Liar, Liar, State on Fire!

Jerry Brown, former governor of California, testified in Congress that:

“California’s burning while the deniers [of Climate Change] make a joke out of the standards that protect us all. The blood is on your soul here and I hope you wake up. Because this is not politics, this is life, this is morality. … This is real.”

The fires are real enough, but Jerry Brown’s explanation of the root cause is the stuff of serious mental delusion, perhaps even mental illness.

President Trump correctly identified one of the major underlying causes on Twitter:

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor”

The Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, in a 2018 report wrote:

“A century of mismanaging Sierra Nevada forests has brought an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that impacts all Californians …”

“The immediate crisis is visible to anyone who recently has traveled in the Sierra Nevada, especially in its southern range where entire mountainsides are brown with dying and dead forests. A plague of bark beetles following years of drought has killed 129 million trees and counting. …”

“Many of the biomass facilities that might have burned millions of dead trees for energy generation have closed or are closing. A century of fire suppression remains firmly entrenched within federal and state firefighting agencies and has left forest floors deep in flammable groundcover. Plans for prescribed burning to rid the forests of dense groundcover often clash with regional air quality regulations, even as emissions from catastrophic wildfires nullify hard-fought carbon reduction accomplishments. Finally, familiar old divisions between the timber industry and environmentalists hinder policy goals to thin overgrown forests to their original conditions.”

Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada

Continue reading “Liar, Liar, State on Fire!”

Transgender In The Military

United States Army

Back in August President Trump ordered Defense Secretary James Mattis to not accept the enlistment into the military of openly transgender individuals. Since then lower courts have ruled to block that order and as of January 2nd the U.S. military may have to, at least temporarily,  accept transgender enlistments. Two U.S. courts of appeals ((Fourth Circuit and D.C. Circuit) upheld the lower court’s preliminary injunctions.

It is not clear why the administration has not sought a stay from the Supreme Court. The primary issue is not really whether these transgender individuals are fit for military service, but rather the powers delegated to the President under the United States Constitution.

From a statement by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness yesterday:

“Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts have no authority to make policy regarding the military. The Department of Justice (DoJ) should have protected the constitutional rights of President Donald J. Trump by filing an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court immediately after the District of Columbia and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals denied requests for stays of lower court preliminary injunctions. The issue is not the military transgender policy alone, but who gets to decide what the policy will be. By failing to petition the Supreme Court to stay the lower court orders, the DoJ has tacitly conceded that federal judges can make military policy and establish medical standards for enlistments.”

Even if one doesn’t take Constitutional issues into account (and one should take the Constitution into account) transgenders often suffer from severe mental illness and have suicide rates approaching 40% which is even higher than that for schizophrenics who currently cannot serve in the U.S. military.

The expense and difficulty of dealing with the needs of this small minority of individuals should not be allowed to sabotage the U.S. military the function of which is to defend the United States, however sympathetic one might be for some of these unfortunate individuals. Sympathy and compassion is not the issue. An efficient and effective military and the Constitutional right of the President to direct that military as the Commander-In-Chief is the issue.

One theory of why the administration has not sought a stay from the Supreme Court is that the Defense Department is currently conducting a “study” and will continue to litigate later this year using results from that study. In the meantime transgender recruits may have clauses in their enlistment contract specifying that they can be discharged if the administration prevails in court and specifically stating that the government will not pay for any transgender treatments (e.g., sex-reassignment surgery) during their enlistment.

Let us hope that is the case and the Trump Administration fully plans to protect the rights and authority of the Presidency from Left wing courts and hopefully they will prevail in the Supreme Court. That also may be more likely if the President has the opportunity to appoint more Conservative judges to the high court who will protect the Constitution.

You can read more on the issue on Breitbart and the Center for Military Readiness.


December 3, 2018 InAmerica

 

 

Trump Supports Protestors in Iran

Two stories today show a remarkable contrast between how President Trump reacted to protests in Iran and how former President Obama largely ignored them. In regards to Obama the Jerusalem Post wrote that it was “the biggest failure to help human rights in modern history.


White House Urges World-Wide Support for Iran Protesters

The Trump administration is lobbying countries around the world to support protesters in Iran as violent demonstrations intensify, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

“We are encouraging all nations around the world to publicly condemn the government violence and to support the legitimate, basic rights of those protesting,” Brian Hook, the State Department’s director of policy planning, told the outlet.

“We know that the [Islamic revolutionary Guard Corps] plays a big role in the decisions and actions of the government,” he added — and pushed back on the notion that backing the protesters would only give ammunition to the regime.

-Cathy Burke READ MORE at Newsmax


Report: Obama Rejected Iran Protests to Grease Nuke Deal

President Barack Obama chose not to support massive 2009 protests in Iran because he wanted to reach a nuclear deal “at pretty much any cost,” former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren charged.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Oren, who now serves as a deputy minister in Israel’s Knesset, said Obama claimed he would not support the so-called 2009 Green Movement because the CIA helped overthrow nationalist Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 — and he wanted to show the Iranian people he respected their sovereignty.

Obama’s failure to help reform-minded Iranian protesters has long been criticized by Israeli officials, led by Jewish Agency chairman and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, who called it the biggest failure to help human rights in modern history, The Jerusalem Post reported.

-Cathy Burke READ MORE at Newsmax


January 2, 2018 InAmerica