The Stakes are High –

Macron Emphasizes Maximum G7 Control – 

Even Spouses Segregated During Dinner

Posted on August 24, 2019 by sundance

The stakes are high at this G7 Summit in Biarritz France.  Against the rising tide of populist nationalism -pushing against the globalist/corporatist world order- perhaps these stakes are the highest in the modern political era.

  (Where are the spouses?)

Italian President Giuseppe Conte’ is a lame duck summit participant having just quit his job due to economic and immigration backlash from his Italian population.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel has steered her export dependent economy into a recession; and has announced she won’t seek reelection while simultaneously putting the EU central bank into a 28 nation economic quagmire filled with unsustainable IOU’s….

French President Emmanuel Macron, the host for this year’s summit, has spent the better part of the last year trying to violently block the rising yellow vest populist movement, and he is desperate for any distraction away from his own economic reality.

Meanwhile EU President Donald Tusk is locked in an economic death match with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson over the terms of the U.K. Brexit from the union; while simultaneously dealing with a lack of tax receipts from the aforementioned banks of Germany and France…

The EU’s only North American ideological ally, Justin from Canada, is essentially useless. Trudeau has used his political self-identification to hurt his own citizens economically;  Canada is experiencing a continued loss in private-sector employment amid the malaise Justin coordinates; and his tenuous (at best) re-election is scheduled for October 21st…

On the other side of the equation, the more nationalist minded Shinzo Abe (Japan) and U.S. President Donald Trump are not encountering the same economic collapse as their Euro-centric counterparts.

Not coincidentally both Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. President Trump hold the highest domestic approval ratings amid the group of seven nations.  Huh, funny that…. And also not coincidental, both President Trump and PM Abe stand to gain the majority of benefit from a Chinese economic contraction.

So the 2019 G7 in Biarritz, France, ends up happening at a crucial time for those who generationally supported the globalist central-banking “New World Order”.

It all boils down to the economics of things; Globalism -vs- Nationalism, or the multinationals -vs the Main Street yellow vests.

There are trillions at stake amid the layers of banks and multinational financial institutions.

Into that mix of ideology comes President Trump with his MAGA ‘America First’ tariff arsenal in one hand and the massive leverage of the U.S. $20 trillion market in the other.

With both weapons, 30 years of plans for how to use them and a sense of unyielding urgency, what President Trump has begun is a comprehensive global trade reset based on bilateral agreements.

President Trump’s economic plan destroys decades of multilateral terms constructed to the exclusive benefit of corporations and institutions that gained power and wealth over the yellow-vested people.  The scale of consequence within this economic inflection point is generational.

The nationalists (Trump, Abe) with strong economies; and the globalists (Macron, Merkel, Trudeau and Tusk) with ever-weakening economies; and the fence sitters (Johnson and Conte) who are being literally forced, against their preferred outlook – by their respective populations, out of the globalist world and into a populist/nationalist economy.

Quite a dynamic.

This geopolitical struggle is why Emmanuel Macron is fighting so hard to control the optics of this G7.

It is truly quite remarkable when you know what to look for.

The Unmitigated Arrogance of EU President Donald Tusk Toward Brexit

Posted on August 24, 2019 by sundance 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/08/24/the-unmitigated-arrogance-of-eu-president-donald-tusk-toward-brexit/ 

Against the backdrop of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson arriving for the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, EU President Donald Tusk holds a press conference to announce the EU will work to block Britains’ exit from the collective, and will not accept terms.

The hubris and arrogance within this declaration, in advance of Johnson’s arrival, is exhibit ‘A’ for exactly the reason British citizens want out of this nonsense. Watch:

.

The likelihood of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump forming an alliance against this insufferable EU collective is beginning to show in the relationships.

 is a strong likelihood PM Johnson and President Trump will form a mutually beneficial economic and trade alliance outside the EU. The euroweanies know this could be devastating to their controlled economic system; their economy is already in trouble.

This will not end well for the EU.  Pride cometh before the fall.

What Trump and Johnson could construct is a bilateral trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K that has genuine reciprocity and negligible trade barriers.  Like a trade freeway between the U.K and the U.S, but only between the U.K. and U.S.

