Thursday, January 23, 2020

This UN judgment opens the door to permanent 'climate refugee' status


 Image result for cartoons about greta thunberg
Article by Andrea Widburg in "The American Thinker":

Most of the people who enter America illegally do so for economic reasons.  Of late, Progressives contend that the economic problems in poor countries are due to climate change.  (Leftists claim that everything negative is due to climate change.)  The U.N. has now issued a ruling holding within it the promise that anyone who claims climate change is a serious issue in the home country (and keep in mind that all future climate change damages are highly speculative) is a refugee who cannot be turned away.

The sad reality is that third-world countries have problems much greater than the Earth's ever-shifting climate.  They are plagued by systemic corruption, socialism, theocratic tyrannies, centuries of endemic poverty and disease, and equally old cultural patterns inconsistent with modern wealth creation.  That we may be entering another solar minimum cycle is the least of their worries.

But that's not how U.N. bureaucrats view the climate's effect on impoverished countries.  Or rather, at the U.N., it doesn't matter whether climate change is real.  What really matters is that climate change is a vehicle for wealth transference.  A U.N. official affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change freely admitted that "we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

The Guardian now reports on a U.N. judgment opening the door to saying to first-world countries that if people seek refuge in that country based upon the claim that they are escaping the effects of climate change, the host country may not repatriate that refugee:

It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found.
The judgment — which is the first of its kind — represents a legal "tipping point" and a moment that "opens the doorway" to future protection claims for people whose lives and wellbeing have been threatened due to global heating, experts say.
The judgment relates to the case of Ioane Teitiota, a man from the Pacific nation of Kiribati, which is considered one of the countries most threatened by rising sea levels. He applied for protection in New Zealand in 2013, claiming his and his family's lives were at risk.

According to Teitiota, as islands in South Tarawa became uninhabitable, they were crowding onto his island.  Moreover, he said, a lack of fresh water and an increasingly saline water table inhibited crop growth.  Teitiota said Kiribati would be uninhabitable in 10 to 15 years, endangering his life.

The New Zealand courts rejected the claim, recognizing that the argument entirely erases borders between nations that are more prosperous and those that are less prosperous.  The U.N. human rights committee actually backed that decision because it concluded that 10 to 15 years was a sufficient time for Kiribati to remediate the problem.

However, in the same opinion, the court left open other claims for people contending that they could not be forced to return to home countries affected by climate change:

The committee ruled that "the effects of climate change in receiving states may expose individuals to a violation of their rights ... thereby triggering the non-refoulement obligations of sending states".
[snip]
While the judgment is not formally binding on countries, it points to legal obligations that countries have under international law.
"What's really important here, and why it's quite a landmark case, is that the committee recognised that without robust action on climate at some point in the future it could well be that governments will, under international human rights law, be prohibited from sending people to places where their life is at risk or where they would face inhuman or degrading treatment," said Prof Jane McAdam, director of the Kaldor centre for international refugee law at the University of New South Wales.
"Even though in this particular case there was no violation found, it effectively put governments on notice.

One can only wonder how long it will be before illegal aliens in America start contending that climate change has made it impossible to earn a living in their home countries, entitling them to stay in America.

Will an Arkansas stripper finally shut down the Schiff show?


 Image result for cartoons about hunter biden
Article by Monica Showalter in "The American Thinker":

In an apparent trashy side story, Joe Biden's son Hunter has an Arkansas judge after him for failing to comply, for the third time, to submitting a financial statement so as to determine how much side support he need to pay for the child that came of his congress with an Arkansas stripper.

The judge is angry:

On Tuesday, an Arkansas judge ordered Hunter Biden, the youngest son of former Vice President Joe Biden, to appear in court and explain why he should not be held in contempt for violating numerous court orders to provide financial information in his Arkansas paternity case.
In the case, Lunden Alexis Roberts, a former Washington, D.C., stripper, has reportedly been awarded full custody and is seeking child support after a November DNA test confirmed that Roberts' son — born in August 2018 — was indeed Hunter Biden's child. Biden has refused to hand over financial records, despite a December 6 order to do so, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported. He missed deadlines on December 12 and December 19, and most recently on January 16.
While questions about Hunter Biden's finances — particularly his employment history at the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian gas firm Burisma and his father's efforts to get the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired — feature in the Trump impeachment battle, Roberts' lawyer insisted that the paternity case has nothing to do with impeachment.

