Robert Mueller&#8217;s explosive statement ending the Special Counsel investigation today has sent Democrats into a media-driven frenzy, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi bowing down even more to her left-wing colleagues and their calls for more investigations and an impeachment of President Trump. Republicans have plenty of principled reason to be worried in the short-term about Mueller&#8217;s final statement, but today&#8217;s events might just help Trump and Republicans in 2020 after all.
No matter what Democrats like Jerry Nadler and Maxine Waters find in Trump&#8217;s tax returns or the Mueller report, impeachment of the President will never happen unless Congress uncovers some heinous crime that rises to the level of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Even if Democrats magically controlled the Senate majority, they would still need 67 seats to convict the President on a party-line vote. They are currently 20 votes short of that in the GOP controlled Senate.
With impeachment off the table, let&#8217;s turn to how this will play out in the 2020 elections. Democrats will make a strong case that keeping the President under constant investigation is not just the right thing to do, but is also a winning strategy to take back the presidency. They could not be further from the truth.
They will point to the fact that the Special Counsel investigation helped Democrats win back the House in 2018, and if they finally get to the bottom of what Trump is really up to, they can indeed win back the White House. This is an easy trap to fall into, and is one which the Democrats have fallen for repeatedly.
Sure, the Democrats got a temporary boost in the midterm elections because the Special Counsel had not said a word in almost two years, and many Americans on both sides were seriously wondering if President Trump and Vladimir Putin were indeed best friends. If I were a swing voter, I probably also would have voted for the party that is not accused of working with our enemies.
There is a big difference between 2018 and 2020. Democrats won a marginal victory in 2018 by lying and claiming that Trump worked with Russia to steal the election from Hillary. Despite the fact that Trump never colluded with Russia, Democrats ignore that and are still screaming impeachment because the President allegedly obstructed an investigation that was never supposed to have happened in the first place.
With a Republican counter-investigation led by Attorney General Bill Barr in the works, there is no sign of the slew of investigations slowing down. With equal vigor on both sides to prove their case, the opposing investigations are likely to cancel each other out in the minds of voters as they speak to their own base.
Democrats&#8217; entire message up to this point has been anti-Trump, and this election cycle was supposed to be the chance for their party to show voters why they represent a better path forward for Americans. After today&#8217;s announcement, leading left-wing figures will not shy away from radical calls for impeaching the President and driving their party further off the deep end. This is no way to win elections when swing voters are the key to success.
With early election models already favoring Donald Trump, all he needs are a few key domestic and foreign policy victories over the next 18 months to show that he can lead the American people despite being targeted by the mainstream media, the intelligence community, and many of DC&#8217;s entrenched bureaucrats. It may be a bad few months for the President, but he will come out of this with an even stronger case for a 2020 Republican victory to stop the frivolous investigations and get back to governing again.
Democrats chose the wildcard again today, and this time they are going to get burned.

VAN VOORHIS: Here’s Why Mueller’s Press Conference Helps Trump And Republicans In 2020

Donald Trump

Robert Mueller

The Department of Defense is close to handing over a ten-year contract worth over $10 billion to Amazon Web Services (AWS) to handle all of the cloud computing for the Pentagon. Awarding a sole source contract would harm national security and destroy competition for government wide cloud computing services. The process has been stalled by Congress because they have become so concerned about potential cronyism in favor of Amazon, they have put the contract on hold and are mandating that the Defense Department explain the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the request for this contract.
Amazon, with Jeff Bezos at the helm, has enough influence with Secretary James Mattis and other officials that the Department of Defense seem immune to the obvious problems with this request for proposal. This proposal would not only put national security at risk, but also was born from cronyism and the use of raw power to push the administration into approving the deal.
The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s Brody Mullins, Laura Stevens, and John D. McKinnon profiled Bezos in June, telling readers &#8220;how Amazon became one of Washington&#8217;s most powerful players&#8221; thanks to cronyism. &#8220;Amazon, whose revenues last year topped $177 billion, has become deeply entwined with the federal government,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-amazon-became-one-of-washingtons-most-powerful-players-1529509628">article</a> reports. &#8220;Mr. Bezos has built one of the largest lobbying operations in Washington, bigger than those of powerhouses such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Walmart Inc. Its cloud-computing business is a major government contractor, with an estimated $1.5 billion in contracts last year, according to consulting firm GBH Insights. And the company has been pushing hard to change the law to allow government employees to buy more of their own supplies on Amazon.com.&#8221; The company has become one of the most powerful political forces in Washington.
Newsweek&#8217;s Brendan Cole <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-staff-strike-over-working-conditions-just-ceo-jeff-bezos-named-richest-1027414">reported</a> a few weeks later that Amazon workers went on strike over low wages, as Bezos&#8217; personal net worth peaked at over $152,000,000,000. According to Cole, &#8220;This is more than the inflation-adjusted amount of $149 billion Microsoft founder Bill Gates hit in 1999 and makes Bezos richer than anyone since the first wealth ranking was published in 1982.&#8221; It is ironic that this liberal supporter of many left-wing causes has implemented massive wealth inequality at his own company.
&#8220;His net worth [in 2018] has gone up $52 billion, more than the annual GDP of more than 100 countries, including Lebanon, Macau and Slovenia,&#8221; the author continued. &#8220;The increase this year alone is more than the entire worth of Asia&#8217;s richest person, Jack Ma, chairman of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.&#8221; There is nothing wrong with wealth, yet wealth amassed from the taxpayer is not ethical if done using cronyism and lobbying strong arm tactics.
Amazon&#8217;s army of lobbyists would be less of an issue if they chose to pursue cloud-computing contracts that did not involve the most sensitive defense data on the planet. However, Amazon&#8217;s security track record, specifically with the People&#8217;s Republic of China is damning.
In a 20-page cover story published by <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies">Bloomberg</a> on October 4, the authors delve into the work the Chinese government has done to infiltrate and expose American companies. &#8220;In 2015, Amazon.com Inc. began quietly evaluating a startup called Elemental Technologies, a potential acquisition to help with a major expansion of its streaming video service, known today as Amazon Prime Video. Its technology had helped stream the Olympic Games online, communicate with the International Space Station, and funnel drone footage to the Central Intelligence Agency.&#8221;
During due diligence testing, Amazon &#8220;found a tiny microchip, not much bigger than a grain of rice, that wasn&#8217;t part of the boards&#8217; original design. Amazon reported the discovery to U.S. authorities, sending a shudder through the intelligence community. Elemental&#8217;s servers could be found in Department of Defense data centers, the CIA&#8217;s drone operations, and the onboard networks of Navy warships. During the ensuing top-secret probe, which remains open more than three years later, investigators determined that the chips allowed the attackers to create a stealth doorway into any network that included the altered machines. Multiple people familiar with the matter say investigators found that the chips had been inserted at factories run by manufacturing subcontractors in China.&#8221;
If Bezos receives the $10B contract to handle the Department of Defense&#8217;s cloud computing, we run the risk of the Chinese government gaining access to top-secret U.S. military data. After receiving word of security breaches at other companies, &#8220;Amazon&#8217;s security team conducted its own investigation into AWS&#8217;s Beijing facilities and found altered motherboards there as well, including more sophisticated designs than they&#8217;d previously encountered. In one case, the malicious chips were thin enough that they&#8217;d been embedded between the layers of fiberglass onto which the other components were attached, according to one person who saw pictures of the chips. That generation of chips was smaller than a sharpened pencil tip, the person [told Bloomberg.]&#8221; Amazon has denied the allegations.
While other companies like Apple have suffered breaches at the hands of the Chinese, an attack on the scale of Amazon is unprecedented. Until the Department of Defense can be sure that our military service members and national security is safe in Amazon&#8217;s hands, Congress would be smart to end this proposal. Cronyism should not lead the Defense Department to turn a blind eye to the obvious security risks present at Amazon and to treat this request for proposal with transparency and fairness.

