Elizabeth Warren's Cruel Plan For "Environmental Justice"

  • Elizabeth Warren wants to be known as the Democratic presidential candidate who has a “Plan” for everything. I count some 50 of these Plans here on her website.

  • [N]ow we can make that 51 Plans, because yesterday Warren came out with the latest and greatest of them all, titled “FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE AS WE COMBAT THE CLIMATE CRISIS.”

  • [According to Warren] we have a “crisis of environmental justice,” caused by racist people like you putting “profits before people” while the government “look[s] the other way.”

  • I have a different word to describe Warren’s Plan for Climate Justice. There’s nothing uplifting about my word. The word is “cruel.” Warren’s Plan is truly cruel to the poor and to the people in “frontline and fence line communities” (as Warren calls them). It is cruel because it points only toward greater dependency, which will mean worse health, and toward higher energy costs, which will mean further impoverishment.

Read More

Is It Possible For The United States To Withdraw From Any Foreign Engagement?

  • On Sunday the Trump administration announced plans to withdraw most or all U.S. troops from the Northeastern part of Syria. There are currently about a thousand U.S. troops in the area, working with allied Kurdish forces.

  • Within hours, the official talking point — that Trump was abandoning the Kurds to be slaughtered by Turkish forces, and thereby sending a dangerous message to all U.S. allies everywhere — had taken universal hold.

  • But wait a second. It’s a given that every single one of the various U.S. foreign engagements — whether it be Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Niger, or wherever — comes with allies on the ground in that jurisdiction.

  • What happens when the U.S. leaves? The answer will always be the same: Our former allies on the ground will be seen as having collaborated with the enemy. They will suffer the consequences.

  • So then, is it ever possible for the U.S. to withdraw from any foreign engagement? . . .

Read More

No Amount Of Journalistic Malpractice Embarrasses The New York Times

In your case, you probably long since gave up on reading the New York Times. In my case I still look at it, but that has nothing to do with finding out what’s happening in the world. Rather, I’m only performing a service to my readers by trying to get a handle on the latest fantasies of the crazy left in their efforts to oust what they see as the illegitimate occupants of the White House and the Supreme Court. Any relationship between what is found in Pravda and actual fact could only be some kind of pure coincidence. . . .

In recent weeks new initiatives have been coming faster and faster; but instead of taking two years to blow up, the cycle from new “bombshell” disclosure to complete discrediting now only lasts a few days. . . .

Read More

To Understand The Kavanaugh Kraziness, Look At The Courts' Role In Approving Or Blocking Major Policy Initiatives

By the time you read this, you almost certainly already know that the New York Times chose this past Saturday to publish an op-ed by authors of a new book about Brett Kavanaugh, raising a new allegation of alleged improper sexual conduct by Kavanaugh from his days at Yale more than 30 years ago. By the next day, the Times had been force to concede that the op-ed had omitted to state that the alleged victim of the event had told her friends that she did not remember such a thing. Moreover, the authors of the book and op-ed had not even interviewed the alleged victim. Would you have ever thought that the august New York Times would have stooped to that kind of level?

I don’t know what your first thought was on learning of this, but mine was, they must have information that Justice Ginsburg’s medical prognosis is not very good. You may also have seen the Supreme Court’s statement issued on August 23, announcing that Justice Ginsburg had just completed a three-week course of radiation therapy for a new tumor on her pancreas. The statement says that the Justice’s treatment was “definitive” — a term seemingly selected to convey upbeat confidence while clearly not being the equivalent of a clean bill of health. It would be rather surprising if the Times doesn’t have some sources with more particularized information on this one.

Could control of the Supreme Court really be worth the damage that the Times (and others, including multiple contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination) are now inflicting on themselves? . . .

Read More

Evaluation Of Elizabeth Warren As Potential Democratic Candidate For President

In the polls for the past several months, the top three among the contenders for the Democratic nomination for President have been Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. I doubt that Biden will make it all the way to the end of this marathon; and I sense that Sanders’s shtick has started to wear thin and that he is fading. That would leave Elizabeth Warren as the most likely to get the nomination.

Heaven help us.

Warren has her own shtick. The basic idea is to claim that the U.S. economy is fundamentally not working for most people, and then to stir up resentment against anybody who has achieved any success, aka “the wealthy” or “the well-connected” or “the corporations.” These people are oppressing you, and you need Elizabeth to fight back. In her February 2019 speech announcing her candidacy, it was that “millions of American families are . . . struggling to survive in a system that has been rigged by the wealthy and well-connected.” Then there are the evil banks, who “steer [you] into overpriced credit products, risky sub-prime mortgages, and misleading insurance plans.”

But don’t worry — Warren has all the answers, in the form of some dozens of “plans,” each one a top-down directive from the federal government to get those evil exploiters to behave. Universal child care! 100% clean energy! Expanding social security! Hundreds of billions for housing! Trillions for free college and debt forgiveness! Wealth taxes on the rich! Tens of trillions for tackling the “climate crisis”! More tens of trillions for free health care for all! And those are just a small sample. It’s a good thing that the government’s resources are infinite. You name it, and there’s a “plan” and a new collection of regulations and orders and a few hundred billion or a few trillions or tens of trillions from the infinite free loot from above that will solve the problem instantly, at least once Elizabeth is in charge.

In the aggregate she is proposing a total transformation of the U.S. economy, . . .

Read More

Hey Democratic Candidates: Are You Going To Ban All Fossil Fuels?

The CNN climate “town hall” was just the beginning. With each passing day it seems that there is a louder and louder chorus of voices on the left demanding that all candidates get in line with a total war against use of all fossil fuels. After all, total eradication of these evil fuels is the only way to save humanity from climate apocalypse.

Probably, you don’t read these things, so I’ll just give you a couple of examples to demonstrate how completely unhinged they have become. . . .

try this one from Jonathan Franzen in the New Yorker on Sunday (September 8), titled “What If We Stopped Pretending? The climate apocalypse is coming.”  

[E]very one of the world’s major polluting countries [must] institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its economy. . . . [T]he carbon emissions from existing global infrastructure, if operated through its normal lifetime, will exceed our entire emissions “allowance”—the further gigatons of carbon that can be released without crossing the threshold of catastrophe. . . . To stay within that allowance, a top-down intervention needs to happen not only in every country but throughout every country. . . . [O]verwhelming numbers of human beings . . . need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. . . . They have to make sacrifices for distant threatened nations and distant future generations. They have to be permanently terrified by hotter summers and more frequent natural disasters, rather than just getting used to them. Every day, instead of thinking about breakfast, they have to think about death.

So where do the candidates stand? Go through the leading contenders, and you find that sure enough they are quickly lining up to eradicate fossil fuels. . . .

Read More