Baby-daddy Hunter has been told to show up in Arkansas to explain to the judge just why he won't turn in his financial statements. He argues it's all political, but the judge says it's all to determine how much child support he has to pay. And he agreed to accommodate Hunter by sealing the records.
 
 
It's been all for naught. Hunter made a litany of excuses even then and now the judge is sick of it.
 
Which raises questions about just what Hunter might be hiding. 
 
Alana Goodman at the Washington Examiner reports that while Hunter says he's 'unemployed' with no income, he's somehow living in $12,000 a month rented Hollywood Hills mansion with million-dollar views on four sides of the spread.
 
Here's the house. Here's the neighborhood.
 
She dug deeper to find that Biden's China interests are registered right at the residence, too:
 
One of Biden’s businesses, Skaneateles LLC, is registered to the Hollywood Hills address, according to corporate records. Biden used the company to purchase a 10% equity stock in Chinese investment fund BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. in 2017, according to his attorney.
Biden’s business dealings in China have faced scrutiny during his father's presidential campaign. Hunter Biden said he would step down from the board of the BHR investment fund in October, although he has not said whether he would divest his shares in the company. He is still the director at Skaneateles LLC, the company he used to purchase equity in the Chinese fund, the Daily Caller reported in October.
The implicit suggestion from it, given that Biden doesn't work for a living, is that the Chicoms might just be paying for it. Or maybe the Ukrainians of Burisma. He seems to be on someone's string.
 
Which brings Biden inevitably back into impeachment, given that Biden's corrupt deal with Burisma, riding on the coat-tails of poppa Joe's vice presidential influence, were the premise for the entire impeachment drama.
 
And in fact, as Andrew McCarthy points out in a must-read essay called "On the Bidens, Schiff Opened the Door," Hunter Biden and maybe old Joe too are now in the impeachment stew whether they like it or not, because House impeachment spearhead Adam Schiff has actually taken them that way. He writes:
 
In sum, the House’s chief prosecutor represented to the American people that President Trump had asked his Ukrainian counterpart to fabricate a false case against Biden. In any court in America, that would open the door to the Trump defense team to show that this was not the president’s intention at all; he was simply asking Zelensky to look into a situation that cried out for an inquiry.
In light of Schiff’s explicit allegation, the president is entitled to an opportunity to show that there was reason for him to believe that a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company had retained Hunter Biden and paid him a fortune despite his lack of qualifications; and that later, despite the blatant conflict of interest, then–vice president Biden extorted Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, threatening to withhold $1 billion in desperately needed funds.
Adam Schiff steered his case straight into the Bidens.
And what a coincidence, we have Hunter Biden being called to disclose his finances as the baby daddy to an Arkansas stripper and her call for child support. You'd think Biden would just shell out to get his name out of the spotlight, but maybe someone else is holding his money. In exchange for ... who knows.
 
That's a mighty uncomfortable position to be in as the oil slick of impeachment edges closer and closer to him. Schiff, of course, is attempting to protect him. But the Senate isn't his arena. It's Mitch McConnell's turn now and the president's office is at stake. Hunter's appearance, along with revelations of his financial dealings, ought to pretty well prove that President Trump was not making anything up. The Hunter Biden 'did nothing wrong' narrative is bound to go out the window, and take the Schiff show down with it, too. 
 
Amazing what an Arkansas stripper can do.

🔴 LIVESTREAM (Open Thread) — Impeachment Farce Day 3



The livestream feed of the Senate Impeachment Hearing is provided. 

But feel free to discuss any topic you feel would be more interesting.  




For instance, Intellectual Froglegs is more interesting and informative. 



Adam Schiff: Remove Trump, Because..

Adam Schiff: 

Remove Trump, Because 

He Didn’t Follow Talking Points

2:49
Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the Senate impeachment trial Thursday that President Donald Trump should be removed from office because he did not obey the talking points prepared by bureaucrats who work for him.

According to Schiff, the president — who has primary authority under the U.S. Constitution to determine U.S. foreign policy — did not follow “U.S. policy” in speaking with Ukraine’s president.

Schiff said:
I just want to underscore this: he’s not obligated to use his talking points. He’s not obligated to follow the recommendations of his staff no matter how sound they may be. But what this makes clear is it wasn’t U.S. policy that he was conducting. It was his private, personal interests that he was conducting. If it was U.S. policy, it probably would have been in the talking points and briefing material. But, of course, it was not.