VAN VOORHIS: Amazon’s Potential $10B Pentagon Contract Puts National Security at Risk

Amazon

Department of Defense

Technology

The battle for control of the House of Representatives will not be determined in New York City or Los Angeles, but in places like Orange County, California. With three competitive races within less than 30 miles of each other at their closest points, the area will likely help decide whether Rep. Nancy Pelosi returns as Speaker of the House in 2019, or whether Republicans hold on to the reins of power.
Ground zero in the battle is California&#8217;s 48th congressional district, home to Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Rohrabacher, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, has served in Congress for nearly 30 years. His libertarian-style conservatism has meshed well with the district since he was first elected. He is a surfer who brags about &#8220;making waves in DC,&#8221; has fought against higher taxes and bigger spending and, was one of the first Republicans in Washington to champion legalization of marijuana.
Orange County was a bastion of conservatism. Ronald Reagan launched his political career in Anaheim and by the time Reagan sought the White House, the county provided &#8220;The Gipper&#8221; the largest vote advantage of any other county in the state.
Today, Democrats sense an opportunity to turn the tide of history. Rather than nominate centrist candidates, however, a crowded primary ensured a race to the left. The Resistance is strong, even behind the &#8220;Orange Curtain,&#8221; and the only one left standing was Harley Rouda, a liberal&#8217;s liberal if there ever was one.
Rouda endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders&#8217; call to make private health insurance illegal. He campaigns for gun control and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand and has promised to allow <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVnHmFdcUdE">illegal aliens access</a> to Medicare if elected. And when it comes to taxpayer support of health care for illegal aliens, Rouda hasn&#8217;t budged an inch.
Rouda recently joined the stage with the former mayor of San Francisco and Democratic candidate for governor <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/404036-dem-calif-gov-candidate-government-should-give-undocumented-immigrants">Gavin Newsom</a> at a rally in Huntington Beach. Newsom has openly said if elected he intends on <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-health-plan-undocumented-immigrants-217931">opening Medicaid</a> to illegal aliens perhaps even by executive fiat.
This issue has become a centerpiece in the campaign. Rohrabacher has argued that opening up Medicare to illegal aliens threatens Medicare with bankruptcy. He has hammered Rouda on the issue and so far, appears to be holding his own. The New York Times recently polled the race finding both candidates with 47% of the vote.
Will the issue of providing critical Medicare dollars to illegals influence seniors, a huge and critical voting bloc in the district, or has Orange County, like much of the Golden State, succumbed to the liberalism that dominates California state politics?
Only time will tell, but one thing is clear: both candidates remain firm in their views and this conflict of ideas will determine not only what Southern California looks like in the future, but the nation as well.

