Thorner/Ingold: Chicago mayor, Illinois officials demand more climate hysterics

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold – 

On Thursday, June 1, 2017, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, negotiated by President Obama and 195 countries in Dec. 2015, which elicited howls of protests from the likes of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel and others eviscerated Trump for refusing to honor Obama’s commitment, a treaty which Obama declined to submit to the Senate for ratification.

In the Rose Garden announcement, the president made this remark:

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.  Withdrawing represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.”

What exactly does the agreement entail that would infringe on the ability of this nation to grow its economy and create jobs?

Under the agreement, the United States was required to cut its carbon-dioxide emissions 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and provide billions of dollars in funding to the United Nations’ Green climate Fund.  A NERA Economic report showed that meeting the carbon-dioxide targets imposed on the United States would force the premature closing of many of the nation’s least-expensive power plants, would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion, and by 2040, the United States would have lost 6.5 million industrial-sector jobs, including 3.1 million manufacturing jobs.

Push Back Against Trump’s Withdrawal

It took only a day for a California-led alliance of dozens of corporations, states and cities across the country to respond to Trump’s attack on the worldwide agreement. Banding together, a loose coalition has been formed, whose intent is to try and meet US greenhouse gas emission targets set by the pact without Washington, D.C.

Three hundred and thirty-one U.S. Mayors, including Chicago’s own Mayor Rahm Emanuel, agreed to intensify efforts to meet each of our cities’ current climate goals, push for new action to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, and work together to create a 21st century clean energy economy. As quoted in the article:

We will continue to lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks. We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean energy economy, and stand for environmental justice.  And if the President wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic Paris Agreement, we’ll build and strengthen relationships around the world to protect the planet from devastating climate risks.  The world cannot wait — and neither will we.

A week later, Friday, June 9, Illinois Democrat constitutional officers — State Treasurer Mike Frerichs and other top elected officials — joined with radical environmentalists to demand that Governor Rauner join the California-led Climate Alliance. The letter, in part, read (no Republican signed on):

“As governor, your decisions affect life within our borders and in the world at large, and many people throughout our state are looking for your leadership on this issue. To date, we have not heard your stand on this issue.  We encourage you to join your peers from California, New York and Washington and lead in combating global warming, drought, stronger storms and other catastrophes that would decimate Illinois’ economy from Southern and Central Illinois farms to Chicago’s lakefront.”

Paris Climate Accord Sets Unreachable Targets

It will be a heavy lift. States and cities would need to meet a pledge to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, America’s self-declared target under the Paris Accord deal. Even with these efforts, the estimated effect on global temperature, by the year 2100, is about 0.2 degrees Celsius.

Illinois produces only about one-third of the energy it consumes, including petroleum, coal, natural gas and electricity. The rest is imported from a few states like North Dakota and Texas, which produce more than they consume. Implementation of Illinois’ version of the Paris Accord will cost jobs and cause businesses to flee to adjoining states and southern states who value jobs over ideology.  Those remaining will be increasingly forced to move to large urban areas, like Chicago, to reduce cost.  People will have to follow, because transportation will be crippled and road construction will be greatly reduced.  Housing prices will tumble even more than they already have, as more people move out or to the city and in from other states.

Democrats and environmentalists that insist that the entire state of Illinois should adhere to the Paris Accord goals, by their extremist beliefs, only assure that Illinoisans will become economically trapped, unable to flee higher taxes, and confronted with more regulations and lower wages. That leaves Mike Madigan and others who control Illinois free to further pursue Illinois’ trajectory of debt and self-destruction.  In that the most fundamental freedom of all is the ability to vote with your feet, that right is always the first to go under a despotic government.

For many years coal was the second largest electricity provider in Illinois, with ample coal reserves in Southern Illinois, but as a fossil fuel which emits CO2, coal is now the whipping boy of the environments and those who believes that renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels.  In 2016, coal provided less than one-third of new power generation.

Wind power and sun as substitutes for coal or nuclear power? 

The sun doesn’t shine at night (and in Illinois, not every day either). The wind is unreliable too. In traveling thorough the windmill belt in Illinois and Indiana, many times the windmills are idle. That’s why ComEd wanted a peak usage fee to make up for their losses as backup to the whims of nature.

A windmill generator produces 2.5 to 3 MW and needs needs 8 mph to operate and must be shut off above 25mps because they vibrate too much. A small nuclear reactor produces 1000 MW.  It would take at least 330 windmills to replace one nuclear plant.  As windmills must be spaced 7 diameters apart, or 2100 feet, we wouldn’t cover the state, but we wouldn’t need to go far to spot a windmill.  Should windmills be the means to supply Illinois with the amount of electricity consumed in a year — 14,712 thousand MWh or 1697 MW — it would require at least 567 windmills, running 24/7 and producing 3 MW each.

According to State Profile and Energy Estimates, Illinois was sixth in the nation in terms of installed wind capacity in 2016, with more than 4,000 megawatts on-line. Solar power provided less than 0.1% of the state’s net electricity generation.   A study by the IER (Institute for Energy Research), which notes the status of renewable Energy in all states, indicates that Illinois is not on track to meet its mandate of 25% from renewables by 2025, mandated by a state bill signed by Governor Rauner in December of 2016.

Meanwhile, Illinois leads the nation in electricity generation from nuclear power. About half of all net electricity generation in Illinois is produced by the state’s six nuclear power plants with their eleven reactors.  Because of economic issues in the electricity market, two stations were scheduled to close in 2017 and 2018, but the Illinois legislature in late 2016 approved measures to keep the stations operating another decade. As a typical nuclear plant is 800-1000 MW. Closing two nuclear plants would have placed Illinois at the breakeven point or with a net deficit for electricity.

Renewable are Costly

Electricity prices are already nearly 40 percent higher in States with renewable electricity mandates. Illinois ranks 21st in the cost of electricity.  The idea that the U.S. economy can be run solely with renewable energy — a claim that leftist politicians, environmentalists, and climate activists have endlessly promoted — has always been a fool’s errand.

This report by the Center for Data Analysis (CDA) provides a comprehensive economic analysis of what a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), if imposed at the federal level, would really cost Americans:

• Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry;
• Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
• Cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four;
• Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and
• Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.

Should Illinoisans tolerate the defiance exhibited here in Illinois to follow the dictates of the economic disastrous Paris Climate accord, given the near junk bond status of the state, and when the accord has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with punishing the US for being too industrial, too successful, too Western, and a host of other supposed evils that cause leftists to become unhinged?

This comment by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director at the Heartland Institute, sums up the situation:

Everything Illinois does to cut emissions will simply punish its citizens with no benefits whatever. It is just plain stupidity, which the Left embraces, as it will help bring capitalism states and cities to their knees. Let them do so, and maybe one day Illinois voters will get wise.

Rauner must ignore Illinois’ “Dumbocrats” who are intent on imposing Chicken Little nonsense on the citizens of Illinois, as it’s a recipe for disaster.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

Tags: environmentalism, Illinois Review, Rahm Emanuel

Thorner: Do Billionaires Control Political Parties on Both Sides of the Aisle?

By Nancy Thorner –

Is it right for billionaires, whether Democrats or Republicans, to have so much clout and influence over individuals and organizations within their respective political parties?

The Koch Brothers come to mind as big donors for Republican and Libertarian organizations and individuals, while Soros and the 200 organizations he funds are part of a force which is dead set on trying to destroy the Trump presidency.  But are the Koch Brothers really guilty of debasing the political system?   In accessing the situation, it all depends on which side of an issue an individual supports in any given situation.

Accusations of Debasing Political System

Jane Mayer is a writer for New Yorker magazine who specializes in long-form investigative journalism.  In her book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Mayer sets out to build a case that U.S. democracy has been systematically undermined by a small group of extremely wealthy men who are driven by greed and self-interest, effectively subjecting politics to corporate capture.

Central to Mayer’s examination are the lives and careers of Charles and David Koch, who Mayer claims are debasing the political system with the scale and scope of their influence by pushing their political agenda. Mayer described how Charles Koch, even more so than his brother, David Koch, as an ideological who  believe in some of the most hard-line libertarian philosophy that you can come across in American politics. further claiming that who wants the Republican Party to go where he is.

By inferring that the Koch Brothers are alone responsible for debasing the political system, Mayer’s book can rightly be construed as a partisan, political hack job.  After all, it was billionaire, Socialist George Soros on the Left who orchestrated the election of President Obama and then proceeded to advance his policies through his front groups.

In her book, Mayer points out that the Koch Brothers have been playing a very long game.  It started four decades ago with a plan to change how America thinks and votes. So while some elections they win and some elections they lose, what they’re aiming at is changing the conversation in the country.

