by Jordan Candler:  This week, solar industry imports were dealt a heavy blow with Donald Trump’s decision to impose a 30% tariff. The Associated Press reports that among those advocating for the tariff on solar panels was the U.S. International Trade Commission. According to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, “The president’s action makes clear again that the Trump administration will always defend American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses in this regard.”

          China’s Commerce Ministry was angered by the tariff, responding: “The U.S. side once again abused its trade remedy measures. China expresses its strong dissatisfaction with this.” Mexico is also rattled. The nation’s Economy Department shot back, “Mexico will use all available legal resources in response to the U.S. decision to apply protections on Mexican washing machines and solar panels.”
          These complaints are to be expected given where they’re coming from. Nevertheless, was this a wise decision? As Heritage Foundation analyst Katie Tubb explains, not exactly. She writes: “The case involves two failing manufacturing companies — Suniva and SolarWorld — which have petitioned the government for globally applicable tariffs on inexpensive imports of solar cells and panels. That petition has run the gauntlet of comments, hearings, and analysis from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Since then, organizations across the political spectrum, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, have made the case for why the requested tariffs would be harmful for the solar industry writ large.”
          Tubb lists three justifications for “why rejecting the request for sweeping tariffs would be consistent with Trump’s campaign trail ideals and policy vision for energy dominance.” It begins with innovation. As Tubb explains, “There is almost no better way to fossilize an industry than by guaranteeing prices and knocking out the competitors of a select few companies. The only innovation that this spurs is creative ways to lobby the government for new ways to interfere in energy markets.” Moreover, “[Government] intervention would also punish competitive American solar companies in order to keep two failing ones afloat.”
          Secondly, tariffs handcuff competition. “Trump should protect competition, not specific competitors,” says Tudd. “The solar industry in America can provide customers the best, most affordable service to Americans when it is able to access components from the most competitive companies around the globe. The proposed tariffs block this access. In essence, they are a massive regulatory subsidy for Suniva and SolarWorld — at the expense of the rest of the solar industry.”
          And finally, there’s the issue of fostering a healthy job market. Tudd notes: “Suniva and SolarWorld argue that global tariffs are essential to their survival and will create thousands of jobs. Using the force of government to eliminate a company’s competitors will almost certainly preserve those company jobs.” However, “There will be negative implications for the rest of the industry and the indirect jobs it creates if the administration bends over backward to shore up two failing companies. The federal government shouldn’t be the arbiter of whose job is more valuable.”
          National Taxpayer Union’s Free Trade Initiative director Bryan Riley makes yet another shrewd point: “Because the government provides a whopping 30 percent tax credit for the installation of solar energy systems, a big chunk of increased costs generated by the new trade restrictions will be paid for by the federal government. That doesn’t seem like an ‘America First’ policy.”
          In essence, Trump’s decision, unfortunately, continues the government’s proclivity for picking winners and losers. Furthermore, the Associated Press reports, “Sen. Ben Sasse … said Republicans need to understand that tariffs are a tax on consumers.” He’s right. There’s no doubt any of this was the administration’s intent — Trump, after all, once pledged, “We will get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation, so we can pursue all forms of energy” — but nevertheless, the decision was made without taking these issues into account. Imposing tariffs on the solar industry wasn’t one of Trump’s brightest decisions.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53641-trump-misses-the-mark-with-solar-tariffs

by Jordan Candler:  A California state lawmaker from San Francisco, Phil Ting, is just one of the many Democrats nationwide who are mulling over how to take advantage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. He along with his Sacramento colleague, Kevin McCarty, have introduced a bill that would collect half of what million-dollar-plus corporations gain from the newly reduced 21% corporate tax rate. Their assertion is that a chunk of corporate tax savings should be rerouted and invested in programs geared toward non-wealthy residents. Because, according to Ting, “Trump’s tax reform plan was nothing more than a middle-class tax increase.”

          That’s an interesting and untruthful argument to make. Polling  suggests voters are already seeing the light on tax reform. What was an 18-point Democrat lead in generic polling has shrunk to just a five-point lead. And why shouldn’t it? Democrats are absolutely out of their minds if they really think Americans aren’t reaping tax reform’s benefits. To mention nothing of bonuses, “some two million American workers have already been told that their earnings are going up,” Jeff Jacoby reports, citing data from American for Tax Reform. That’s also to say nothing of the remarkable stock market performance.
          The complete distortion of tax reform by lawmakers like Ting and McCarty is business as usual in California. The state ranks dead last when it comes to poverty, and it’s because of the Golden State’s longtime obsession with redistributing people’s wealth. The new scheme revolves around the tax bill’s changes to write-offs, which blue states wrongly argue is unfair. On the contrary, Democrats selfishly don’t want to lower local taxes to alleviate tax reform’s impacts.
          But California also can’t afford to confiscate corporate tax savings. To do so would only worsen the great blue state exodus. In March 2017, the American Legislative Exchange Council reported that “the economic pain inflicted by Golden State government has induced more than a million Californians in just the past decade to seek better opportunities elsewhere.” What makes the state think corporations would put up with having their savings stolen from them? It’s California politics, not nationwide tax reform, that needs to change.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53615-ca-dems-may-confiscate-half-of-tax-cut savings

by Political Editors:  Adding yet another chapter to the deep state corruption narrative, more news has come out regarding the FBI’s handling of the liar-Hillary Clinton email investigation courtesy of text messages from those two FBI love-birds, agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page. Since the discovery of the text messages between these two, both of whom worked on the liar-Clinton investigation and were later a part of Robert Mueller’s investigation into supposed collusion between Donald Trump and Russia, clear implications of deep state politicization and corruption have come to light. This is what is known thus far.

