|Click on this logo to make a call to the Strongsville GOP hotline. Google Voice will call you back at the number you enter and will connect you with us. Or, call us direct at 440-794-1GOP.|
Just a quick hit this evening about events at the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. When they released their closing statement it was largely the same as the agenda items which had been set forth in the fall. But there were a couple of notable changes which were quickly picked up on and highlighted by ABC News. The edits dealt with free trade versus fair trade and climate change initiatives in relation to monetary policy.
Global finance leaders sought to avoid conflict with the Trump administration over trade and environmental policy and welcomed signs the world economy is pulling out of the doldrums.
The International Monetary Fund dropped a sharp condemnation of trade protectionism and references to climate change from a statement at the close of its spring meetings with the World Bank. Gone was a call for nations to “resist all forms of protectionism” that had been in an October communique…
Carstens said that it was important to recognize the viewpoints of different countries. “We all want free and fair trade and that is what is reflected in the communique,” he told reporters when asked why the language on protectionism had been dropped.
Yes, the changes might be considered “subtle” and there were still underlying references to both subjects, but the message seemed clear. On the issue of trade, the IMF had previously been all onboard with the general concept of “free trade.” You’ll note that the date of their last letter was in October, when Hillary Clinton was still widely expected to be the next President of the United States. Now, with Trump in office, it’s changed to, “free and fair trade.” In terms of the discussion in the United States, free trade and fair trade are very different things and it’s laughable to think that the IMF board isn’t tuned in to those distinctions.
As to the investments in climate change, carbon taxes and all the rest, President Trump has made his views clear on the subject via his appointments at the EPA and the rolling back of Obama era regulations. There’s still discussion in the rest of the document which touches on this but it’s disappeared from the main page. Read into that what you will.
Overall, this speaks more to the overall influence of the United States and the deference that the rest of the world pays no matter who is hanging out in the Oval Office. If Hillary Clinton had won we likely would have seen the now deleted sections of the letter emphasized even more strongly. But with Trump being in charge, they are bending to follow the lead he is setting. This really isn’t a mystery. It’s the IMF and without our cooperation and support their mission becomes significantly harder. Also, it’s one more example of how Trump has been changing the game without actually getting any new legislation passed or issuing any direct orders. Some things tend to warp within his orbit just from the simple fact of his being there.
Taxpayer-funded public college selects Sharia law advocate to give commencement address: ‘It’s nuts’
The City University of New York’s Graduate School of Public Health has announced its commencement speaker will be a controversial supporter of Sharia law and Palestine.
According to a report by WCBS-TV, CUNY’s public health graduate school has chosen Linda Sarsour to give its commencement speech on June 1.
Democratic Party state Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who represents Brooklyn, says “it’s nuts” a taxpayer-funded college would feature the radical Sarsour.
“I mean, it’s just nuts. It makes no sense. It’s crazy to have this woman be the person who’s going to speak to the students,” Hikind said to WCBS.
Hikind also said Sarsour supports “radical Islamists.”
“She is someone who associates with radical Islamists; supports them; shows support for them. She is someone who has said, clearly, she thinks throwing rocks at cars in Israel is a good thing,” Hikind said.
Sarsour has frequently criticized Israel and has called Shariah law “reasonable” and has said “it makes a lot of sense.”
“@LaRebelleFleur shariah law [sic] is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics,” wrote Sarsour on Twitter in 2011.
@LaRebelleFleur shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics
— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) September 22, 2011
“Sharia Law is misunderstood & has been pushed as some evil Muslim agenda. Some Muslims r [sic] oppressors for sure,” wrote Sarsour in 2016.
Sharia Law is misunderstood & has been pushed as some evil Muslim agenda.
Climate-alarmist researchers say they’ve found a disturbing strategy to trick you into ‘going green’
Climate-change alarmists know most Americans don’t take seriously their constant dire warnings about the impending doom caused by man-created global warming, so climate-alarmist researchers are now working to find a way to motivate you to “go green,” and the strategy that’s emerging is disturbing.
In an article written by Andy Murdock of the University of California for Vox, a left-wing website, Murdock asks, “how do you get people to adopt new behaviors to begin with?”
