Progressive-Democrats, Drugs, and Nuclear Weapons

It’s a long read, but Politico‘s piece is worth the time.

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

Project Cassandra was making serious headway against Hezbollah’s drug dealing and money making—a $1 billion per year business that would seem to dwarf its terrorist activities—but as ex-President Barack Obama (D) and his (ex-)Secretary of State John Kerry got closer and closer to concluding Obama’s Executive Agreement with Iran that put a fig leaf over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Cassandra was increasingly restricted.  David Asher, a DoD finance forensics analyst who helped establish Project Cassandra:

The closer we got to the [Iran deal], the more these activities went away.  So much of the capability, whether it was special operations, whether it was law enforcement, whether it was [Treasury] designations—even the capacity, the personnel assigned to this mission—it was assiduously drained, almost to the last drop, by the end of the Obama administration.

And here is the confession of all of that by Obama administration personnel who are figuratively hiding their faces so as not to be identified and called to account:

Former Obama administration officials declined to comment on individual cases, but noted that the State Department condemned the Czech decision not to hand over Fayad.

Because ObamaTalk always was so effective at changing the behavior of our nation’s enemies.

And

Several of them, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they were guided by broader policy objectives, including de-escalating the conflict with Iran, curbing its nuclear weapons program and freeing at least four American prisoners held by Tehran, and that some law enforcement efforts were undoubtedly constrained by those concerns.

There it is.  Curbing the drug trade, cutting Hezbollah off from its major source of money were not as important as that administration’s public appearances regarding peace in our time with Iran.  What else was less important than appearances?

…insight into not only drug trafficking and other criminal activity worldwide, but also into Hezbollah’s illicit conspiracies with top officials in the Iranian, Syrian, Venezuelan, and Russian governments—all the way up to presidents Nicolas Maduro, Assad, and Putin….

And more directly, getting at “the Ghost,” Abdallah Safieddine, Hezbollah’s longtime envoy to Iran who was—and still is, courtesy of these decisions

a major supplier of conventional and chemical weapons for use by Syrian President Bashar Assad against his people.

All bought and paid for with the proceeds from that drug trade.  Al Assad gassing his own people, after all, just wasn’t that important.  All enriching Hezbollah, too, and funding its own weapons inventory and increasing its threat to Israel.  Notice, too, that drug trade connection to Iran, with whom Obama and his Kerry were so desperate to conclude a deal with which they could pretend to look good in the eyes of the American Left.

There’s lots more in the Politico piece.

It’s hard to believe that the Progressive-Democrats in Congress at the time, at the very least the Party’s leadership, didn’t also know about this preference for an enemy’s—a terrorist organization’s—prosperous drug trade.

This is the set of priorities, the level of morality, that the Progressive-Democratic Party will have on offer in the 2018 mid-terms, the 2020 general election—imagine another Progressive-Democrat President—and beyond.

Good for Workers, Good for Business

Recall the National Labor Relations Board’s case of a couple of years ago, Browning-Ferris Industries.

Browning-Ferris concerned a recycling center staffed by contractors. The original [NLRB] ruling found the contractors were jointly employed by a staffing firm and Browning-Ferris.

This ruling, if allowed to stand (the case also is in the Federal court system) would have allowed contractors like those at Browning-Ferris, McDonald’s, and any other franchise-centered corporation not only to form unions at individual franchises (which they’ve always been able to do), but also to form a grand union across the corporation.

President Donald Trump appointed a couple of folks to the NLRB to fill vacancies created when two ex-President Barack Obama (D) appointees quit in a snit over Trump’s election.  Now the NLRB has voted to overturn that prior NLRB ruling.

This is good for both business and for employees.  It’s good for business because modern unions have devolved into extortion rackets that threaten a business’ ability to exist through crippling strikes unless the unions get pay and benefits that they demand, even when those things cost more in their per-employee aggregate than the employee’s work is worth.