Mayer’s narrative starts with Fred Koch, the family patriarch. Continue reading the main story

As to the influence of the Koch Brother’s network — the same is true on the Left — Mayer described it accordingly:

It goes through a network of groups, organizations, mostly nonprofit groups.  But it encompasses both charitable groups and more political groups. The charitable groups create position papers. The political groups mobilize voters and advocate for positions. And the even more political groups back candidates. And so the largest of these groups is something called Americans for Prosperity, which is the Kochs’ main political advocacy group now. And by now, it’s become a rival power center to the Republican Party in size.

It’s a full-service operation. It’s a pipeline that runs from universities and colleges, where they recruit kids. They’ve got programs now in somewhere between 200 and 300 universities and colleges. It goes from there to state think tanks in every state in America. It’s Koch Industries itself, which is a tremendous company with $115 billion of revenues which lobbies members of Congress to push its point of view. And then it’s all these dark money organizations. So they all kind of working in concert and create a phenomenal machine.

Top priorities of Koch Brothers

1.  Push the Convention of States (Article V ConCon).

2.  Oppose global warming legislation and regulations.

3.  Support “dark money” (secret financing, without limits, of organizations to influence policy and elections).

4.  Support criminal justice “reform” (reduced sentences and greater employability as low-wage workers).

5.  Oppose pro-life and much of social conservatism, but behind-the scenes.

6.  Support globalism and more immigration of low-wage workers (from which the Koch Industries profits).

7.  Vehemently oppose increasing the minimum wage.

Given the results of the November, 2016 election, it is evident that the influence of the Koch Brothers and their well-orchestrated resistance against Trump failed.  Charles Koch, in speaking to donors who give more than $100,000 a year to political and policy groups backed by the Koch Brothers, warned that the US was facing a moment of “tremendous danger” without any mention of Mr Trump by name.  This statement was made by the Koch brothers’ top lawyer in speaking for them, ‘If we can’t get comfortable with the policies that are in place, then we’re not going to support them.”  There was opposition to Trump’s travel bans.  Also questioned was Trump’s skepticism of free-trade policies.

Koch Involvement in Trump’s Tax Plan

But what could be interpreted as a reversal by Charles Koch and major financial support for President Trump was reported in USA Today on May 18, 2017.   The report indicated that Charles Koch is launching a multimillion-dollar campaign to drive Trump’s tax plan through Congress.   A top official in Koch’s Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, James Davis, although he would not disclose the specific amount, said the campaign, expected to last into the fall, would include advertising and mobilizing grassroots activists.

On the other hand, the Koch brothers were at odds over the March, 2017, U.S. House healthcare reform bill.  While Trump and House leaders rounded up support for the bill ahead of the vote (the bill was pulled on March 24), groups threatened retaliation against those who did support the bill as not being conservative enough. Groups included the Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation’s political arm, and Americans for Prosperity.  Of note is that all three organizations are part of the expansive political pressure network established by the Koch brothers.  The Koch Brothers are major donors to The Heritage Foundation.

Koch Brothers and ConCon 

Of all the many activities and causes that the billionaire Koch Brothers are influencing through their money, an orchestrated push for the Convention of States (Article ConCon) heads all else. The Koch network is the vast array of organizations that are under the control or influence of the Koch Brothers.

KochPAC is the political action committee funded by the Koch brothers, Charles and David, which contributes money to state legislators who support the ConCon.  KochPAC donated heavily to Texas state candidates for the 2016 election, so much so that the media called Texas the “Koch Star State” rather than the “Lone Star State.”

The American people have never exercised their legally enshrined right to convene a new Constitutional convention, despite an effort started in 2010 to convene a new one.  Although proponents of a Constitutional convention call the effort a success, pro-business groups with ties to the Koch brothers, having pushed Constitutional convention (ConCon) legislation in more than 30 states, have only convinced 12 states to enact bills calling for a convention (Missouri has a sunset provision) that would create a more overbearing federal.

According to Article V of the Constitution, just two thirds (34) of the 50 state legislatures need to call for a convention for the purposes of “proposing constitutional amendments” (no governor’s signature is required). Those amendments would then need to be ratified by three quarters of the states, currently 38, to become law. But beyond those very basic requirements, nobody knows what the rules for a convention would be, since one hasn’t occurred since the original in 1787. That single instance, Constitutional law experts warn, provides a harrowing precedent: Delegates tore up the Articles of Confederation they had convened to improve, and produced a whole new governing document.

Proponents of ConCon say that Congress is incapable of reining in a nearly $20 trillion national debt; opponents believe that the Article V convention would create taxpayer-funded abortion, eliminate the Second Amendment, eliminate the Electoral College, and advance globalist goals such as repealing the Treaty Clause that requires 2/3rds consent by the Senate.

DeMint Joins Push for Article V Convention (ConCon)

One of the two main groups pushing an Article V convention is the Convention of States, a project by Citizens for Self-Government, a nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors, but has a variety of connections to David and Charles Koch.

The Convention of the States was co-founded by Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots (aligned with the pro-Constitutional movement), and is chaired by Eric O’Keefe, veteran political operative and longtime Koch brothers ally who worked on David Koch’s 1980 presidential campaign, chaired the now-defunct Sam Adams Alliance, which trained tea party activists, co-founded the Campaign for Primary Accountability, a super PAC that supported primary challenges to incumbent lawmakers of both parties, and directs the Wisconsin Club For Growth.

Announced on Monday, June 19, is that former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, who was one of the first elected officials to embrace the Tea Party movement and was recently ousted as the head of the Heritage Foundation, had joined the Convention of the States.  DeMint was making millions as president of Heritage until a secretly arranged takeover forced him out and gave him a generous severance package.  Part of his severance package may have required him to promote ConCon, or he may have simply signed up with COS afterwards to make more big money.  Either way, DeMint’s alignment with ConCon, and that of Mark Meckler who co-founded the Tea Party Patriots, is a sell-out of the conservative movement, the Tea Party, and our country.

Constitutional Convention (Con Con) as a Threat

David Super, a law professor at Georgetown Law, told IBT that Con Con is a very real threat.  Super warned how there is nothing in the Constitution that provides for a limited purpose convention.  Instead, there is precedent, as convention proponents have argued, that suggests officials selected by the states become federal officials once they take office, and can’t be recalled by the states if they deviate from their stated objective, as convention proponents have argued. Additionally, the Supreme Court has largely established that it rules within the confines of the Constitution, so a convention would be outside of its jurisdiction.  A convention could therefore be subject to a flood of special interest money, with no rule stating that the Constitution would have to be open to the public.

But is the requirement a meaningful one that 38 states ratify the proposed amendments?  If an Article V convention is convened, then states will automatically ratify whatever it produces, just as many state legislatures passed the 17th Amendment unanimously due to the media pressure.

It has been argued that pushing for a ConCon would have a positive effect on Congress, such as when a call was made in the 1970s and ’80s for a convention to enact a balanced budget amendment, which was then credited with spurring Congress to act to reduce the deficit.  To the contrary, Congress did not balance the budget.  It benefited from the “dot com” economic boom in the late 1990’s but did nothing meaningful to cut spending and balance the budget, despite how close ConCon came to passing in the 1980s.

In regard to the billionaire Koch Brothers and others who are pushing for ConCon, are they not confident that Trump will react in a similar way by taking measures to reduce the deficit, or might there be personal motives, such as re-writing the Constitution in ways that benefit their interests?

One thing is for sure, our Constitution should not be for sale.

 

Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

Tags: George Soros, Koch Brothers, money bags

Comments

Thorner: Higher Property Taxes, Lower Home Values and Increased School Spending Plague Illinoisans

By Nancy Thorner –

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Illinois averaged more than 40,000 permits for new single-family houses per year prior to the so-called Great Recession. Compare that to 2016 when Illinois issued just over 10,000 single-family houses permits. The 75% drop observed is the worst in the nation.

But why are other states doing better? Consider Iowa, where teachers don’t have the out-of-control retirement plans provided to teachers in Illinois. Further, Illinois is experiencing one of the largest population losses in the nation. It remains suspect to build more housing in areas facing a declining population.

Property taxes, however, remain the biggest detriment to homebuilding in Illinois. With some of the highest property taxes in the nation, homebuilders are shackled by this burden along with other taxes and fees levied on construction until the property is sold.

All these issues were the focus of Heartland Institute’s recent forum, Why Illinois is the Worst Place to Own a Home. The evening’s presentation featured radio talk show host Dan Proft, who focused his comments around out-of-control government spending and exceedingly high property taxes that plague counties throughout Illinois.