“In terms of behavioral change, we need two things,” said Magali Delmas in the Vox article, in response to Murdock’s question. Delmas is a professor at the Institute of Environment and Sustainability at the University of California at Los Angeles and the Anderson School of Management. “We need first to increase awareness, and then second, we need to find the right motivations for people to change their behavior.”
A study, titled “Nonprice Incentives and Energy Conservation” and co-authored by Delmas, is featured in the Vox article. It seeks to determine how climate-change believers can convince the rest of society to take action.
In the study’s abstract, Delmas and her co-author Omar Asensio write under the heading “Significance,” “We investigate the effectiveness of nonprice incentives to motivate conservation behavior. … In a randomized controlled trial with real-time appliance-level energy metering over 8 mo, we find that environment and health-based information strategies outperform monetary savings information to drive energy conservation. Environment and health-based messages, which communicate the environmental and public health externalities of electricity production—such as pounds of pollutants, childhood asthma, and cancer—motivated 8% energy savings versus control. … However, we do not study the persistence of these behavioral changes after the conclusion of the study.”
In other words, “the right motivations for people to change their behavior” Delmas discussed with Vox is, according to her study, to scare people by telling them “electricity production” hurts kids with asthma and causes cancer.
“This strategy was particularly effective on families with children, who achieved 19% energy savings,” found Delmas and Asensio.
Fear isn’t a new a tactic for climate alarmists, but this study shows, using scientific data, fear actually works.
(H/T: Watts Up With That?)
There’s an extremely odd lawsuit going on in Texas over redistricting, specifically focusing on the maps written in 2011. A federal court ruled last week the 2011 maps were invalid because they violated part of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. It’s an extremely long decision involving three federal judges, but two of the judges asserted Texas legislators did everything they could to make sure white candidates were elected, over Hispanic candidates. Similar assertions were made over white vs. black candidates. Democrats were obviously happy with the decision. Via The Dallas Morning News (emphasis mine):
“This is yet another example of political discrimination by the State of Texas against minority voters,” said Dallas Democratic state Rep. Rafael Anchia, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, which is a plaintiff in the case.
“Thousands of minority voters are being denied their right to an equal opportunity to choose their elected representatives, just to preserve the party in power,” Anchia said in a written statement. “It took nearly six years of legislative and court battles to confirm that the party in power discriminated against communities of color when drawing Texas Congressional and House of Representative maps.”
Arlington Rep. Chris Turner, the leader of the House Democratic Caucus, said the court’s findings were “shameful and unacceptable — new maps must be drawn immediately.”
A little bit of a history lesson for the fine Arlington rep: the new maps have already happened. The Texas Legislature passed new districts in 2013. What’s even more interesting is these were maps drawn up by a three judge panel in San Antonio. Here how The Texas Tribune described the ongoing saga in 2013.
In 2011 the Legislature passed new Texas House, Senate and congressional maps. Because Texas is one of a handful of states that must get pre-clearance for any changes to election maps, a federal court in Washington, D.C., began looking over what lawmakers had done. Texas Tribune Executive Editor Ross Ramsey explained that the maps came under review from a second court.
“While that pre-clearance litigation was going, a bunch of parties went to another federal court here in Texas, in San Antonio, and said these maps are illegal, throw them out,” Ramsey said.
And the court did just that, replacing the legislative maps with interim maps to be used in the 2012 elections. But now the Legislature wants to make those maps permanent…“to greatly oversimplify this, one side says if the court drew the maps and you ratify the court’s maps, those are almost by definition legal maps,” Ramsey said.
It should be pointed out Turner gave a comment to The Texas Tribune in the 2013 piece, suggesting it’d be best for the legislature to wait for the court to make more rulings, then voted against a bill making the maps permanent. But since it’s now 2017, who really cares what happened in 2013? It almost seems like Democrats want to ignore the 2013 Special Session on redistricting, so they can focus on the “no good, very bad” maps of 2011…maps which don’t exist anymore, except in court proceedings.
The media also appears to have almost forgotten the 2013 Special Session. The Dallas Morning News didn’t mention it in their coverage (except in the response from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton), nor did The Texas Tribune. San Antonio Express-News/Houston Chronicle did mention the 2013 maps, while also noting Democrats believe judges will discuss the 2013 maps in an upcoming status conference.
