The Patriot Post Digest 6-8-2017

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-8-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jun. 8, 2017

IN TODAY’S EDITION

The former FBI director makes a better case for his firing than Trump’s obstruction.
The great regulatory rollback continues, and it’s a great thing.
Cartoonish environmental policy no longer dominates the EPA under Scott Pruitt.
Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors?” —Thomas Jefferson (1781)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Comey’s Coy Testimony Indicts Himself, Not Trump1

It is indeed interesting that Donald Trump’s biggest request and frustration with former FBI Director James Comey2 deals with the question of “honest loyalty.” It’s only this week, after Trump has repeatedly insisted that he was not personally under FBI investigation, that Comey finally confirms that truth. This after, according to Comey’s own testimony3, Trump had requested the FBI clear the record regarding himself and the investigation into Russian election meddling. Clearly, Comey made little effort to set the public record straight; instead, he seemed to prefer allowing the continuation of “the cloud” of the MSM’s unsubstantiated collusion narrative to remain unchallenged.

Indeed, he told the Senate he took notes because “I was honestly concerned that [the president] might lie about the nature of that meeting.”

In a phone call from Trump on March 30th, Comey recollects, “[The President] asked what we could do to ‘lift the cloud.’ I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.” Regarding the same phone conversation, Comey’s written testimony continues, “I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, ‘We need to get that fact out.’ (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)”

That statement by Comey sums up the whole problem and gives insight into interpreting what Trump meant in his request for “loyalty” from Comey. While at least three times by Comey’s own admission he told Trump that the president was not under investigation, Comey remained reluctant to share this information with the general public because he was worried that the status could change. Talk about blatant bureaucratic hog wash. Comey certainly had no qualms about telling the public when the FBI had opened and then closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton, only to announce that he was reopening it, followed by a another election-layup4 announcement that he had closed it again.

Comey also noted, as he did in May5, that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch leaned on him to downplay the Hillary Clinton by calling it a “matter” and not an “investigation.”

In all honesty, Comey’s testimony ends up providing greater support for Trump’s decision to fire him. In fact, if anything, it corroborates Trump’s account of his communications with Comey — that Comey had indeed repeatedly assured him that he was not under investigation. However, the Leftmedia will still attempt to spin this as the “smoking gun” of Trump obstructing the Russia investigation. The reality is there’s not even smoke here.

The Astonishing Regulatory Crackdown6

Media pundits are more than happy to remain hyper-focused on what they absurdly allege are “incriminating” issues related to Donald Trump’s presidency. But rarely, if ever, do they focus on what, at least in theory, is good news for Democrats and Republicans alike — for example, the Trump administration’s unprecedented rollback in regulatory output.

After all, in 2011, Barack Obama stated: “What I have done — and this is unprecedented, by the way, no administration has done this before — is I’ve said to each agency, don’t just look at current regulations — or don’t just look at future regulations, regulations that we’re proposing, let’s go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books, and if they don’t make sense, let’s get rid of them.”

Of course, the truth is that the regulatory state grew exponentially under Obama despite his rhetoric, and Democrats — contrary to what they claim — advocate regulations anywhere and everywhere they can get them. But one of the most ignored achievements of the Trump administration so far is just how little the regulatory state is growing.

In “The Historic Nature of the Regulatory Slowdown7,” the American Action Forum’s Sam Batkins writes of the “profound” nature of Trump’s curtailing the regulatory state. Batkins astonishingly reveals, “The White House has released just 8 percent of the historical volume of regulation. Cabinet agencies have only finalized $33 million in costs, compared to a 2005 to 2017 average of $26 billion. On the cost side, regulatory output is just 0.12 percent of historic norms.” He adds, “By virtually any measure, dating back through two Democratic presidents and one Republican president, the lack of regulatory output is historic. … For perspective, the Obama Administration finalized $58 billion in regulatory costs during roughly the first four months of 2016. President Bush approved $22 billion in costs during this period in 2008.”

What would truly put the icing on the cake is if this trend can be maintained — which is questionable for various reasons and impending circumstances. But so far, the crackdown is truly something to behold. Hopefully, it also signals the revival of U.S. manufacturing8. The Manhattan Institute’s Mark P. Mills says, “Complying with regulations costs manufacturers an average of $20,000 per employee per year, twice as great a burden as for other businesses. For the smallest manufacturers (i.e., those with fewer than 50 employees), that annual cost is $35,000 per employee per year. In surveys, America’s manufacturers routinely rank regulatory burdens as the top impediment to growth; a large majority also say that regulatory burdens are higher in America than in other nations.” We’ve got the momentum; let’s capitalize on reform by going even further.

