Good on ya, Judge Boasberg!

Human advancement, 1, planned decline, 0:

A federal judge has denied a last-minute plea to stop the Dakota Access pipeline, allowing the $3.8 billion oil pipeline to begin operating as early as next week.

U.S. District Court Judge James A. Boasberg ruled Tuesday that the Cheyenne River Sioux and Standing Rock Sioux are unlikely to prevail on the merits of their challenge to his March 7 decision, saying that the court “believes that Plaintiff does not have a strong case on appeal.”

A status report filed Monday by Dakota Access LLC said oil is expected to start flowing through the North Dakota section of the 1,172-mile, four-state pipeline between March 20 and March 22, “depending upon the success of the testing.”

Another status report is expected to be filed with the court Monday.

The tribes had asked for a preliminary injunction to stop the pipeline on religious grounds, arguing that flowing oil underneath Lake Oahe would desecrate the water, which is sacred to the tribes, and fulfill the “black snake prophecy.”

Last week, however, the judge pointed out that a natural-gas pipeline already runs under Lake Oahe, and that other oil pipelines cross the Missouri River upstream from the lake, which is man-made and only 60 years old.

Memo to the tribes: The time to express your views was when the developer called for numerous meetings during the planning stage.

The poisoned minds of post-America's youth

Behold the fruits of the nihilistic indoctrination that is the overarching enterprise in post-American government schools:

It seems that this terribly sad incident took place out in Iowa at Valley High School near Des Moines. Kathryn Timpf at National Review had the details which sound more like something out of a bad parody of a Vox article than anything which would show up in the Associated Press. But truth is often stranger than fiction and that seems to be the case here.

Students at Valley High School in Iowa wore USA-themed gear during a basketball game — and fans of the opposing team, Des Moines North High School, are saying that was offensive.

According to local news source KCCI, Valley fans say that they’ve used a “USA” theme in the past for games against several different schools, but North’s fans are insisting that it was a personal attack against them because some of their students come from refugee families. 

The controversy got so intense that a group of student leaders from Valley wound up hand-delivering a note of apology to North’s principal.

If you go to the local news coverage you can see footage from the actual basketball game as well as interviews with a number of students from Des Moines North High School. Nothing taking place at the game really seems all that controversial or shocking, and in fact the fans in the bleachers on both sides all seemed to be cheering. It’s also worth pointing out that the “offensive” clothing in question was not being worn by the players from Valley High. It was the parents and other students in attendance who were participating in the theme for the evening which was simply described as a “USA theme.” Some of the fans wore flag themed shirts and others held up an actual American flag as they cheered for their team.

But as I mentioned, it was the interviews with the students that really had my jaw dropping. A couple of the players seemed to express disbelief as to how anyone could think showing “a bunch of American flags” could be a good idea. The complaint, as expressed in the interview, centered around a defense based on the fact that Des Moines North is “a more diverse school.” It quickly became apparent that what they were talking about was the fact that most, if not all of the players on the team were black. But that doesn’t give any indication of the supposeed refugee status of anyone on the team. The school does have some refugee families enrolled, so perhaps that’s the subtle distinction I’m missing.

It would be edifying - or maybe hurl-inducing - to get some observations from some parents. Was this garbage reinforced at home?

Before we get too excited about Trump being unprecedentedly pro-Israel

We all know that Squirrel-Hair's signature trait is inconsistency. So it was just a matter of time until this business about him having Israel's back would get doused with a splash of cold water, as Caroline Glick explains:

Last Friday, Trump spoke on the telephone with Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas is head of the PLO and the unelected dictator of the corrupt, terrorism-sponsoring, PLO -controlled Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria.

According to media reports, Trump told Abbas – whose legal term in office ended eight years ago – that he views him as a legitimate leader. According to the official White House report of the conversation, Trump also reportedly told Abbas that he supports reaching a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Such a deal, to the extent it is ever reached, involves expanding PLO control over Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem at Israel’s expense.

Trump also invited Abbas for an official visit to Washington. And the day after they spoke, the Trump administration moved $250 million in US taxpayer dollars to Abbas’s police state where for the past 25 years, Abbas and his cronies have enriched themselves while feeding a steady diet of antisemitic, anti-American jihadist bile to their impoverished subjects.

To build up his credibility with the PLO , Trump put his electoral pledge to move the US embassy to Jerusalem on ice. The real estate mogul ordered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deny Jews the right to their property and their legal right to use state lands in Judea and Samaria.

And swift on the heels of that conversation with Abbas, Trump’s chief negotiator Jason Greenblatt was dispatched to Jerusalem to begin empowering the PLO at Israel’s expense.