VAN VOORHIS: Rohrabacher v. Rouda May Determine Control of Congress

California

Democratic Party

Republican Party

President Trump campaigned on draining the swamp in Washington, and his efforts have been largely successful to date, from tax reform, to financial regulation, and more. However, it&#8217;s imperative that we focus on the same <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/will_voters_save_free_markets_in_massachusetts.html">goals</a> at the state level to continue fighting corruption and greed in government.
Voters in Massachusetts, home to Ted Kennedy, Elizabeth Warren, and even other anti-capitalist progressives, are <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/08/25/mass-secretary-of-state-facing-first-serious-challenge-in-decades">showing reticence to re-elect William Galvin</a>, one of the most infamous and overzealous Wall Street regulators in the country. Galvin, who has served as Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth since 1995, heads his campaign website with a call to donate and &#8220;help fight fraud in the financial services industry.&#8221;
In a state that has recently elected Republicans such as Sen. Scott Brown, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Gov. Charlie Baker, there is a real chance for voters to send a conservative to replace Galvin come November.
While most Americans would have no trouble with fighting true fraud in any industry, it is interesting to see how socialist politicians like Galvin, Sanders, and Warren conveniently use the cover of &#8220;fighting for the little guy&#8221; to enact policies that result in the opposite. It has become apparent that for these bureaucrats, anyone with the label of &#8220;financial services company&#8221; is perceived as the equivalent of a Madoff-style scheme, irrespective of the immense benefits these companies provide to society and the working American.
Galvin has made <a href="http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20131020/REG/310209988/how-william-galvin-has-galvanized-the-broker-dealer-industry">headlines</a> for the record-breaking fines he has levied against broker-dealers &#8212; which totaled $68,000,000 in a recent 12-month period, while &#8220;FINRA fined its broker-dealer members $78.2 million [in 2012] and $68 million in 2011, according to an annual study of FINRA sanctions by Sutherland Asbill &amp; Brennan LLP.&#8221;
As InvestmentNews&#8217; Bruce Kelly notes, &#8220;William Galvin is a securities regulator for only one state, but you would never know it by the volume of the fines he imposes on the brokerage industry. Indeed, when it comes to inflicting monetary pain on broker-dealers, the Massachusetts Securities Division is more on par with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., which is the regulator for the broker-dealer industry in all 50 states.&#8221;
Galvin&#8217;s fines &#8212; which are on par with FINRA &#8212; are by his own admission, &#8220;to whip the industry into shape.&#8221; In an interview with The Wall Street Journal about recent fines he has issued, Galvin told the paper that &#8220;the purpose of the penalty is to deter the conduct. If $2 million didn&#8217;t do it, maybe $30 million will.&#8221;
Kelly continues, &#8220;If Mr. Galvin&#8217;s record as an aggressive regulator compares favorably to FINRA, it is even more impressive when compared with his peers in other states. Last year, state securities regulators nationwide levied fines or penalties of more than $115 million, according to Bob Webster, a spokesman for the North American Securities Administrators Association Inc. In other words, in the past 12 months, penalties and fines by the Massachusetts Securities Division represent an amount close to 50% of the total that states levied against the industry last year.&#8221;
What is particularly bothersome about Galvin&#8217;s <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/08/08/galvin-floats-tougher-standard-for-mass-broker.html">practices</a> is not so much the vast amount of fines he seeks &#8212; specifically for punitive measures &#8212; it is the fact that he has seemed unwilling to stop the persecution of hard working American companies when it is not politically advantageous to him.
Galvin has <a href="http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20180907/FREE/180909948/galvin-orders-sii-to-pay-restitution-on-nontraded-reit-sales">pursued action</a> surrounding companies like SII Investments, LPL Financial, and Securities America Inc. Yesterday, Galvin announced an investigation into brokers&#8217; selling practices in connection with GPB Capital private placement offerings. GPB is a five-year-old Alternative Asset Management startup with interests in automotive dealers, waste management, and physical therapy practices. GPB&#8217;s offerings are now a victim of Galvin&#8217;s unsubstantiated claims towards those selling the product. Their site shows the company&#8217;s focus on investing in everyday Americans and their businesses &#8212; far from deserving of scrutiny.
Similarly, <a href="https://www.financial-planning.com/news/massachusetts-william-galvin-fines-sii-investments-50k">SII Investments</a> has focused on funding real estate projects in the state, which creates tremendous economic growth for local economies. Galvin has put companies like GPB Capital, SII and many others in his crosshairs simply because of the industry they work in and the misconceived glory of taking down small financial firms and calling them &#8220;Wall Street.&#8221;
Just recently, Galvin&#8217;s office has announced a sweep of 63 broker dealers who sell GPB&#8217;s private placements. In a statement, Galvin said, &#8220;While my Securities Division&#8217;s investigation is in the very nascent stages &#8230; I must also express my serious concerns regarding the expected proposal by the SEC to expand who can participate in private securities offerings. Without a strong fiduciary rule to prevent sales practice abuses, it is utter folly not to know that main street investors will be hurt.&#8221;
But of course, though he openly states the investigation is in its &#8220;nascent stages&#8221;, this doesn&#8217;t hold back Galvin&#8217;s persecution of these companies under dubious or often altogether missing evidence, deriving from the fact that he needs some facet of society to blame to continue winning election. And of course, the media traction for a non-story seems to be of most interest.
The sheer amount of noise that Galvin makes does nothing more than win him votes with the anti-capitalist following he has, while negatively affecting American small business owners. Treating the companies that fund American innovation under the mantra &#8220;guilty until proven innocent&#8221; is a foolish strategy that hurts everyday Americans.
The fact that he has been in office almost continuously since 1975, and as Secretary of the Commonwealth since 1995, is a testament to that fact. Massachusetts would be wise to reject Galvin and vote for someone who believes in free-markets and the world-changing benefits they produce for our society.

