penny press 23, 2017the penny press,february 23, 2017 page 4 school education. walmart money...

Penny PressNevada, USA Volume 14 Number 25 FEBRUARY 23, 2017

PennyPressLogotype Pointedlymad licensed from: Rich Gast

Credits:Publisher and Editor: Contributing Editors:Fred Weinberg Floyd Brown Al Thomas Doug French Robert Ringer John Getter Pat Choate Ron Knecht Byron Bergeron

The Penny Press is published weekly by Far West Radio LLC All Contents © Penny Press 2017

Letters to the Editor are encouraged. They should be emailed to: [email protected] No unsigned or unverifiable letters will be printed.

775-461-1515 eFax: 201-304-0355

www.pennypressnv.com

THE PENNY PRESS,FEBRUARY 23, 2017 PAGE 2

By NATALIA CASTROSpecial to the Penny Press

Scott Pruitt is was sworn in as EPA Administrator last week after being confirmed by the Senate, putting him in the right place to

end the disastrous war on coal that has cost the jobs of millions of Americans. His support proved to struggling voters that Senators were listening to their plight.

Ever since his time as Oklahoma Attorney General, Pruitt has fought the EPA at every turn throughout the country. Pruitt joined 11 other Republican Attorneys General in 2013 to fight against the sue and

settle lawsuits of the EPA which provided the agency with wide latitude over the enforcement of environmental law, where environmental groups sue the EPA and to avoid further litigation, the parties settle the suit and the EPA is given permission to address the issue with newly expanded powers.

There will also be an opportunity for the EPA to reconsider the 2009 Carbon Endangerment Finding, defining carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which has been used to justify the continual implementation of regulations that expand the agency’s power and wage a war on coal via the new and existing power plant rules.

The EPA has successfully forced states to regulate the coal industry as an extension of the

Clean Air Act, and given itself far more oversight than ever intended.

This assault on coal has placed burdens on the economy that Pruitt has consistently seen as both unattainable and unnecessary, arguing in 2014 in response to a new EPA regulation on emission controls that “The EPA can’t force utility companies to actually incorporate emission control measures unless they’re achievable through technology. And here, there really isn’t any demonstrated technology that will see a reduction of 30 percent… this is coerced conservation.”

Pruitt’s constant defense against this coercion by the agency built by the Obama Administration allowed all 52 Senate Republicans to back him Thursday morning as his confirmation process moved

forward. However, Republicans were not alone in their favor for Pruitt.

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp both voted in support of Scott Pruitt as well, and this vote could be what saves them in 2018 as Democrats defend a whopping 25 Senate seats. Even Democrats are starting to learn that the war on coal is hurting the jobs of their constituents and polluting the economies of their states.

The Washington Post reported in Dec. 2016 that West Virginians were “euphoric” and “thrilled” by Trump’s win noting that “Before the price of coal collapsed, before the number of working miners in the state fell to a 100-year low of 15,000, miners could make $60,000, even $75,000 a year, without a high

Penny PressNEVADA USA 16 PAGES VOLUME 14 NUMBER 25 FEBRUARY 23, 2017

Penny WisdomThe media did not make Donald Trump and they can’t destroy him. —Rush Limbaugh

The Conservative Weekly Voice Of NevadaInside:Base To TrumpGo Get'em Big Guy

See Editorial Page 6

RON KNECHT PAGE 5FRED WEINBERG PAGE 6ROBERT RINGER PAGE 7PETER PITTS PAGE 9ROBERT BRADLEY PAGE 10ROBERT ROMANO PAGE 11CHUCK MUTH PAGE 14

Obama's War On Coal Is Over

Commentary

Continued on page4


school education. Walmart money doesn’t come close.”In states with a strong mining industry, a senator’s vote for Pruitt is a

vote to return economic possibility and the American dream to thousands of workers.

Even Heidi Heitkamp has been consistently willing to oppose her Democratic establishment when it comes to assisting her constituents in getting back to work. In 2015 Heitkamp argued “EPA’s over-reaching policy won’t work for North Dakota. We now have EPA in the driver’s seat dictating how we generate and transmit electricity, and that’s a dangerous road to go down.”

Constituents in states like North Dakota and West Virginia were integral in developing a support base for Trump that Democrats willfully ignored. Heitkamp and Manchin have proved that they are listening to their people, other Democrats would be wise to do the same.

The rust belt was integral to Trump’s election in part because of their reliance on coal; for states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Indiana, three of which Trump won, Trump was the easy decision to get the people back to work and make the economy stable once again. Yet all

four of these states have Democrats in office, all up in 2018 as well, who voted against Pruitt: Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Mark Warner and Joe Donnelly.

In a statement, Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning blasted these senators as “those politicians who voted against the Pruitt nomination told the workers in their states they prefer San Francisco radical environmentalist campaign cash over the votes and livelihoods of their constituents.”