But the court hearings on the 2011 maps also bring up questions regarding the idea of gerrymandering. There are Democratic voters who are obviously extremely angry about being in a GOP district, who wish things were more proportionally drawn. But HBO’s Last Week Tonight w/John Oliver pointed out it’s their own fault (one minor bit of NSFW language in the video).
Oliver’s suggestion is having independent commissions draw up district maps, and it’s a good idea in theory, but maybe not practice. California’s redistricting commission features five Democrats, five Republicans, and four “Decline-to-State.” Washington’s last redistricting commission featured two Democrats and two Republicans, and a non-voting chairperson. Arizona has two Democrats and two Republicans, plus a registered Independent chair. The biggest issue with having “Decline-to-State” members on a commission is where do their loyalties actually lie. A “Decline-to-State” voter may be someone who prefers Democrats over Republicans or vice versa, even if they don’t register. There’s also the danger of the so-called Independent Commissions just listening to their party bosses and doing their own version of gerrymandering, whether it be preventing third parties from getting votes or being a-okay with four GOP districts and four Democratic district and one “toss-up” district. Is that really fair towards voters?
There’s also the fact some voters are just going to be underrepresented. My opinion doesn’t always get heard in the Texas Capitol because I’m a libertarian. My opinion doesn’t always get heard in Washington, DC because I’m a libertarian (thank Odin for Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul). Gerrymandering may be really awful, but it’s also the “least bad” of the other options (except maybe no government, and I doubt there’s enough of a majority out there for that to even be considered).
This isn’t saying there haven’t been times where minorities have been excluded from representation, but there are ways to conquer that issue, with court being one of them. But this lawsuit in Texas isn’t necessarily the right way to go about it because it’s looking at the wrong maps. It shouldn’t be surprising this is happening, because Texas politics is a bloodsport.
DOJ Sends a Letter to Nine Sanctuary Cities: Comply With Federal Immigration Laws or Lose Your Grant Money
Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said Friday that all Democrats who run for political office must support a “women’s right to choose” — which really means be pro-abortion.
Perez said in a statement, according the Huffington Post:
Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.
At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country,” he added, “we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.
Perez added in a series of tweets that when he ran for DNC chair, he promised to fight for abortion rights.
When I ran for DNC Chair, I made a promise to protect women’s rights to safe, legal, and accessible abortion.
— Tom Perez (@TomPerez) April 21, 2017
I am committed — as I have been my entire life — to ensuring access to the full range of reproductive health services, including abortion.
— Tom Perez (@TomPerez) April 21, 2017
The statements come amid some controversy surrounding Heath Mello, a Democratic candidate for mayor in Omaha, Nebraska. Mello, it was recently discovered, had for years fought against abortion, leading many pro-abortion organizations to rebuke him last week.
Perez initially defended the DNC’s support of Mello, saying in a statement that his job is to help Democrats who have garnered support to “cross the finish line and win” in elections and that the “biggest threat” to abortion rights is the GOP.
However, Perez changed his tune on Friday with his statement about abortion rights being an issue that all Democrats must support. In addition, Perez stated that he “fundamentally disagrees” with Mello’s position on abortion rights and reiterated that “every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same, because every woman should be able to make her own health choices,” according to the Huffington Post.
Republicans, of course, take issue with this hardline abortion stance. But Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) had just one quick question for Perez on Sunday.
Writing on Twitter, Sasse noted that Perez’s Twitter bio says he is “fighting for the little guy.” So Sasse decided to test the limits on just which “little guys” Perez is fighting for.
Tweeting a picture of a 12-week-old unborn baby, Sasse wrote: “Your profile says you fight for the little guy. Please check out this little fella — special, isn’t he? (He’s 12 weeks old.)”
— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) April 23, 2017
Perez has not yet responded to Sasse’s tweet.
Teacher attacked 7-year-old special-needs boy — but what happened next might be even more outrageous
In December 2015, Osman Couey, a public school teacher in Harlem, New York, shoved a 7-year-old special-needs child after the boy tried to re-enter Couey’s class. Couey had previously removed the child for disrupting the classroom.