VAN VOORHIS: Massachusetts Voters Should Drain The Swamp This November

Elizabeth Warren

Massachusetts

An August 10 <a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2018/08/18/a-shock-court-verdict-against-monsantos-roundup">ruling</a> by a U.S. court over the use of the popular herbicide glyphosate has the potential to throw the agricultural industry into a tailspin. In the first case of its kind, a former groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, was awarded damages of almost $290M for his cancer diagnosis, which surprised observers and even fellow judges, who had <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/reuters-america-update-1-u-s-judge-allows-lawsuits-over-monsantos-roundup-to-proceed-to-trial.html">described</a> the evidence linking glyphosate to cancer as &#8220;shaky.&#8221; While any chemical that is truly detrimental to human health should be dealt with accordingly, there is no evidence we have seen that links glyphosate to cancer.
On the contrary, the popular weed killer has helped to lower food prices, increase food production, and help developing countries export more food across the world. The economic effects of the shock verdict have been felt worldwide: Bayer, the German firm that recently purchased Monsanto for $63 billion, has seen its shares <a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2018/08/18/a-shock-court-verdict-against-monsantos-roundup">fall</a> to their lowest level in five years, while other herbicide manufacturers&#8217; shares have rapidly shed as much as 15% of their value.
The verdict isn&#8217;t only wiping billions of dollars of market value off of major international corporations, it has also unleashed a wave of hysteria that risks provoking both consumers and governments to make rash decisions.
Brazil&#8217;s Agriculture Minister has said that any potential ban on the herbicide would be an unequivocal &#8220;<a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-agriculture-chemicals/ban-on-glyphosate-would-be-disaster-for-brazil-agriculture-minister-idUKKBN1L11Y7">disaster</a>&#8221; for the country: glyphosate is used on 95% of soy, corn and cotton harvested in the country, with no viable substitute. British farmers&#8217; groups have <a href="http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/nfu-east-anglian-farmers-in-colchester-and-clacton-say-decision-over-use-of-weedkilled-should-be-based-on-scientific-evidence-1-5653446">warned</a> that without the herbicide, they would be forced to return to a style of farming that is far more harmful to the environment, while the Australian National Farmers&#8217; Federation <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/14/australian-farmers-body-says-roundup-cancer-ruling-is-in-blatant-ignorance-of-science">blasted</a> the Dewayne Johnson verdict as one &#8220;in blatant ignorance of science,&#8221; setting a &#8220;reckless precedent&#8221; which could gut the agricultural industry.
Fortunately, experts were equally quick to weigh in, explaining that the report drastically <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/glyphosate-from-monsantos-weed-killer-roundup-in-breakfast-cereal-isnt-something-to-worry-about.html">exaggerated</a> any danger from eating a normal amount of breakfast cereal. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already assessed glyphosate, as it does with all potentially harmful chemicals. The EPA <a href="https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/08/16/go-ahead-eat-your-lucky-charms/1008506002/">threshol</a><a href="https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/08/16/go-ahead-eat-your-lucky-charms/1008506002/">d</a> is 2 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day, a reference dose considered safe to consume daily over the course of a lifetime.
Dewayne Johnson&#8217;s successful lawsuit threatens to open the <a href="https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/08/13/plaintiffs-lawyers-eye-more-roundup-lawsuits-after-289m-verdict-against-monsanto/?slreturn=20180720073139">floodgates</a> to a series of similar suits by anyone who can find even the most tenuous evidence to blame a big corporation for their illness.
We should hold accountable companies which cause illness as a result of their products, however it makes little sense to punish companies which work to improve health and human prosperity based on &#8220;shaky evidence.&#8221;

VAN VOORHIS: Glyphosate Ruling Could Threaten the Global Agricultural Industry

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, owner of the Washington Post, and richest man in the world with a net worth hovering around $150B, is about to get even wealthier with a new $10B cloud computing contract from the Department of Defense.
This $10B contract is set to be handed over to Amazon Web Services (AWS) to handle the cloud computing infrastructure of the Pentagon. Bezos&#8217; close friendship with Defense Secretary James Mattis has led some to wonder how much cronyism is involved in these deals.
The Daily Caller <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/08/sally-donnelly-defense-department-jedi-cloud-amazon/">reports</a>, &#8220;government ethics watchdogs fear Amazon&#8217;s web of influence may have tainted Pentagon&#8217;s $10 Billion Jedi Cloud Deal. A former senior adviser to Secretary of Defense James Mattis was receiving payments from her sale of a consulting firm she founded that worked with Amazon&#8217;s cloud computing arm, while the Pentagon simultaneously crafted a $10 billion contract that many say is tilted in favor of the tech giant.&#8221;
According to an article in <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/has-bezos-become-more-powerful-in-dc-than-trump">Vanity Fair</a>, when the $10B contract was announced, &#8220;everybody immediately knew it was for Amazon,&#8221; which led the author to question whether if &#8220;Bezos has become more powerful in D.C. than Trump?&#8221;
&#8220;There&#8217;s a new scandal quietly unfolding in Washington,&#8221; the article continues. &#8220;It&#8217;s far bigger than Housing Secretary Ben Carson buying a $31,000 dinette set for his office, or former EPA chief Scott Pruitt deploying an aide to hunt for a deal on a used mattress. It involves the world&#8217;s richest man, President Trump&#8217;s favorite general, and a $10 billion defense contract. And it may be a sign of how tech giants and Silicon Valley tycoons will dominate Washington for generations to come.&#8221;
Has Bezos set the model for what it means to dominate Silicon Valley and Washington simultaneously? The recipient of this $10B contract will become one of the biggest federal government contractors overnight.
&#8220;Amazon has spent $67M on lobbying since 2000 &#8211; including more this year than Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo combined, &#8220;the article stated. &#8220;Though there has long been talk about the Defense Department joining the cloud, the current call for bids was put together only after Defense Secretary James Mattis hired a D.C. lobbyist who had previously consulted for Amazon. The lobbyist, Sally Donnelly, served as a top advisor to Mattis while the details of JEDI were being hammered out. During her tenure, Mattis flew to Seattle to tour Amazon&#8217;s headquarters and meet with <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/people/jeff-bezos#intcid=dt-hot-link">Jeff Bezos</a>. Then, as the cloud-computing contract was being finalized, Donnelly&#8217;s former lobbying firm, SBD Advisors, was bought by an investment fund with ties to Amazon&#8217;s cloud-computing unit.&#8221;
While cronyism is bound to happen on some level, it&#8217;s unacceptable that the Department of Defense has chosen to issue contracts that exclude almost all companies except Amazon.
Vanity Fair continues, &#8220;If you think the JEDI contract is big, consider this: Last year, working for Bezos, Rung helped pass the so-called Amazon amendment, a provision buried in a defense authorization bill that will establish Amazon as the go-to portal for every online purchase the government makes&#8212;some $53 billion every year. President Trump may enjoy firing off incendiary tweets attacking Amazon. But Bezos is quietly finding new ways to bolster his empire with billions in federal tax dollars. And the Pentagon, it appears, is helping him do it.&#8221;
Bezos&#8217; cronyism has no place in our government, especially when his extensive lobbying prevents free-market competition that benefits all Americans. The Department of Defense would be wise to open this contact, which is one of the biggest of all time, to the best provider.