As an aside:

An article posted at Illinois Review on June 14, 2017, explains why a tax plan announced by Republican state lawmakers calling on a four year freeze to property taxes to coincide with the four-year income tax hike. Yet, additional taxation is a bad solution to the Illinois’ budget crisis. The plan was presented by Republicans as the latest and best chance to reach bipartisan consensus in the near future. However, freezing property taxes would create a property tax “freeze” time bomb in a few ways.

• The plan freezes property taxes for four years to coincide with the four-year income tax hike.

• The Republicans’ plan will fail to help struggling homeowners. Illinoisans shouldn’t have to pay billions of dollars of extra income tax just to get a freeze on the highest property taxes in the nation.

• And the freeze isn’t absolute. Local debt service payments are exempted from the freeze, meaning homeowners’ taxes could still rise.

Three areas of Illinois in regard to Property Taxes 

1. South Side homeowners are suffocated by property taxes:

Back in 1961, duplex units at Pacesetter Gardens advertised a “town and country location” just 23 minutes from the Loop. The community had a “Cabana Club” complete with a recreation center, a “big, L-shaped outdoor swimming pool,” a snack bar and a bath house. The units started at $19,000 ($150,613 inflation-adjusted) as of 2015. By 2015, the median home price in Riverdale was just $51,800, a third of what it was 54 years ago and down 62 percent from 2007 ($137,172 inflation-adjusted). Local Government Information Services, a newspaper chain Proft co-founded, reports Riverdale’s effective property tax rate (ETR) in 2015 was 7.61 percent, for a median bill of $3,942, the second-worst of fifty south suburbs.

Rich Township High School District 227 raised spending three percent from 2007 to 2015. That’s while operating three high schools at less than half of their capacity all while student enrollment in the district has fallen steadily– more than 17 percent in the last four years alone. During these spending increases, home prices continued to fall.

2. Homeowner equity in DuPage County is eroding quickly even as property taxes soar:

In January 2007, the average Willowbrook home was worth $305,000. Eight years later in January 2015, values are at just $182,000. That’s a fall of 48 percent in real, inflation-adjusted, dollars. Willowbrook happens to be the worst of 29 communities in DuPage County.

Driven by surging local government spending and massive municipal debts, homeowner equity in DuPage County is eroding quickly even as property taxes soar. The net result: property taxes are pressured higher and higher, and property values lower and lower.

Hinsdale home prices fell 25 percent from 2007 to 2015. But over the same period, Hinsdale School District 181 raised its local property tax levy by 20 percent, to $65.23 million. It spent $17,217 per student in 2015 — up from $12,924 in 2007 ($14,733 inflation-adjusted).

Elmhurst home prices also fell 25 percent. But Elmhurst District 205 kept spending, raising its bill to Elmhurst property taxpayers to a record $111.4 million, up 15 percent over the same period.

3. Soaring taxes are having a major impact on Lake County property values:

Cross Lake, 89 acres in size, straddles the Illinois-Wisconsin border has been greatly effected by soaring taxes. It’s western shore spans two adjacent communities, Antioch, Illinois and Trevor, Wisconsin, where a continuous development of modest lakefront homes makes the state line essentially indistinguishable.

Whether in Illinois or Wisconsin, the homes on Cross Lake look no different; however, in Trevor, a 1,368 square-foot two bedroom, two bath sold in fall 2015 for $255,000. Seven docks, or a three-minute walk south across the state line, a 2,400-square-foot, three-bedroom, three-bath at 143 Lakewood in Antioch sold last spring for $225,000.

Why would a home 75 percent larger with more bedrooms and bathrooms sell for $30,000 less? It is because of property taxes. The Wisconsin home is valued higher because its tax bill is so much lower. At $3,202 per year, it’s about half what their Illinois neighbor pays— $6,211 per year— just across the state line.

Every Lake County community saw its home values fall significantly all while rising property taxes compounded the pain.

The rise was driven, in large part, by steady increases in local school district spending, which make up 70 percent of a typical property tax bill. While Lake Forest homeowners saw their property values fall 23 percent, Lake Forest’s Roundout School District 72 increased spending by 29 percent over the same period when adjusted for inflation. Mundelein School District 120 raised spending 17 percent while Mundelein homeowners saw their home prices fall an average of 32 percent. Libertyville District 70 raised spending 15 percent while its homeowners saw their home values fall 23 percent.

In 2015, effective property tax rates in 41 of 43 Lake County communities were higher than 2.45 percent. An effective property tax rate is calculated by dividing what one pays annually in property taxes by their home’s value. The average rate in Lake County is 3.3 percent, twice the national average (1.31 percent) and more than three times the average rate in neighboring Indiana (0.88 percent). In 20 Lake County communities, it was higher than 4 percent.

If home prices fall at the same pace, homeowners in 14 Lake County communities will have paid more than their home’s full value in property taxes over the previous 16 years of ownership.

Proposed Reform Through Referendum

Proft believes that Illinoisans are ready for reform, that a revolt is real, and it only has to be stoked. Mirroring Indiana, Proft wants to impose a 1% hard cap on property taxes as a percentage of home value until a capital event such as home improvement or the home is sold. A home owner’s defense association will be formed to inform homeowners of their property tax situation.

There are also plans to place an advisory referendum ballot question on the 2018 election ballot so Illinoisans can come out to express their views. Unlike what has happened in other states where revolts have taken place, Illinois has failed to elect conservative reform leaders in Springfield to reign in the spending.

Youtube video of Dan Proft’s comments:  “Why Illinois is the Worst State to Own a Home”

 

Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

Tags: Dan Proft, Illinois, Illinois Review, property taxes

Thorner/Ingold: A Pound of Prevention

.

​

By Nancy Thorner & Edward Ingold – 

The shooting incident in the Virginia ball park was barely over before politicians began crying for gun control. Governor McAuliffe of Virginia claimed that 93 million Americans are subjects of gun violence each day. He did correct this to say 93 Americans, which includes suicides (50%) with the balance mainly gang violence in large Democratic cities. However this mistake illustrates the casual regard anti-gun activists have for facts, causes and solutions. “Too many guns”, says McAuliffe, “Too easy to get without background checks.”

The shooter in Virginia came from Illinois, which has among the most strict gun controls. He possessed a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID), needed to possess or purchase firearms or ammunition. The guns were purchased legally, which would require a Federally-mandated background check. These requirements don’t seem to have any effect on gang members, so perhaps things need to be made more illegal. For criminals, guns are tools of their trade. No matter how many ordinary citizens are denied their right to “Keep and bear [carry] arms,” criminals will find a way.

The problem with anti-gun solutions is that their proposals affect many law-abiding citizens with little or no effect on criminals. In other words, a perversion of the slogan, “A Pound of Prevention for an Ounce of Cure.” How often do we hear “It’s for the children,” or “If this measure saves one life …” Children certainly do need to be saved, but most often from abusive or reckless parents, which account for the overwhelming majority of firearm incidents.

Since Cain and Abel, there have always been bad people who would inflict violence on others. Well into the 19th century, travelers in Europe and England were advised to travel in groups under arms. Members of Congress are proposing to grant themselves the right to carry concealed weapons, while ordinary citizens of Washington DC are denied the right to defend themselves in one of the most violent cities in the United States. In Chicago, a handful of robberies occur each week in the holiest part of the Loop, Millennium Park. On Wacker Drive yesterday, a motorist with a legal carry permit shot at (and missed) two assailants who tried to rob him while waiting in traffic.

Solutions to Gun Violence?

One solution is more guns in the hands of good people. Since a Federal court decision in 2013, Illinois residents have the right to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. Over 200,000 have availed themselves of this right. Illinois criminals have only about one chance in fifty of accosting an armed victim. With 30,000 armed robberies each year in Chicago, one would expect nearly 500 would be thwarted with a legal gun. Most, however, go unreported unless someone is killed or injured. While the courts have issued a similar decree against Washington DC, that city has issued no permits, in defiance of the courts. Congress is once again considering a measure which would require states recognize concealed weapon permits issued by other states, much as they must now recognize drivers’ licenses and marriage. Things are looking up.

In the Virginia ball park, only two law enforcement officers were on hand to confront the gunman in a timely fashion. Facing an high powered rifle with handguns is not a good situation, yet that’s what they did. In a situation like this, the gunman will forget his intended victims and devote his undivided attention to the people shooting at him. That probably saved the lives of up to 25 Congressmen until help arrived in force, after three and a half long minutes.