Couey was convicted by a judge in Manhattan Criminal Court, who sentenced the teacher to 30 days in jail. Prior to sentencing Couey, the judge in the case, Steven Statsinger, said, “This was a completely unjustifiable use of force.”
Couey has had numerous complaints filed against him, including one filed in 2013 alleging Couey threw a student down a slight of stairs at the school, according to a report by the New York Daily News.
Despite these numerous incidents and the 30-day jail sentence, Couey is reportedly still receiving his salary, which the state’s Department of Education says totals $105,142 per year. Even worse, Couey has not been fired from his position.
Outraged parents, led by the special-needs child’s mother, Chantel Phinazee, have been fighting to have Couey fired, but media outlets say rules put into place by the teachers union in New York make it very difficult to permanently remove the tenured Couey.
According to WABC-TV, Phinazee says it took a month before the school notified her about the incident.
“I don’t trust this school,” Phinazee said to WABC. “Ya’ll waited a month to tell me, didn’t care at all about what was going on with my son. You kept it from me. So, I don’t trust them no more than I did before.”
“This behavior is deeply troubling, and we are seeking to terminate this teacher’s employment,” the New York Department of Education said, according to the New York Post. “He has been removed from the classroom and reassigned away from students.”
Talk is already heating up that President Trump could have a chance to appoint a second person to the Supreme Court.
Are we returning to a system of economic imbalance to the point where some companies are so big that the government needs to step in either regulate them more harshly or break them up? Jonathan Taplin at the New York Times puts an odd spin on the question this week when he asks, is it time to break up Google?
Taplin begins by pointing out that the top five companies in America as measured by market capitalization have almost entirely changed in the past decade. Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, General Electric and Shell Oil have been pushed out of the top slots by the likes of Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet, the parent company of Google. The author starts with a brief review of trust busting in the era of Woodrow Wilson and speaks of the so called “natural monopolies” which grew in the areas of communications and utilities. But he goes on from there to focus his fire almost entirely on Google, arguing that they are somehow the modern equivalent of the phone companies and need to be more strictly regulated, if not broken up entirely.
Could it be that these companies — and Google in particular — have become natural monopolies by supplying an entire market’s demand for a service, at a price lower than what would be offered by two competing firms? And if so, is it time to regulate them like public utilities?
Consider a historical analogy: the early days of telecommunications.
In 1895 a photograph of the business district of a large city might have shown 20 phone wires attached to most buildings. Each wire was owned by a different phone company, and none of them worked with the others. Without network effects, the networks themselves were almost useless.
The solution was for a single company, American Telephone and Telegraph, to consolidate the industry by buying up all the small operators and creating a single network — a natural monopoly. The government permitted it, but then regulated this monopoly through the Federal Communications Commission.
Trying to compare Google to the early days of AT&T (and later their spin-off, Bell) is a dubious proposition at best and Taplin admits as much, noting, “the internet never had the same problems of interoperability.” But he then turns around literally two sentences later and declares that Google still has all of the characteristics of a public utility. I’m sorry, Jonathan, but you’re going to have to expand on that one a bit further. Precisely how? One might venture an argument saying that pretty much everyone uses the internet, but unlike water, electricity or the sewer system, you’re not going to die in short order without your search engine.
And all of those other systems largely relied on physical infrastructure (power and phone lines, water conduits or sewer pipes) which would be essentially impossible for any competitor to replicate before getting into the market. Conversely, Google actually relies on others for the infrastructure which brings the internet into everyone’s homes. Further, you’d be hard pressed to name one product or service Google offers where other options aren’t available every day. Competitors still start up new search engines (take Bing for example) and there are loads of email options beyond Gmail. If a disproportionate number of users flock to Google, perhaps it’s just because they’re offering a more desirable service at a lower cost… usually free.
So why would Taplin have it out for Google and Facebook? We might get a hint here. (Emphasis added)
It is impossible to deny that Facebook, Google and Amazon have stymied innovation on a broad scale. To begin with, the platforms of Google and Facebook are the point of access to all media for the majority of Americans. While profits at Google, Facebook and Amazon have soared, revenues in media businesses like newspaper publishing or the music business have, since 2001, fallen by 70 percent.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, newspaper publishers lost over half their employees between 2001 and 2016.