VAN VOORHIS: Is Jeff Bezos President Of The Swamp?

The France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a semi-autonomous offshoot of the World Health Organization, is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-cancer-agency/who-seeks-new-director-for-cancer-agency-facing-u-s-scrutiny-idUSKBN1D72WY">expected</a> to appoint its new director on May 17th for a five-year term. The new appointee will take over a number of challenges from outgoing director, Chris Wild, who has led the agency through a difficult period that has seen the organization <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/62bd4bae-32f8-11e6-ad39-3fee5ffe5b5b">backtrack</a> on several of its assessments, and <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/020618%20Lucas%20-%20IARC.pdf">dragged</a> before a U.S. Congressional committee to answer for its &#8220;shoddy work&#8221; on others.
With Congress <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-who-cancer/u-s-house-committee-may-reconsider-who-cancer-agency-funds-idUSKBN1E22VL">threatening</a> to pull funding <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-iarc/exclusive-u-s-congressional-committee-demands-answers-on-who-cancer-agency-idUSKBN14X011">due to</a> a &#8220;record of controversy, retractions, and inconsistencies,&#8221; the agency&#8217;s credibility is standing in the balance. What is particularly troubling, however, is that the IARC&#8217;s assessments <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-cancer-agency/who-seeks-new-director-for-cancer-agency-facing-u-s-scrutiny-idUSKBN1D72WY">continues</a> to be highly influential, with real and often significant consequences for both businesses and policymakers.
Take for example, Johnson &amp; Johnson, a mega corporation currently <a href="https://www.asbestos.com/news/2018/04/06/johnson-johnson-asbestos-talc-damages/">facing</a> more than 6,000 lawsuits from women claiming that the company&#8217;s widely used Baby Powder caused their ovarian cancer, but only after IARC <a href="https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdf">classified</a> talc as carcinogenic to humans. The lawyers attacking Johnson &amp; Johnson are not only hoping for a big payout (with one woman being <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/21/health/johnson-and-johnson-talc-verdict/index.html">awarded</a> a staggering $417 million in damages) but they&#8217;re also <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/11/health/talc-ovarian-cancer-cases/index.html">pushing</a> for talc powder to carry warning labels asserting that the substance is carcinogenic.
This kind of warning label has oversaturated California for years, leading commentators to <a href="https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning#page-2">scoff</a> that in the Golden State, &#8220;everything causes cancer.&#8221; IARC determining that a chemical might &#8220;possibly [be] carcinogenic to humans&#8221; is <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/regarding-certain-iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-2b-chemicals">enough</a> to land the substance on California&#8217;s infamous Proposition 65 list. The substances in Prop 65&#8217;s catalog are slapped with an intimidating warning label <a href="https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/new-proposition-65-warnings">reading</a>, &#8220;WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.&#8221; This in turn causes each substance to become fodder for an extensive <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/28/rick-berman-california-warning-labels-a-propositio/">network</a> of bounty hunters that have sprung up to fleece businesses for not complying with Prop 65&#8217;s stringent requirements.
Since IARC&#8217;s assessments hold such influence, their scientific rigor should be beyond reproach &#8212; and yet nothing is further from the truth. IARC&#8217;s <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-glyphosate-gate-scandal/#7c4ce9921abd">determination</a> in 2015 that the popular herbicide glyphosate was a &#8220;probable carcinogen&#8221; immediately raised eyebrows, particularly because IARC&#8217;s conclusion <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/iarc-alone-against-glyphosate-despite-new-evidence/">deviated</a> sharply from all other institutions which had evaluated the chemical and found that it was unlikely to cause cancer.
Concerns about IARC&#8217;s classification of glyphosate increased dramatically. However, Reuters published two exposés indicating that IARC <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/">left</a> out a critical study from their assessment and that the agency had even <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/">edited</a> out scientific evidence that disagreed with its desired conclusion.
The glyphosate saga is likely only the tip of the iceberg of IARC&#8217;s dubious science, as some of its other assessments have recently come under scrutiny. In February 2018, it became public that the IARC had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-benzene/">omitted</a> essential findings in its review of benzene, drastically underestimating the average human exposure to the dangerous chemical. What was more troubling than IARC&#8217;s scientific errors in its benzene assessment was the agency&#8217;s attitude when Melvyn Kopstein, the chemical engineer who discovered the mistakes, pointed them out. IARC staff admitted that the agency&#8217;s evaluation was &#8220;limited&#8221; and had &#8220;tried to cover too much.&#8221; They nevertheless stated unequivocally that they had no plans to correct their assessment. Kopstein was left stunned and troubled by the agency&#8217;s apathetic response to the serious concerns he had raised to many of the senior IARC officials, including Director Chris Wild.
The passing of the baton to a new director is a valuable opportunity for IARC to revisit its policies and methods, and shake off the cloud of doubt which now overshadows the organization. Unfortunately, some of the candidates <a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/04/13/who-will-lead-iarc-here-are-most-likely-choices-and-my-prediction-12833">reported</a> to be on the short-list have had their own share of controversy.
Chris Portier, for example, has drawn flak for advising the IARC&#8217;s glyphosate review panel without disclosing the fact that he was <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/health-who-glyphosate/refile-is-your-weed-killer-carcinogenic-idUSL3N17I49H">involved</a> with the anti-pesticide Environmental Defense Fund while <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weedkiller-scientist-was-paid-120-000-by-cancer-lawyers-v0qggbrk6">collecting</a> $160,000 from law firms suing the glyphosate manufacturers. These potential conflicts of interest were <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/11.01.2017%20CLS%2CBiggs%20-%20IARC.pdf">highlighted</a> by the Congressional Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in a November 2017 article on Chris Wild, where Portier&#8217;s scientific testimony in a court case was <a href="https://norcalrecord.com/stories/511377480-experts-testifying-for-plaintiffs-in-monsanto-action-recalled-by-doubting-judge">described</a> as &#8220;shaky&#8221; by federal judge Vince Chhabria.
Another rumored candidate for the new IARC director, Joachim Schüz, has <a href="http://microwavenews.com/news-center/joachim-sch%C3%BCz-moves-iarc-interphone-analysis-continue">headed</a> the group&#8217;s section on Environment and Radiation since 2010. He has been <a href="http://www.apdr.info/electrocontaminacion/Documentos/Artigos/Iris.Atzmon,25.09.2014.pdf">accused</a> of drastically underestimating the human health risks presented by mobile phones and systematically suppressing data he disagreed with. Schüz also allegedly accepted funding from major telecommunications companies, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
That Portier and Schüz are supposedly in contention to head IARC is a worrying sign that the organization&#8217;s new director won&#8217;t usher in a fresh era of credibility and scientific accuracy, but rather will continue the same patterns which have landed the agency in Congress&#8217; crosshairs.