Another solution is to arm police guarding events or patrolling the streets with rifles, for example scary black semi-automatic rifles. Psychologically, these weapons leave no doubt who is in charge. On a tactical level, a rifle multiplies the effectiveness of that officer at least fourfold. He is a match for an assailant with a rifle, or any other weapon at much longer distances. The effective range of a handgun is only about 10 yards under combat conditions, whereas a rifle is effective to 200 yard or more. A man with a gun, knife, axe or machete is deadly to unarmed citizens, and it may not be possible to get within 10 yards in time to save them, or risk shooting bystanders along with the assailant. A trained rifleman can put three rounds inside a 4” target at 200 yards in under two seconds. (An expert can do much better). When the chips are down, that means one less criminal with far less danger to his victims than pistol fire.

Who’s to blame for the violence?

Former DC US Attorney, Joe DiGenova, expressed his anger on the Laura Ingraham radio show, where he called out  Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Maxine Waters for directly inciting Sanders campaign volunteer James Hodgkinson to attempt the murder of Majority Whip Steve Scalise and many others on June 14 at the GOP charity baseball practice.  DiGenova declared that they had blood on their hands.  Evidence collected after the shooting shows that Hodgkinson was a fanboy of every Democrat talking point that implicitly called for violence against Donald Trump and Republicans.

Democrats appear to sanction, if not endorse the violent counter-protests at Trump rallies and against Trump supporters. They also sanction Black Lives Matter protests, which disrupt business and travel, often accompanied by violence and vandalism, and threats against the police, The Freedom of Speech is the freedom to voice your opinion, not to silence or intimidate others.

In a subscription article shared by California writer and author, Burt Prelutsky, on Saturday, June 18, 2017, BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID, Mr. Prelutsky included these astute remarks about shooter Hodgkinson that are laced with Burt’s uncanny ability to combine noteworthy political commentary with doses of wit.   Mr. Prelutsky speaks of 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, IL, as one who clearly belonged in Bellevue:

Although Hodgkinson was an avid supporter of Bernie Sanders, a cuckoo in his own right, Sanders isn’t responsible for Hodgkinson using Republican congressmen and their aides for target practice.  If I were to blame anyone aside from Hodgkinson, it would be Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Al Green, Rep. Maxine Waters, and their lap dogs in the media who have conspired to make it appear that Adolf Hitler has come out of hiding and taken up residence in the White House.

And, after all, which of us has not at some time fantasized using a time machine to transport us back to the late 20s or early 30s and assassinating Der Fuhrer before he could launch the events leading to the deaths of 70 million people?

For months, the leftist rabble has devoted all its time to demonizing President Trump over his alleged ties to Vladimir Putin, ties that have been concocted out of whole cloth in order to rationalize Hillary’s loss and to bring down the duly-elected president.  The Democrats in Congress and their lap dogs in the media should be ashamed of themselves, but shame, along with honesty and integrity, are alien to their nature.

In addition to all that, I’m willing to wager that despite their calls for Trump’s impeachment, dullards such as Maxine Waters and Al Green couldn’t find Russia on a map.

Talk of bi-partisanship in Congress a pipedream?

Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., received a standing ovation following remarks that emphasized a connection between the two parties that prevails despite the frequent and intense partisan bickering.

“For all the noise and fury, we are a family,” Ryan said. “These were our brothers and sisters in the line of fire.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., praised Ryan’s speech and added, “We will use this occasion as one that brings us together and not separates us further.”

It took only one day for Nancy Pelosi to change her tune to suggest that Fox News was partly to blame for “a lot of the vitriol and invective” in politics, noting that a man who was arrested for threatening her years ago had been, according to the man’s mother, an avid Fox News viewer.  Pelosi also claimed that partisanship began escalating in the 1990’s, instigated by the GOP who relentlessly investigated President Clinton and eventually impeached him.  The most liberal of Democrats suggested that the divisive mood was recently escalated thanks to Trump when he flung crude insults at the media, Democrats, and member of his own party.

In this divided nation where President Trump is being challenged and confronted daily by those who will do and say anything to have him removed from office, there is a good chance that things will get worse before they get better, which is essential if this nation is to survive what would qualify as a treasonous act in another era — subversion of government with the removal of a duly elected president through nefarious means.

 

Monday, June 19, 2017 at 09:10 AM | Permalink

Thorner & Ingold: What about those Trump tapes? Much ado about nothing

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold –

Did President Trump record his meetings with Director Comey, or did he not? That is the question burning in the minds of Democrats. More important, it had a profound effect on Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Comey’s testimony was honest, if not perfectly forthright.

• He confirmed that he had told Trump, on three separate occasions, that the President was not under investigation. This is in direct conflict with statements leaked to the New York Times, possibly by Comey or one of his close associates prior to the committee hearing.

• He admitted to deliberately leaking his recollections of those conversations to a friend, who in turn, leaked it to the NYT

• He declared his reason for leaking the information was to create a demand for a special counselor to investigate Russian involvement in the election

• He threw in tidbits which demonstrated that AG Loretta Lynch had directly obstructed the FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s email and handling of classified information.

• He affirmatively denied that anyone attempted to obstruct the investigation.

Evaluating Comey’s Testimony and Integrity

How do we know other effects on Comey’s testimony? What would he have said had the threat of an audio recording not been present? Listen to the way he answered most of the questions, “I think,” “My impression was,” I felt,” and notably, “I could be wrong.” These are weasel words (aka, legalese) which make the point he wished to project, but difficult to prosecute if found to be wrong. Had there been no threat of independent evidence, Comey would probably have answered affirmatively.

Brit Hume of Fox News described Comey’s testimony as a few facts interspersed amid a stream of innuendoes which serve as “click bait” — term used in the Internet universe to describe a salacious headline to grab your attention —  for Democrats, without any real substance to back them up. The term should be part of the Republicans’ talking points, mentioned at every opportunity and derided for what they are and the fools who seize on them.

Concerning the honesty and integrity of James Comey, a State of the Nation post on May 18, 2017, The Inside Story on James B. Comey, describes how Comey has functioned as a Clinton (and Obama administration) fixer while becoming fabulously wealthy as he went in and out of private enterprise and government “service.” He also covered up/refused to investigate other government embarrassments for the Bushes.

Interesting is the reported reason for the timing of Comey’s firing. Trump had to have him out of town so that computers, records could be seized before he could have them destroyed.  Every move had to be carefully orchestrated so that no leakers could warn Comey.

Leaks Decry Loyalty

In the past, notably in Senate testimony days before being fired, Comey declined to answer the question whether Trump was under investigation. This, in effect, seemed to confirm the President was under investigation. That is most likely the “cloud” to which the President referred.

There have also been a long series of leaks which the liberal press and Democrats have spun to make the President look bad or foolish. “Loyalty”, under these circumstances, could consist of a pledge to quash leaks and investigate their source and not work against the President’s policies behind his back. The President said, and Comey confirmed before the Senate committee, that Trump encouraged Comey to investigate possible collusion with the Russians (or other foreign powers) by campaign workers and staff.

It probably doesn’t matter, at this point, whether the recordings are real. They have served their purpose, to keep Comey truthful. No amount of denial or proof to the contrary after the fact would ever erase the impact of false testimony. Of course, Democrats will never accept that they never existed. It must be a cover-up, interference, or destruction of evidence. The Secret Service, who would be involved, has affirmatively denied their existence. What remains to be heard is testimony whether any evidence at all has been gathered to support the Democrats’ claims of collusion. Of the 17 (3, 4, or 22, depending on the source) intelligence agencies, only the FBI has demurred on this question.

Comey stated his intention in leaking information was to create a demand for a special counselor to investigate Russian involvement in the election, his wish was granted with the appointment of  Muller a  special counselor to investigate Russian involvement in the election.

Special Counselor Mueller Ignites Concern

It has been rumored that President Trump was thinking of firing Mueller, which the President has the constitutional authority to demand the Attorney General to do.  There is also growing opposition to Mueller’s appointment among conservatives outside the administration for these reasons:

• Mueller is known to be close friends with former FBI director James Comey, whose credibility he would have to weigh against the president’s if Mueller decided to probe whether Trump committed obstruction of justice by expressing the hope that Comey would be lenient with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

•  Mueller has added a former Clinton Foundation attorney to his investigative team. The attorney, Jeannie Rhee, defended the Clinton Foundation against Freedom of Information Act requests regarding Hillary Clinton’s illicit private email server.

Firing of the special counselor is opposed vehemently by Republican swamp citizens Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Susan Collins (R-ME).  Political quoted Graham as saying, “There’s no reason to fire Mueller. What’s he done to be fired?” The same source quoted Collins as saying that firing Mueller would “certainly be an extraordinarily unwise move.”