Ah… a light begins to dawn. Many in the old guard are clearly upset that the media’s role as gatekeepers, particularly among newspapers, has been challenged in the digital era. They’re even more alarmed that those older business models may no longer be sustainable. But that’s hardly the same as saying that innovation has been stymied or that some sort of monopoly has been established. It mostly comes down to a matter of delivery speed and flexibility, where paper will always lose out to a device which can refresh the content every few minutes. And many newspapers have been fighting back by expanding their digital footprint and finding new ways to monetize their web territory.
If Mr. Taplin wanted to talk about real problems with monopolies in the 21st century he could have, but curiously he has not one word to say about industries such as the airlines. Rapid consolidation has left us with basically three choices in air travel and they’re mostly in bed with each other already. The quality of service has declined with this lack of competition and lower prices have not resulted either. That’s truly a case where physical requirements make it nearly impossible for anyone else to enter the market and compete. Conversely, anyone can start up a new search engine, email service or music streaming operation without having to build a fleet of airplanes and hangers.
If you want to do some trust busting, try looking into some actual monopolies. And the airlines would be a great place to start.
A new poll released Sunday paints a dark picture for Democrats and supporters of Hillary Clinton, while showing somewhat better marks for President Donald Trump and Republicans.
According to the Washington Post/ABC News survey, if a rematch of last year’s presidential election between Trump and Clinton were held today, Trump would still win 43 percent to 40 percent. That includes the popular vote, which Clinton won by several million votes.
— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) April 23, 2017
In addition, nearly 100 percent of voters who backed Trump and voted for him in last year’s presidential election say they do not regret their vote. Of those reached by the polling agency, 96 percent said they don’t regret their vote, while only 2 percent said they do.
On the other hand, only 85 percent said the same of Clinton. Of those who regret their vote, very few say they would switch their vote to the other candidate. Instead, they would vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all.
Still, the picture isn’t completely rosy for Trump. The poll found that he has an upside down approval rating, 53 percent disapproval to 42 percent approval, and that many people don’t agree with the first initiatives of his administration.
An equal number of people said they believe Trump is doing “much worse” and “much better” than they thought: 35 percent.
In terms of political parties, the GOP received slightly better marks than Democrats. Respondents told the polling agency that they believe both parties are “out of touch” with Americans, though the GOP is slightly less so than the Democratic Party, 62 percent to 67 percent. Respectively, only 28 percent believe the Democratic Party is “in touch” with Americans while 32 percent said the same of the GOP.
— Evan Siegfried (@evansiegfried) April 23, 2017
The survey polled 1,004 random American voters from April 17-20 via phone. The majority of the respondents were either Democrats, 31 percent, or independents, 36 percent, while just 24 percent were Republicans.
The margin of error in the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Good lord. It’s one thing to blow an election once, but to lose hypothetically to a guy with a 42 percent approval rating again? Is there no limit to the humiliation the Clintons will suffer at Trump’s hands?
We’ll have our answer when Ivanka and Chelsea inevitably square off in 2024.
The same ABC/WaPo poll found that when 2016 voters were asked who they actually did vote for last November, 46 percent said Clinton versus 43 percent who said Trump — the same number he gets in this hypothetical rematch. In other words, given the option of a do-over, virtually no Trump voters would switch their votes. Clinton voters, on the other hand…
While just 4 percent of Trump’s supporters say they would back someone else if there was a redo of the election, fully 15 percent of Clinton supporters say they would ditch her.
That 15 percent is split up between those who say they would vote for Trump (2 percent), Gary Johnson (4 percent), Jill Stein (2 percent), and either other candidates or not voting (7 percent).
WaPo suspects the disparity there is due mostly to people instinctively shunning a loser, which I think is right. If you voted for the winner, you’re heavily invested in his success as president and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in his first hundred days. If you voted for the loser, you may be embarrassed by the endless inside stories of how poorly her campaign was run, how weak her campaign message was, and so on. You’re no longer invested in her success so you can critique her honestly; some voters are openly angry at Clinton for performing so badly. Add to that the “Bernie would have won” sentiment among the left over the past six months and you’ve got a substantial “buyer’s remorse” faction among Democrats, notwithstanding their loathing of all things Trump.