According to media reports, Greenblatt intended to use his meeting Monday with Netanyahu was to reject Netanyahu’s commitment to build a new Israeli town in Samaria. Greenblatt was also reportedly intending to dictate the parameters for yet another round of negotiations with the PLO.

After meeting with Netanyahu, Greenblatt continued on to Ramallah to embrace Abbas.

Also during his stay, Greenblatt is scheduled to meet with IDF generals who are responsible for giving money and providing services to the PLO.

And Greenblatt doesn’t have the Palestinians to himself.

Following Trump’s conversation with Abbas, plans were suddenly afloat for Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump to visit Israel and spend an afternoon with Abbas in Ramallah.

Is he falling for that fatal temptation of US presidents to be The One Guy who has the vision and tenacity to get the Palestinians to sign on to a lasting peace?  Such a thought would sure appeal to his ego.

Well, tofu and sprouts to you too, lady!

In case you thought the unhinged leftists were keeping their venom confined to cyberspace, consider this encounter in a DC Apple Store:

In yet another "courageous" act of liberal activism, a young leftist ambushed White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer while he was trying to shop at an Apple store. For her efforts, she has gotten the chance to present herself as a victim of "such nasty bigotry." 

"How do you feel about destroying our country, Sean?" the progressive asked Spicer while broadcasting her harassment/activism ("harassactivism"?) on Periscope. "How does it feel to work for a fascist?"

The activist, who goes by the name "Shree," describes herself on Twitter as an "Education advocate. Eternal optimist. Art lover. Arc bender. Firenzephile. Feminist. Fearless. Patriot. Slayer." After having been a part of the fascistic blocking of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (whose pro-school choice stance the Left abhors), Shree took it upon herself to "speak truth to power" by following Spicer around the Apple store in Georgetown. She proudly streamed the ​obnoxious confrontation on Periscope and tweeted it out.  

Some samples of her loaded questions:

"Have you helped with the Russia stuff?"

"Are you a criminal as well?"

"How do you feel about destroying our country, Sean?" 

"Do you feel good about lying to the American people?"

Watch the obnoxious "activism" here.

For her efforts, Shree was awarded an article on Medium, where she could more fully vocalize why and how she's channeled her "anxiety, sadness, and anger" over Trump into "action." 

After explaining in the Left's standard virtue-signaling manner how she "shattered" her iPhone when her candidate of choice was upset by Trump on election night, Shree declares the new president "dangerous" for America and says her "activism" is supposed to be inspiring to others, or something: 

Very early on, I knew that Donald J. Trump was dangerous for America and had fascist tendencies. His views on people of color, immigrants and Muslims are abhorrent. His actions against women are despicable. His willful disregard for our Constitutional rights is well, fascist.

I was devastated by the election but I have channeled my anxiety, sadness, and anger into action. I tell anybody who will listen, ways in which they can resist. I have explained how dire the situation is to my closest friends and family, and I also organized that Betsy DeVos blockade at a local D.C. school with families and community partners.

Hope her BP meds were handy.

Why we call them Freedom-Haters - today's edition

The arrogance of these creatures:

A group of Senate Democrats is warning the Trump administration not to roll back the fuel economy standards that were set under the Obama administration.

The Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks at an average of 36 miles a gallon by the model year 2025 after originally proposing 54.5 miles per gallon. The auto industry has been pushing for a reduction in the fuel economy standards and the Trump administration will reportedly announce changes soon.

“These laws are what has unleashed the Elon Musk revolution – all of these companies being forced to now invest in new technology. They always said it was difficult to do, which is why they did not improve the standards for decades but once the law passed they found ways to be able to achieve that. We’re not talking about rocket science. We’re talking about auto mechanics,” Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said on a conference call with other Democratic senators on Tuesday.

Markey called the Obama-era CAFE standards the “largest step” America has ever taken to reduce carbon pollution, adding that the “benefits far outweigh the costs” for consumers.

“Those standards will reduce our carbon pollution by 5 to 6 billion tons over the course of the program, but Donald Trump is waging a war on the environment and he wants EPA Administrator Pruitt to make strong fuel economy emissions standards his newest victim,” he said. “We cannot let him.”
Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the federal government has a “responsibility to encourage people to buy these energy efficient cars.”
“We don’t want them just to sit on the sales lot, you know, going un-purchased. We want to make sure people are buying them,” he said. “We need to use less oil from OPEC, so this is sort of a win-win – so at the end of the day, our auto companies continue to make money and that’s important too and we think they can.”

This is rank tyranny. The federal government has a responsibility to keep its damn nose out of the transactions between the consumers and producers, the buyers and and sellers, of this country. 