The U.S. Constitution gives the President of the United States primary authority to determine U.S. foreign policy.
Article II, Section 2, includes the following:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Constitution does not discuss “talking points” prepared by officials who report to the president himself.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

BOMBSHELL: Laura Ingraham Lays Out Damning Info About Whistleblower, Bidens, Burisma and Obama Admin

 BOMBSHELL: Laura Ingraham Lays Out Damning Info About Whistleblower, Bidens, Burisma and Obama Admin
Article by Nick Arama in "RedState":

I don’t sling around the words “huge” or “bombshell” easily or lightly. 

But the information just broken by Fox News’ Laura Ingraham is all of those things.
She details how she managed to obtain a chain of emails through a FOIA request for information from the New York Times’ Ken Vogel. If you recall, Vogel was the man who wrote the famous Politico piece that broke the story about Ukraine allegedly helping the Democrats and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. 

Vogel had information that he was querying the State Department about in May 2019 about Ukrainian officials, the whistleblower and the White House. His email was forwarded to people at the State Department including George Kent and Elizabeth Zentos. This was shortly after Joe Biden had declared his run for the Democratic nomination.


From Washington Examiner: 

On May 1, 2019, Vogel contacted State Department official Kate Schilling about a story he was working on regarding an Obama administration meeting in January 2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and mentioned the name of the CIA analyst believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings that led to two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. [….]
In the email, Vogel wrote, “We are going to report that [State Department official] Elizabeth Zentos attended a meeting at the White House on 1/19/2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials as well as … [redacted] from the NSC … the subjects discussed included efforts within the United State government to support prosecutions, in Ukraine and the United Kingdom, of Burisma Holdings, … and concerns that Hunter Biden’s position with the company could complicate such efforts.”

The redacted name is that of the man reported as the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.

The State Department ultimately declined to comment to Vogel.

Ingraham says her people were able to determine from White House visitor logs that Ciaramella checked several Ukrainian officials to the White House for that January 2016 meeting. Ciaramella was the Ukraine director on the National Security Council. As such he did do work with Joe Biden who was the Obama point man on Ukraine. 

So Ingraham asks why wasn’t the whistleblower who was so concerned about President Donald Trump’s phone call not concerned about this? What was said in the meeting about the possible prosecutions into Burisma and what role did Hunter Biden’s role play in those discussions?

Also what happened to the story that Vogel was going to write for the New York Times? It was never published, so was it squashed? Ingraham says that they just said Vogel’s request for comment was consistent with their news-gathering process, whatever that means. It doesn’t explain why the story never ran. 

Ingraham explains “the timing of their request and the subsequent squashing of the story are very interesting,” because Joe Biden had just announced his candidacy for president on April 25, one week before Vogel’s request. 

Did someone squash it so as not to hurt Biden. Was this whole Ukraine call scam/whistleblower game cooked up to prevent all this from coming out because Trump had raised the issue of the case being possibly improperly shut down? And is it really not just to protect Biden but to protect the Obama administration in general from yet another scandal? 

On the same day as Vogel’s request to the State Department, he had a report published examining how in 2016, then-Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine did not fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. [….]
Vogel has continued to report on the Bidens and Ukraine and the unfolding impeachment saga. He said in a Sept. 21 interview that the Ukraine story posed a “significant liability” for Joe Biden and that there was “more to be told.” Vogel got a report published the next day that declared no evidence had surfaced that showed Joe Biden intentionally tried to protect his son by getting Shokin fired.

That meeting with the whistleblower and the Ukrainian officials occurred in mid-January. On February 2, Viktor Shokin raided the home of the founder/head of Burisma. That was made public in the Kyiv Post on February 4. Then in March, Shokin was fired and whatever investigation he was going to do was stopped. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has requested any information from the State Department with reference to Joe Biden and contact with Ukraine about that time. According to Graham, Hunter Biden began following Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, “a longtime advisor to Vice President Joe Biden,” on February 4, perhaps indicating there may have been a discussion about Shokin’s investigation.

Biden’s people just released an ad on Tuesday claiming any problems with Burisma were long before Hunter joined the board. Hunter joined the board April 2014 and was on it for until April 2019, all within the time in question. 

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/01/23/770929/

Americans Are Woefully Uneducated About...


Americans Are Woefully Uneducated 

About Basic History

This is a recipe for a dark future and needs to change.