With the EU no longer able to influence trade agreements involving the U.K. European companies, and countries (Poland, Hungary etc.) could get tariff-free access to the U.S. market by operating out of Britain, or using transnational shipping through Britain.

Simultaneously, the U.S. could ship tariff free into the EU (to a receiving EU corporation, or EU subsidiary of a U.S. corporation) by exporting to Britain.  The UK would be the hub for massive economic activity between North America and Europe.

If France (the EU) is charging Canada a high duty for imported Canadian cheese; Canada, through the USMCA pact could ship to a holding company in Britain who would then transfer product (duty free) to the receiving French company who is operating in the U.K, and distributing in France.  [A French company in the U.K. would receive in the U.K without the French (EU) duty.]

Eventually all corporations in the EU, who wanted to do business with North America, would start operations in the U.K….. OR, the EU would have to drop it’s one-way tariff policy (ie. the Marshall plan is ended).  Think about the leverage this creates.

Of course this process would completely change the trade dynamic in Europe; and completely change the trade dynamic between Europe and North America.  So how would Trump and Johnson start?  Answer: Establish an interim tripwire to measure success. Hence you get this phrase:

 “[…] Such a deal could last for something like six months, the official told reporters.”…

Of course an interim deal… because the EU bloc will respond to it… so a reevaluation at six months, prior to any massive investment outlays, is exactly what a CEO would create.

Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he’s working through a plan for what he views (we agree) is bigger than any ideological aspects.  “Economic Security is National Security.”

During the G7 nuance look for the manipulative globalists to try and keep President Trump and Boris Johnson apart during the non-scripted gatherings and assemblies.

The EU does not want the optics of President Trump and Prime Minister Boris Johnson broadcast to the world.   Watch how hard it will be to find pictures of them together.

Debt Dwarfs China as Top National Security Threat

Article written by Todd Fleming for "The American Thinker":

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/debt_dwarfs_china_as_top_national_security_threat.html

.

This year's National Defense Strategy heralded the return of peer competitors and the re-emergence of long-term great power competition.  The debate among national security experts that followed its publication mostly focused on whether China or Russia is the bigger long-term threat to the U.S.

China is a rising power with national ambitions whose goal is to supplant U.S. atop the global hierarchy.  Russia?  It's a vodka-addled demographic basket case that runs a few troll farms, whose closest economic peers are Italy and Brazil.  

But, an increasingly dangerous China is at best the number two national security threat, dwarfed by the much clearer danger of America's spending addiction.

If the U.S. is supplanted in the global order, it will have done to itself what no foreign power could ever hope to accomplish.  While the national debt stands at well over $22 trillion, the better measure of the impact is in the interest that must be paid each year. 

The U.S. is running a trillion-plus-dollar deficit and is on pace to pay about $400B in interest on the national debt this year.  In ten years, the interest on the national debt is projected to be around a cool trillion dollars, and that's assuming that the U.S. doesn't elect a socialist in the interim, which is becoming an increasingly bad bet.  That's the equivalent of pulling a trillion dollar bill out of the national wallet each year and lighting it on fire.

The $400B we pay now in interest is well over twice what China spends on its military.  Once we get to a trillion dollars, the interest that we will have to pay on the national debt will dwarf U.S. military spending.

China's debt situation is also abominable, as rising debt is a global problem.  It is hard to get a real gauge on China's debt because of how much of it is built up through shadow banks and other questionable tactics.  But the Chinese overall debt-to-GDP may be approaching a staggering 300%, depending on how you measure it, which is both good and bad.  It's good in the sense that the Chinese are likely not as big of a global national security threat as they appear.  It's bad in the sense that they also are in deep trouble and will not be able to serve as a stabilizing function when other nations' debt-laden economies start collapsing.   
      
Our debt is already having a supersized impact on U.S. national security.  Sequestration that wrecked military readiness grew out of it.  It is also shaping future military thinking.  The Navy says it needs 315 ships to meet national security challenges, while the Air Force says it needs 386 operational squadrons (up from 312 today).  The Army also says it is far too small.