Markey acknowledges that CAFE standards make cars more expensive than they would be otherwise, as does some goose-stepping jackboot named Dan Becker, but not to worry, they have a long-term-savings plan all worked out for the cattle-masses:

Dan Becker, the director of the Safe Climate Campaign, agreed with Markey’s assessment.

“The technology that saves gas costs less than the gas it saves. And so consumers will pay a little bit more for the vehicle, but will more than make up for it at the gas pump. And if you lease your vehicle, as UCS studies have shown, you start saving money the minute you drive off the lot,” he said on the call. 

And Markey - by the way, it would be interesting to know if he has ever worked on the shop floor of any plant anywhere up or down the automotive supply chain - shows what he really thinks of the companies that actually produce the vehicles that allow us to get quickly, safely and affordably from Point A to Point B:

“The auto industry is crying crocodile tears about their inability to meet these standards,” the senator said. “It has nothing to do with their ability to meet these standards. They can meet them. They know they can meet them.”

These totalitarians must be kept sidelined in perpetuity. They bring nothing but ruin when they are in power.

 

 

 

Thoughts on the nature of bureaucracy

This is the transcript of the podcast I did this afternoon, but for those who prefer to read than listen, I offer it herewith:

Clearly, most people have a strong aversion to bureaucracy.

But there are certain types of people who seem to be comfortable with it. Some of them are on the end that provides whatever it is that the bureaucracy in question offers, and some are on the receiving end.

Have you ever, when dealing with someone in a bureaucratic organization, asked yourself, What kind of person can tolerate doing this for a living? I know I couldn’t. 

Have you noticed how they respond to pretty much everything you have to say?

It’s with this clipped little, “Mmmm-hmmm.”

“Your organization left me a message saying I hadn’t paid my latest bill, but my bank shows that my check for it cleared.”

“Mmmm-hmmm.”

“Your organization’s website didn’t recognize my password, and I know that it’s my password.”

“Mmmm-hmmmm.”

“The technological service I get from your organization gets interrupted frequently.”

“Mmmm-hmmm.”

I’ve even gotten the “mmm-hmmm” treatment from organizations that are hitting on me for something. Recently, a book-promotion outfit called me regarding a novel I’d had published by a print-on-demand house eleven years ago. Wanted me to sign on to some deal where my book would get featured prominently in the outfit’s booth at some big trade show in New York. The lady who called me asked me what I’d like to see happen with my book.

“Well, I’ve always thought it would lend itself to treatment as a play.”

“Mmmm-hmmmm.”

“You know, the curtain going up on the opening scene to show a very atmospheric street scene in the late 1940s lined with nightclubs. Neon lights. Guys in pinstripe suits and fedoras.”

“Mmmmm-hmmm.”

“Since you called me on the basis of the particular appeal of my novel, I assume you understand what I envision.”

“Mmmm-hmmmm.”

Needless to say, I did not do business with this organization.

And they always have to pound away on their keyboard for a good minute after you give them some new nugget of information, however miniscule. And then stare at their terminal screen for a while.

And there’s always the boilerplate, and the jargon exclusive to their organization.

You know what? I think a job like that appeals to people who need safety, people who are naturally predisposed to impersonal interactions even in their private lives. People who are afraid to take responsibility for how productive the exchange is turning out to be.

I will confess that a few times - usually in a tech-support situation, but sometimes having to do with matters of billing -  I’ve been responsible for things deteriorating to the point where the exchange cannot be saved.

“Mr. Quick we’re not going to get anywhere if you yell.”

One time a guy even hung up on me.

And part of me feels bad about these instances. But you know what? I’ve also considered it from the perspective that it was a breakthrough. I’d finally gotten the other person to go off-script, to engage in genuine interaction with me.

I also think that faceless bureaucrats are afraid of their own dreams. They don’t want to take charge of too much of their own destinies.

And what’s really scary is that bureaucracy is so pervasive in our society as to be ubiquitous.

It’s always been a feature of civilization. It’s customarily been used to give certain people and groups of people advantages over others. The whole notion of licensing goes back to the trade guilds of a few centuries ago, for instance.

The first wave of the progressive movement, in the early 20th century, spearheaded by the likes of Thorstein Veblen, Richard T. Ely, Charles Beard, Herbert Croly, John Dewey, and Woodrow Wilson gave us the notion that American government ought to have a far larger role than that envisioned by James Madison, that modern industrialized, urban society was so complex that the executive branch ought to have on its payroll “experts” in various areas such as  health care, stewardship of natural resources, workplace conditions, and the quality of citizen’s lives in the post-work years.

And as government grew, so did corporations and labor unions. And a good many people maneuvered through revolving doors between these sectors, as well as the universities where the “experts’” proposals were hatched. The great James Burnham saw what was happening and alerted us about it in his seminal 1941 work, The Managerial Revolution.