Relatedly, an amazing result from elsewhere in the poll:
Republicans are seen as being in touch by more voters than Democrats are even though the populist Trump’s numbers on that score aren’t good. He stands at 38/58; by comparison, Obama stood at 51/46 in April 2013 while the Democratic Party scored an even 48/48 as recently as 2014. What’s driving the new GOP edge over Democrats? For starters, Republican voters are more convinced than Democrats are that their own party is in touch, a natural (maybe inevitable) reaction to last fall’s results. When asked if the GOP is in touch, Republican voters split 60/30 while Democrats split 14/81. When asked if the Democratic Party is in touch, Republicans split 16/81 — nearly identical to the Dem numbers for the GOP — but Democrats themselves split just 52/44. There again, I think, you have the Bernie wing giving thumbs down to Clintonian neoliberalism plus a chunk of Democrats who, more basically, remember the results in former Dem strongholds like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and recognize that something has gone badly wrong. Independents recognize it too: While just 26 percent say the GOP is in touch, a mind-boggling 18 percent say the same of Democrats. The next time you hear buzz about a big wave building in 2018 for a party led by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, remember that.
Not all the news is bad for liberals, though. Who’s winning the battle of ideas? NBC offers a clue:
The 57 percent who say government should do more is the highest number NBC has recorded in 20 years of polling, higher even than it was in 2007 at the height of Bush malaise following the Democratic takeover of Congress. And the trend towards more active government is found in all three partisan groups. Republicans are still strongly opposed to the idea at 28/69, but that’s up from 17/79 shortly before the GOP took back the House in 2010. The real sea change, though, has come among independents, who were net -22 in October 2010 on the idea of government doing more and are now … net +22. Is that mostly a reaction to the party in power, i.e. when a Democrat is president indies perceive government as being too big whereas when a Republican is president they perceive it as too static? Or is it part of the Trumpian drift towards making big government great again on the right? Maybe independents were open to bigger government on the merits even in 2010 but, because many of them identified as right-wing and disliked Obama, they reacted negatively to a question that asked whether government should do more. Now, with Trump in charge and vowing to spend a trillion bucks on infrastructure, they don’t need to hide their sympathies as much.
The post Poll: Trump would beat Clinton in a rematch among 2016 voters appeared first on Hot Air.
In February, a group of high-profile Republicans announced their support for a plan that would tax carbon-dioxide emissions in order to slow global warming, which they believe to be caused by humans. According to the group, which is led by former Secretaries of State James Baker III and George Shultz and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, their plan would tax fossil-fuel companies and redistribute the funds back to Americans in equal portions, thereby artificially raising the price of fossil fuels and making renewable-energy sources more competitive.
Now, left-wing climate alarmists are seizing on this idea, which some say is the only policy idea attempting to limit fossil fuels the American people and the Trump administration would be willing to support. Climate alarmists have long advocated for a carbon tax, in varying forms, as one possible solution to the purported global warming crisis.
In a recent interview with the Scientific American, noted climate alarmist James Hansen, which the article refers to as the “father of climate change awareness,” said the plan promoted by Republicans is similar to one he developed in 2008 and would be “popular” with the American people.
“The only effective way of addressing climate change is to make the price of fossil fuels include their cost to society,” said Hansen. “That could be done in a simple way by collecting a fee from the fossil fuel companies that would gradually rise over time—a carbon fee and dividend. …
“I call it a carbon fee because you would give all of the money to the public, a dividend to each legal resident,” Hansen said. “ have adopted almost precisely as I proposed it in 2008. The starting level of the fee varies from one proposition to another—I believe that they start at $40 per ton of carbon. suggest $55 per ton— yields a dividend of $1,000 per legal resident and $3,000 for a family with two or more children, with one half-share for each child a maximum of two half-shares per family.”
Hansen claims by imposing the tax and then redistributing the money to consumers, the increased price of gasoline would be offset, and Americans would be happy having received thousands of extra dollars from the government.
