by Thomas Gallatin:  Acting to reverse yet another one of Barack liar-nObama’s onerous policies, President Donald Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced a new plan to open up more than 90% of the U.S.‘s Outer Continental Shelf to potential oil drilling and energy development.    Recall back in 2010, following the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, liar-nObama enacted severe restrictions on offshore drilling, essentially prohibiting energy extraction on 94% of the Outer Continental Shelf. It was classic liar-nObama, never letting a crisis go to waste. He took advantage of an uncommon disaster as a pretext for aggressively pushing his leftist economic and climate agenda under the guise of needing to protect the environment. liar-nObama’s decision negatively impacted the nation’s economy as well as the federal government’s coffers. From 2008 to 2016, the fed saw a drop from $18 billion down to $2.8 billion in offshore activities tax revenue.

          In announcing the policy change, Zinke said, “We’re embarking on a new path for energy dominance in America, particularly on offshore. This is a clear difference between energy weakness and energy dominance. We are going to become the strongest energy superpower.” The Interior Department then announced that it would hold at least 47 lease sales between 2019 and 2024, the majority of which would be off the coast of Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposal would also free up the waters off the California coast, which have been closed to drilling since 1969.
          From a national security and economic stand point, Trump’s good move will benefit the country. It would significantly further the U.S.’s move toward energy independence, stimulate more economic growth and increase government revenue. However, politically speaking, it will be met with some resistance. Already, two Florida Republicans, Gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Marco Rubio, have pushed back on the plan, requesting that Florida’s coastal waters remain under liar-mObama’s moratorium. North Carolina has also responded coldly to the news. The reality is that both these states rely heavily on coastal tourism and fear the potential economic consequences from negative public perception of offshore energy drilling.
          But the fact remains that reversing liar-nObama’s extreme moratorium does not change the fact that the U.S. has the world’s most stringent regulations when it comes to offshore drilling. Trump is simply seeking to level the playing field for the energy industry, which liar-nObama had gone out of his way to actively stack the deck against.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53271

by Jordan Candler:  EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is without a doubt one of the most all-around hated members of President Donald Trump’s team. The reason? Under Pruitt’s predecessor, Gina McCarthy, environmental protection was merely a misnomer. The overarching goal was to circumvent Congress by legislating essentially from Barack liar-nObama’s desk. For the Left, this was a desirable exploitation of power that helped fulfill an agenda. Therefore, Pruitt’s federalist-inspired ideology and leadership came under immense scrutiny, which began before he even took the reins.

          Now, after a year’s worth of regulatory rollbacks, a Washington Post article laments on “How Scott Pruitt turned the EPA into one of Trump’s most powerful tools.” The title alone is laughable and entirely backwards, as implies that it is Pruitt, not McCarthy, who turned the agency into a power-hungry leviathan. The story itself explains that Pruitt did nothing of the sort.
          The Post reports, “In legal maneuvers and executive actions, in public speeches and closed-door meetings with industry groups, [Pruitt] has moved to shrink the agency’s reach, alter its focus, and pause or reverse numerous environmental rules. The effect has been to steer the EPA in the direction sought by those being regulated.” Amazingly, the Post goes on to make a baffling comparison between Pruitt and McCarthy: “The two share something in common: a willingness to use the agency’s broad executive authority to act unilaterally.”
          We can’t recall the Post ever making such a big deal out of McCarthy’s abuse of power. In other words, what the media believes wasn’t a problem under McCarthy is today exceedingly dangerous. After all, as the Post writes, “Pruitt has begun to dismantle former president Barack liar-nObama’s environmental legacy, halting the agency’s efforts to combat climate change and to shift the nation away from its reliance on fossil fuels.” Besides, how can anyone possibly draw comparisons between a person who oversteps her role with unconstitutional rules and another who wants things done in a legal manner?
          The fact of the matter is, the EPA was one of Barack liar-nObama’s most powerful weapons in his quest to fundamentally transform America. If the Post’s lousy headline is meant to suggest that Pruitt is one of Trump’s most effective team members in returning toward limited government, then yes. But if it’s implying Pruitt is as power-hungry and corrupt as liar-nObama and his EPA administrator, then absolutely not. The EPA needs to be brought back to an equilibrium, which is what Pruitt is doing. And kudos to him for doing so amidst the unfair treatment and the dirt being thrown at him.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53220

by Arnold Ahlert:  “How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters? Be Quiet.” —Susan Rice, tweeting a New York Times headline on Dec. 31, 2017