But if we don't make radical corrections to our spending trajectory now, future military leaders will look back on today's budgets with envy.  A 315-ship Navy?  Not going to happen.  Three-hundred-eighty-six-squadron Air Force?  A pipe dream.  A new military service to compete in space?  Destined to be a shell. 
  
Not a single Democrat candidate acknowledges this reality.  Every candidate is proposing to radically increase government spending, which will inevitably weaken U.S. national security.  To a person, these candidates of a major political party think it is a grand idea to combine an off-the-chart social welfare system with open borders.  They act insulted when asked to explain how they will pay for any of it, offering vague platitudes about the rich paying their fair share. 

There is a cottage industry of serious articles suggesting that the Democrats go full socialism.  They just might take that plunge as they chase their propagandized and history-challenged voters who are increasingly enamored with the idea.  Even their supposedly moderate candidates are practically indistinguishable in their proposed spending from openly socialist senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. 
    
One of the illustrative moments of the early Democrat debates was when every hand shot up promising free health care to people here illegally.  America can't even come close to affording to offer that to Americans.  In the guns versus butter debate, we are well on our way to being able to afford neither. 

For those inclined to point to the fact that the Democratic candidates are all proposing tax increases on the rich, you can't tax your way out of this hole.  If Democrats taxed rich Americans at 100%, they still couldn't fund the socialist state they have in mind.  The math doesn't come close to adding up.  Americans are already straining under massive personal debt, and most can barely pay their current taxes as household debt shoots through the stratosphere.  There is not much more blood that can be squeezed from that rock, but there is plenty of damage you can do to the economy in trying. 

Every spending proposal should be viewed through the lens of America's catastrophic debt.  If a new idea does something to correct it, it is likely worthy of support.  If it adds expense without any hope of recovering that expense, it is likely a bad idea.

Under this rubric, the liberal-despised southern border wall is arguably the best investment idea since Google.  The $25- to $70-billion wall would return that investment many times over within the first decade on saved social spending, since every person who sneaks in illegally immediately taps into increasingly generous social welfare.
Joining the rest of the logical world and ending the absurd birthright citizenship?  Check.  That will dramatically reduce social spending and remove one of the primary motivators for illegal immigration, a massive driver in increased social spending. 

When Greece imploded, Americans rushed to mock the Greeks and explain why that could never happen here.  But America is well on its way.  We've still got a ways to go to close the Greek debt-to-GDP ratio gap.  They were at about 172%, and America is closer to 106%.  But at the rate we are climbing, it won't take that long to get there, and if socialist policies are put in place, it will happen almost overnight.   

A country like Greece can implode because richer countries can move in and bail it out.  If the U.S. implodes, all bets are off.  Nobody will bail it out as the globe descends into darkness and despair. 
  
So what can we do about it?

This is an issue that demands bipartisan attention, and only one party is even remotely serious about addressing it, with emphasis on the word "remotely."  Republicans repeatedly attacked and burned on this issue by demagogues and the liberal media have mostly surrendered the fight. 

They aren't likely to take up this fight in earnest until the public better understands the urgency.  We need to tirelessly educate all Americans on this threat.  We are quite literally destroying our children's and grandchildren's future while compromising our national security.  We need to scream that reality into the void until people start paying attention.

And if and when President Trump wins his second term, we need to pressure him to prioritize cutting spending.  If we don't, the future of America, and likely the globe, will be marked by hyperinflation, misery, and horror, with nobody positioned to toss out a lifeline.

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/debt_dwarfs_china_as_top_national_security_threat.html

Can Trump ‘order’ companies to look ‘for an alternative to China’?

.

Article by Thomas Lyfson in "The American Thinker":

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/can_trump_order_companies_to_look_for_an_alternative_to_china.html

When President Trump issued a series of four tweets in response to China’s tariff threats Friday morning, Wall Street took a dive. A Matt Phillips of the New York Times wrote:

Stocks fell sharply on Wall Street on Friday after President Trump responded to China’s threat of new tariffs on American imports with an angry volley of tweets, helping to push the market to its fourth-straight weekly loss.