In America, we celebrate democracy and are justifiably proud that this nation was founded on the idea that the people should rule.

That’s why it is so important that Americans be informed about their government. They are partakers in it. In fact, they control it.

Under tyrannical systems, it matters little if the people are informed about political life. Autocrats make decisions for them whether they like it or not. But in our republic, we rely on the informed decision-making of citizens to judge policies and the leaders who will implement them.

Unfortunately, we are not very well-informed.

Woeful Ignorance

According to a recently released survey, Americans are woefully uneducated about the most basic facts of our history to the point that most couldn’t even pass a basic citizenship test.

A recent study by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation found only one in three Americans can actually pass the US citizenship test, which asks the most basic questions about our history and how our system of government works.

Passing the test requires answering 60 percent of questions correctly, but a majority of those participating in the survey couldn’t even do that.

“With voters heading to the polls next month, an informed and engaged citizenry is essential,” Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, said.

“Unfortunately, this study found the average American to be woefully uninformed regarding America’s history and incapable of passing the US citizenship test. It would be an error to view these findings as merely an embarrassment. Knowledge of the history of our country is fundamental to maintaining a democratic society, which is imperiled today.”

The survey listed some of the embarrassing answers given on the test:
-Seventy-two percent of respondents either incorrectly identified or were unsure which states comprised the original 13 colonies; 
-Only 24 percent could correctly identify one thing Benjamin Franklin was famous for, with 37 percent believing he invented the lightbulb; 
-Only 24 percent knew the correct answer to why the colonists fought the British; 
-Twelve percent incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War, while 6 percent thought he was a Vietnam War general; 
-While most knew the cause of the Cold War, 2 percent said it was climate change.

Young people performed worst on the test. Out of all test-takers under the age of 45, only 19 percent passed.

Given these numbers, it’s no wonder why so many young Americans say they would rather live under socialism than capitalism and have little understanding of what that would mean in reality.

Something Must Change 

On one hand, there is a case for forgetting history. Many cultures cling to historical grievances to the point where history becomes a major impediment to future success. Treated wrongly, historical memory can be toxic rather than helpful.

We don’t want to become trapped by the past, but we do want to learn from it in order to avoid repeating past mistakes and build a better future. As citizens, knowledge of the past and of civics is crucial. Lacking such knowledge is unhealthy for a free country, and even dangerous, given how bad political life can become.

One of our biggest problems today is that we often focus on tearing down our history rather than learning from it. That needs to change.

If these sobering test results tell us anything, it’s that we need to consider a fundamental change in how we approach education in the United States. And despite what some voices say, education funding is not the problem.

Globally, the US ranks near the top in spending on elementary and secondary education, yet we don’t appear to be getting much bang for the buck. Perhaps it’s time we take a harder look at the public school monopoly that’s failing students and leaving generations of Americans without a basic understanding of our past.

More generally, we’ve failed to uphold Ronald Reagan’s call for an informed patriotism and more civic ritual—necessary qualities for the maintenance of a free country—in favor of negative and ideologically narrow accounts of America’s past now in vogue in our schools.

This is a recipe for a dark future and needs to change.

What the Biggest Swing County in Iowa Says About 2020


Both Trump and Obama won big in Howard County. While the president is likely to win such small, rural places again, the size of his margins could be crucial.

Jan. 22, 2020


Photographs and video by Daniel Acker for The Wall Street Journal


‘This is not a liberal bastion.’

CRESCO, Iowa — When Democrats start their presidential nomination voting with this state’s caucuses early next month, voters like Joe Wacha hang in the balance.

After backing Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, the 63-year-old greenhouse manager says he switched to Donald Trump in 2016. A large number of his fellow Howard County voters did the same.

The rural county, located in northeast Iowa near the Minnesota border, is the only one of America’s more than 3,000 counties that voted by more than 20 percentage points for Mr. Obama in 2012 and by more than 20 percentage points for Mr. Trump in 2016. It swung 41 points, the second-biggest flip in the nation.

Recent interviews with dozens of voters here suggest that most of Mr. Trump’s 2016 supporters, including Mr. Wacha, plan to stick with him, even though some said they have grown weary of his personal behavior and trade fights. Among those who previously voted for Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump, many said they are reserving judgment until they see who wins the Democratic nomination.

As for Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, now under way in the Senate, most voters said they haven’t followed the case closely and don’t expect it to weigh heavily in their decisions. Several said they view it as just more Washington partisanship.

