Rashida Tlaid Not Satified With Muller : There Can't Be Enough!

Hate drives them. Hate sustains them.

What is it among these people of the progressive left democrats, or worse, that seems to evade the rule of law and common sense or logic?

How can it be that just a ruthless hate for anything or anybody that stands in their way of establishing a foundation of pathological lawlessness, a true psychosis of intent to gain an advantage, is enough give them a sense of purpose everyday?

Rep. Rashida Tlaib Pushes Democrats to Investigate Trump for ‘Impeachable Offenses’

Jason Hopkins / @thejasonhopkins / March 26, 2019

Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib is circulating a letter among her Democratic colleagues in the House that asks them to join a resolution seeking to investigate President Donald Trump for “impeachable offenses.”

“The fact that President Trump has yet to comply with various clauses of our U.S. Constitution sets a dangerous precedent. Much of the allegations have yet to be fully investigated by this body who also took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution,” read a portion of the letter, first sent out on Monday night and obtained by Politico. “It is critical that we protect the American people and our country from any conflicts of interests that directly erodes our democracy.”

Tlaib is calling for the House Judiciary Committee to initiate an inquiry into Trump regarding several key areas.

The freshman Democratic congresswoman wants to determine if Trump and his businesses violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits him from taking payments from foreign entities. The letter also seeks to investigate whether payments to porn star actress Stormy Daniels were made to sway the 2016 election, and she wants an inquiry on whether special counsel Robert Mueller’s evidence on obstruction of justice relating to Trump is a violation of federal law.

Tlaib is asking Democrats to sign on as a co-sponsor of the resolution by noon on Thursday.

News of Tlaib’s letter follows the conclusion of Mueller’s 22-monthlong investigation into alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Mueller did not issue any new indictments and—per a report of the investigation from Attorney General William Barr—found zero evidence of collusion.

The findings have been touted as welcome news for the president, who was beleaguered for over two years with accusations from Democrats and other opponents that he allegedly colluded with Russian agents to sway the 2016 election.

Democrats that propagated Russian conspiracy theories have been forced to go on defense since the fallout of Mueller’s findings. California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a major purveyor of these conspiracy theories, has been accused of lying and faces calls for his resignation as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

It’s not likely that Tlaib’s attempts to reach an impeachment process will gain much traction, even in the Democratically-controlled House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier in March said she wasn’t interested in impeaching Trump, claiming that “he’s just not worth it.”

Tlaib appears to be following through on a pledge she made shortly after getting sworn into the House of Representatives. Speaking to a crowd of left-wing supporters in January, Tlaib said she would go to Congress and “impeach the motherf——.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Russian Collusion Investigation : A Debauchery of Justice

The people understood the motive of the democrats and 

elected Donald Trump to clean out the criminals.

Know the truth and it will set you free. The problem comes in all of this is who is telling the turth and who has the credibility to make it believable?

History plays an important role is who is telling the truth and who isn't. The progressive left socialist democrats history of doing and saying anything to gain an advantage over their opposition. 

And even when proven that they are wrong, they and their allies escape the confines of their indulgence in criminal activity. The Russian collusion is a perfect example.

The progressive liberal democrats knew from the beginning that no matter how aggreges their activities, they will never be held to account. History is riff with examples where actual criminals are given a walk just because of who they are, Hillary Clinton is one of the best examples.

And if that isn't enough, when the democrats drive the country into near default with their perverse and unscrupulous demands for power, they knew beyond a doubt the Republicans will step in and right the ship of state before it lands on the rocks. This to is historical fact. Donald Trump was elected to save the nation from the liberal theft of money, power and individual freedom to chose as well as liberty.

But the socialist liberal left democrats know to that when the country is back in it's feet, the voting public has a short memory and the democrats again will win the elections to place them at the levers of power where they can again steal everything of value in our country.

The cycle of destruction starts all over again.

The Left’s Russian Collusion Hoax

Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager / March 26, 2019

From the beginning, I repeatedly said the charge that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election was a lie. The president’s description of it as a “witch hunt” was accurate.