The civil-rights movement got bogged down in bureaucracy after its initial strides. I remember those locally produced television shows that used to air on Sunday afternoons in the 1970s, with names like “Urban Focus,” on which somebody from some agency would get asked by the host about some new program the agency was getting going, and the interviewee would say, “Well, yes, we obtained a grant under Title Such-and-Such and additional funding from the Commission for This and That, and qualified individuals can fill out our eleven-thousand page form.”

The countercultural types that have been with us since the 1950s have seemingly put up a resistance to the stultifying conformity that characterizes large bureaucratic organizations, but ultimately have cast their lot with them, calling on government to impose draconian regulations on matters ranging from energy use to human sexuality.

Which brings us to the current impasse over health care in America. You know the basic lay of the land: The “Affordable” Care Act was rammed through the 2009 Congress in the dead of night without a single Republican vote, and Republicans of a conservative stripe have been promising its repeal ever since. There had always been some excuse for it not being feasible though.

“We only have the House. We need the Senate.”

“We have both houses, but we need the executive branch.”

And now it’s that they only have 51 votes in the Senate, and that, in the House, only certain provisions of it pertaining to matters of funding can be dealt with using reconciliation.

But, at a time of their maximum power, this latest round of excuses reeks of flimsiness. These are rules that could be change, if the will could be mustered.

And so we get this soggy cookie that Paul Ryan wants everybody to get on board with. But several lawmakers, including Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Tom Cotton, as well as the country’s most principled pro-freedom activist groups, such as Heritage Action, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, give it a big thumbs-down.

And the reason is quite basic: It is still predicated on some kind of necessity for bureaucracy.

And that’s the only reason on God’s green earth why any of this is “complicated.”

Freedom is always elegantly simple.

You offer a product or service to particular organizations or people you've determined most likely to be interested in it. (This is your market.)

When interested parties approach you, you have a conversation and arrive at an agreement as to what the product or service is worth.

You provide the product or service.

You get paid.

You cover your costs, and put your profit in the bank, or spend it however you wish.

The above scenario covers every type of economic transaction in which human beings engage.

But freedom requires a bit of courage. All those who have made careers out of saying “mmmmm-hmmm” and letting loose with a flurry of keystrokes after your every utterance are going to have to find something meaningful to do with their lives. They’re going to have to ask themselves the big, deep questions about what they see as their true mission in this world.

Mediocrity gets squeezed out of a truly free society.

This can be a pivotal moment for this country, and for Western civilization. We could really humanize ourselves, really come alive. It’s going to require a leap of faith, though. We will have tossed away the script. We’ll have to learn to put actual thought, not to mention listening skills and compassion, behind what we say. 

We’ll have to have some original ideas.

But how about it? We have nothing to lose but our forms and our jargon.

Reflections, five days in, on the impasse over the Ryan plan

I guess I have a strange sort of respect for the kind of right-of-center view I'm seeing expressed here and there that one is torn about it. This view is rooted in caution, caution that I suppose its adherents see as being born of experience. They no doubt feel that they have seen too many instances when the perfect becomes the enemy of the pretty darned good.

It comes from those who are inclined to hate it, which is the view of a larger contingent of conservatives who say so without equivocation, but who see no alternative to weaving the thread that this bill's passage requires.

But about the time I start considering the validity of their position, I find myself looking at facts that refute it.

There's the argument that only the parts having to do with the government funding this or that provision can be altered or abolished through reconciliation. To that, the rejoinder is that, since the whole thing is, like the current "A"CA, propped up by government guarantees for its solvency, all of it has to do with government funding.

There's the argument that further conservative-type reforms, such as letting health insurance be sold across state lines and addressing the suffocating effect licensing policy has on health-care costs, would be addressed in a "phase two" or "phase three." To that, the rejoinder is that incremental stabs at undertaking something unprecedented like getting rid of an entitlement program are destined to never happen.

There's the argument that millions of people would lose their coverage. To that, the rejoinder is, Is it humane to consign these people to the substandard level of care that gets delivered when one is covered by Medicaid?

There have been previous plans, even bills, that were much more in line with a clean and total repeal. One such bill got sufficient votes to be sent to then-president Obama's desk in January 2016.

Why the hell wouldn't Congress just send the very same bill to the current president?

So this business of being "torn" strikes me as an unacceptable level of timidity.

And as for those among the actual lawmakers, the most visible face of which being, of course, Paul Ryan, who characterize this as the only chance and means to give America an alternative to the "A"CA, they suffer from a failure of will that ought to earn our contempt.

Damn it, there has not been a moment at which standing for principles has been more imperative.