Disapproval also came from Speaker Paul Ryan on the special counsel probe of Russia meddling: “Let Robert Mueller do his job.”

The investigation by Congress and potentially by Mueller is no longer about possible Russian meddling in the election. With recent testimony, it is not even about Republican collusion with the Russians. It is about anything Russian and anything related to President Trump and his cabinet. Every phrase uttered is interpreted in the worst possible light.

The Democrats would like to see the Mueller investigation to be prolonged and as wide ranging as that of Archibald Cox in the ‘90s. In that case, Whitewater was quickly cleared, but the investigation focused on a young intern and presidential groupie, Monica Lewinsky.

The Democrats are going after Jeff Sessions in a similar fashion, to the effect “We know he didn’t do anything with the Russians, but he didn’t tell us he wasn’t doing anything when we asked.” By his detractor’s logic, each new fact uncovered reveals two new scandals on either side.

 

Friday, June 16, 2017 at 08:56 AM | Permalink

Tags: Donald Trump, FBI, Illinois Review, James Comey, tapes

Thorner: Heartland speaker warns Millennials to take healthcare and health insurance seriously

By Nancy Thorner – 

At a free forum event at The Heartland Institute headquarters on Wednesday June 7, Charlie Katebi – a fellow in health care reform at the Millennial Policy Center at the Liberty Group in Denver – spoke on the topic of “A Health Care Agenda for Millennials.” Katebi, who also writes for the Federalist, explained how America’s health care system is rigged against Millennials.

Under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), young people face higher costs, fewer choices, and less access than ever before, even though they can stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. This is the result of increased government interference in our health care system.

It is worth noting that prior to introducing Katebi, Heartland’s Government Relations Director John Nothdurft prefaced the event by pointing out how important it is for Heartland to maintain a team dedicated to delivering free-market solutions to lawmakers all over the country.

Charlie Katebi speaks

In speaking about the difficulty of repealing Obamacare, despite it collapsing under its own weight, Charlie Katebi took aim at powerful groups that come out to tell how untold hardship and suffering will occur should Obamacare be repealed. Notable is that these comments are not coming from groups consisting of young people. As such the group Katebi represents (Liberty Group) is trying to give young people a larger voice in the discussion.

About premiums for young people: They are high under Obamacare, because they must cover the cost of older people who are likely to have a number of costly medical problems. These inflated costs discourages young people from buying insurance. Only 1/3 of adults under 30 are insured, and only 2% of millenniums are starting businesses, because they don’t have the money to do so.

Obamacare isn’t the only reason why healthcare is so expensive. According to Katebi, a barrier to healthcare reform is employer provided insurance. 160 million rely on their place of work for health insurance. Benefits are excluded from taxation, making employer provided insurance the 2nd largest entitlement besides Medicare. Often companies offer only one healthcare plan, and many times they pay 80% of the premium.

As noted in a Health Affairs article titled, “Employment-Based Health Insurance: Past, Present, and Future”:

Most employers offer a single carrier; their insurance companies give them incentives to do so or even require it. Because, understandably, people want to be able to choose their doctors, delivery systems that limit patients’ choice of doctor are not suitable candidates for the single-carrier role. Many employers who do offer such alternatives contribute much more (like 80–100 percent of the difference) on behalf of the more costly, usually FFS, alternatives. When employers do this, they do not provide an incentive for employees to choose the economical alternative, and it is not possible for the efficient systems to gain market share by superior efficiency. Employers are reluctant to expose employees to full cost differences in tiered networks. In other words, despite appearances, in most of the employer insurance market, competition over value for money is ruled out.

A somewhat heated argument arose over the discussion of employer-related healthcare by a firm supporter of it, who suggested that employer-related healthcare encouraged employees to stay loyal to a company which then resulted in less turnover. Not so said Katebi. It caused job lock, as it tied people to their work and therefore discouraged people from moving to other jobs offering higher wages. Katebi suggested that a cap be placed on employee-based healthcare, or that this practice be ended entirely. Instead, Katebi said, employees should be offered a tax credit and a health savings account.

Allowing a person to remain in an insurance plan despite a debilitating illness raises insurance costs for everyone. A separate, high risk market pool for these people would help lower insurance costs.   For if young people don’t buy health insurance because it is too expensive, no health care reform plan will succeed. Most importantly, individuals should be able to purchase a healthcare plan in accordance to their need (individualize), with exclusion as a necessary option. Men should not be paying for healthcare that only women need and women for problems encountered only by men. Katebi cited that Obamacare has 78 mandates.

What the new GOP healthcare bill means for employers?

The House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act Thursday, May 4, 2017, which was then sent to the U.S. Senate for debate, amendments, and then a vote.

Here’s what employers need to know about the revamped healthcare plan.

• It gets rid of the employer mandate. The American Health Care Act (AHCA) eliminates the controversial requirement under the ACA that employers provide health insurance to employees. However, this is unlikely to have a significant impact on most organizations, which will continue to offer health benefits to attract and retain top talent.

• It pushes back implementation of the Cadillac tax.

• It gives states greater control over what’s included in health plans.

• It gives states la say in pre-existing-conditions cover.

• It opens up HSA’s by repealing taxes on health savings accounts. Under the House’s GOP plan, individuals can put $6,550, up from $3,400, and families can put $13,100, up from $6,550, into a tax-free HSA.

Senate version of AHCA still uncertain

Senate Republicans are now struggling for consensus as they seek to keep the party’s campaign promise to repeal and replace the ACA, in an atmosphere where there is no Democratic support for the Republican bill.One of the few components of Obamacare that received bipartisan backing and broad support was protection for those with pre-existing condition

In an article published on June 8, 2017, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican leader, told news reporters when addressing the needs of people who already have serious or chronic health conditions, that this is a key priority in negotiations for a Senate bill, although the specific approach has not yet been finalized. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell likewise backs ACA pre-existing illness policy.

Addressing the needs of those with pre-existing conditions could help McConnell attract votes of moderate Republicans including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

A measure that could prove positive to lowering insurance premiums is now under discussion. Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota is helping to draft a measure to create a federal reinsurance pool for people with chronic illnesses, so they won’t be worried about losing affordable coverage because of a pre-existing condition. At the same time, a Reinsurance Pool would help lower premiums for those who remain in the regular insurance market.

Salient points by Charlie Kat

For health insurance to work, it must be perceived that everyone is getting a fair deal and that young people don’t have to pay too much for their health insurance.

Health care is expensive. Someone must pay for it, but no one can define what a person’s fair share should be.

When asked by young people whether healthcare is a right, Katebi tells them that your right doesn’t matter as long as those who need healthcare get it.When a Heartland guest made the observation that all roads in the healthcare debate seem to lead to a Single Payer System, Katebi gave this grim outlook: If a Single Payer System ever came to fruition, Death Panels would be a necessary component of it.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 09:00 AM |Permalink

Tags: health care insurance, Illinois Review

Joseph A. Morris/Thorner: Which President Colluded with Russia?

By Joseph A. Morris and Nancy Thorner –

Reporters have always been dependent on unnamed sources for their scoops.  That is especially the case in Washington where whistleblowers are afraid that if they come out of the shadows, their corrupt superiors will exact revenge on them.

But, clearly, things have gotten out of hand ever since Donald Trump was inaugurated. Those people are no longer in the business of trying to do the honorable thing for the sake of the nation. Both they and their partisan allies in the media and the corridors of Congress have no other agenda other than to stop Trump in his tracks and thus destroy Trump’s presidency, at a time when Islamic terrorism must be confronted, and health care and tax reform must be addressed in order to grow this economy and create jobs.

In a hugely anticipated congressional hearing that captured the country’s attention (into the broad matter that goes under the mainstream media’s headline of “collusion with Russia”) former FBI Director James Comey asserted on Thursday, June 8, in front of a Congressional committee, that President Donald Trump fired him to interfere with his investigation of Russia’s ties to the Trump campaign, bluntly accusing the White House of spreading “lies, plain and simple.”  Comey also revealed that he’d orchestrated the public release of information about his private conversations with the president in an effort to further the investigation.

No Collusion or Obstruction

When all was said and done, it became obvious that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia; except for:

—  those who, such as the recently-indicted rabid Clinton-supporting Reality Winner, leaked classified information in efforts deliberately intended to injure the United States (or Donald Trump), and

—  those persons, as-yet-unfingered, who (to score political points against Mr. Trump) “unmasked” people, such as General Flynn, whose names turned up in passing in surveillance and other counterintelligence reports.