It’s good for the workers because it means, with labor costs allowed to match the value of the work done, labor won’t be replaced by automation that’s cheaper than the union-elevated labor costs.  Jobs will be preserved, and more hiring will occur.  It’s also good for workers because it frees them to negotiate their own wage and benefit package instead of being dragooned into whatever a union might impose on them.

The Question is a Non Sequitur

John McKinnon and Brent Kendall, in their Wall Street Journal piece, asked Is FTC Up to the Task of Internet Regulation?

His piece is about the split between what the FCC (the erstwhile “regulator” of the Internet, courtesy of the Obama administration) and the FTC are qualified to regulate.

The question is a bit of a non sequitur, though. The Internet is merely a transport medium, and it needs very little regulation. The FTC is fully up to the task of regulating (ideally with a similarly light touch) trade, which is independent of the medium—highway, railroad, snail mail, or electronic—over which the traded products are transported.

And: lightly regulated commerce is highly conducive to innovation.  Just look at our communications system since the breakup and deregulation of Ma Bell.  And the Internet between its inception and the Obama FCC-imposed impediment.

“SALT and School Taxes”

That’s the title of a recent Wall Street Journal Notable and Quotable.  The excerpt cited a Bloomberg piece (link in the N&Q) in which that piece’s author, Sahil Kapur, went on at length about how the tax reform and rate reduction bill currently on offer in the Congress will hurt the poor, over-taxed citizens of New Jersey and the State’s education capacity.  Because for the children.

How cynical.

If Kapur and others of his ilk don’t like New Jersey’s high taxes (or New York’s, or California’s, or Illinois’) or how those revenues are allocated, they should stop looking for Federal handouts and get to work on their State governments. After all, it’s Kapur and his fellows, and the rest of the citizens in those States, who’ve been busily electing those overtax and misspend governments.

It’s also true enough that some of those States send more of their citizens’ tax money to the Feds for redistribution than they get back from the Feds, but that just emphasizes the need to put an end to such redistribution of OPM.  It has nothing to do with whether the SALT tax distorting deduction should be preserved.

Bannon, the Republican Party, and Candidates

Gerald Seib is on the right track in his piece in The Wall Street Journal, but he’s wide of the mark.

Tuesday’s Senate race in Alabama represented an attempt by the president and Mr [Steve] Bannon, his foremost political strategist, to show that they weren’t only in control of the party but could use their rebellious, antiestablishment message to drive their new version of the GOP to victory.

Yes and no.  No, because as Seib seems to have forgotten, President Donald Trump pushed for the temporary (and establishment) incumbent, Luther Strange, in the Republican primary because Strange was the candidate he thought would win the runoff.  Trump only late in the runoff openly backed Moore when if became apparent that Moore was going to lose to Jones.

He’s right about Bannon, though:

Mr Bannon’s pledge to field and fund nationalist, rabble-rousing Republicans to challenge a whole series of Republican senators up for re-election next year

That comment was about how much Republicans need worry about Bannon in the coming primaries and general elections, but that’s what Bannon has been doing all along: putting up rabble-rousers who fit his claimed brand of conservatism without regard to whether these persons actually could win a general election.

As with Roy Moore and the candidates he backed in last month’s Virginia contests, Bannon carefully chooses ideological purity, his purity, over electability.  Of course he knew what the results of that would be.  Bannon is doing the Progressive-Democratic Party’s dirty work; he’s not at all pushing for Conservatism in our Congress.

In the end, the thing hinges on practical politics, on what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) has said many times: it’s necessary to nominate candidates that actually can win elections.  If the candidate loses his election contest, it doesn’t matter how pure or impure his conservatism or his character.  He won’t have a voice in the legislature.  And neither will conservatism.

There’s an additional lesson here that the Republican Party and its candidates need to learn and act on, starting right damn now.  The Alabama runoff emphasized what the Progressive-Democratic Party did during last year’s general election and what they did sub rosa all through their guy’s Presidency: character assassination and smear works as a tactic.  With Jones’ win, the Republican Party needs to be ready to handle smears that will be generated against all of their candidates—every single one of them—in 2018 and 2020 and beyond.