The S&P 500 dropped 2.6 percent, while the technology-heavy Nasdaq index fell 3 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average declined 2.4 percent.
Investors were on edge before trading started after Beijing vowed to answer the Trump administration’s next round of tariffs on Chinese goods by increasing tariffs on American imports.
Stocks opened trading lower after the announcement, but found their footing and began to move higher. Then, around 11 a.m., Mr. Trump took to Twitter.



Trump is clearly threatening a major break with China hours before he was to leave for the G-7 meeting in France, where he will have to opportunity to make the case for a united front to the 6 other largest advanced economies on the world (Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Italy, and Canada), all of whom trade with China and face similar threats of Chinese intellectual property theft and predatory trade practices. China’s open plan for global hegemony by 2019 is as threatening to them as it is for the United States.
But it was the language in tweets 2 and 3 that drew the most criticism:

Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing
....your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.

 Jeanne Whalen, Abha Bhattarai and Reed Albergotti of the Washington Post found an expert who  sniffed:

Trump does not have the authority to “duly order” companies to leave China, according to Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown University law professor and trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

He does have power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to prevent future transfers of funds to China, “but only if he has first made a lawful declaration that a national emergency exists,” she said.

Of course, Trump was not ordering companies to "leave China," os Prof Hillman claims. He was ordering them to "start looking for an alternative to China."
Trump himself mentioned that very act in a tweet soon after the Post article was published:

The full text of the Act is provided by the US Treasury. The most relevant portions include:

United States Code Annotated
Title 50. War and National Defense
Chapter 35. International Emergency Economic Powers § 1701. Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities
(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.
(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.

No doubt, President Trump’s opponents would litigate any invocation of this act, challenging his declaration that China’s trade practices constitute “an unusual and extraordinary threat,” just as they challenge him on many of his policies with which they disagree. But even the WaPo’s expert, Prof. Hillman, notes:

Congress could terminate the declaration if it wishes, she said.

Whatever district court judge the judge-shoppers might find in the Ninth Circuit, eventually, if the case reaches the Supreme Court, the existence of a legislative remedy for any presidential overreach means that the broad “authorities” granted to the president are likely to be vindicated.
The specific powers granted to any president under the act could well make operating in China impossible

§ 1702. Presidential authorities
(a)(1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit—
(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,
(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and

Now, it is true that these powers do not include ordering companies to “start looking for alternatives,” but it is clear that he has powers that would make such a course of investigation necessary. So, President Trump is roughly as imprecise in his language as the expert the Washdington Post invoked to challenge him. So, the short answer is that he can make is necessary for them to do so.

Global disputes set to jolt G7 summit in French resort

August 24, 2019

By Richard Lough and Marine Pennetier

BIARRITZ, France (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump arrived in France on Saturday for what promises to be a fraught meeting of major industrialized nations, with friction over trade, climate change and Iran likely to snarl the talks.
The three-day Group of Seven meeting in the Atlantic seaside resort of Biarritz takes place amid sharp differences over a clutch of global issues that risk further dividing a group of countries already struggling to speak with one voice.
Summit host French President Emmanuel Macron wants the heads of Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States to focus on the defense of democracy, gender equality, education and the environment and has invited Asian, African and Latin American leaders to join them for a global push on these issues.
However, in a bleak assessment of relations between once-united Western allies, European Council President Donald Tusk acknowledged it would be hard to find common ground, denouncing “senseless disputes” between G7 capitals.
“This is another G7 summit which will be a difficult test of unity and solidarity of the free world and its leaders,” he told reporters ahead of the Biarritz gathering.
“It is increasingly difficult, for all of us, to find common language and the world needs more of our cooperation, not less,” he said, adding: “This may be the last moment to restore our political community.”