Top Headlines9

Trump nominates new slate of federal judges. (The Washington Times10)

Democrats in bind over Trump nomination of Christopher Wray for FBI. (Washington Examiner11)

DOJ ends Obama/Holder “slush fund” payouts. (Fox News12)

Fast and Furious hearing rips Holder, DOJ for deception in gun-running scandal. (Fox News13)

Trump has a low approval rating — but better than Bill Clinton at this point in his first term. (Newsweek14)

Twenty-five percent of young adults anticipate paying for retirement with Social Security benefits. The number should be zero. (Reason15)

What happens when states require work for welfare handouts? (The Daily Signal16)

The FDA commissioner’s novel plan for cutting drug prices: competition. (Reason17)

North Korea’s missile launches come hours after the South freezes its defenses. (Washington Examiner18.)

Congressional Democrats plan to sue Trump over violations of the Emoluments Clause. (Hot Air19)

Policy: Why today’s British election matters. (The Daily Signal20)

Policy: Get ready for the next installment in the war on cops. (Power Line21)

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report22.
Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read The Smoking Gun: There WAS Collusion…23. Obama and Clinton WERE colluding with the Russians, and Democrats ARE colluding with the MSM.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here24.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
EPA: Goodbye Captain Planet and Hello Real Leadership25

By Caroline Camden Lewis

If you grew up watching Captain Planet, you would know that the greatest threat to the environment is the human species. And the worst culprits among these humans are, of course, business owners. The job of planet heroes, then, is to fight against the evil capitalists and to be a voice for the voiceless rivers, oceans and clouds.

While this propagandistic narrative works well for a cartoon series (ok, it was atrocious there too), in real life, capitalism and private property incentivize clean air, water and reforestation. Let’s say, for example, that you own a timber farm that harvests wood every seven years. You would take care of your land and the nearby water sources because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have the robust healthy trees for the next harvest seven years later and your renewable resource would no longer be renewable.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-8-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Barack Obama based his Captain Planet environmental policy on the incorrect assumption that business deliberately pollutes the environment. Thus, rather than dealing with, say, lead in the soil or toxins in the air, he focused on regulating businesses out of business and thereby bolstering bureaucratic power. This flawed theory casts private sector businesses as top polluters, and government-run companies as charitable saviors. Of course, look no further than the exceptionally managed $535 million federal loan to the now defunct Solyndra to see the truth. One report estimated26 that the total taxpayer cost may be as high as $845 million. The crony capitalist government “start-ups” that benefit bureaucrats and cost the taxpayer millions are nobody’s charity.

While Obama busied himself with failed government start-ups, he ignored the larger issues like air quality and Superfund. The EPA manages a program called “Superfund,” which cleans up some of the nation’s most hazardously contaminated sites. These sites can contain toxic and hazardous chemicals and require remediation by the EPA. The EPA establishes a National Priorities List (NPL) of the top U.S. sites in need of Superfund clean-up or remediation. Yet some of these sites have stayed on the list due to lack of action by the EPA for years, even decades.

Take, for example, the West Lake Landfill Superfund site near St. Louis, Missouri. In 1973, 38,000 tons of solid waste were mixed with 8,700 tons of leached barium sulfate (a uranium ore processing residue) left over from the Manhattan Project, a World War II era government (ahem) program which developed nuclear bombs. In 1990, the EPA designated it as a Superfund site on the NPL. Yet, under Obama, nothing happened except “investigations” and “studies.” Meanwhile, the residents of St. Louis live with this unacceptable level of toxicity. Despite Obama’s claims to be “for” the environment, 1,322 Superfund sites like this still remain around the country (more than when he came into office).

And then there’s air quality. The EPA sets air quality standards, called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which put limits on six air pollutants (sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particle pollution). There are currently 34 states that do not meet the EPA’s air quality requirements, 10 more than when Obama first took office. Ignoring the obvious needs of our country to deal with toxic waste, soil and water contaminants irresponsibly puts public health at risk.

So how did Obama, so lauded by the media as an environmental crusader, fail on such an epic level?