I regularly acknowledged that I was putting my credibility on the line by stating that it was all a hoax. But how did I know that? After all, I wasn’t privy to any confidential intelligence.

One answer is I used common sense. The Trump-Russia collusion charge and the Donald-Trump-is-an-agent-of-the-Kremlin charge struck me—and tens of millions of other Americans—as absurd. Vladimir Putin’s influence on the 2016 election was negligible, and as president, Trump has been harder on Russia—in supporting Ukraine’s anti-Russian government, in fighting Syria’s pro-Russian government, and in confronting Iran’s pro-Russian regime—than Barack Obama was.

But the biggest reason I never believed the Russian collusion charge was that the charge emanated from the left. And the left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it.

The left wanted to undo the 2016 presidential election from the day Trump won. So it made up the Russian collusion story. This was obvious to every conservative—except for “Never Trumpers,” who, with regard to Trump, have been indistinguishable from the left and were therefore as prepared as any leftist to believe the Trump-Russia collusion tale. We conservatives knew that a) the left wanted to invalidate the election and b) the left lies when it is in its interest to do so. So we knew the collusion charge was a fabrication.

We also suspected that the collusion hoax may well have been an effort to divert attention from the real crimes here: American intelligence agencies being used to spy on a presidential candidate for the first time in American history; getting Clinton off the hook for her illegal use of a private server while secretary of state; her use of that office to enrich herself and her husband; and her destruction of the evidence once her hidden emails were subpoenaed.

If you always doubt a leftist claim, you will almost always be closer to the truth. I employed that rule in concluding the collusion story was a fraud, and it served me well.

Name the issue and you will likely find a left-wing lie. The left claims our universities are saturated by a “culture of rape.” Not only is that a lie, but deep down, leftists know it’s a lie. The proof? Every left-wing parent who speaks about the “culture of rape” on college campuses sends his or her daughter to college.

As no parents would ever send their daughter to an actual rape culture, left-wing parents who send their daughters to college know it is not really a rape culture. They say it is a rape culture solely to buttress the feminist argument that American males are misogynists and to provide young women with the highest status in the left-wing value system: victim.

Although I haven’t been a student or taught at a college in many decades, that’s how I knew American colleges were not rape cultures. I knew it because the left said they were. Again, just assume the left is lying and you will be close to arriving at the truth.

How do I know there are only two sexes? The most obvious reason is, again, common sense. But the second most powerful reason is the left denies there are only two sexes and claims there is no such thing as sex, only subjective “gender.”

Last week, a writer for the left-wing magazine The Nation defended the victory of two high school male-bodied trans women who defeated all the female-bodied women in a Connecticut track competition—because, in his words, “trans women are in fact women.”

Now, we all know trans women are not in fact women, that they are biologically men who regard themselves as women. And in private life, I have no problem treating trans women as women if they look and dress female and take on a female name. But it is completely unjust to have them compete against born females in sports. They are not in fact women; they consider themselves women despite the facts. Again, assuming the left is lying to advance its agenda leads one to truth.

When the left tells us the Earth has 12 years left because of global warming, I assume it is not telling the truth. One bit of proof is that almost no one on the global-warming-will-destroy-life left advocates the safest, cheapest, and most practical non-fossil-based source of energy: nuclear power.

If they really believed life was existentially threatened by fossil-based fuel, they would be building nuclear reactors as fast as they could make them. One reason I haven’t believed man-made global warming will destroy the Earth is that the left does.

So, while the latest left-wing lie—Trump-Russia collusion—is now exposed, there is little to cheer about. Without missing a beat, the left—the Democratic Party, the media, and academia—will move on to another lie.

And there will be no soul-searching on the part of the media or the rest of the left.
Why won’t there be? Because no leftist acknowledges the collusion story was a lie.

Truth has never been a left-wing value. Like “gender,” it is whatever you want it to be.



COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Progressive's Plan To Regain Power : Unethical And Bastardized Politics

An all powerful greed for ultimate power to control and

an insatiable hate for any opposition.

It really is amazing that the progressive socialist liberal democrats would actually and blazingly take a stand for ultimate control of civil society that totally eliminates the Constitution of the United States.