          Strzok and Page were both clearly politically biased. They were pro-liar-Hillary and anti-Trump. That’s not a crime, but questions have been raised as to whether they acted within the FBI in support of liar-Clinton and against Trump. Investigators who have been combing over 50,000 text messages sent between the two have unearthed some interesting and rather troubling revelations, including references to a “secret society” presumably within the FBI that plotted against Trump. Rep. John Radcliffe (R-TX) states, “We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of [Trump’s] election, there may have been a ‘secret society’ of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI, to include Page and Strzok, working against him. I’m not saying that actually happened, but when folks speak in those terms, they need to come forward to explain the context.”
          Strzok and Page’s texts also indicate that the decision to exonerate  liar-Clinton was determined well before the investigation was concluded and that Barack liar-nObama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch was privy to the outcome. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said, “It’s really clear to me that the decision was made in May of 2016 — two months before [James Comey’s] press conference. Of course Loretta Lynch knew [liar-Hillary Clinton] wasn’t going to be charged. Everyone except the public knew that she was not going to be charged.” This would seem to corroborate the speculation that the infamous liar-Bill Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting in June 2016 was meant to alert liar-Hillary that the fix was in, and that she need not worry about the outcome of the FBI’s investigation.
          Then there is the conspicuously convenient months of missing texts messages from Strzok and Page over the first five months of President Trump’s first year. Responding to this revelation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday that a review is “already underway to ascertain what occurred and to determine if these records can be recovered in any other way. If any wrongdoing were to be found to have caused this gap, appropriate legal disciplinary action measure will be taken.” He added, “We will leave no stone unturned to confirm with certainty why these text messages are not available to be produced and will use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source. If we are successful, we will update the congressional committees immediately.”
          This news, along with the FISA abuse memo, has several congressional Republicans calling for the appointment of a second special council tasked with investigating the FBI and Justice Department and its handling of both the liar-Clinton investigation and the Russia meddling probe.
          A closing observation: While it may be inevitable that individuals working within the government will express partisan bias, what makes it a larger issue with higher stakes is the fact that the federal government has become so powerful — too powerful. A return to federalism and a decentralized government would go a long way toward mitigating what has become a win-at-all-cost mindset among Washington elites.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53638-the-deep-state-secret-society

by National Security Desk:  The bickering and grandstanding last week over a soon-to-be-realized government shutdown, complete with a week of debate over a vulgar word, pushed another highly important issue off the front pages — namely President Donald Trump’s statement that he had waived sanctions on Iran for the last time and would be moving forward to get the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action modified to correct its numerous deficiencies. As is his usual practice, the president went all-in regarding his administration’s position: “This is a last chance. In the absence of such an agreement, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal.”

          The president wants the deal’s terms re-negotiated, but that is very likely impossible. Even our closest ally, the United Kingdom, is openly opposed to any re-negotiation, as UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson made clear. He stated bluntly that the JCPOA is not subject to re-negotiation, pointing out — fairly and correctly — that those who want to replace the JCPOA with something else have yet to put forward a better alternative.
          More importantly, China and Russia are doing what they always do, which is anything they can to counter U.S. influence and interests. Each has UN Security Council veto power, and as Barack liar-nObama’s administration cynically took the JCPOA to the UN for approval rather than to Congress, any changes would require the UN to go along. That simply will not happen.
          Iran of course adamantly insists the deal cannot be re-negotiated. On Saturday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani remarked, “Except for one or two countries, the international community currently supports the JCPOA and the U.S. administration is undoubtedly making a miscalculation in this regard. … Commitment to the JCPOA can constitute a very strong base for the establishment of broader cooperation between Iran and the European Union and promotion of peace and security in the region and the world.”
          Rouhani was joined in this fantasy view by UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric: “The [nuclear deal] constitutes a major achievement of nuclear non-proliferation and diplomacy, and has contributed to regional and worldwide peace and security.” People in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran itself might differ about how you define peace and security.
          In short, President Trump will face a long uphill struggle to get the JCPOA re-negotiated. Iran and even our notional European allies will undoubtedly play the same game Iran used to run out the clock on George W. Bush’s administration: They’ll pretend to negotiate only until Democrats win majorities in Congress and/or the 2020 presidential election removes Trump from the equation, at which time everyone can return to pretending the nuclear deal was a brilliant success. China and Russia will threaten and if necessary use their veto power, negating any progress in changing the deal. And the president’s domestic political problems may overshadow everything else if the 2018 mid-terms deliver a Democrat House, as impeachment proceedings would likely be the first and only item on the agenda.
          What then is to be done? First, in order to show that he is serious, the president must explain to the American population, Congress and the UN what he wants to achieve and why it is so important. A blueprint for doing so was provided in August by former UN Ambassador John Bolton.
          But as Bolton pointed out last week, re-negotiating the JCPOA just to have Iran cheat and obfuscate under a new set of terms is pointless. U.S. policy should be to apply maximum pressure on Iran with the goal of changing Iran’s government. The recent nationwide protests in Iran provided a glimpse of the powder keg that is the Iranian population’s hatred of the clerical regime. By re-imposing the sanctions waived under the JCPOA, and implementing new sanctions, maximum economic pressure can be brought to bear on Iran. By providing moral and material support to the Iranian population, maximum political pressure can likewise be brought to bear.
          As we said recently, even the Soviet Union was brought down by economic and political pressures despite its enormous state security apparatus, and Iran is no different. This should be our ultimate goal, not tinkering around the margins of a diplomatic agreement like the JCPOA.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53611-what-trump-should-really-do-with-iran

