The Trump War Against the Administrative State: No Wonder They Oppose Him

[A good look at who Steve Bannon is. – Bob]

By Joe Scudder – Re-Blogged From http://www.Constitution.com

The Deep State hates Trump because, as Steve Bannon declared, he is dedicated to the deconstruction of the administrative state.

Steve Bannon declared war on the administrative state at CPAC. It is pretty much a synonym for the Deep State, which is actively opposing Donald Trump.

The Washington Post reports,

Bannon framed much of Trump’s agenda with the phrase, “deconstruction of the administrative state,” meaning the system of taxes, regulations and trade pacts that the president says have stymied economic growth and infringed upon U.S. sovereignty. Bannon says that the post-World War II political and economic consensus is failing and should be replaced with a system that empowers ordinary people over coastal elites and international institutions.

Continue reading

Advertisements

The Pentagon Achieves Its Ancient Aim

By Fred Reed – Re-Blogged From http://www.lewrockwell.com

[The military’s budget has room to cut, so it’s an Economic issue. This writer makes it more personal – maybe too personal. -Bob]

Those who try to understand military policy often confuse themselves by focusing on minor matters such as strategy, tactics, logistics, and armament. Here they err. For years the central goal of the military, the brass ring, has been independence from control by civilians. It has been achieved.

In time of war, the first concern of the command is to limit the flow of information to their publics. The actions of the enemy are an important but secondary consideration. Thus militaries strive  to prevent the dissemination of photos of mutilated soldiers or, as in Washington today, of governmentally tortured prisoners. In the United States, which characteristically fights wars unrelated to the safety of the country, the Pentagon must also keep soldiers from being told that they are being sacrifice for the benefit of arms manufacturers and imperialist ambitions. In wars before Vietnam, this was adroitly effected. You could go to jail for criticizing a war.

In Vietnam, something new happened. The press covered the war freely. Reporters went where they pleased, beyond the control of the military. Their publications ran the results. National magazines printed horrific photographs of what was really happening.

Truth tells. The coverage was one of the two factors that forced Washington to quit the war. The other was the passionate unwillingness of young men to be forced to fight a war in which they had no interest. The war, a source of meaning for Washington’s thunderous hawks and fern-bar Napoleons, was getting them killed.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #191

The Week That Was: August 8, 2015 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

The New Plan: On August 3, the Obama Administration announced its plan to control the production of electricity in the US in the name of protecting the planet from human-caused climate change, even though climate change has been occurring long before humanity existed. The administration’s plan is embodied in a 1560-page regulation released by the EPA titled the Final Rule, “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), to be published in the Federal Register sometime in the future. It is not until the rule is published in the Federal Register that activities such as litigation against it can begin, without the courts considering the litigation premature. The most important rules are on power plants operating today rather than those to be built or those which have to be modified or re-built.

The Final Rule contains major changes to the draft CPP including increasing the time given to the several states to comply with the rules by 2 years. Overall, the plan mandates that the states, together, reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, a more stringent mandate than 30% in the earlier version. However, mandates to the states changed in what appears to be clear political bias, with states controlled by democrats seeing their mandates reduced while those controlled by republicans seeing their mandates increased.

Continue reading