Truly unprecedented expression for the need for the power to control. There are no examples quite like this in our history.

The progressive socialist liberal democrat ''New Wave'' socialism is simple designed to get and retain the power for control. They believe it is their birthright and the little people in 'fly over country' took it away from them in electing Donald Trump is an abomination of justice.

Here Are 4 Egregious Ways the Left Wants to Transform American Politics

Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / Jason Snead / @jasonwsnead / March 26, 2019

“When you can’t win the game, change the rules.” That seems to be the motto of the far left these days. Not content to play by the rules, it hopes to tilt the playing field to its own advantage and in the process transform American politics.

Here are four ways it has proposed doing that.

1. Packing the Supreme Court

A number of Democratic presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of adding new seats on the Supreme Court.

To begin with, this is something the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine. But this isn’t the first time the political branches have played politics with the Supreme Court by trying to tinker with the number of seats.

Congress initially set the number at six justices (including the chief justice) when it passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. Then, in the waning days of President John Adams’ presidency, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, known as the “Midnight Judges Act,” which reduced the number of Supreme Court justices to five and created a number of new circuit court judgeships to be filled by Adams before his rival, Thomas Jefferson, took office.

For the next 60 years, Congress periodically added new seats, and the Supreme Court reached its high-water mark with 10 justices in 1863. Following the Civil War, Congress reduced the number of seats to seven amid its battle with President Andrew Johnson over Reconstruction. Then in 1869, Congress set the number of justices at nine, where it has remained since.

 Listen to “SCOTUS 101,” a podcast with Elizabeth Slattery and friends bringing you up to speed on what’s happening at the Supreme Court.

The last major attempt to alter the Supreme Court’s composition was in the late 1930s. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, upset with the conservative “Four Horsemen” of the Supreme Court thwarting parts of his New Deal agenda, tried to persuade Congress to allow him to appoint a “junior justice” for every sitting justice who remained on the Supreme Court beyond age 70.

That measure failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate. But Roosevelt got the last laugh—he got to “pack” the court the old-fashioned way, and ended up appointing eight justices throughout his time in office.

So while it’s not unprecedented to alter the number of seats on the Supreme Court, proponents of “court packing” should explain why they want to do so and what kind of justices they would appoint.

Odds are, they would favor activist judges who don’t understand the proper, limited role the judiciary is supposed to play in our government. That would end up compounding the problem of an activist Supreme Court that inserts itself into matters that should be handled at the ballet box and in Congress or statehouses across the country.

2. Granting Statehood to Washington, D.C.

The movement to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., is picking up steam with Democrats in Congress. The House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 1, a partisan laundry list of voting-related matters, which included a statement of support for D.C.’s statehood effort.

But there are good reasons why the District of Columbia should not be made into a state.

The Founders settled on placing our nation’s capital in a federal city that would not be unduly influenced by a state government. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 43, “dependence of the members of the general government, on the state comprehending the seat of government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.”

It is not as though residents of the District are actually without representation, despite what the license plates say. In a way, people living in D.C. have 535 representatives from both houses of Congress who live and work there for a large part of the year.

The District also enjoys benefits from its unique status. For example, federal funds account for 20 percent of the District’s budget, and Uncle Sam contributes more toward D.C. public school students than any other state. (As of 2018, the District spent roughly double the national average per student.)

Putting aside any policy arguments for or against statehood, the movement would face a much larger obstacle: the Constitution. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to alter the District’s status as a federal city.

While residents have been able to vote in presidential elections since the ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1964, the states may not be as quick to ratify an amendment that would reduce their relative voting power in Congress. And voting power is what many proponents of statehood are after—adding more seats in the House and Senate that are a guarantee for one party.

Perhaps that’s why in a previous attempt to give the District representation in Congress, the proposal also would have added another seat in Utah—laying bare the nakedly partisan motivation.

3. Scrapping the Electoral College

In 2016, President Donald Trump won the White House with 304 electoral votes—77 votes more than Hillary Clinton. But Trump lost the popular vote by roughly 3 million ballots, prompting many liberal activists—and several of Trump’s would-be 2020 rivals—to call for the Electoral College to be scrapped in favor of a national popular vote scheme to elect presidents.