by Patriot Post Staff:  Today marks the 45th anniversary of the two most tragic Supreme Court decisions in American history, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. (Pro-lifers around the nation celebrated Sanctity of Life Sunday last week.) Those decisions sparked a contentious debate between those who would deny legal protection for babies in the womb, and those who rightly acknowledge that those babies constitute “life” as understood throughout history and affirmed in our Declaration of Independence. Tragically, that right has been denied to nearly 60 million unborn children sacrificed on the altar of “choice” since 1973.

          Though this issue will never be resolved until the yearly number of abortions is zero, there are encouraging prospects to note as we consider the sanctity of human life. And every life saved is a victory.
          One poll shows that eight in 10 Americans would restrict abortion to the first trimester, while six in 10 believe it is “morally wrong.” But far more encouraging is the shift in the spirit of the pro-life movement. There are still peaceful marches and strong, quiet vigils of prayer outside of abortion clinics, but there are also Internet outreach efforts, maternity homes, medical pregnancy resource centers and other ministries that are empowering young women to see their true range of options.
          Yet more and more ministries and public figures are pointing out the absurdity of a movement centered on choice that leaves a woman no choice at all. Online for Life is using the power of the Internet to reach out to those who search for pregnancy options. Former Planned Parenthood nurse Abby Johnson’s ministry And Then There Were None is giving a voice and a choice to those who desire to no longer work for the nation’s largest abortion mill. Project Rachel and Abortion Changes You, among many other such ministries, are coming alongside the hurting women who have already experienced the pain of abortion. Save the Storks takes compassion to those who are in need with a mobile resource center housed in a luxury bus. Students for Life has a wide presence on college campuses.
          In our own home town, we’re proud to support Choices Pregnancy Resource Center and the efforts of the wonderful people there to love women, men and their children.
          These are just a few of the innovative ministries that are leading the way to a stronger, more understanding and more effective pro-life movement.
          The same cannot be said for the other side, which exploits women to serve a twisted agenda.
          Roe v. Wade was the infamous case in which Norma McCorvey was used as a plaintiff by leftist attorneys to overturn laws restricting abortion in Texas. A decision upholding Texas law was ultimately overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court, which found a heretofore unprecedented “right to privacy” in the so-called “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. The despotic branch divined from their “living constitution” that this right entitled a mother to end the life of her baby before his or her birth. Simultaneous with Roe v. Wade, in Doe v. Bolton, using the plaintiff Sandra Cano, the Supremes determined that any complaint — including headaches — could be used as grounds for requesting an abortion.
          Since the decisions in those cases, both McCorvey and Cano have recanted their testimony. McCorvey said plainly, “I think abortion’s wrong. I think what I did with Roe v. Wade was wrong,” and she has stood by those words in the years since.
          Cano, in her 2005 testimony before the U.S. Senate, said: “Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. How it got there is still pretty much a mystery to me. I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. … At no time did I ever have an abortion. I did not seek an abortion nor do I believe in abortion. Yet my name and life is now forever linked with the slaughter of 40-50 million babies. … How can cunning, wicked lawyers use an uneducated, defenseless pregnant woman to twist the American court system in such a fraudulent way? Doe has been a nightmare. … My name, life, and identity have been stolen and put on this case without my knowledge and against my wishes. How dare they use my name and my life this way! One of the justices of the Supreme Court said during oral argument in my case ‘What does it matter if she is real or not?’ Well I am real and it does matter.”
          Like McCorvey and Cano, millions of women and countless unborn babies are being denied choice by the “pro-choice” movement today.
          Americans are obviously tiring of a movement based on such an audacious lie. Scientifically and morally it has always been evident that life starts well before those first beautiful cries. And today’s pro-life movement is succeeding more and more where it counts most: changing hearts.
          Publisher’s Note: Both McCorvey and Cano have endorsed the National Memorial for the Unborn, a special place dedicated to healing hearts by honoring unborn children in a tangible way with memorial plaques placed on a granite wall. There is a special book, Empty Arms, which includes 50 stories of hope and healing from across the nation — each one represented on the Memorial wall.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53594-honoring-the-sanctity-of-life