A grim array of disputes and problems await the leaders, with a trade war between China and the United States deteriorating, European governments struggling to defuse tensions between Washington and Tehran, and global condemnation growing over illegal fires which are ravaging the Amazon.
Trump’s history of pugnacity at multilateral gatherings, which brought last year’s G7 summit to an acrimonious end, means there is scant hope for substantive agreements.
Macron was exploring holding a joint news conference with Trump at the summit’s close, a French diplomatic source said, but has already decided that, to avoid another failure, there will be no final communique.
Trump’s fireworks at the Charlevoix summit in Canada last year prompted foreign policy analysts to dub the Group of Seven nations the G6+1.
U.S. officials said Trump would tout his policies of tax cuts and deregulation and press allies to follow his example to stave off problems with the global economy.
Hours before leaving for Biarritz, Trump reacted angrily to China’s move to impose retaliatory tariffs on more U.S. goods, even saying he was ordering U.S. companies to look at ways to close their operations in China.
Trump also took aim at France’s new tax on big tech companies, threatening to tax French wine “like they’ve never seen before”. Tusk warned that the European Union would respond in kind if Washington took aim at the digital tax.
China’s President Xi Jinping is not among the Asian leaders invited to the Biarritz summit.

JOHNSON’S WORLD DEBUT
Adding to the unpredictable dynamic between the G7 leaders are the new realities facing Brexit-bound Britain: dwindling influence in Europe and growing dependency on the United States.
New Prime Minister Boris Johnson will want to strike a balance between not alienating Britain’s European allies and not irritating Trump and possibly jeopardizing future trade ties. Johnson and Trump will hold bilateral talks on Sunday morning.
 https://www.oann.com/global-disputes-likely-to-thwart-unity-at-g7-summit-in-france/

When Did Freedom of Conscience Become Remarkable?

Article by James Gottry in "Townhall":

https://townhall.com/columnists/jamesgottry/2019/08/23/when-did-freedom-of-conscience-become-remarkable-n2552117

More than two years ago, the Kentucky Court of Appeals issued what should have been an unremarkable ruling in what should have been an unremarkable case.

Of course, if that were so, the Kentucky Supreme Court would not be hearing arguments today in the same case, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands On Originals.
The question before the court is whether the government can force the owner of a promotional print shop to create shirts with messages that violate his faith. The core issue, however, goes much deeper than cotton-poly blends and silk screening. Must Americans surrender their First Amendment rights of expression and belief when they enter the public square?

The answer to both questions should be a resounding “no”.

Blaine Adamson is the managing owner of Hands On Originals, a promotional printing company in Kentucky. He’s also a Christian. In 2012, a customer asked Blaine to print shirts with a message promoting a gay pride festival. Because of his deeply held beliefs about marriage and sexuality, Blaine could not in good conscience create the shirts. Therefore, Blaine offered to refer the requesting organization — the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization — to another company that would print the shirts for the same price.

That should have been an unremarkable exchange. After all, Blaine has declined many orders due to the message requested, including shirts with violent messages and products promoting sexually explicit materials, as well as a shirt depicting Jesus walking on water next to a pirate ship. In every case, his decision is related to the message requested, not the individual requesting it. But the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission didn’t see it this way, ruling that “Mr. Adamson’s refusal…was clearly because of the sexual orientation and identity of members of the GLSO.”

They got it wrong. As my former colleagues at Alliance Defending Freedom have noted, Blaine happily serves all customers, including those from the LGBT community. As just one example, Blaine had previously printed materials for a lesbian singer who performed at Lexington’s 2012 Pride Festival.

Thankfully, the courts below have recognized the distinction between messages and individuals. The Kentucky trial court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered it to dismiss all charges against Hands On Originals. The Kentucky Court of Appeals likewise held that there was no evidence that Blaine and Hands On Originals “refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Unfortunately, the Commission was undeterred, and now Blaine must make his case again before the Kentucky Supreme Court.

This prompts a series of “why” questions.

Why is the Commission so determined to cast Blaine Adamson as a bigot? Why, in a similar case in Colorado, did government officials label the religious beliefs of cake artist Jack Phillips a “despicable piece of rhetoric”? In short, why are religious beliefs being labeled as intolerable in a tolerant society.

A truly tolerant society welcomes diverse beliefs, it doesn’t seek to homogenize them. And a society that values freedom of expression and belief will take great pains to protect it, regardless of whether it falls in line with approved government orthodoxy.

Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo understand this. These lesbian owners of a print shop in New Jersey immediately sympathized with Blaine and his situation, and publicly voiced their support. DiGeloromo explained, “We feel this really isn't a gay or straight issue, this is a human issue.  No one really should be forced to do something against what they believe in, it's as simple as that.”
Like the Kentucky Court of Appeals, Trautvetter and DiGeloromo recognize the principle that too many have missed (or ignored). Expressive freedom belongs to the conservative and the progressive, for the person of faith and the atheist.

As I’ve written before, championing freedom of expression and conscience for those who share your views, while demanding that others violate their convictions, is neither tolerant nor principled. True tolerance requires a two-way street. Applying this principle isn’t always popular, but our society is at its best when we allow — and consistently protect— diversity in conscience and expression.

There is much on which we can disagree. But as Americans who value freedom and diversity, we should all agree to prioritize principle and faithfully uphold cherished constitutionally protected freedoms for all.

Flashback: When Liberals Got Mad

https://freebeacon.com/blog/david-koch-hospital-protest/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=468629dad9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_08_23_08_05_COPY_230&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-468629dad9-45600357

strongFLASHBACK: When Liberals Got Mad and Protested David Koch for Giving $100 Million to a Hospital strong

'No justice, no peace!' they chanted

Andrew StilesAugust 23, 2019 1:48 PM

Libertarian philanthropist David Koch has passed away at the age of 79. The gay-rights advocate and patron of the arts was, along with his brother Charles Koch, one of the most reviled individuals in American politics among journalists and other left-wing activists, even when they were doing ostensibly uncontroversial things such as donating large amounts of money to a hospital.

In March 2014, liberal activist groups staged a protest outside the planned site of the David H. Koch Center at New York-Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan. The center was funded in part by a $100 million donation from the man Democratic billionaire and presidential candidate Tom Steyer once described as "famously evil."

The libs were so mad that even New York City Councilman Ben Kallos showed up at the rally to denounce David Koch for financing a new hospital center in his district.

At one point, union leader Minerva Solla took the mic and declared, "If there ain't gonna be no justice, there ain't gonna be no peace!" It's a phrase often shouted at gatherings of angry libs, but one that becomes especially poignant when used to decry the existence of a hospital that is also dedicated to environmental sustainability.

Some context: These activists were protesting the hospital around the same time that Ukrainian protestors were dying in the streets of Kiev and fighting a medieval trench war against armed riot police in an effort to oust their Russian-backed plutocrat president.

Added context: In 2012, former President Bill Clinton was paid $225,000 to give a speech at the Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C., the same year the hospital laid off 300 employees. "No disrespect to Bill Clinton, but that money could’ve gone a long way and been put to better use," union leader Dan Fields Jr. said at the time.

As a result of David Koch's philanthropy, his name adorns a number of prominent sites throughout New York City, including the David H. Koch Theater at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, a beloved institution among liberal élites.

First vape death in the US recorded in Illinois.

A patient has died after developing a severe respiratory disease due to vaping in the first such death in the US, say health officials.

It comes as experts investigate a mystery lung disease across the US that is linked to use of e-cigarettes.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said there were 193 "potential cases" in 22 US states.
Many of the cases involve vaping THC, the main active compound in cannabis, CDC experts said.
The cases were reported over the course of two months between 28 June and 20 August.
The person who died was "hospitalized with unexplained illness after reported vaping or e-cigarette use", Dr Jennifer Layden, the chief medical officer and state epidemiologist in Illinois, said.
CDC director Robert Redfield said: "We are saddened to hear of the first death related to the outbreak of severe lung disease in those who use e-cigarette or 'vaping' devices."
He added: "This tragic death in Illinois reinforces the serious risks associated with e-cigarette products."

What is the illness?

The cause of the mystery illness has not been identified, but all involve vaping in some form.
"In many cases, patients have acknowledged recent use of THC-containing product," the CDC's head of non-infectious diseases, Dr Ileana Arias, said.
Those affected had symptoms including coughing, shortness of breath and fatigue as well as some cases of vomiting and diarrhoea. There is no evidence of an infectious disease - such as a virus or bacteria - being responsible.