As an aside, where are the SNL skits about the time when “Reality Winner met Carlos Danger”?  It is reasonable to expect that if, after the divorce from Huma, Anthony married the indicted leaker, she’d be Reality Weiner?  Reality (by which I mean the real reality as opposed to the Hillary-crazed Reality) is often far funnier than the imaginations of Stephen Colbert’s gag-writers.

With almost certainly it can be predicted that the claim Donald Trump and his campaign “colluded” with Russians — whether Russian Presidents, Russian spies, or Russian hackers (hereinafter collectively referred to by the Russian word that embraces and means them all, “Putin”) — to affect the outcome of the 2016 election will find no support in the evidence.  But the lack of evidence won’t stop breathless conjecture, of course; Trump Derangement Syndrome feeds, it seems, on whatever it is that breathless leftists exhale, which certainly isn’t carbon dioxide as that would violate the Paris accords.

What the evidence shows

But the evidence already shows, among other things:

(1)  Julian Assange, Bradley / Chelsea Manning, the Wikileaks crowd, and others fed tons of highly-damaging, life-endangering information to thugs the world over, including the Putin team.

(2)  The Putin team made serious, although seeming unsuccessful, efforts in 2015 and 2016 to hack into the electronic systems of American electoral agencies including the Illinois State Board of Elections (where “hack” traditionally means something altogether different).

(3)  The Chinese government, meanwhile, successfully hacked into, and stole the entire contents of, the databases of the United States Office of Personnel Management.  (That may seem boring, except that they thereby obtained tons of personal identifier, address, background, financial, health insurance, and retirement data on every employee and every retiree of the United States Government — including intelligence personnel, among them clandestine agents such as the Interior Minister of Ikidyounotistan whose actual employment as an American agent would come to light only when it it noted that he has an OPM retirement account and an OPM life insurance policy the benefits of which, alas, will soon have to be paid out to his widow and children once the Chinese have tipped the news to certain Ikidyounotistani gunmen. I write this [Joe A. Morris], mind you, as the former General Counsel of OPM, mindful that this obscure agency, treated by the last administration as an unimportant backwater, is responsible for all oversight of executive branch security and suitability investigations and determinations, and keeps the records on pretty much every non-military employee of Uncle Sam, including the secret ones.)  Is the Chinese government also a Putin subsidiary?  No;  far from it.  But they do collaborate and they do have a common Number One enemy:  the U.S.A.

 Leaking and Hacking on Obama’s watch

Now, the evidence also shows that all this leaking and hacking took place on the watch of one President Barack Obama who, the evidence further shows:

• Failed to protect the U.S. Government’s personnel records against foreign thieves.

• Took no measures to assist American State and local electoral agencies to “harden” their digital systems against Putin’s hacking; heck, he didn’t even warn them.

• Belittled his 2012 challenger, Mitt Romney, for insisting that Russia was a threat — in fact, Mr. Romney asserted, the “greatest threat” — to the United States;   in one of the 2012 debates Mr. Obama descended from Olympus to dismiss Mr. Romney’s concerns about Russia with the sarcastic line, “The 80’s are calling.  They want their foreign policy back.”

• Was caught on a hot mic in March 2012 confiding to Mr. Putin’s stand-in President / Prime Minister / all-purpose puppet, Dimitry Medvedev, that he should tell Vlad, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

• Was not much concerned about the impacts that the Assange, Manning, and other leaks, and the Russian and Chinese hacking were having upon the United States until it became apparent, during the 2016 campaign, that some of the disclosures accurately, if unlawfully, showed Mrs. Clinton, her campaign, and the Democratic Party in very bad lights.

• When leaving office granted clemency to Chelsea Manning, a fabulous parting gift, thus sending a message about the (wink wink) gravity of leaking and hacking against the United States, a message that no one seems to have noticed — except, perhaps, Vladimir Putin and Reality Winner.

Now, given what the evidence on the record already establishes, which President is more likely to be guilty of “colluding” with Russians?

Joseph A. Morris is a Partner in the law firm of Morris & De La Rosa, with offices in Chicago and London. He maintains an active practice conducting trials and appeals in the areas of constitutional, business, labor and international law.

Friday, June 09, 2017 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

Tags: Donald Trump, Illinois Review

Thorner/Ingold: Trump Rejects Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Thorner/Ingold: Trump Rejects Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold –  

President Trump announced on Thursday, June 1, 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord, unilaterally and without reservations.  As stated by President Trump:

It is time to exit the Paris accord and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country … It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, along with many, many other locations within our great country, before Paris, France.

In so doing, President Trump kept his campaign promise to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement, but the fight for withdrawal was a difficult one.  President Trump faced enormous pressure from international leaders, multi-national corporations, the political establishment, and even among his own advisors.Trump’s speech was powerful, to the point, and effective. He invited Democrats to participate, but warned that nothing will change with or without their support.  Should the agreement be renegotiated, it would be as a treaty, with the consent of 2/3rds of the Senate.  Even so, this nation would continue to have the clean air and water, but without the bureaucratic and financial burdens imposed by other nations.  Not mentioned by Trump was this favorable outcome, with increased oil and natural gas production, we can maintain Europe in the event Russia tries to strangle their supplies from the East.

The mitigation efforts specified by the agreement would reduce global warming by less than 0.2 degrees C by 2100, while funneling hundreds of billions of US dollars into the private bank accounts of third world dictators. If allowed to remain in effect, our economy would be held at less than 2% growth, whereas we need 4% to sustain full employment and our social obligations to our own citizens.

It will be hard for Democrats to run for office on the promise that the US will be strangled for a “good cause”, yet California Governor Jerry Brown says that his and 13 other Blue states will continue to abide by the Paris Accord.  Undoubtedly, the residents of these Blue states will experience “blue feelings” not of their own making, as taxpayer money is spent to pay for the “warm feelings” of Gov. Jerry Brown and other Blue state governors.   If “clean” energy is so good, much less sufficient 24/7, why not let it stand or fall on its own merits?

Paris Accord as a Ploy to Impose Socialism

Apologists for the Paris Accord maintain that any effort is better than none; however, the only effects in the US — using the Paris Accord as justification — are the draconian and expensive measures proposed by Obama.  Former President Barack Obama blasted Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris global warming accords (one of Obama’s signature schemes to impose socialism in America) which he characterized as America vacating its leadership role on the world state.  Obama had “agreed” to do things which would cripple this nation’s economy and make us much less competitive on the world market.  On the other hand, China, which also complied with the agreement, agreed to nothing.  Meanwhile, China is in the process of building 350 coal fired power plants, one every two weeks under the current plan.  In central China coal plants spew unfiltered smoke into the air.  On a bad day in Beijing, visibility is about 200 feet.

Completely omitted from bluster from the Left is the money Obama committed the US to pay into a “world account” to benefit third world countries.  Paradoxically, China is among the benefactors, even though its economy will surpass the US in the next year or two.

According to the Left, the US stands in opposition to the rest of the world, but this nation was a rogue nation to begin with. Only half a dozen countries declined the Paris Agreement. This is hardly surprising. The wealthiest nations, other than the US, opted to give much less financial support for what is essentially a “feel-good” agreement. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can expect the complete support of Paul in your endeavors.

United Nation’s IPCC Panel Reports Misleading with Exaggerated and Inaccurate Global Warming Claims 

In the wake of President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, came the predictable howl of protest from the eco-theocracy and those who use environmental concerns as pretexts for the imposition of fascist or socialist government controls on human activity.   Democrat billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer called Trump’s Paris exit a “traitorous act of war.” Tom Steyer, along with General Electric, is heavily invested in wind power, which receives substantial subsidies from federal and state governments (as long as it’s not in the proponent’s back yard).

Democrats, speaking on behalf of the “vast majority of scientists”, were quick to form a chorus of protest and proceeded to read from the same sheet of talking points.  While key figures like Kerry and Pelosi are free to improvise their own “facts”, anyone daring to dispute the key talking points will be shunned and be subject to an attempt made to primary them out of their positions in Congress. Rep. Nancy Pelosi claimed that President Trump was “dishonoring” God and questioned whether his grandchildren will even be able to breathe air after his announcement a day earlier that he would withdraw from the Paris climate accord.

Nations of the world, with Al Gore leading the unsubstantiated claims in this nation, have long been assured to believe that reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed, scientific literature. They support the hypothesis that global warming is real and manmade, while rejecting The Heartland Institute’s reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.