          In two sentences, Barack liar-nObama’s National Security Advisor (and well-documented liar) reiterates the moral bankruptcy of her former boss. In 2009, when hundreds of thousands of demonstrators risked their lives to protest Iran’s rigged elections, liar-nObama decided America shouldn’t “meddle” in Iran’s internal affairs (unlike his administration’s efforts to facilitate meddling in the 2015 Israeli election). “The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States,” he stated at the time.
          What he didn’t state? That he preferred implementing his contemptible nuclear deal to abetting regime change. That he preferred a postmodern U.S. foreign policy requiring apologies, a “leading from behind” strategy that set the entire Middle East on fire, and enabling Iranian dreams of a “Shiite Crescent” across the entire region. A Shiite Crescent largely underwritten by a cash payment of $1.7 billion sent to Tehran’s tyrannical theocrats, even as the administration had the temerity to insist it was necessitated by international sanctions isolating Iran from the international finance system.
          Moreover, in pursuit of that deal, the liar-nObama administration was willing to lie about the timeline of negotiations and the nature of the regime, evade constitutional requirements to win its congressional approval (courtesy of a successful Democrat Party filibuster), and undermine a DEA operation attempting to prevent Iranian client Hezbollah from smuggling millions of dollars of cocaine into the United States.
          In spite of it all — along with the pathetically predictable omission/commission machinations of the Democrat/Media Complex dedicated to reframing the narrative in liar-nObama’s favor — the world is now learning neither the administration’s payoff, nor the additional billions  that poured into Iran following the lifting of sanctions, mollified ordinary Iranians left out of the loop. While the ruling elites have been enriched, real unemployment (as opposed to fudged government statistics) hovers around 22.5%, inflation is running at 10%, pushing up the costs of basic necessities, and government corruption has been, as The New Arab puts it, “widespread, institutionalised, and systemic.”
          In short, the promises of an economic boom the elimination of sanctions was supposed to generate were fraudulent.
          A sampling of the shouts being heard among the protesters is indicative. They include “Death to the dictator,” “Death to Khamenei,” “Today is the mourning day,” “the rights of our nation are plundered by mullahs,” and “We die and will get back Iran.” And when demonstrators were attacked by the police they shouted, “Police, go arrest the thieves.”
          Nonetheless, the protests — and the scores of deaths engendered by them — remain insufficiently persuasive to more cluelessly arrogant liar-nObama administration officials who despise President Donald Trump’s full-throated support of the revolutionaries, “acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.” Support that began months before the current uprising, when he stood before the UN General Assembly last September and predicted the regime’s demise. “Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice,” Trump  stated. “Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed, and terror? Or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a center of civilization, culture, and wealth where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?”
          Such rhetoric stands in stark contrast to that of feckless former Secretary of State John hanoi-Kerry, who insists this is “an Iranian moment and not anyone else’s.” The same John hanoi-Kerry who admitted that a portion of the money derived from the lifting of sanctions would support terror.
          In addition to hanoi-Kerry, we have former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes — who bragged about cultivating, useful idiot, media dupes to disseminate the lies used to sell the Iran deal — also declaring the protests are “about what Iranians want for Iran, and not about us.”
          And last but not least, former Democrat presidential candidate liar-Hillary Clinton, who offered up predictably progressive pabulum. “The Iranian people, especially the young, are protesting for the freedom and future they deserve,” she tweeted. “I hope their government responds peacefully and supports their hopes.”
          As beaten and bloodied Iranian survivors are discovering, hope is not a strategy.
          “The events unfolding in Iran right now are therefore a long time coming, and ought to be welcomed not only by those fearful of the ‘Islamic bomb’ that Iran is hell-bent on possessing and which the liar-nObama administration’s disgraceful, faciliatory ‘deal’ made all but inevitable, but by all adherents of the Western notion of freedom” asserts columnist Michael Walsh.
          Walsh’s heart is in the right place, but as he himself has said in another column, a substantial number of leftists in media and the Democrat Party “have adopted a single unwavering posture toward Republican and conservative presidents: they’re against them, no matter what.” Moreover, he insists the communist-based “critical theory” that drives much of that opposition arises from the idea that “there is nothing foundational about Western Civilization that should not be attacked, countermanded, or demolished.”
          Thus, whether they realize it or not, Democrats and their media enablers have a serious dilemma, especially as it relates to the 2018 election. If they voice full support for regime change in Iran, they will not only repudiate eight years of support for liar-nObama’s contemptible Iranian machinations, but align themselves with Donald Trump. The same Donald Trump they so despise that they have formalized a “Resistance” movement against him.
          Even more ominous, if the Iranian counter-revolution is successful and the American economy maintains its upward swing, Democrats will be forced to face their ultimate nightmare: running against peace and prosperity in the 2018 midterms.
          The alternative? Publicly supporting the demonstrations and privately hoping they fail. Or, if they do fail, attempting to pin that failure on Trump — for his unambiguous support of freedom.
          In the meantime, Trump should “continue issuing condemnations daily, including through Persian-language media outlets, and follow up with sanctions targeting corruption and human-rights abuses,” Wall Street Journal columnists Mark Dubowitz and Ray Takeyh declare. They further insist Congress should “rediscover its once-bipartisan determination to hold the regime accountable for its crimes and push America’s European allies to overcome their mercantile greed and support Iranians striving to be free from theocracy.”
          The former assertion is obvious. The latter assertion? For a Democrat Party determined to delegitimize a Trump presidency by any means necessary, it’s one of the most compelling “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” political decisions they have faced in over a decade.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53234