What such swing voters do in 2020 will have national implications. Before Mr. Trump, Howard County hadn’t backed a Republican for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. It is one of the 31 counties in Iowa—the most of any state—that backed Mr. Obama twice and then switched to Mr. Trump.


Howard County general election results
Before Donald Trump, Iowa's Howard County hadn't voted for a Republican for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984.


The president won in 2016 partly because he ran up huge victories in small, heavily rural counties. While he is likely to win such areas again, margins could matter. If Democrats can keep him from racking up the kind of gains he did in places like Howard County in 2016, that could help determine whether he will again carry battleground states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Snow-covered grain bins near Lime Springs, Iowa.
Snow-covered

A weekly livestock auction in Cresco.

A

Chuck and Linda Weida have breakfast at Sue-Z-Q's restaurant in Cresco.

Chuck

Howard County isn’t an overtly partisan place. Almost half of its voters—46.8%—are registered as independents, high enough to rank fourth among Iowa’s 99 counties. Trade, government spending and health care were among the most frequently mentioned issues when voters were asked what will help decide their vote.

For Mr. Wacha, the greenhouse manager, all the talk in the Democratic primary race about expanding the role of government is turning him off. “I wouldn’t vote for any of the Democrats running right now,” he said. “A lot of their platforms are too far to the left, with free health care and college. None of them have a solution for how to pay for all of this except raising taxes.”

JoeJoe Wacha Registered: Democrat
Plans to vote for: Trump
The county’s population is 96.4% non-Hispanic white, compared with a national average of 60.4%. It also is far less educated than the national norm, with just 14.9% of those 25 and older having a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 31.5% nationally.
Members of the white working class have been the heart of Mr. Trump’s political base, and Howard County is dominated by such voters.

Neil Shaffer, the local Republican Party chairman, sees three main reasons the county flipped so dramatically in 2016: too many new regulations on farmers and water quality, the “baggage that Hillary arrived with,” and because rural America likes antiestablishment candidates.

I believe the county really looks at an individual candidate, not so much a party,” he said. “People liked that idea of someone coming in to shake things up.”

A mix of flatland and rolling hills, the county sits atop some of the world’s richest soil. Grain silos and church steeples are the tallest structures.

‘The choices we were given in the last election weren’t that great.’

Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to feed the world by helping improve wheat production, was born in the county, but family farms like the one he was raised on are increasingly giving way to corporate agriculture, a transition loaded with anxiety.

The county has received $330 million in agricultural subsidy payments since the mid-1990s, according to the Environmental Working Group in Washington, which opposes such payments. Even so, there is sentiment here that those in capital cities such as Des Moines and Washington are always steering more resources to urban areas, while burdening rural residents with added regulation. Local Democratic and Republican leaders say Mr. Trump’s antiestablishment message tapped into those feelings and turned them into political support.

While even Mr. Trump’s supporters said his tariffs have hurt both the county’s manufacturing and agricultural sectors, nearly all of the independent or Republican-leaning voters interviewed said they think he has taken on a fight long overdue.



Percentage of voters with no party affiliation
36.89
(Iowa average)

Brandon Reis, a 37-year-old farmer registered as an independent, said his top issue when considering whom to support in 2020 is trade. He declined to say whom he voted for in 2016, but is frustrated with how Mr. Trump has dealt with China.

“It needed to be done, to some degree, but I feel like it has been done poorly,” he said. “It has been done in fits and starts, and I don’t feel like there was fortitude to go all the way through and finish it.”

Mr. Reis, who with his wife and parents farms about 2,000 acres, said his family’s hog operation has been hurt by the trade dispute at a time when the Chinese supply of pork is down because of swine-fever disease there.

“That reduction in their herd created what could have been a large opportunity,” he said. “We are watching that opportunity dry up.”

Besides raising corn and soybeans, the Reis operation produces about 15,000 hogs a year. Prices have ticked up slightly in recent months, but Mr. Reis said his family was losing money on pork for roughly half of 2019.

A high-school wrestling match in Cresco.

A

Brandon Reis, who is a registered independent voter, with his daughters on their farm near Lime Springs.

Brandon

Neil Shaffer is chairman of the Howard County Republican Party.

Neil

Mr. Reis said his vote will also be determined by who he thinks is being the most honest. “I will almost be voting on fortitude: the people willing to tell the hard truths,” he said. “It feels like both sides are just telling people what they want to hear.”