Clearly, Heitkamp and Manchin are focused on creating jobs for their constituents and retaining their position in 2018, and proof was their vote for Pruitt. Brown, Casey, Warner and Donnelly, not so much.

President Obama led the war on coal, and now Scott Pruitt is about to end it as EPA Administrator. The work he has done in Oklahoma sets the stage for ending EPA overreach and in doing so, he can force other Democrats in the Senate to actually start listening to their constituents — or else face the music in 2018.Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.

Even Democrats In Coal States Are HappyContinued from page 3

The Grim News: The Economic Outlook

This is the sixth column in a series presenting findings and conclusions of Nevada’s 2016 Popular Annual Financial Report (PAFR), posted at controller.nv.gov. Here, we address the economic outlook.

In Nevada’s 2015 PAFR, we proffered an economic outlook focused on the long term. We identified four long-term secular trends that have suppressed US economic growth over the last decade – thus explaining the “new normal.” By their nature, these trends will continue to retard

growth for the foreseeable future absent significant changes in public policy.

These developments obviate short-term forecasts because they swamp out business-cycle effects and may even change business-cycle frequency. They also make forecasts for particular economic sectors uncertain. And they do the same to regional forecasts. Nonetheless, we examined certain long-term Nevada trends to see if there was any basis for modifying the national forecast for our state. (There was not.)

The first trend is the continuing growth of government relative to the economy – reflected in public spending, taxes, deficits, debt, regulation of all kinds, and other government interventions (e.g., retirement programs, health care and insurance, etc.). The empirical

economic literature indicates that government size, scope and reach has for over 55 years been excessive relative to levels that maximize growth and thus human wellbeing. Yet government has continued to grow, especially in the last decade, thus ever more retarding growth.

Until the turn of the century, this growing deadweight loss was offset by three growth-inducing factors: 1) demographic and other increasing labor-force participation trends; 2) increasing debt levels of all kinds relative to gross domestic product (government, financial debt, non-financial business debt, home mortgages and all other consumer debt); and 3) rapid growth in emerging economies, plus globalization of firms, and increasing trade and foreign direct investment.

Not only has government over-reach soared to new levels in the last ten years, but labor-force trends that were a major offset to that excess have turned around, driven by both policy and demographics since the turn of the century. Since the Great Recession, rapid growth in debt has also waned for policy reasons and simply because the growth rates were unsustainable.

Third, world economic growth is slowing and will continue to slow because other countries have done an even worse job than the US on growth policy. Further, our increasing integration with the rest of world has slowed since the recession, mainly due to poor policy. So, the rest-of-the-world sector also has changed from a growth engine to a drag.

The upshot of these trend changes is that ten-year US growth, which peaked in the 1960s and then was roughly constant through 2007, except for a downward excursion in the early 1980s, collapsed after 2007 to half its historical rate,

where it has stayed. Last year, we forecasted two percent or lower long-term annual growth, with half of it coming from population growth and half from real per-person economic growth – both of which are declining.

We emphasize per-person growth because it determines the extent to which human wellbeing and human flourishing increase, and thus is the real measure of success in public policy. The difference between the one percent per-person figure of the last decade that we project to continue for the foreseeable future and previous growth in the 2.0 – 2.5 percent per-person range is hugely significant in economic, social and human terms, as we showed.

While two percent total growth (including population growth) had been the rule since the recession, almost nobody had been projecting it would persist. So, our projection (which Ron has made since 2011 based on such analyses), was an unorthodox if not radical forecast. Over the last year, many people have begun to accept the idea that such slow growth really is the new normal and have given reasons similar to ours to support such forecasts. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office – which has a long record of optimistic forecasts that were not realized – recently adopted the two percent long-term growth estimate.

Upon further investigation, our conclusion remains that economic growth will be slow and maybe slower than before, and that economic uncertainty has increased. Slow economic growth has huge consequences for people and public policy that we’ll discuss in future columns.


The Penny Press Tips Its Cap To:Elon Musk and his SpaceX commercial rocket company for last weekend’s launch and recovery of a Falcon 9 rocket after sending a supply capsule to the International Space Station. Musk is a smart guy and a good financial musician playing Nevada’s Governor like a Stradivarius with his Tesla company but even our discomfort with that cannot stain this achievement. Maybe we’ll get back in space yet.

Las Vegas’ Brendan Gaughan who posted the 33rd-fastest speed of 189.294 mph in the No. 75 Beard Oil Chevrolet for Sunday’s running of the Daytona 500. As the quickest of NASCAR’s six noncharter teams and drivers attempting to make the race Sunday, Gaughan is assured a spot in the 40-car field. This will be Gaughan’s second start in the Great American Race.

The Penny Press Sends A Bronx Cheer And A Bouquet of Weeds To:Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval who, in a grandstand play, said he would not activate the Nevada National Guard to round up undocumented immigrants for deportation. The Associated Press detailed a memo draft that was considered by the White House, which called for the mobilization of National Guard troops across 11 states, including Nevada. The memo proposed to use as many as 100,000 troops to act as immigration enforcers in finding and deporting undocumented immigrants. The Guv should read the Insurrection Act of 1807 as modified by Congress after Hurricane Katrina. The President can call them up himself.