This is the moment for looking right into a television camera and saying that federal government has no business being involved in health care, or the insuring thereof.

There should be no talk of tinkering with this or that provision. There should be no rhetoric along the lines of "more patient-centered." All you have to do to make health care patient-centered is remove government.

This has implications beyond health care. This is the juncture at which we decide whether we accept the premise that progressives, going back to the original crew of a hundred-plus years ago (Thorstein Veblen, Richard T. Ely, Charles Beard, Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson), have demanded that we swallow - namely, that a cabal of "expert" "bureaucrats" must dictate the contours of economic and social life for the individual citizens of this nation.

If we say that we have never swallowed this tyrannical hooey, this is the moment for making good on it.

And that is going to require a principled Congress. It won't come from an executive branch guided by the ideologically rudderless modus operandi of Donald Trump. He just wants to sign something the makes him look like he scored a "win" for the American people.

No, we are going to have to demand that our elected lawmakers demonstrate spine as never before.

And the potential for heartbreak, not to mention the victory of tyranny, lies in the fact that the right outcome lies within our  grasp.

Republicans do not have to settle for an inadequate measure. It is not a necessity.

So I'm not torn, and that's because the right thing to do is obvious.

Not a walk in the park, but obvious.

Anybody who depends on consistency from DJT is going to be left holding the bag

Read this piece by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, as well as his piece from a few days earlier to which he links.

Taken together, they tell the tale of two camps having formed among those advising Trump on trade and broader economic matters.

Peter Navarro, head of DJT's National Trade Council, leans protectionist. He thinks that the over-valued Euro and yen are creating such a trade deficit that it has ominous implications for US strategic position on the world stage - and even domestic well-being.

You may recall a post here some time back about him speaking disparagingly about global supply chains.

Steve Bannon is in the Navarro camp.

Pitted against them is Gary Cohn, head of the National Economic Council and depicted as a "Goldman globalist." And Trump is depicted as appearing to lean toward this group.  It seems that Cohn has been given a prominent position in talks about renegotiating NAFTA.

And he is jockeying to solidify that position:

Cohn's sidelining of Navarro has only picked up recently, and in an attempt to alienate him from Trump, he has become "an increasingly isolated figure in the administration. He has been operating with a very small staff out of an office in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House while Mr Cohn, who has been adding staff to his NEC base inside the president’s residence itself."

Meanwhile, Cohn has been beefing up his staffing ranks with more, like-minded "globalist" supporters, such as Andrew Quinn, a former trade official who served as a senior negotiator during the Obama administration’s push for a Trans-Pacific Partnership with Japan and 10 other countries. In other words, someone who is desperate for much more, not less, global trade alliances. The White House last month announced Mr Quinn would serve on the NEC as a “special assistant to the president” for international trade. Quinn's appointment led to an outburst from Breitbart, which labelled the career official an “enemy within” the Trump administration earlier this month.

European economic officials are pleased to see this trend of less talk of tariffs.

Durden closes with this nugget of food for thought:

In retrospect, those who said Trump will ultimately do Wall Street's bidding, may have been correct all along. 

Somebody hand Laura Ingraham a napkin to wipe the egg off her face.

 

The USDA - its entrenched bureaucrats, anyway - sees itself as a weapon in the Left's war on Christianity

This story will chill your bones:

Maybe it’s just nostalgia talking, but the slaughtering, processing, packaging, and distribution of animals used to be so much simpler.

For hundreds of years, the meat-packing industry bore the responsibility for transforming Bessie the Cow into carnivores’ favorite source of protein, and more recently the Food Safety and Inspection Service inspectors of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ensured that the finished product was “safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.”

Not so anymore. Due to agency rules issued during the Obama era, FSIS inspectors enjoy expanded duties, including monitoring facilities for any “disrespectful” or “insult[ing]” communication (no, not among the animals). Should they uncover any such communication, inspectors are empowered to take “corrective action,” even if that involves slicing and dicing fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The Fateful Day Don Put an Article in the Break Room

Predictably, unleashing meat inspectors to police the exercise of free speech—with guidelines that provide only vague directional prodding—is the equivalent of releasing a bull in a china shop. At least, it was for Don and Ellen Vander Boon, the owners of West Michigan Beef Company. (To be fair, Mythbusters found that bulls can be surprisingly respectful of grandma’s china. The same cannot be said for the USDA and the First Amendment.)

The USDA threatened to shut down this family-owned company, not because of health concerns, or because short ribs were incorrectly labeled as plate ribs (incidentally, you would not believe the labeling requirements), or because People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals infiltrated their ranks in some sort of hostile takeover bid. Rather, the so-called offense consisted of an article Don placed in the breakroom.

