archival newsreel here.
The Castro brothers have also used firing squads more recently. In the summer of 1989 the Castro regime arrested Cuban Army General Arnaldo Ochoa and several other officers. They were charged with drug trafficking. Within a few weeks Ochoa and three others were dead at the hands of a Castro firing squad. The trial was a farce in which Ochoa was forced to confess (video here). Many believe the real crime committed by Ochoa and others charged was disloyalty since Cuba was a known transshipment point for illegal drugs for years and it is highly unlikely that the Castro brothers were unaware of it and not profiting from it.
In April 2003 Fidel Castro’s government executed 3 men who hijacked a ferry boat in an attempt to escape Cuba. They were sentenced to death and killed by firing squad less than two weeks after the alleged crime was committed.
Introduction -Fidel Castro’s greatest atrocities and crimes
1. Fidel Castro’s firing squads in Cuba
2. Fidel Castro sank the 13 de Marzo tugboat killing Cuban women and children
3. Fidel Castro’s shoot down of American civilian aircraft killing 4 people including 3 American citizens
4. Fidel Castro’s Cuban political prisoners
5. Fidel Castro’s Cuban forced labor camps, the UMAPs
6. Fidel Castro’s religious repression against Cubans
7. Fidel Castro separates Cuban families
8. Fidel Castro restricts the movement of Cubans
9. Fidel Castro’s foreign interventions resulting in thousands of deaths
10. Fidel Castro’s espionage

Friday, November 25, 2016

Clinton Popular Vote Leads By 2 Million; Here's The Catch...

Clinton Popular Vote Leads By 2 Million; Here's The Catch... 


Clinton Popular Vote Lead Surpasses 2 Million; But Here’s The Catch…

happy-trump
Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote has now exceeded Donald Trump’s by more than 2 million, but that’s not the whole story.
That lead – 2 million – is less than the lead Clinton had over Trump in California alone.
In that state, Hillary got 7.8 million votes compared to Trump’s 4.1 million.
So without California, Trump would have handily won.
We all know how the Electoral college works, so there’s no need to go over it again (here’s a good article that might help).
But just in case anyone suggests that Trump or Republicans don’t have a legitimate claim to power, remind them of the following:
Donald Trump won five states that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012: Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Ohio and Iowa were part of the Democrats’ “firewall” that would have certainly guaranteed the presidency for Hillary, The Daily Caller is reporting.
But it’s not just the presidency. Democrats suffered humiliating defeats across the country.
Under Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats have lost almost 1,000 state legislative seats. There are now more GOP state legislators than at any time in almost 100 years. If Pat McCrory holds onto the governorship in North Carolina, Republicans will also match a century-old record of governorships, at 34.
Democrats control both the governor’s office and legislatures in just five states: Oregon, California, Hawaii, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Republicans, on the other hand, have complete control of state government in 25 states – half of the country. The Washington Post reports:
One Democrat who understands the need to for his party to reconnect with working-class voters in middle America is Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who has challenged Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for the post of House minority leader. “What we are doing right now is not working,” he wrote in a letter to his colleagues. “Under our current leadership, Democrats have been reduced to our smallest congressional minority since 1929. . . . We have the fewest Democrats in state and federal offices since Reconstruction.”
If Democrats are smart, they will listen to Ryan. His district includes hurting industrial areas such as Youngstown and Akron — so he understands how to win the very voters Democrats lost in 2016 and need to win back. Do they have a better chance of winning back those voters by electing him or an aging, coastal San Francisco liberal such as Pelosi? Ryan is young and dynamic — just 43 years old. The House Democratic leadership, by contrast, is old. The Post recently reported that the average age of the House Democratic leadership is almost 65 years old. And Pelosi is 76 — a year older than Bernie Sanders. Perhaps Democrats should take the advice of John F. Kennedy and pass the torch to a new generation.

Ten Ways to Fix EPA and Jump-Start the Economy

Ten Ways to Fix EPA and Jump-Start the Economy 

Ten Ways to Fix EPA and Jump-Start the Economy


SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

President-elect Donald Trump has an unprecedented opportunity to get the economy moving again while protecting the environment in a reasonable and practical manner.