Will The International Agency For Research On Cancer Clean Up Its Act?

Cancer

Amazon&#8217;s Jeff Bezos is at it again with his <a href="https://ijr.com/opinion/2017/11/267136-obama-pentagon-holdovers-award-amazon-5b-defense-contract/">crony capitalist deals</a> &#8212; this time for a ten-year cloud computing contract with the Department of Defense worth over $10 billion.
While crony capitalism is something we should be concerned about as conservatives, the national security implications of this deal are even more alarming. If the Department of Defense moves ahead with this deal, it would harm national security and destroy competition for government-wide cloud computing services.
Amazon&#8217;s global reach has landed them in bed with Beijing, where the communist government requires that companies sell source code and computer equipment to Chinese government enterprises, primarily Beijing Sinnet Technology Co. China has a longstanding tradition of using these laws to steal trade secrets from major American corporations.
When our president said that we were getting &#8220;bad deals&#8221; and were being &#8220;ripped off&#8221; by China, he didn&#8217;t just mean in trade. China is literally stealing American technology, and they&#8217;re getting away with it.
As of 2009, U.S. firms were losing $48 billion per year due to these state-mandated practices, largely in highly valuable source code. If the Chinese can&#8217;t make it themselves, they copy it, or they steal it.
Amazon&#8217;s cloud computing source code is highly valuable; they are the largest cloud infrastructure service provider. That business segment is worth nearly double the value of their closest competitor.
Cloud computing is a relatively new market that Amazon pioneered, and it&#8217;s unsurprising that they are currently the market leader. However, there are a number of other large corporations that are more than capable of handling a contract of this size.
Microsoft, IBM, and Google are all looking to compete in this space, and have made sizable investments in their infrastructure. By awarding this contract to Amazon exclusively, the market will be significantly tilted in Amazon&#8217;s favor because of the favoritism they are being shown by Jeff Bezos&#8217; Washington cronies.
If they simply provided services to companies such as Netflix, Airbnb, and Comcast, then Bezos and his management team would be free to let the Chinese steal their technology at their own peril. However, when you already provide services to the CIA and a host of other government agencies, an approach like this is nothing short of unacceptable.
This means that Amazon is one of the biggest targets in the industry for hackers, and if the Department of Defense awards them this contract, Amazon will be in control of the most valuable data on the planet.
Amazon has the fastest growing lobbying machine of the large tech companies, and Bezos has shown that he is going to make lobbying Washington, D.C. elites a top priority by buying and renovating the largest private estate in Washington, D.C. This lobbying arm has helped him to get access to high-level administration officials including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who is known to receive advice directly from Jeff Bezos.
Despite the fact that this contract has yet to be awarded officially, the Department of Defense is already acting as if it will be awarded to Amazon. They have already given a $950 million contract to REAN Cloud LLC to migrate Department of Defense data to the cloud. It just so happens that REAN Cloud LLC is an Amazon partner.
Secretary Mattis and the Trump administration would be wise to reject this contract in favor of one that favors free markets and national security. The American people, and the American military, deserve better.

VAN VOORHIS: Sec Def Mattis Should Reject Amazon’s Crony Capitalist Contracts

James Mattis

The broader goal of the Republicans&#8217; Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was to boost economic growth and provide a better standard of living for all Americans. The most critical word in that sentence is &#8220;all,&#8221; because the only tax code that is right for America is one that is fair for all Americans.
There is no doubt that last year&#8217;s tax reform was historic. Families are seeing larger and larger tax refunds, CEO confidence is at an all-time high, and the economy is continuing to grow at a rapid pace. Any casual observer, including this author, would call this bill a success.
They would be correct. But that doesn&#8217;t mean we still can&#8217;t do more.
While Republicans still hold the House, the Senate, and the White House, our principal aim should be to ensure that our tax code continues to become fairer for all Americans. As the economy continues to grow under President Trump, leaders in the House and Senate should work together to eliminate unfair loopholes and deductions that were included in the 2017 bill.
That doesn&#8217;t mean we need to, or should, get rid of every single deduction. The vast majority agree that if we as a society place a value on a strong middle class, then some deductions would be reasonable. In the same way, domestic manufacturers should receive some tax incentives that give them an advantage over foreign corporations.
However, there are still a large number of unfair deductions in the current tax code. I don&#8217;t mean &#8220;unfair&#8221; in the way that the Left defines it in their class warfare arguments. &#8220;Unfair&#8221; is when crony capitalism becomes rooted in our tax code, and forces American taxpayers and companies to cover the cost of exclusionary deductions that only benefit a powerful few.
Opining about a problem rarely does much to solve it, so I&#8217;ll take the liberty to suggest one of the first that Congress could eliminate. Section 199A of the tax code provides an unfair tax advantage to cooperative farming monopolies that threaten the livelihoods of small farmers in middle America.
A small farmer currently pays tens of thousands of dollars more in taxes annually than the farming cooperatives that receive special tax breaks. The current structure creates a massive disincentive for private businesses, as it is significantly more costly to purchase the same product.
Even President Trump, as well as the original sponsors of the legislation, agrees that the current tax bill unfairly picks winners and losers. Carve-outs such as this create incentives for corruption and crony deals that harm ordinary Americans.
Our Republican leaders in Washington would be wise to continue their pro-growth policies leading into the midterm elections. It&#8217;s critical that we keep the House and Senate, and truly improving the livelihoods of ordinary Americans is the best way to do it.