The IPCC scientists largely come from academia, which is so politicized to the left that any dissent is considered disloyalty to the organization.  As a result, violators are subject to verbal and physical attacks and risk losing their jobs.  Supporters, on the other hand, highly vocal with many of them depending on government grants to support their work on climate issues, know that a negative report would end their funding.  In addition, very few of the IPCC scientists have actually published scientific papers in support of their position.

Out of about 13,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications in 2016, only about a dozen were not in support of climate change, and none provided proof that human activity was to blame, rather that change was occurring.

How about coastlines in danger?  For starters, it is exceedingly difficult to establish what the sea level actually is.  It is measured mainly on its relationship to coastlines and traditionally consists of the mean level half-way between high and low tide, averaged over 19 years. Depending on other factors, like salinity, temperature, air pressure and weather, it can vary as much as 5 meters in many locations. The largest effect is weather, particularly storm surges, where the sea level bulges under low pressure areas like hurricanes. While the sea level is one factor, the shorelines themselves are not constant. Nor is the earth’s gravity constant throughout. For simplicity the “surface” of the earth is described in a handful of “geoids of reference” to describe effective sea level. Only recently have measurements from satellites added a higher degree of consistency, subject to variations due to the factors described above.

Are islands in the Pacific sinking?  Absolutely.  A clear example is the state of the Hawaiian Islands, which extends 1800 miles northwest of the 8 large islands constituting the State of Hawaii. Most of this archipelago are very low to the sea, and remnants are under water, due to erosion. They were formed from volcanic activity over a relatively fixed plume of magma in the mantle as the continental plate moved to the northwest at a rate of about 32 miles/mm years. Midway Island falls near the terminus, and consists of a coral atoll, which formed around a volcanic island now eroded until is forms the floor of the lagoon in the atoll. The erosion of islands is illustrated dramatically by the Hawaiian archipelago, but applies to similar islands throughout the world.

Southern California is subsiding, in part by tectonic movements of the Pacific plate, but mostly because of the depletion of water and petroleum in the last century. Another self-proclaimed “victim” of climate change is Miami Beach, which was built on a barrier island of sand, augmented by landfill. While large buildings are anchored in bedrock, streets and small buildings are built on sand. The consequences are somewhat biblical in nature. Washington DC is built on a swamp, only inches above sea level even in Washington’s time. That sort of gives credence to Trump’s pledge to “clear the swamp.”

CO2 a Pollutant Only Because EPA Decided It Was

The thrust of the Paris Accord is the reduction in emission of carbon dioxide, a colorless and mostly odorless gas. It is “pollution” only in the sense that the EPA has decided it can be regulated as such. It does not contribute to “dirty air” nor “dirty water,” for which regulation will continue unabated. Medically speaking, asthma is caused by allergies, not pollution, although pollution can make it harder for people, including asthmatics, to breath.

MIT atmospheric science professor Richard Lindzen suggests that many claims regarding climate change are exaggerated and unnecessarily alarmist and that the belief that CO2 controls the climate “is pretty close to believing in magic.”

The Paris Accord actually does little to mitigate climate change nor carbon dioxide emissions. The standards are non-existent and compliance is strictly voluntary. What is spelled out in more detail are payments extracted from developed countries to undeveloped countries. Domestically, President Obama used the Paris Accord to impose new taxes and regulations by fiat, without Congressional approval. It has been used as a lawful treaty without the necessary approval of 2/3rd’s of the Senate.

Global Warming Alarmists as Worshipers of Mother Earth

Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s former lead global warming scientist, said of the UN Paris Pact:

The Paris agreement is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say:  We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.  It’s just worthless words.  There is no action, just promises.  As long as fossil fuels  appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.

Mark Morano, founder of Climate Deport, spoke of global warming as akin to a religious issue to many global warming alarmists, in that they worship “Mother Earth.”  On the Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler of One America News Network Morano remarked:

What Trump did today was a blow to superstition. No longer in Washington DC do we have to pretend that a UN climate treaty can save the planet or actually control temperature or impact storminess. This truly is a day that science has won out in DC and that is a rare day when it comes to climate change.

One could ask, if compliance is voluntary, what does it matter if the US is in or out? The most plausible answer is that it affects the “legacy” of President Obama, hence the legitimacy of his administration and that of Democrats for the last 8 years. $1.6 trillion dollars and a crippled economy is a big price to pay for a few egos.

Monday, June 05, 2017 at 08:53 AM | Permalink

Tags: climate, energy, Illinois Review, Paris Accord

Thorner: Illinoisans could be forced to abandon reliable telephone landlines

By Nancy Thorner – 

To preserve landlines, Governor Rauner must veto SB 1839. With the passage of SB 1839 into law, Illinois residents and businesses will be stripped of their choice to have landlines.

Who will pay the price for AT&Ts aggressive push to end traditional landline service?

• Seniors
• Businesses
• Working Families
• People with health issues
• Disabled and blind
• Residents of rural areas
• Individuals who want a choice

 

Loss of reliable 911 emergency services

Why is the loss of traditional, reliable landlines a travesty to all residents and businesses? 911 emergency services will not work during a power outage. This is critical for everyone concerned. All phone service available, including AT&T U-verse, requires electricity to operate the equipment. Even cell phones need to be charged, which is not possible during extended power outages.Before the last hurricane in Florida, the Governor was repeating on TV and radio announcements, “Get a landline! Keep and maintain a landline.”

During Hurricane Sandy the only residents that could stay in touch with others were the ones who could use landlines.  All communication devices dependent on electricity were useless. Cell phones could not be charged and computer-based phone lines dependent on a cable modem, would not work without electricity.

Illinois may not get hurricanes, but the state has had its share of floods, tornadoes, and severe thunderstorms that caused power outages.

AARP says, “Recent wireless 911 outages show that telecommunications companies have yet to offer a viable alternative for a significant number of customers. In March, for example, a wireless 911 outage hit AT&T wireless customers in 14 states for about five hours, forcing police departments to urge people to call alternative numbers in an emergency.”

AT&T motive for dismantling copper-wired landlines

AT&T’s reason for aggressively pushing legislation through the General Assembly is to release the corporation from the responsibility for maintaining copper-wired phone lines. AT&Ts agenda: Move customers to computer-based (VoIP) phone services. For the consumer this means using a high speed Internet connection through a cable modem which runs on electricity.

Citizens Utility Board says,  “AT&T, which made $13 billion in profits in 2016, wants the power to end traditional phone service and force customers to use computer-based or wireless substitutes. That could subject those customers to higher bills and unreliable service.”

No reliable alternatives to landline phone services

“AT&T claims that its 1.2 million business and residential landline customers have viable alternatives to traditional service…for many people—including seniors, low-income families and rural residents—home phone service is the most reliable, affordable lifeline to vital services such as 911, home security systems and medical monitoring devices.”

A U. S. Senator leading the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (which has jurisdiction over the FCC) writes to a constituent:

For decades, Americans have counted on the nation’s landline communications network and its reliability. Even in a time of great change in our communications networks, I agree that landline voice service is an important service. In fact, many people do not realize that wireless communications networks themselves rely upon the availability of landline communications networks to function effectively. It is critical that consumers are protected during this technological change and that new networks provide the same level of reliability as our legacy landline infrastructure. 

AT&T’s alternative, computer-based VoIP, does not provide the same level of reliability. U-verse is NOT a viable alternative. 

Professionals and businesses that require secure phone service count on landlines. Law firms, real estate offices, medical facilities, government offices, and financial institutions use landlines because they are cyber secure and not connected to the Internet. During a power outage, these businesses have to continue providing consumers with vital services. For cyber secure, uninterrupted phone service, landlines are the only viable option.

Warnings from AARP:

• Forcing people onto alternatives, such as wireless or computer-based phone service, could subject them to higher bills, lack of service in extended power outages, spotty reception and dropped calls.

• Landline telephone service allows residents to have reliable access to emergency services; it helps low-income families to connect with job opportunities; it helps small businesses to stay in business and connect with new opportunities and customers; and it allows older residents and residents in rural areas to stay connected to family, friends, and neighbors, as well as vital services. Furthermore, [landline telephone service] saves callers millions of dollars by having access to affordable calling plans.

CUB: “Those who depend on home phone service shouldn’t have that choice stripped away.”

Call Governor Rauner’s office: Springfield:  217 782-0244  Chicago 312 814-2121

 

(This contributor’s opinion does not necessarily reflect Illinois Review’s.)

 

Monday, June 05, 2017 at 07:13 AM | Permalink

Tags: emergency, Illinois Review, landlines, telephone

Thorner: Key women educators discuss America’s learning climate at Heartland Institute

By Nancy Thorner – 

Education is in need of strong and capable leaders. On Wednesday, May 24, the Heartland Institute presented a discussion with four such leaders in its Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center.