While Republicans have been in charge of the White House and Congress before, there are three major differences between now and then.
First, President-elect Trump campaigned on a platform of rolling back unnecessarily burdensome and economically harmful climate and EPA regulations.
Second, since EPA was formed in 1970, we have gained an awful lot of scientific knowledge about the environment and public health. We have an excellent understanding the health risks that “pollutants” and chemicals in the environment do and do not pose.
Third, we have made great strides in environmental protection since 1970.
Our air is clean and safe. Our water (with the limited exception of spots like Flint, Michigan) is clean and safe. So the task ahead then is to keep the environment clean and safe and to make improvements where it makes sense  — versus spending inordinate sums senselessly returning the environment to Garden of Eden status.
Here are 10 things President Trump could do help jump-start the economy while keeping our environment clean and safe.
  1. Climate. Hysteria over greenhouse has emissions has so proven to be scientifically baseless and economically harmful. Making energy less affordable and less available is a greater actual threat to the environment and public health than climate change at its imaginary worst. President Trump should pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate deal and rollback the Obama Clean Power Plan. This would remove the government boot from the throat of the coal industry and allow the miners to work and compete fairly in the energy marketplace.
  2. Air Quality. EPA has grossly abused air quality science and cost-benefit analysis to impose unnecessarily draconian air quality standards on states. EPA’s recent ozone rule is reputed to be the most expensive EPA regulation of all time – one that will produce no public health or environmental benefits but cost as much as one trillion dollars. These regulations cause states to forego economic opportunities and impose heavy compliance costs in Pyrrhic efforts to satisfy EPA standards that accomplish nothing of value.
  3. Water. EPA and environmentalists have long abused the Clean Water Act in an effort to stop economic development. While the Clean Water Act provides EPA with jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” EPA has arbitrarily extended this jurisdiction even to cover drainage ditches that are dry most of the time. The Obama administration issued the so-called “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule and other usurpation of state authority to formalize even greater EPA power over land use. WOTUS and efforts like the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load program should be rolled back and, ideally, prevented from happening again by Congress. Land use is almost entirely a state issue and states should be allowed to determine what is best for them.
  4. Permitting. Historically, EPA has often wielded its permitting process as a weapon to be used in bringing industry to heel to the agency’s political will. The Obama EPA took this to a new level in disregarding permitting decisions made by states and other federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers. Permits granted by states and other federal agencies should be deemed valid by the EPA unless the agency can make a clear-cut showing of significant legal deficiency
  5. Fracking. Fracking is local activity that should be left entirely to the states. The Obama EPA has been angling for regulatory authority to control/shut down fracking. These efforts should be ended.
  6. End the War on Coal. Much of this can be done by reversing Obama actions on climate and air quality. But there are also a host of actions take by other agencies including the Department of Interior and Mine Safety and Health Administration that have weighed heavily on the industry, while failing to protect/improve miner safety or the environment.
  7. Energy Exports. With all our coal, oil and natural gas, America enjoys practically limitless energy supplies. We can’t possibly use them all so we should facilitate exports to an energy-thirsty world. The Obama administration has slow-walked permits for natural gas export terminals. These should be greenlighted.  Environmental groups have harnessed friendly state governments to block West Coast export terminals for coal. That should also end.
  8. Regulatory Reform. Twenty years ago regulatory reform of EPA was a bipartisan issue. The all of a sudden when Republicans moved to require EPA to make its risk assessment process more science-based and to require EPA to use realistic cost-benefit analysis, Democrats screamed bloody murder at the effort to rein in EPA’s lawless arbitrariness. Sound regulatory reform would prevent EPA from making arbitrary anti-business political decisions that masquerade as environmental protection.
  9. Stop funding enemies of the economy. EPA doles out hundreds of millions of dollars per year to activist groups, universities and to allied states and local governments. The American Lung Association, to name just one, received over $22 million during 2000-2010 and always backed EPA to the hilt. While the money saved won’t balance the federal budget, choking off the life support system for the anti-business mafia is a must.
  10. Change EPA’s culture. EPA has become a left-wing political bludgeon versus an agency that reasonably protects the environment without unduly hindering economic activity. Part of changing the EPA culture involves devolving responsibilities back to states where they belong. A smaller EPA will be less prone to abuse. Remaining EPA duties should be managed to produce actual benefits to the economy and our society. The ideologically anti-business element among agency staff should be shown the door.
EPA has become the most economically destructive regulatory agency in America. President-elect Trump has a unique opportunity to change this. He talked about this during his campaign. Voters expect it from him.