About three-quarters of the county’s economy is directly tied to agriculture, estimated Andy Ludeking, a 38-year-old Obama-Trump voter who is a vice president of Cresco Bank. Mr. Ludeking said he is open to voting for someone other than Mr. Trump in the fall.

“I don’t think he’s a great person, but I do like some of the business stuff he’s done,” he said. “The choices we were given in the last election weren’t that great.”

At a recent Saturday afternoon high-school wrestling match, several younger parents said they returned to the county after attending college elsewhere because of family ties and quality-of-life considerations.

“It’s a good community and a good place to raise kids,” said Courtney Shimek, a 32-year-old mother of two who works as an accountant and with her husband on their 100-acre farm. “We don’t have a Target store down the street, but we have a lot of other good things.”

Ms. Shimek likes Mr. Trump’s efforts to build a wall on the southern border of the U.S. “It’s not going to solve all our problems by any means, but it’s going to help,” she said.
‘It feels like both sides are just telling people what they want to hear.’

After supporting Mr. Trump in 2016, she expects to do so again this year. “Do I agree with everything he does? Absolutely not,” she said. “But I think we are headed in the right direction.”

The county, with about 9,200 residents in 2018, has seen its population decline 3.9% since 2010. That isn’t as much as some rural counties in the state, but well below the national population gain of 6% during the period.

With historically low unemployment—1.9% in November—many of the county’s employers are desperate for workers. A lack of new housing and child care, plus limited retail and restaurants, makes it hard to attract new employees.

Amy Bouska, a 71-year-old member of Cresco’s city council and a Democrat, said new housing is a top local issue. A lack of investors willing to build new housing, she said, prevents workers from moving to the area. “We’ve got jobs we can’t fill,” she said.

AmyAmy Bouska Registered: Democrat
Plans to vote for: Anyone but trump
Gary Gooder, a 59-year-old president of a local manufacturing company, said his business and the county in general have seen an economic uptick since Mr. Trump’s election. “We did all right during the Obama years, but, you know, we weren’t kicking up into that next gear,” he said.

Mr. Gooder, a Republican who plans to again vote for Mr. Trump, said the price he pays for the aluminum he uses to make trailers and other products has increased by about 25% because of tariffs. So far, he has managed to pass most of that along to customers.

Following Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Gooder said he was so confident about the economy that he gave all 80 of his employees a raise that was, on average, about $1.25 an hour. “Things were going to heat up for workers, and we wanted to get ahead of the curve,” he said.

Barry Christensen and his family have been working the county’s rich farmland for five decades. The 39-year-old farmer and seed-corn salesman returned to the county in 2007 to work with his family’s 2,000-acre operation after he attended college and worked in the corporate office of a food-processing company in Colorado for five years.

Barry
Barry Christensen Registered: Republican Plans to vote for: Undecided
Mr. Christensen voted for Mr. Trump in 2016, after voting for Mr. Obama in 2012. He said he is leaning toward Mr. Trump again, depending on whom the Democrats nominate. Although farm commodity prices are depressed, Mr. Christensen said his stock market investments are doing well and he is generally positive about the economy.

Mr. Christensen said Mr. Trump’s impeachment won’t affect his vote. “It’s a show,” he said. “It feels like it was done to damage him for November.”

Chuck Weida likes the president’s outspokenness and plans to vote for him again. On a recent morning, Mr. Weida sat wearing a red baseball cap near a sign at Sue-Z-Q’s, a popular cafe on the edge of town, that says “Sit Long, Talk Much.” The 71-year-old retired manufacturing worker from nearby Riceville, Iowa, said he took his cap, which had an American flag on the front, to a local embroidery shop to have “Trump 2020” added to the side.

“I fear that if he doesn’t get re-elected, the Democrats are going to go socialist,” said Mr. Weida’s wife, Linda, a 70-year-old nursing-home worker.

Laura Hubka, the county’s Democratic Party chairwoman, said a moderate Democrat such as former Vice President Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., might have a chance of winning the county against Mr. Trump. She doesn’t think more liberal candidates, like Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts or Bernie Sanders of Vermont, would have as good a chance.

“This is not a liberal bastion,” said Ms. Hubka, a 55-year-old health-care worker. “People that are here work for a living—they feel like they have to do work—and that nothing was given to them for free. And I think they look at maybe Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as someone that wants to give people things, and that doesn’t play well here.”

A family farm near Cresco.
A family farm near Cresco.