Well, because for him, a business-killing, highly regulatory EPA was a success. While it failed in protecting the environment, it succeeded in massive regulations on manufacturing and other businesses.

The good news is that we are saying goodbye to the fictional assumptions of Captain Planet and saying hello to real leadership at the EPA. President Donald Trump’s new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, has recommitted the agency to actually focusing on the environment while also supporting economic growth. Last month, Pruitt issued a memo27 that prioritizes the cleanup of the toxic 1,322 Superfund sites across the country. Under his leadership, the EPA is planning to roll back needless regulations, which will save an estimated 1.4 million U.S. jobs. Pruitt’s commitment to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the process by which administrative rules are made means that the agency won’t be abused by special-interest groups who seek to change policy though a “sue-and-settle” strategy. Additionally, the new leadership has already begun to restore relationships with the states, as opposed to Obama’s modus operandi of dictating from Washington.

Finally, President Trump’s recent decision to exit the Paris Accord28 not only preserves our sovereignty to establish our own environmental priorities (which are cleaner than most in the world), but frees us from the obligation to pay for the remediation of other countries (namely India and China).

Obama’s failed leadership co-opted the environment issue as a way to concentrate government power by killing manufacturing and energy businesses, while simultaneously ignoring the real issues of air quality and toxic Superfund site cleanup. Trump’s and Pruitt’s leadership prioritizes the environment while also supporting business, jobs and the American worker. This new team seeks to achieve what we all want: clean water, air and soil, clean places to live and removal of toxic substances in order to provide a clean environment for the humans, plants and animals of the next generation.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.29 — Britain endured two terror attacks in two weeks. While the names have changed, the progressive denialist game remains the same.
Trump a Boon for the News Industry30 — The MSM is raking in the cash on its incessant negative coverage of the new president.
Is Climate Change Real?31 — Of course it is. But Bill Whittle takes a look at the wild claims of Bill Nye, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and other “scientists.”

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Gary Bauer: Ready for Comey?32
Cal Thomas: If It Walks Like a Terrorist33
Jeff Jacoby: The Victory That Astonished the World34

For more, visit Right Opinion35.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Gary Bauer: “The media are making much of Trump’s alleged demands for loyalty, but context is everything. The president had this conversation with the FBI director in the wake of eight years of unbelievable political exploitation of key government agencies by the Obama administration, not to mention massive, unhinged left-wing ‘resistance.’ It is not terribly surprising, given these circumstances, that the president would press the FBI director for loyalty. Wednesday morning, senators heard from top intelligence officials. In public testimony, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency chief Admiral Mike Rogers said that no one ever pressured them to interfere with the Russia investigation or do anything ‘illegal, immoral or inappropriate.’ Let me remind you that both both Comey and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe have also previously told members of Congress that no one has attempted to interfere in the investigation. And, just this Sunday, Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said that there is ‘no smoking gun’ evidence of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians. Yet we continue with this charade.”

SHORT CUTS

Observations: “If Britain, the rest of Europe and the United States won’t take more aggressive action against people who are becoming increasingly aggressive toward us, we can expect more [terrorist] attacks. Will it take the death of a high-profile politician’s loved one to spur governments to take the necessary steps to fight this war? … Let’s hope not.” —Cal Thomas

Good question: “In demonstrating his addiction to social media and cable news, it’s become increasingly clear that Trump is just like us. Yes, we need more from our president — more professionality, decorum, dignity. But do we deserve more? Do we even want more?” —Gracy Olmstead

Non Compos Mentis: “President Trump is violating my constitutional rights by blocking me on Twitter.” —songwriter Holly O'Reilly, who adds, “This is what dictators and fascists do” (Can you imagine how Winston Churchill must have felt when Adolf Hitler blocked him on Twitter?)

Braying Jenny: “We are at a time in this country where we need problem solvers out there who are committed. Who believe in this country. Who believe in the values and the diversity. Believe in, you know, the value of immigrants and believe that … global warming is real.” —Michelle Obama

Braying Jackass: “In periods like this, people looking for control and certainty — it’s inevitable. But it is important to remember that the world has gone through similar moments. … Our history also shows there is a better way.” —Barack Obama

The BIG Lie: “I think [if] you compare the two that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now.” —James Clapper

And last… “We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.” —Donald Trump

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.