The event, Women in Education, featured four women who have succeeded in transforming education across the country to be more competitive, decentralized, accountable, and accessible. They are effective voices that believe education, first and foremost, should enrich the lives of students — not government — and parents should be able to choose the best education options for their children.

 

The panel consisted of

• Joy Pullmann, a research fellow on education policy at The Heartland Institute, who discussed her new book, The Education Invasion, which tackles the issue of Common Core.

• Vicki Alger, a fellow at the Independent Institute, who discussed her book Failure: The Federal Misedukation of American’s Children, which shows how federal government intervention has harmed the education of children across America.

• Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy with The Heritage Foundation, who discussed the current state of education reform coming out of Washington, D.C.

• Leslie Hiner, president of programs at EdChoice, who discussed what is happening in the states on educati

Joy Pullmann – Book: The Education Invasion

As her first time in Heartland’s new headquarters in Arlington Heights, Joy expressed her appreciation for Heartland in allowing her to be a mother and also to have a platform for advancing her hard work on Common Core.  Joy Pullman’s new book, The Education Invasion, tackles the issue of Common Core and how Common Core fights parents for control of American kids.

Pullmann presented a brief history of this nation’s warped educational system:  The 2002 No Child Left Behind law signed by President George W. Bush, also included a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The 1965 law is recognized as this nation’s national education law and shows a longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.  Under President Bush’s 2002 law, states are required to test students in reading and math in grades 3–8 and once in high school. All students are expected to meet or exceed state standards in reading and math by 2014. The major focus of No Child Left Behind was to close student achievement gaps by providing all children with a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.  Slated to expire in 2007, the House narrowly voted to extend the bill.

In 2011 the Obama administration starting issuing waivers to release states from No Child Left Behind in response to demands from governors and school districts who found that the standards set were too difficult to achieve; however, upon agreeing to the waiver, states had to sign on to Common Core standards in Math and Language Arts which had not yet been devised.

Not until December 2015 did Congress to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act to replace No Child Left Behind. According to Joy Pullmann, the ESSA requires states to align their standards to Common Core using college ready tests, but the only standards are Common Core standards. The upshot:  the ESSA didn’t get rid of Common Core, it’s just Common Core with a new name.

Joy Pullmann is somewhat concerned about Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.  In referencing a speech Pullmann heard DeVos present on Monday, May 22, Pullmann is concerned that Betsy Devos might issue a reverse of a 1983 “Nation at Risk”report.  Pullmann is pleased with DeVos’ strong stance on vouchers.

Pullmann supports school choice as a major education reform initiative.  As Common Core poses a threat to school choice.  Common Core must be defeated from the ground up.

Vicki Alger – Book: The Federal Misedukation of America’s Children

To the surprise of those in attendance, Dr. Alger spoke about a native Illinoisan going back to 1867, Rep. Samuel Molton, who laid out his idea of what education should be all about:

Now, sir, in order to make education universal, what do we want? What is the crying necessity of this nation today? Why, sir, we want a head. We want a pure fountain from which a pure stream can be poured upon all the States. We want a controlling head by which the various conflicting systems in the different States can be harmonized, by which there can be uniformity, by which all mischievous errors that have crept in may be pointed out and eradicated.

About the Department of Education, the Department:  It was established in 1980 and is now 37 years old.  Vicki further commented on three goals that the Department of Education was designed meet, but has failed to do.

1.  Improve student achievement.  We spend 1/3 more than top countries in education, but yet our student achievement is staying flat.

2.  Provide for a better partnership between states and government.  $80 million has been spent by states to implement Common Core, which came about when Obama offered states money to leave NCLB standards which, obligated states to sign on to common standards in Math and Language Arts, sight unseen.

3. Provide useful program for schools to adopt.  After 30 years 300 programs have been passed, but there still isn’t a definition of what a federal education program is.  Only 6% of the programs have been deemed successful.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has introduced a simple a bill in the House stating: “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”

The possibility to end the Department of Education is more a hope than a reality because of its size and its entrenchment in the federal bureaucracy, but we do know enough to get government out of education and make it a local issue.

Leslie Burke –  Education Reform at the Federal Level

Leslie began her presentation by comparing the advancement in computer technology to that of progress in education.  Fifty years ago computers were huge and filled an entire room.  A full time operating staff was needed. Leasing a computer could cost $200,000 a month.

The same improvement has not been seen in education.  Since 1970 the Education Department has nearly tripled in size, yet the outcome remains nearly flat.  Any business would have been shuttered with such a record, yet the response heard time and again from legislators and educators is that more money spent will produce better results.

In 1857 the education bureaucracy remained small with only four individuals and stayed the same for about 20 years.

In 1965 there was significant federal spending on education in conjunction with Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”  In 1965 both the Higher Ed Act and the Federal Headstart Program were approved.  Headstart is a $9 billion program, and it’s not even administered by the Department of Education!

The Department of Education became a cabinet agency in 1990.   With this status came new programs and more spending.  Through the 90’s there were no national standards until 2001 when the George W. Bush administration ushered in No Child Left Behind.   This educational program led to Common Core standards, when states, struggling to achieve the mandated standard of NCLB, were enticed by Obama administration money to sign on to Common Core standard not yet formulated, as a way to be released from NCLB mandates.

As explained by Leslie Burke, the cost of education could be greatly reduced if the teacher to non-teacher ratio in school districts were reduced. As it now stands, the ratio is one teacher to one non-teacher.  Chicago, with a school budget of $5.4 billion is bigger in size than the GDP of some governments.  Since 1992 Chicago has seen a 12% increase in students, yet staff has nearly tripled instead of keeping pace with the number of new students.

In regards to Trump’s budget for the Dept. of Education, Burke applauds the 13.5% decrease where programs deemed ineffective will be cut, but wonders whether Congress will have the backbone to go through with the roll backs?   Regarding the new choice program initiated by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Ms. Burke is encouraged it will start to reduce government intervention and restore state and local control.

Leslie Hiner – Education at the state level

As the vice president of programs at EdChoice, Ms. Hiner directs the educational programs and state relations of the organization’s state programs team in educating parents.  She works in all the states educating parents about school choice programs. EdChoice was founded in 1996 by Nobel laureateMilton Friedman and his wife, economist Rose Director Friedman. The organization’s mission is to advance “school choice for all children” nationwide.  Parents can decide what is best, for they know their children far better than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.  Parents should also have control over funding.

Until 2011 there wasn’t much in the way of school choice programs. Then an epiphany occurred and 6 to 7 choice programs were established.  As more and more children come home from school expressing a dislike for school, parents are searching for education alternatives.

Ms. Hiner spoke of tremendous activity in 2017 about a new school choice venture — Tax Credit Scholarship Programs — as an alternative to vouchers.  The first program was in Arizona.  A Tax Credit Scholarship Program enables a parent to tailor education for a child that meets his or her needs, whether it be to pay for tuition, tutoring, on-line learning, etc.

Arizona has expanded its Tax Credit Scholarship program every year because it works.  In Illinois a $500 tax credit is available for educational expenses.  In that 285,000 have taken advantage of the tax credit, must mean that Illinois parents want better educational opportunities.  Ms. Hiner, through EdChoice, did offer to help Illinois when Illinois is ready. As Ms. Hiner remarked, “It could be life and death for children of low income parents.”

Lennie Jarratt, as Project Manager for Heartland’s Center for Transforming Education, welcomed attendees seated in the Breitbart Freedom Center and those watching on-line.   As explained by Mr. Jarratt: The Heartland Institute has long been a leading voice for school transformation – and school choice in particular. Since 1997, it has published the school choice movement’s national outreach publication, School Reform News. More than half of state elected officials surveyed say they read School Reform News, making it the movement’s most effective way to reach policymakers.  Heartland contacts over 1,000,000 elected officials with information promoting free market ideas.

Stephanie Trussell, a wife, grandmother, and unapologetic constitutional conservative, was on stage as moderator and introduced each panel member. The Stephanie Trussell Show can be heard every Sunday night from 9 p.m. to 12 midnight Central time. Stephanie, in 2012, won an American Idol-type contest on WLS 890.  From more than 100 contestants, Stephanie was chosen as the first Next Talk Star.

As a mother of 5 children from 12 to 31, education reform is very important to Stephanie.  Stephanie was taught the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic from nuns in a Catholic school, so she knows how to do things, even though she never attended college.  Because the only people to advocate for kids are their parents, Stephanie made the choice to move her family to west suburban Lisle, because she felt the schools were better there.

 

Friday, June 02, 2017 at 09:00 AM |Permalink