Republicans Must Continue Fighting Tax Loopholes

Taxes

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a new rule in July that heavily restricts arbitration clauses, and opens companies to more frivolous class action lawsuits. This new rule, passed under the guise of consumer protection, is not just anti-consumer &#8212; it will make the elite class of trial lawyers even richer off the backs of consumers.
In typical fashion, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren claim that Republicans are anti-consumer and are only on the side of big banks. Maxine Waters, the Ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, went so far as to say that &#8220;it is outrageous that Republicans are trying to nullify the rule to the detriment of consumers. Republicans should think twice before taking away consumers&#8217; rights to be heard in a court of law.&#8221;
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Under this new rule, the only people who will truly be &#8220;heard&#8221; in a court of law are the already powerful trial lawyers who have made billions of dollars from class action lawsuits. Republicans are against this bill because it not only hurts consumers by passing on higher costs to them, it empowers lawyers to line their pockets with millions of dollars while class action participants are left to pick up the scraps.
Mandatory Arbitration clauses are beneficial to consumers because they give them a low-cost alternative to resolve disputes with lenders and banks. Consider this: The CFPB&#8217;s own study on arbitration concluded that on average, consumers receive more than $5000 through arbitration hearings, as opposed to roughly $32 through class-action litigation &#8212; if they even have the chance to get anything at all.
Litigating class action lawsuits has become an entire industry unto itself. According to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/11/with-consumer-class-actions-lawyers-are-mostly-paid-to-do-nothing/#545176eb1472">Forbes</a>, &#8220;for practical purposes, counsel for plaintiffs (and for defendants) are frequently the only real beneficiaries of the class actions. When consumer class actions do settle, lawyers usually negotiate a deal that pays them and their named plaintiffs well, but delivers little to nothing to their other clients.&#8221;
It&#8217;s no wonder that we see commercials daily advertising class action lawsuits. The only reason law firms can afford millions in national TV advertising is because they make even more off of the lawsuits, and end up passing the litigation costs off to the consumers.
Luckily, under the Congressional Review Act, a bipartisan bill signed by President Clinton in 1996, Congress has the power to nullify rulings by government agencies within 60 days of the rule&#8217;s passage. It even goes one step further, and prevents any government agency from issuing the rule again. This law has already been used to retract several Obama-era regulations, and should be used again in this case to protect consumers.
The House recently voted 231-190 to repeal the controversial ruling, with the bill currently awaiting a vote in the Senate. President Trump has indicated his strong support for the bill, and has promised to sign it once passed by the Senate.
Like all government agencies, the CFPB has morphed from its original intention of protecting consumers to becoming an agency that fights for powerful interests under the guise of consumer protection. Restricting the powers of the CFPB to regulate arbitration clauses isn&#8217;t just smart policy, it&#8217;s a consumer-first policy. It&#8217;s critical that the Senate passes this bill, and President Trump signs it, for the good of the American people.

Protecting American Consumers: Why Trump And The Senate Should Restrict The CFPB

Economy

Three members of the Cal State Fullerton <a href="https://www.facebook.com/csufgop/">College Republicans</a> have been named in a lawsuit backed by the California Democratic Party in retaliation for their work to recall State Senator Josh Newman, who was the pivotal vote in support of April&#8217;s $52 billion gas tax increase.
The Democrats&#8217; lawsuit, which was filed in Sacramento Superior Court last Thursday, alleges that the College Republicans and other conservative activists &#8220;misled&#8221; voters in their successful signature gathering effort to recall Senator Newman. The suit names Amanda McGuire, Brooke Paz, and Ryan Hoskins (pictured below) as defendants in the suit, for volunteering their weekends to talk to constituents about the cost of Newman&#8217;s vote to the district&#8217;s taxpayers. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" alt height="232" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/cal_state_fullerton_college_republicans.jpg" width="780" /></div>
The recall effort gathered nearly 85,000 signatures in a matter of several weeks, due to constituents&#8217; frustration and anger at Newman&#8217;s vote on the gas tax. The Democrat Party has alleged that recall organizers, which also included dozens of local conservatives of all ages, lied to voters about the true nature of the recall campaign by claiming that the recall would repeal the gas tax. 
Brooke Paz, who serves as Public Relations Director for the College Republicans told Daily Wire, &#8220;This lawsuit is a baseless attack on the character of hardworking and passionate activists, as well as a shameful intrusion on the democratic processes that are my right as an American citizen.&#8221;
&#8220;As we just celebrated the 241st anniversary of our independence, my God-given rights are being threatened by the California Democrats simply because they disagree with me and my colleagues,&#8221; Paz continued. &#8220;Our elected representatives are supposed to govern by the people and for the people. The people do not want higher taxes, and as proven by the incredible amount of signatures we&#8217;ve gathered for this recall petition, the people do not want Newman.&#8221;
Once Democrats in the state legislature realized that the recall petition was moving forward at a record pace, they scrambled to develop a number of subversive methods that would stop the lawful recall by the voters. Democrats, who hold a two-thirds supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, and hold all eight statewide elected offices, worked to change the rules on signature verification, tried to alter contribution limits, and fought for legislation that would push the election further back. 
Organizers of the recall told Daily Wire that the Democrat Party is desperate for any way to stop the election by any means necessary, which has a high likelihood of forcing Newman out of office only months into his first term.
Amanda McGuire, who is Vice-President of the College Republicans, asserted that &#8220;the lawsuit is a shameful and frantic attempt to silence voters of the district. The intimidation tactics espoused by the California Democrats should no longer be tolerated. It&#8217;s gone too far when college students are being dragged into court for becoming involved with the issues faced by their local cities. I&#8217;m proud to be a part of the party that fights to fix our government on every level.&#8221;
&#8220;This lawsuit is the definition of frivolous, and more than that, an obstruction of the very processes that every Californian should hold dear,&#8221; Ryan Hoskins, Secretary of the College Republicans said in a written statement. &#8220;By naming myself and my fellow club members as defendants on this lawsuit, the California Democrats are attempting to scare us into backing down from this signature gathering effort. They will not succeed in breaking our spirit, and with the support of the California Republican Party, we will fight it in the court of law.&#8221;
Fred Whitaker, Chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County, where much of Newman&#8217;s district is located, echoed the College Republicans&#8217; sentiment in a statement to Daily Wire.
&#8220;Democrats are desperate to hold on to absolute power &#8211; whether it is changing the rules ex post facto on signature verification, or contribution limits, or a lawsuit challenging the validity of signatures &#8211; they will stop at nothing to keep absolute power,&#8221; said Whitaker. &#8220;There is no principle left for them, it&#8217;s only power, and it doesn&#8217;t matter if we change the rules or ruin the finances of ordinary college students now having to defend their own signatures.&#8221;