Is regular vaping safe?

No cause for the mystery illness has been identified - and the link to THC products is not clear yet either.
Mitch Zeller of the US Food and Drug administration said it was important to understand that "we find ourselves in the early stages of these investigations trying to piece together the facts."
He said the FDA was exploring whether the products were used as intended or being modified by adding something to them.
 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49452256

https://theweek.com/articles/860645/david-kochs-misunderstood-legacy

David Koch's misunderstood legacy

W. James Antle III

 

Billionaire David Koch was half of the 1980 Libertarian Party presidential ticket along with Ed Clark, the first to crack 1 percent of the vote. He was also half of the "Koch brothers" along with his sibling Charles, a dynamic duo in both business and politics, bankrolling conservative and libertarian causes. Dead at age 79 after a long battle with prostate cancer, David Koch was a singular force for liberty.

The Koch brothers are widely reviled as the poster children for the nefarious influence of money in politics. A pair of extremely wealthy industrialists — Forbes estimated that David was the 11th richest person in the world at the time of his death — who seek to roll back government regulations of businesses, gutting protections for ordinary Americans to fatten the corporate bottom line, puppet masters for the modern Republican Party. Jane Mayer's 2016 book Dark Money makes their investment in like-minded intellectuals, academics, think tanks and advocacy groups sound like the work of cartoonish movie villains: "It was in essence a libertarian production line, waiting only to be bought, assembled and switched on."

Horrors! In reality, whatever people claim to think about money in politics, whether something is perceived as sinister or righteous really depends on what side the mega-donors are on. It is seldom the same people sounding the alarm over billionaire progressives Tom Steyer or George Soros and the Koch brothers, with a few notable exceptions. Koch allies understandably roll their eyes at the notion they secretly control a GOP led by President Donald Trump — the tariff-hiker who tweeted last year "The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade," dismissing both their "money" and "bad ideas" — and running trillion dollar deficits in a time of relative peace and prosperity.

But they have undeniably had their wins. It is hard to imagine criminal justice reform passing, in an unlikely collaboration with the Trump administration, without their efforts. They have helped elect countless Republicans who have in turn voted for tax cuts and to confirm the conservative judges now leaving their mark on the federal bench. The Tea Party was neither as "astroturfed" as its detractors assume or as enduring as its supporters hoped, but the Kochs certainly augmented it and tried to push it in a more fiscally conservative, less populist direction.

The Kochs have been advocates for realism and restraint in U.S. foreign policy, seeking unlikely allies in their efforts to wind down our seemingly endless wars. That is among their most important contributions: On the right, they are the best funded counterweight to the neoconservatives who defined the GOP's approach to the world in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They have fought against occupational licensing requirements that make it difficult for working people to do things like braid hair, highlighting government regulations that can actually hurt the poor. They opposed mass incarceration before it was fashionable to do so on the Democratic presidential debate stage, indeed even while some were still boasting of their toughness in supporting the opposite policies.

Realizing that there was a limit to what supporting conventional Republicans could do to advance their values, the Kochs have become more discriminating about which candidates they back and have to some extent stepped back from their involvement in GOP politics. And plenty of their giving is uncontroversial. David Koch raised millions of dollars for cancer research and also generously funded theaters and art museums.

None of this means the Kochs are above criticism. The left argues that among other things they have helped make the Republican Party resistant to thinking about climate change. The right has increasingly begun to question whether an uncritical embrace of economic dynamism is really "conservative" in any meaningful sense and has certainly started to move in a different direction on immigration.

I have worked for organizations that have benefited from the Kochs' generosity while publishing countless things they undoubtedly disagreed with. I have also been a reporter trying to cover Koch-related events, seeking information about campaigns and political candidates only to be bombarded by talk about how to make charities more effective and to run companies using "market-based management."

But even as the age of Trump, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren raises new challenges to the Koch worldview, David made an impact on the politics of the last 30 years at least as significant as those denouncing him from the Senate floor. His brother Charles will no doubt try to continue it.