The breakroom at West Michigan Beef includes tables that essentially serve as a repository for newspapers, magazines, articles, and other forms of literature that employees or the owners wish to share with those who care to read them. Think of it as a pre-technological Facebook. Importantly, no one is required to read the materials, any more than I am required to flip through a two-year old copy of People while sitting in my dentist’s lobby, or to read my friend’s Facebook post about replacing smoke detector batteries (true story). 

n 2015, following the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that purported to redefine marriage for the entire country, various employees shared articles and information related to the decision. Don participated by sharing an article that expressed the traditional Christian view that God designed marriage as a union between a man and a woman and set forth reasons for that position.

When a USDA public health veterinarian, the on-site inspector, saw the article in the breakroom, well, he had a cow. He removed the article and reported it to his USDA supervisor. The pair stampeded into Don’s office and threatened to remove USDA inspectors—effectively shutting down the facility—if Don returned the article to the breakroom, stating the article was offensive and harassing under expanded agency rules.

We Inspect Your Beef, and Your Brains

This ban on Don’s speech appears to have been grounded on the USDA’s “Anti-Harassment Policy Statement” issued in July 2015, which prohibits written or oral communications that USDA officials consider “disrespectful” or “insult[ing]” on the basis of sexual orientation.

Let's hope that Sonny Perdue enacts an immediate reversal of this ungodly tyranny.

 

 

 

 

 

General Votel mothballs the false narrative about the Yemen raid

On balance, it was a success:

Are we finally seeing the end of the media debate over the “botched” special forces raid in Yemen? Unless you were hiding under a rock you surely heard about this one. Navy SEALs launched an attack on an Al Qaeda stronghold which resulted in the death of one Navy SEAL, injuries to several others and significant damage to one of the aircraft used in the raid. After word leaked out, two conflicting narratives immediately emerged. NBC News was quick to declare the operation a failure, saying that it produced no significant gains in either gathering intelligence or taking out high-value targets. Shortly thereafter, other reports indicated that the opposite was true.

Now we finally have input from somebody who should know. Gen. Joseph Votel testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said that while the experience definitely provided many lessons which they will take forward, there was no fault to be found and the operation was a highly productive one. (Associated Press)

The top U.S. commander for the Middle East told senators Thursday that he has completed an exhaustive review of the Yemen raid that killed a Navy SEAL, and has concluded there were no lapses in judgment or decision-making surrounding the operation.

Gen. Joseph Votel, who heads U.S. Central Command, said he sees no need for additional investigations into the January mission that triggered debate in Washington over what went wrong and whether important intelligence was actually gathered. It was the first military raid authorized by President Donald Trump…

Votel, who presided over an internal review, said he was “looking for information gaps where we can’t explain what happened in a particular situation or we have conflicting information between members of the organization. I am looking for indicators of incompetence or poor decision making or bad judgment throughout all this.”

In the end, he said, “I was satisfied that none of those indicators that I identified to you were present. I think we had a good understanding of exactly what happened on this objective and we’ve been able to pull lessons learned out of that, that we will apply in future operations.” He said there was no need for an additional investigation.

Votel added that he believes the U.S. gained valuable information on al-Qaida militants.

There was definitely a “debacle” taking place here, but it wasn’t in the form of the conduct of our special forces or the planning of the operation. The true collapse which took place was on the part of either the media or malcontents inside the government seeking to undermine the Trump administration. (Though at this point I would put my money on a combination of the two.) We have zero reason to doubt the testimony of the general and even the most partisan among us should have approached the story with a more gentle hand. The planning of this operation began months before Barack Obama left office, but the final approval was given by President Trump so the responsibility lies on his shoulders for better or worse. Still, this was something which evolved over a span of time encompassing both administrations.

Lesson going forward: If you're going to get your news from a "M"SM source like NBC, have your filter engaged.

And America was right to give Carynn Owens a standing ovation on behalf of her patriot husband.

Send Squirrel-Hair the same bill you sent the Most Equal Comrade a year and two months ago

I can't find any shortcomings in the argument David Harsanyi makes at The Federalist:

In January 2016, Congress sent President Barack Obama a bill that repealed the Affordable Care Act and cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The bill eliminated Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies, among many other things. “We have now shown that there is a clear path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate,” House Speaker Paul Ryan claimed after the president vetoed the bill. “So, next year, if we’re sending this bill to a Republican president, it will get signed into law. Obamacare will be gone. … It’s just a matter of time.”

Well, it’s next year.

“Defund Obamacare Act” has a lot going for it. For one thing, it’s already been written and negotiated. Republican leadership supported the bill. The free-marketers voted for it. Thankfully, it also met with the endorsement of four moderate senators who recently sent a letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell with concerns over rollbacks of Medicaid expansion. Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Cory Gardner of Colorado all supported the bill — with Gardner and Portman co-sponsoring it.