cal_state_fullerton_college_republicans

California Democratic Party Sues Conservative College Students In Unprecedented Move

Education

At Congressman <a href="https://rohrabacher.house.gov/">Dana Rohrabacher</a>&#8217;s annual birthday party, Rep. <a href="https://mast.house.gov/">Brian Mast</a>, a Purple Heart recipient who lost both legs in Afghanistan, delivered a moving speech about his belief in American opportunity and exceptionalism. Drawing on his own experience of serving in Afghanistan and being severely wounded by a Taliban IED, he reiterated that America faces threats both home and abroad, and that we must stick together as one nation, even in difficult political times.
While Congressman Mast gave his emotional speech to a packed audience, four members of local leftist movements decided that they wanted to shut down the speech of this American hero, simply because is a Republican.
The individuals were unable to disrupt the event on land, and instead decided to rent a boat to do everything they could to disrupt Mast&#8217;s story of hope and opportunity in America.
While hundreds of patriotic Americans held their hands over their hearts for the Pledge, and prayed to God for wisdom, the protesters sped back and forth on the water, chanting anti-American messages through multiple bullhorns.
The protesters also held signs promising to &#8220;fart&#8221; Congressman Dana Rohrabacher out of office, as well as one that said &#8220;Dana votes against vets,&#8221; which fell particularly flat with a decorated veteran headlining the event.
After both Congressmen concluded their speeches to hearty applause, they remarked that a few small protesters would not stop them from spreading their message of liberty and hope. 
 
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe></div>

&#8220;The liberal left has pushed the Democrat Party so far to the left, they&#8217;re relying on name-calling and disruption rather than the discussion of legitimate issues,&#8221; Congressman Dana Rohrabacher told The Daily Wire. &#8220;The patriots are certainly not intimidated by these left-wing neo-fascist tactics.&#8221;
After nearly two hours of shouting and chanting, the Orange County Sheriff&#8217;s Department pulled the boat over and stopped the four agitators for violating local noise ordinances. 
Fred Whitaker, Chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County, remarked, &#8220;The irony of the protestors using a rented pontoon boat and bullhorn as they advocated for socialism was striking. You couldn&#8217;t get food or basics back in the Soviet Union or even in Venezuela today, let alone a boat or a bullhorn. They should have been thanking Congressman Rohrabacher for his 28 years of fighting for their freedom and the free enterprise system that got them the boat and bull horn.&#8221;
Joshua Recalde-Martinez, a conservative student who attended the event, told The Daily Wire, &#8220;It is amazing to me that four protestors would rent a pontoon boat to protest a Congressman&#8217;s birthday party. There are so many other constructive things they could have done. If they put as much effort into electing people from their party as they did protesting, then maybe they wouldn&#8217;t be behind over 1,000 seats nationally.&#8221;
Images of the event and the protest fail below:

<div class="image"><img decoding="async" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/rPU5xPfgk-DfBQf6-N-w4oVVmomg-S7T0HzVYYELHpVjDB6QYS-dgsMRX6z5k2VN2qJ4HIkGVwdI0Vm64mTgVLmvqvd5lXv_udaHriTuGFIYv9YElWVFulYCjjgsQ_8j_HdHJ1_A.jpeg" /><img decoding="async" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/vgQnEHLHIPbVLM9nm3bqydMbK45Lyt7gHIx8iqHnUT0eoz9OcdheE8BnR_oE6P9MNsX5XKza7CFtCJpWEyMY1IdpoDIHq6Xi4bbaLKYlAAwvXpXro2ZHPzCzepSfCeUYHrDC1qoB.jpeg" /><img decoding="async" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/W0sXJoDiAS3moT18p9jvXfrSM7amg10BQXPyuuR07_HxDH-qcoZ_1cLz2X8UWyURVZh6-REYmkhfZtTdA-LL7QErue7bZcLEUHUc_saqgxqoRLG4gvBug0G1ooqvqin3ZPGN_lk3.jpeg" /><img decoding="async" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/GC8I7Vc92-0p_tQQW_1LpuIF0Z9G-yILLco2KF-HwqMlKEIvBgbgtw7rz5hy9pSzazDaCpDUkheIB-70-Jyro2qwjKG4rNRIGygA7ooVcLBwZM-qBhKcZ4AqTFEc3FToKIyE5LCg.jpeg" /></div>
<div> </div>

Menu

Peter Van Voorhis