That will be better for democracy, the left says. What it means is, it will be better for Democrats.

Under the current system, each state is awarded a set of electors equal to the total number of congressmen and senators representing them in Congress.

When Americans go to the polls, they don’t cast a vote for the president directly; they are actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to vote for a particular candidate. In most states, whichever candidate secures the most votes is awarded all of that state’s electoral votes, and the first candidate to earn 270 votes wins.

The Electoral College can be a convoluted way to pick a president, but that’s by design. The Framers rightly feared the tendency of pure democracy to descend into mob rule and run roughshod over the rights of disfavored minorities, so they created a Constitution chock-full of anti-majoritarian safeguards. That includes an Electoral College that can—though seldom does—seat a president who loses the popular vote.

There is a method to that madness. The nation is a diverse place, and voters living in rural Indiana quite likely have a different set of issues and concerns than do voters living in downtown San Francisco. The Electoral College gives greater weight to the former group, encouraging campaigns to focus on assembling broad coalitions that span regions and interests.

The alternative—election by pure popular vote—flips the tables. If pure turnout is the end goal, candidates will inevitably focus their efforts on the biggest states—California, for example—and major urban centers like Chicago and New York City.

That might not immediately sound so different than the status quo, in which campaigns spend nearly all their time and money on a small handful of key swing states. But the list of swing states changes with time, and they are called “swing” states for a reason.

New York and California, meanwhile—to say nothing of most major urban centers—are solidly blue. It’s no wonder, then, that the left wants to give these voters more power to select the president.

Democrats enjoy substantial competitive advantages in these areas, but there is another plus for the far left: Without the need to appeal to voters in “flyover country” to win national elections, candidates could run ever more leftward to satisfy the demands of coastal elites.

4. Lowering the Voting Age

A few weeks ago, a majority of House Democrats voted to lower the federal voting age to 16 as part of an amendment to H.R. 1. The motion, thankfully, failed by a wide margin and enjoys scant popular support.  But the idea of enfranchising children still won the backing of many leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who said it was important to “capture kids” early.

To hear Pelosi and others describe it, empowering 16-year-olds to vote is all about encouraging good habits of civic engagement, recognizing the intelligence of our youth, and giving them a voice. These kids are old enough to drive and work—shouldn’t they also be able to vote?

That all sounds high-minded and empowering, but something far more cynical and manipulative is going on. Liberals know that young people tend to vote Democratic. It’s with age and, dare we say, wisdom that people tend to turn to the right.

From the March for Our Lives to this month’s mass walkout to demand passage of the Green New Deal and other climate change measures, our children—at least, the loudest of them—clearly are not shy about their liberal inclinations.

Indeed, half of young Americans favor socialism, probably because schools have utterly failed to teach them about the costs of collectivist ideologies. And when socialism is all about a free lunch, free health care, and free college tuition, it doesn’t sound so bad.

Anyone—at least, anyone who doesn’t pine for a perpetual Democratic majority in Congress—should be able to see why giving high school teenagers the keys to the kingdom is not a bright idea. As a general rule, teens are impressionable, impulsive, and ill-informed about the real world.

That’s not meant as derision. It’s just biology: Teenagers’ brains are still developing and their hormones are surging. Many are bright and civic-minded, to be sure, and we’ve all met those rare teenagers possessed with maturity beyond their years. But they are the exception, not the rule.

On the whole, 16-year-olds know too little about the world—and often, virtually nothing about American history, government, or economics—to cast thoughtful and meaningful votes. If liberals truly care about raising the next generation to be engaged and informed, they should start by demanding civics education, not ballots, for America’s youth.

Standing alone, each of these four major proposals is a bad idea. Taken together, they have the potential to drastically alter the fabric of our society and government in ways incompatible with our Founders’ vision for our country.

The left is increasingly willing to cast aside any rule, any constitutional provision, and any political norm if it thinks doing so will lead to short-term partisan gains. That is a dangerous and short-sighted game to play.