“This way it actually stimulates the economy,” Hansen said. “If it’s a tax taken by the government, it makes the government bigger and it depresses the economy. That’s why I object to the Democrats as much as to the Republicans. The only way the public will allow a carbon fee is if you give the money to them—people don’t want to see the price of gasoline at the pump going up.”
The Washington Post reported on April 4 sources inside the Trump administration say the president is considering including a carbon tax as one way to help raise revenues. The Post also reported the sources claimed the carbon tax proposal is very controversial and that some within the administration are staunchly opposed to it.
Carbon taxes are viewed by many on the left as an easy way to price fossil fuels out of the marketplace, making renewable energy comparably more affordable. Opponents of the plan say it’s another form of socialistic wealth distribution that will dramatically raise energy costs. Opponents say energy costs will increase not only because of the tax, but also because energy companies will raise prices across the board knowing that all consumers have more money to spend, thanks to carbon-tax dividends.
New report reveals why Jim Comey acted the way he did during FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton
FBI Director James Comey distrusted former Attorney General Loretta Lynch because he believed she and other top Justice Department officials had political motives to hinder or downplay the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, a new report reveals.
According to the New York Times, Comey deployed a “go-it-alone strategy” during the investigation into Clinton because he thought Lynch and other Obama appointees would give Clinton, who was in the midst of a presidential campaign, “political cover.”
For example, during a fall 2015 meeting between Lynch, Comey and Comey’s team of advisers, Lynch instructed Comey to no longer use the word “investigation” when publicly talking about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton. Instead, Lynch suggested Comey use the word “matter.”
“I guess you’re the Federal Bureau of Matters now,” one of Comey’s advisers quipped after the meeting.
In addition, just one day after announcing they had received a criminal referral in regards to the FBI’s investigation against Clinton, Lynch’s DOJ revised a public statement to retract the word “criminal.” The DOJ revised their statement to say they received a referral “related to the potential compromise of classified information” — no mention of anything criminal.
Clinton would later seize on the happenstance by insisting that the FBI’s investigation into her and her private email server was not a “criminal investigation” — despite the fact that the FBI was treating her “matter” just like any other criminal investigation.
Later, Comey’s suspicions deepened when the FBI intercepted a document that potentially proved Lynch’s allegiance to Clinton.
From the Times:
During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.
The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document…
If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.
And last June, just one day before investigators were scheduled to depose Clinton, Lynch met with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, on the tarmac of Phoenix’s airport. That meeting, which many believe is where Lynch struck a deal with Clinton, was the final straw for Comey.
Just days later, he paraded himself in front of the nation to announce the FBI wouldn’t recommend criminal charges against Clinton, despite confirming that Clinton essentially broke the law and anyone else, given the evidence, would have been charged with a crime. Still, Comey excoriated Clinton during the press conference, noting her utter carelessness in dealing with classified information.
For Comey, the investigation was over, until in late Sept. 2016 the FBI discovered potentially new Clinton emails during the course of a separate criminal investigation into Anthony Weiner, husband to Huma Abiden, Clinton’s closest confidant.
Comey felt he needed to inform Congress of the newest revelation. After all, he promised to keep Congress informed. In the end, the new emails didn’t provide any new evidence and Comey again wrote Congress to inform them that their investigation into Clinton was over.
Clinton, her campaign and Democrats later blamed Comey’s late October letter to Congress as the reason she lost to Donald Trump, ignoring her own downfalls as a candidate and the downfalls of her campaign.
But the Times story, if it makes anything clear, it’s this: That Comey made every decision he did in the interest of the law and ensuring that his agency remained apolitical, despite how things may have appeared publicly, and that job was made increasingly difficult because of his distrust of Lynch, who likely had political motives to see Clinton take the White House.
Canada wasn't always a snowflake country. In the previous century, we were far more self-reliant Ã¢?? economically successful, despite U.S. protectionism we faced
A line must be drawn, because appeasement only leads to emboldening fascists.
Pat Buchanan won after all. But now he thinks it might be too late for the nation he was trying to save.
Democrats seem trapped in an endless loop of their bitter 2016 primary campaign.
Trump's recent changes of tone, opinion, and direction might be signs that his thinking is evolving.