Obviously, bills can be tweaked to incorporate new ideas or fix old ones, but it’s not as if this is a fleeting policy debate. The GOP’s ability to grab hundreds of seats on every level of government was predicated on the promises found in the “Defund Obamacare Act.” So unless Republicans were contemptuous frauds who voted for positions they didn’t truly believe in (sometimes more than 50 times), what case do they have against reintroducing a bill that is fundamentally the same?

Is it political considerations? Well, rest assured, Democrats will oppose any plan Republicans support by deploying identical rhetoric. No matter how watered down the bill is, or how many tenets of Obamacare it preserves, Republicans will be accused of attacking the poor, women, and minorities at the behest of the wealthy. For progressives, the difference between the “Defund Obamacare Act” and the “American Health Care Act” is zilch. Any policy that fails to further incentivize the growth of the state or dependence will be met with the same hyperbolic resistance. Republicans have nothing to lose by supporting a consequential reform bill.

If you’re a Republican, you can also take for granted that the American Medical Association and AARP — which endorsed Obamacare although nearly every poll showed seniors opposed the law and despite the fact that the law raided Medicare funds — and about every other group that prefers giant bureaucracies meting out health care will oppose even the most tepid free-market-oriented solutions. Unless you pay it off, the AARP will never be on your side. 

Also, assume that left-wing outfits like the Tax Policy Center will produce oodles of charts and reports illustrating how terribly markets will perform without technocratic guidance. This is the pseudoscience every proto-Vox pretend-wonk peddled about Obamacare in 2009-2010 — numbers long forgotten, and almost never accurate.

For those who want to make hay out of the fact that Pubs don't even set much store by the nonpartisan CBO (such as Albert Hunt)  consider what Harsanyi points out about that august agency: "The CBO didn't come close to predicting the cost of the ACA."

So why isn't this being looked at?

Why was this not the course of action in late January 2017?

How will his shills explain this one away?

Squirrel-Hair takes a shine to one of the most expensive collectivist boondoggles of all:

If you liked TrumpCare, you’re gonna love TrumpRail:

President Donald Trump pushed his White House team on Wednesday to craft a plan for $1 trillion in infrastructure spending that would pressure states to streamline local permitting, favor renovation of existing roads and highways over new construction and prioritize projects that can quickly begin construction.

. . . .

Mr. Trump said he would was inclined to give states 90 days to start projects, and asked Scott Pruitt, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, to provide a recommendation. He expressed interest in building new high-speed railroads, inquired about the possibility of auctioning the broadcast spectrum to wireless carriers, and asked for more details about the Hyperloop, a project envisioned by Tesla founder Elon Musk that would rapidly transport passengers in pods through low-pressure tubes.

“America has always been a nation of great promise, because we dream big,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re going to really dream big now.”

Our national debt today is just shy of $20 trillion. Debt per citizen is $61,496. Debt per taxpayer is $166,570. The national debt doubled under George W. Bush, and doubled again under Barack Obama. Is it going to double again under President Dream Big?

I know from listening to a bit of Laura Ingraham's show the last couple of days that she is not pleased about S-H insisting that Congress get behind the soggy cookie of a repeal-and-replace health care bill that Paul Ryan has brought him. Well, she hasn't come right out and said, "What the flip is he thinking?" She can't put that kind of distance between herself and her dreamboat. But what are she and Coulter, Hannity, Wayne Allen Root, Conrad Black et al going to do when they inevitably have to address this reckless blurt?

I carry no party's water; I remain an immutable-principles guy to the end

I am so glad I no longer consider myself a Republican.

Of course, I'll continue to vote nearly exclusively Republican for the foreseeable future, given that the main alternative is evil and the rest are silly.

But this repeal-and-replace impasse makes me want to throw up.

Consider who is lining up for the House bill and against it.

Against: the good guys and the smart guys:

Heritage Action, Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity -- three of the biggest groups that Republicans will need to help them whip their right flank into voting for this thing -- have all come out hard against it. Avik Roy and Michael Cannon, two of the leading opponents of Obamacare in the policy community, have both panned it. You’re not exactly seeing enthusiastic cheers from the journalists who opposed Affordable Care Act, of which I am one. See? This is me, emphatically not cheering. If such a thing is possible, I am actively failing to cheer.

Squirrel-Hair claims to be open to modifications, but says that has to be done through the amendment process. Like that is going to bring more clarity to the whole enterprise.