The Media Has Been Indicted : Integrity Once Compromised Cannot Be Regainded

If hate is a way of life, were can you go to find peace?

Little wonder the media is either backing down some or doubling down on it's previous two years of hateful and vile rhetoric for this President and his supporters.

Truly the media will not survive in tact after Sundays release of the AG's summation of  the Mueller report. Not that they were ever seen as being a legitimate source of information, but now having been totally consumed in hate for this country and it's people for the last two years, they cannot just say we won't hate everyone and everything that is in opposition to our agenda any longer, it's now a forgone conclusion, their hate will bury them.

Hate is all consuming and can never be relinquished as a way of life. Can you say I'm going to hate less then I did before? ''Integrity once compromised can never be regained''.

Mueller Report Is a Damning Indictment of the Media

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / March 25, 2019

After over two years of speculation and endless media coverage, the Mueller report is here, and it arrived with a whimper.

Questions will now turn to what’s shaping up to be the bigger scandal.

The only indictment we’ll likely see in the coming weeks is of America’s media elite, who oversold the report, misled the public, and otherwise appeared to be laser-focused on the goal of ending Donald Trump’s presidency rather than faithfully drawing out the truth.

For those who were hoping the report would unveil evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, the fact that it was submitted late on Friday afternoon wasn’t a good sign. Late-Friday document dumps are usually aimed at minimizing media coverage of embarrassing information.

Attorney General William Barr confirmed the left’s worst fears in a four-page summary on Sunday.

“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its effort to influence the 2016 presidential election,” Barr wrote.

The letter continued, quoting directly from the Mueller report: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Of course, Trump was quick to pounce, as they say, on Twitter.

For those searching for a way to implicate Trump in some sort of crime, Robert Mueller’s report declined to comment on “whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” according to Barr.

Undoubtedly, progressives and Democrats will now turn their attention to the inconclusive obstruction of justice charge, but that’s an awfully big drop-off for a movement that is dead set on impeachment and dragging Trump out of office in chains.

The fact is that after nonstop allegations and insinuations that Trump was a Manchurian candidate and a puppet of the Putin regime, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever to back up those claims.

This, after devoting almost endless airtime to the issue.

A NewsBusters report found that: “From January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day) through March 21, 2019 (the last night before special counsel Robert Mueller sent his report to the Attorney General), the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts produced a combined 2,284 minutes of ‘collusion’ coverage.”

As The New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote on Friday, the release of the report would serve as a “reckoning” for Trump, Mueller, and the media.

The result comes as vindication for some in the media like Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist, and a few others who remained skeptical of all the rumors and poured cold water on the rush to indict the president on what seemed to be flimsy charges from the outset.

But for the rest of the who perpetrated the collusion narrative, this isn’t working out so well.

Of course, this indictment in the minds of viewers won’t cause media figures to retreat in shame. But it will likely further deepen Americans’ distrust of the media establishment.

From BuzzFeed’s publishing of the Steele dossier to CNN’s botched story (later retracted) that Congress was investigating a “Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials,” the media has made numerous errors that turned out to be drive-by hits. These errors received little mainstream attention as reporters moved on to new stories—a new attempt at “resistance” reporting, as former ABC host Ted Koppel called it.

This coverage fueled the wild fantasies of progressive activists around the country: bizarre viral Christmas songs and stories of elderly critics attempting to stave off death to see the Mueller report, to name just a couple.

All for nothing.

Trump is now 2-0 against the media—first, beating Hillary Clinton after reports said it could never happen, and now, coming out on top in the Mueller report.

Trump takes a lot of flak for his attacks on the press, but it’s clear that the media itself has done the most lasting damage to its own credibility, only ensuring that Trump’s criticisms leave a mark.

As Matt Taibbi, a journalist who published a scathing critique of the media, wrote:

This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the same publication.

Taibbi wrote that the “sheer scale” of this media failure will have ramifications for years to come.

“We’ve become sides-choosers, obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction,” he wrote.

Is there any doubt that this is true?

