Monthly Archives: February 2017

Fake News?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the lede from The Washington Post in a Thursday article accusing National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (USA Lt Gen, Ret) of discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador before President Donald Trump’s inauguration (and before Flynn’s installation as Advisor):

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed US sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former US officials said.

Notice that.  Current and former US officials—carefully unidentified by the Post persons.  There’s more [emphasis added, as it is in the subsequent quotes]:

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior US officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal….

And

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed….

And

the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from US intelligence and law enforcement agencies….

And

Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity….

And

All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact…making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

Shades of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) assurances to “Vladimir” of greater flexibility.  There’s still more from the Post:

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke.

And

The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate…according to officials familiar with that debate.

And

Current and former US officials said that assertion [of no sanctions discussion] was not true.

Then there’s this bit of misdirection by the Post:

The spokesman [Flynn’s spokesman] said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

The subject coming up isn’t the same as the subject being discussed.  The Post knows this.

Did Flynn overstep his bounds?  It’s impossible to tell from this article; there are no verifiable sources cited; although there are a dozen carefully anonymous—and so unverifiable—sources claimed.  As you read through the piece, though, you’ll notice that in the discussion of whether Flynn’s alleged-by-the-Post actions would be prosecutable, the newspaper did explicitly identify sources; it clearly had no problem naming names where that was convenient to it.

Common Ground

Posted on by
Reply

The Democratic Party—the party being run by Progressives, hence the Progressive-Democratic Party—met earlier in the week in a Party retreat to plot its way forward as the minority party in the Federal, and a majority of State, governments.  The agenda consisted of how to block White House and House Republican proposals.

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) [at the retreat] pointed to the tally from the popular vote in the 2016 election to say that Democrats represent the “majority view” in America….

Never mind that that “majority” came solely from California and New York, two States that don’t come close to being representative of mainstream America.  Never mind, either, that majority of States whose voters have demonstrated—repeatedly—that the majority view, the mainstream view, is not close to the Progressive-Democratic Party view.

And

Actions like that [President Donald Trump’s EO imposing a moratorium on entry into the US from some Middle East countries], Ms Pelosi said, diminish hope of common ground with Democrats.

This is typical of the Progressive-Democrats’ arrogance.  The US must revolve around them. They have no need to seek out common ground with others, least of all those who disagree with them.

And this closer from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

As long as the president continues down this path, there is nothing Democrats can work with him in[.]

No, the Progressive-Democrats need to cooperate and work with the Republican majority.  That was, after all, the majority Progressive-Democrats’ mantra during six of the last eight years when they held the majority of one or both houses of Congress.

But working with, cooperating, only goes one way, apparently.  The mountain must come to Mohamed.

Common ground, indeed.

A Carbon Tax Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

No less a pair of lights than George Shultz and James Baker III have one regarding atmospheric carbon emissions.  They’re prefacing their case on their then-boss, President Ronald Reagan’s successful negotiation of the Montreal Protocol to rein in the failures of atmospheric CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer.  Not that the two have anything to do with each other, but it makes for good obfuscation.

Shultz and Baker have four “pillars” to their proposal:

First, creating a gradually increasing carbon tax. Second, returning the tax proceeds to the American people in the form of dividends. Third, establishing border carbon adjustments that protect American competitiveness and encourage other countries to follow suit. And fourth, rolling back government regulations once such a system is in place.

Their first pillar echoes ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) promise to let electricity generators use all the coal they wanted; Obama’s policies just would put them out of business.  No carbon emissions. Period.  Never mind that there’s very little need to reduce carbon emissions.  Atmospheric CO2 used to generate acid rain, but that pollution is long since reduced to the point of elimination.  Beyond that, the EPA’s pseudo-science “finding” notwithstanding, atmospheric CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.  We eliminate that plant food at risk.

Return the tax proceeds to us as dividends?  That’s just wealth redistribution by government fiat.  Haven’t we had enough of Progressive redistribution failure already?  Not to mention the cynically internally illogical mechanism for the redistribution.

A $40-per-ton carbon tax would provide a family of four with roughly $2,000 in carbon dividends in the first year, an amount that could grow over time as the carbon tax rate increased.

How could the dividend grow—isn’t the tax supposed to reduce emissions significantly?

Border carbon adjustments?  Pit importers against exporters again.  That’s the outcome of the existing border adjustment tax being proposed in the House today.

Roll back the regulations once “such a system is in place?”  Really?  Can Shultz or Baker name two programs that have been rolled back once they’ve been enacted?  They’re not that naïve.

This is just more Progressive foolishness, now being spouted by two fine gentlemen who’re past their age of usefulness.

A National Parental Leave Policy

Posted on by
Reply

AEI has a piece on this; unfortunately, their piece proceeds from some false premises.

Developing a National Paid Parental Leave Policy

It’s interesting that folks of a bent proceed from such claims. They always decline to establish, for instance, that we need a national policy for parental leave. It’s such a widespread failure that I have to conclude it’s deliberately Alinsky-esque in its attempt to control the discussion.

The United States is one of two countries without a national policy providing new mothers with rights to paid leave following the birth of a child.

And then this non sequitur keeps getting dragged out as if it matters that we don’t look like the rest of the world. Never mind that, more substantively, we aren’t like the rest of the world, so there’s no reason we should look like the rest. There aren’t very many federated republics extant.

At present, we simply do not know what the ideal leave program for the US would look like.

Yes we do. It’s what each of the 50 States in our republic think one would look like–it’s what the citizens of each of those States think is best for themselves. Full stop.

The Noise of Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

European Central Bank President Mario Draghi is worried.  The European is afraid of any relaxation of banking regulations in the US; it might cause some instability.  Never mind that instability is a Critical Item for innovation and growth, whether economic, political, technological, or anywhere else.  As he testified before the European Parliament Committee on Economic Affairs,

The last thing we need at this point in time is the relaxation of regulation….

The fact that we are not seeing the development of significant financial stability risk is the reward of the action that legislators and regulators and supervisors have been undertaking since the crisis erupted[.]

No, the suppressed economic growth we’ve experienced is the punishment from the action that legislators and regulators and supervisors have been undertaking.  The noise of freedom and innovation and growth is so terrifying that the punishment is better than the progress.

Or the bureaucrat simply is dismayed at the potential loss of power because the contagion from the US might spread to Europe.