And Mike Pence has squandered a great deal of credibility in this matter:

The White House on Tuesday cast the GOP bill as a "work in progress," a sign that changes may be necessary in order to move it through the House. Pence acknowledged that reality by saying as the legislative process goes forward, the GOP plan "is the framework for reform and we are certainly open to improvements and to recommendations in the legislative process."

But he also warned the GOP, "this is the bill" backed by President Trump.

Mitch McConnell seems anxious to have the Senate vote on it.

Nice work, you clowns.

Yes, the cabinet appointments, the reversal of the EPA's tyranny, and the new US tone at the UN are all marvelous developments made possible by last November's election results.

But failing to stand on the side of liberty on this crucial issue would negate those gains.

A whole lot of citizens of this land would feel that there was now truly nowhere for them to go.

I'm not at the point of total hopelessness, but I am at the point of total disgust.

A party that claims to stand for what I stand for and then gets the vapors when it's time to prove it is no party of mine.

LITD is cheering Rand Paul on with regard to health-care policy

The latest Paul Ryan-driven proposal is too problematic to settle for. While it gets rid of Planned Parenthood funding and the out-and-out tax component, it has at least five basic, glaring shortcomings, as enumerated by Ben Shapiro:

1. It Retains Requirements That Insurance Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions. The key component to Obamacare was always the nonsensical notion that government could force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions. This turns insurance companies into piggy banks rather than insurance companies – imagine a fire insurance company that allowed you to buy insurance after your house was on fire. That’s not an insurance company anymore. The same is true in health insurance – and the Republicans’ attempt to preserve this popular provision of Obamacare means that Republicans must also do something to ensure that insurance companies don’t go bankrupt. There are only two ways to do that: with a mandate to buy insurance, or with government subsidies.

2. It Creates A Back Door Mandate. The Republican plan gets rid of the overt Obamacare mandate. But it does allow insurance companies to charge an elevated 30% fine for those whose insurance lapses for more than two months at any point in the last 12 months. This means that you’re essentially fined in the future for not buying insurance now. Which has nothing to do with the Constitutional role of government.

3. It Creates Individual Healthcare Subsidies. The problem is that this back door mandate isn’t enough. What about people who are high risk or have pre-existing conditions, but haven’t bought insurance? We have to give them money to buy health insurance. Which is what the bill does: it includes an advanceable, refundable tax credit based on age. This is effectively a subsidy, since the tax credits apply to people who don’t pay much in taxes, just as the Earned Income Tax Credit is actually a giveaway to people who don’t pay taxes.

4. It Subsidizes Medicaid. The Obamacare boondoggle was sold by allowing the federal government to pick up the tab for Medicaid expansion in the states. This bill would allow the feds to cover Obamacare Medicaid expansion for three years – and there’s no way a future Congress will actually cut these subsidies, fearing political backlash. This is like every other long-promised sunsetted spending program: it’s not going anywhere.

5. It Subsidizes High-Risk Pools On The State Level. The bill sends $100 billion to states over the next ten years to help cover those who are high risk and can’t afford insurance. This, of course, won’t be nearly enough – it incentivizes the state to sign people up, then look to the federal government for more cash.

Enter the junior Senator from Kentucky. He came in for some titters over the stunt last week in which he brought a copy machine to the room where this bill was being crafted, but he felt the need to dramatize his point. And now he sees that it's time for more concrete measures, and enlisting like minds among his colleagues to join him in taking them:

He has joined with Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, along with the House Freedom Caucus in insisting on full repeal of Obamacare's spending, mandates and taxes, instead of the partial repeal the GOP is pursuing, which critics say would leave the country with "Obamacare-lite."

The senator and Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., have introduced their own Obamacare replacement plan, which goes further than the one backed by House Republican leaders and does not rely on refundable tax credits to help people buy health insurance. The bill does contain tax credits to bolster expanded health savings accounts.

A commenter underneath this linked James W. Antle article at the Washington Examiner points out a further stroke of brilliance in Paul's proposal:

The pre-exitsting conditions argument for the ACA becomes a Democrat canard when confronted with Rand Paul's solution allowing anyone and everyone join an association to get group health care that allows them to receive group coverage at the corresponding discounts and ability to switch providers as may be negotiated by their group. No one in a good coverage plan has pre-existing conditions issues except those that unfortunately have to get an individual COBRA plan. Totally brilliant solution by Rand Paul. His expertise as a doctor becomes quite clear and must be explloited to the max.

The only thing I want to hear from any Republican who is uncomfortable with the Rand Paul approach is an attempt at refutation on its merits, not some "pragmatism" crud about what it's possible to get 51 votes with. We've have eight years of such excuses. If this is a good plan - and it is superior to the one Ryan is touting - then sell it with conviction and passion.

This is freedom we're talking about.