We should be grateful for the handful of dissenting media voices who questioned this narrative from the beginning, most of them operating outside the large legacy media outlets that set the tone for political coverage in America.

The elite media’s unforced errors in the Trump era have exposed the media’s partisan bias and have undermined its credibility. Though we shouldn’t expect much soul searching from these individuals, there may still be a silver lining from all this.

Just imagine how this all would have unfolded if the news we receive only came from a few select media outlets, or if information in this country, like in much of the world, had been tightly controlled by the government. In either case, we would have received a single narrative with no other options.

Needless to say, the Founders got it right with the First Amendment, which doesn’t just protect reporters at The New York Times, but all Americans. The rights of free speech and a free press are our only real antidotes to fake news.

At the very least, the cratering of the elite media’s credibility may provide an opening for others to fill the quality void, and create pressure from the American people for tighter standards in the journalistic profession.

The media elite are unlikely to change on their own, but the way is becoming ever clearer for other voices to take their place.

Gov. Cuomo's Climate Change Agenda : It's Not For Me - Just For The Little People!

The ravings of a progressive liberal lunatic demanding

you must live a life like I say but not as I do.

That the good governor is caught up is his own nightmare of lunatic regulations based on a moronic ideology would be funny except millions of citizens are not lunatics and understand just how insane the New Green Deal is for surviving the winter months.

This again, this is not rocket science, the renewable energy sources are not ready for prime time and won't be for decades if not generations, but non the less the progressive socialist liberal democrats demand everyone obey this depraved agenda and ideology coming from unethical and pathologically diseased  democrat bureaucrats.

And guess who won't have to be living without any energy source that is cheap and reliable, yeah you guessed it, the bureaucrats. They all will be nice and warm with their natural gas furnaces.

They aren't stupid you know, the new regulation are just for the little people, not for the ruling class. Get serious!

Consequences of Cuomo’s Climate Agenda Hit Close to Home. His Home.

Michael Bastasch / @MikeBastasch / March 22, 2019

The unintended consequences of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s global warming crusade are hitting close to home—literally.

The utility Consolidated Edison put a moratorium on new natural gas hookups across parts of Westchester County, including Mount Kisco, site of the Democratic governor’s residence, according to The New York Times.

Con Edison’s decision is no surprise to energy experts critical of Cuomo’s blocking of major gas pipelines and banning of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in New York.

“Gov. Cuomo has been mandating the Green New Deal dream in New York, and now it’s turning into a nightmare for people forced to pay twice as much for oil heat instead of natural gas,” Daniel Kish, a distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, a free market group, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Local officials and businesses worry that Con Edison’s decision will derail major development projects that rely on natural gas for heating. It also means homes looking to get off relatively expensive heating oil will have to wait. “It’s just a question of how people are going to be able to heat their homes and cook their food with the energy that’s available right now,” Con Edison spokesman Michael Clendenin told the Times.

The natural gas moratorium was announced in January and went into effect March 15, sparking a rush to get applications for natural gas hookups filed before it was too late.

Cuomo banned fracking in 2014 after years of study and delay. Cuomo said the risks to New York’s groundwater and public health were too great, despite Pennsylvania moving ahead with extracting oil and gas from shale.

In the years since, the Cuomo administration has blocked major natural gas pipeline projects. At the same time, however, natural gas was becoming an increasingly important part of New York’s electricity and heating mix.

Cuomo’s policies have made environmental activists happy, and he’s not done yet. The governor is in the midst of pushing his own “Green New Deal” plan to put more solar and wind power onto the grid.

Cuomo’s goal is 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040. Current state law mandates 50 percent renewable electricity—hydropower, solar, and wind—by 2030. About 28 percent of the state’s electricity comes from renewables, mostly hydroelectric dams.

However, most of New York’s electricity comes from natural gas and nuclear power. Also, millions of households rely on natural gas for heating during winter.

Pipelines are needed to get natural gas to customers, energy companies say, and there aren’t enough to reliably meet demand, especially during harsh winters.

Con Edison said Cuomo’s policies have chilled construction of new pipelines in the region. Two counties in Massachusetts also have had moratoriums on natural gas hookups since 2014 due to a lack of pipelines.