by Louis DeBroux:  The progressive Democrat outrage over the recently signed Republican tax reform law provides both a fascinating insight into the minds of leftists and a unique opportunity to discuss taxes and spending from a moral standpoint.

          Democrats are clearly infuriated at the idea that the federal government will now be prevented from confiscating quite as much of the earnings of tens of millions of Americans as it did last year. In a bizarre twist of logic, Democrats see tax cuts as greedy American citizens stealing from government. That is evidenced in their rhetoric, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi calling the tax cuts “Armageddon,” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck clown-Schumer accusing Republicans of “giving the richest few a bigger piece of the pie.”
           Socialist Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders (D-VT) called it a “looting of the federal treasury,” at least before conceding to CNN’s Jake Tapper that 91% of the middle class he claims to champion will, in fact, benefit from the Republican tax cuts, and then blaming Republicans for not making the cuts permanent. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) brilliantly trolled commie-Sanders on Twitter, inviting him to co-sponsor legislation doing just that.
          The common thread in the government-loving leftist narrative is that government has a right to whatever portion of our earnings it deems necessary to achieve its ends, with taxpayers as slaves whose labor provides the necessary funding.
          Democrats have hijacked and distorted language and turned it on its face, accusing workers who want to keep more of their money to provide for their families of being “greedy,” while painting government, which takes our earnings by force to give to those who have not earned it, as altruistic. Harvard economist Thomas Sowell captures the essence of this looking-glass logic, stating, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”
          As to the why of the progressive Democrat pursuit of what renowned economist Frederic Bastiat called “legal plunder,” well, that is a logical political calculation on their part, and it comes down to raw power. For, as socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw smugly noted, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.” Democrats seek to steal greater amounts from a shrinking number of workers, with the clear knowledge that voters benefitting from the redistribution of those ill-gotten gains will keep them in power.
          Democrats claim to be horrified at the thought that tax cuts will (allegedly) increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years (as if keeping money in private hands, rather than ever-expanding government spending, is the problem). Yet an astute observer would note these same Democrats happily ran up the deficit during the Barack liar-nObama years, resulting in $10 trillion in new debt.
          Tax cuts are good policy. As liberal icon John F. Kennedy declared in 1962, in calling for significant cuts to the corporate and personal income tax rates, “In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
          Tax cuts are also morally sound, allowing free men and women to provide for the care of their families, rather than be rendered serfs on a government master’s plantation, retaining just enough of the fruits of their labor to maintain subsistence.
          And while leftists claim taxes need to be higher so the so-called “rich” can pay their “fair share,” let’s remind them they can voluntarily donate more of their money to government if they wish. That is, unless they wish to admit their philosophy is not about caring for the needy, but about cultivating envy and justifying theft.
          Thus, speaking of benevolence with money, another fear regarding the impact of tax cuts is that, with the standard deductions and child tax credits doubling, it will drastically reduce the number of people who itemize and, therefore, reduce the number of people who give to charity.
          Such a thought shows a misunderstanding of the nature of charity, which is a voluntary, individual act (by definition, government cannot be charitable, because it uses force). The American people are empirically the most generous people on Earth, giving twice as much in personal charity as the next closest country, Canada.
          People give to charity not for tax breaks (which would be silly; the taxes saved are far less than the amount given to charity), but out of a sincere desire to help their fellow man. Last year alone, individual Americans donated nearly $300 billion to charity, nearly three times more than was donated by foundations and corporations.
          The reality is that with more money in their own pockets, there will be more available for Americans to donate to charity. Multiple studies show the more conservative and religious a person is, the more they donate to charity, both in hard dollars and as a percentage of income. (Perhaps that’s tied with the way leftists think about taxes and deductions.) There is no reason to think the tax cuts will do anything but encourage even greater charitable giving, since those who were previously barely making ends meet may now have the means, and the desire, to share.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53235