“The market changed,” Clendenin told the Times. “Investors were no longer willing to take the risk.”

The pipeline bottleneck in New York also put pressure on New England states that heavily rely on natural gas. Harsh winter conditions in recent years brought the region’s grid to the brink, including during the winter of 2017-2018.

“The Northeastern states are cutting their own throats, and their leaders are doing it with a green knife,” Kish said.

In response to Con Edison’s moratorium, New York state offered roughly $250 million in incentives to reduce energy use and install green energy heating equipment. Public utilities regulators are looking into Con Ed’s decision and could overturn the moratorium.

However, Cuomo’s office blamed Con Edison’s poor planning for the natural gas shortfall.

“The current issues these localities are facing are a result of poor planning by the utilities,” Cuomo spokesman Dani Lever told the Times. “Con Edison never even proposed new infrastructure or alternative solutions that would have adequately met increased demand for certain products prior to announcing its moratorium.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Global Broadcasting's Budget Cuts : But Not National Public Radio's $450M?

This picture drives progressive socialists to hate the 

president and themselves.

Cutting the budget for Global Media is not a good idea. Why would we do that when it serves a vital function in bringing the message of freedom to enslaved population.

It definitely needs restructuring as it is currently control by progressive liberal domestic terrorists who want noting more then Barrrack's religious jihad for transformation to become a reality. They are telling the world how bad America and how we all hate it's founding.

To find extra funding, why not cut some funding for National Public Radio that gets more then $450 million tax dollars and they are a progressive socialist organization that is designed to bring chaos right here in our country.

Budget Cuts Would Stifle US Broadcasting to Post-Soviet Regions

Helle Dale / @Helledale / March 22, 2019

The Trump administration’s budget proposal for the U.S. Agency for Global Media for fiscal 2020 reflects indifference—if not disdain—for the agency whose self-proclaimed mission is to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

The spending blueprint released on March 18 would reduce the budget for the agency, formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors, from $808 million to $688 million, a 15 percent reduction. At a time when information warfare from international rivals, such as Russia and China, is an increasing challenge, the leadership of the agency itself and President Donald Trump’s proposed budget cuts warrant intense scrutiny.

Among the unfortunate casualties of the proposed cuts are Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Georgian Service, Tatar-Bashkir Service, and North Caucasus Service. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty cuts take the semi-independent broadcasting entity from $124 million to about $86.8 million in 2020. Reductions will also hit their Balkans Service by eliminating operations in Montenegrin and Macedonian.

These may be small language services, but their function is critical, indeed central, to the mission of the U.S. government’s international broadcasting. Independent media are still in a developing stage in Georgia and the Balkans.

As for services aimed at the Caucasus, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty may be the only alternative to government media. Populations are starved for any independent, reliable news.

Blogging at Window on Eurasia, former Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty assistant director Paul Goble makes an important point:

“The Putins and the Kadyrovs of this world will certainly be delighted by the Trump administration’s proposal,” Goble writes, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his protege, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov. “But no one in Washington (outside the Russian Embassy, of course) should be pleased. They should recognize how important such broadcasts are to reaffirming what the United States stands for and how important that is for our friends in these places.”

Nor is this the first time the U.S. government has blundered in the post-Soviet space.

The George W. Bush administration in 2007 announced plans to cut numerous Voice of America services to the former Soviet republics, including Georgia. That drew the protests of 11 former VOA directors and members of Congress. The following year, Russia invaded Georgia, and the U.S. Congress reversed the Bush administration’s proposed cuts.

The Trump budget proposal and the snail’s-pace efforts to replace the Obama-era leadership of the U.S. Agency for Global Media could well be rooted in a lack of respect for the agency and its work.

While the mission of informing the publics in countries without independent media is still an important aspect of U.S. foreign policy, the execution has been uneven, and the blatant anti-Trump bias among the leadership and journalists of the agency has undermined its credibility and effectiveness.

Nevertheless, Congress needs to take a close look at the administration’s budget proposal. There’s much at stake here, beyond the politics of Washington.