Tips Of Our Capand

Bronx Cheers

Commentary: Ron Knecht & Geoffrey Lawrence

RON KNECHT and GEOFFREY LAWRENCE

One of the things about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is that while it guarantees freedom of the press, it does NOT protect the press from criticism since it ALSO guarantees freedom of speech.

So President Trump is perfectly within his right to call the press—and by extension what we call the mainstream media today—“fake news”, “failing” and any other epithet he chooses.

And, if he wants to use Twitter to do it in less than 140 characters at a time, then he’s also helping an American company stay in business and create jobs in keeping with his campaign promises. (Twitter had lost a collective $2-billion in 10 years as of last year.)

Further, if the snowflakes who work in the mainstream media are offended, here’s an idea: stop acting like an opposition party, whining, moaning and bitching, and just do your damn jobs.

Donald Trump may well be the first President in the history of the United States who the mainstream media—and the rest of the opposition—is mad at NOT because he isn’t keeping his campaign promises, but because he IS! He was elected by a huge majority in Middle America who have no trust in the media and the media will not change those redstate minds by being offended. Middle America could care less.

If Trump wants to posit that people who distribute fake news are an enemy of the American people, he is well within his right to say so—as long as he doesn’t try to use the long arm of the government to shut them down. No less than his eminence Chris Wallace says that crosses some line. And what line, Mr. Wallace, is that? Perhaps the same red line Barack Obama said Syria had crossed. Wallace should remember that the company which pays him a reported million dollars a year for his Sunday morning bloviating became successful enough to do that by doing exactly what Trump is doing. Is he concerned that Trump is pre-empting Fox News?

There are a few things that I have learned in my career.

One is that when someone in business tells you that it’s not about the money, it’s always about the money.

Two is that when someone in the media tells you that a free and unobstructed press is the bedrock upon which our democracy is built what they really mean is that is true as long as that media is reporting what they, personally, think to be true. And they’ll usually be willing to trade free and unobstructed for reporting what they believe in.

Three is that when someone in the media starts telling you what the President—any President—“has” to do, you should look closely at that person’s bona fides.

How many times in the last year and a half has Fox News, CNN and MSNBC had one of those point-counterpoint segments where

two talking (or screeching) heads debate a point and seen persons identified as “Republican Strategist” and “Democrat Strategist” as the two panelists?

And how many times has either of those two talked about what the President “has” to do?

Now there are some “strategists” who may actually know something.

And there are certainly some folks who are not campaign managers looking for free publicity to insure their next gig who also may know something. Take Dana Perino on Fox. She used to be the Press Secretary to President Bush43. She might have some insight. But Juan Williams? Other than getting fired from NPR, what has he ever done which gives him special insight?

Bob Beckel has actually run a major party Presidential campaign—and lost. Mike Huckabee was the Governor of Arkansas and ran for President. Dick Cheney was the Vice President of the United States. John Bolton was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. That is experience which they can fall back on.

But Fox, CNN and MSNBC can’t get the first string every day. So they bring in folks whose only experience is running a campaign for Congress or City Council to talk about national security. Or someone who gets paid to write in the Washington Post.

The thing a viewer has to do is to both understand the bias of a panelist and view what they say in light of that as well as not living in an echo chamber created by only watching and reading news sources you agree with. Beckel, as an example is a Democrat. Huckabee is a GOP AND Trump supporter. Bolton is a national security hawk and a Republican. The Wall Street Journal is more right than left. CBS leans left, Fox sort of leans right. Even though Politico’s reporting of fake news may turn your stomach, their iPad app is free and you should read it so you can get an average baseline. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and even a blind hog can find an acorn.

Journalism is protected by the First Amendment from being censored or shut down by the government.

But journalists are NOT protected FROM the First Amendment.

And if Donald Trump is not afraid to look them in the eye and tell them what a bunch of biased jerks they are, the First Amendment gives him the unalienable right to do so. The Bill of Rights makes it a matter of law. The Declaration of Independence says we have an unalienable right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

In this case Trump has a constitutionally legal freedom of speech. But maybe the pursuit of happiness best describes what he is doing.

His happiness AND ours. Go get’em, big guy.

FRED WEINBERG


OPINIONFrom The Publisher...

Press NOT Protected FROM First Amendment


Stop Worrying and Start LivingMore than fifty years ago, the legendary Dale Carnegie wrote one of

the biggest-selling motivational books of all time, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living. The book is a bit dated now, both in writing style and content, but many of the points Carnegie are as applicable today as they were then.

Carnegie focused a great deal on the acceptance of the inevitable as a key to eliminating stress and worry. Though I agree with him on this point to some extent, it’s a bit more complicated than he made it sound. The reason I say this is because what some people think of as inevitable, others see as a challenge that can be overcome.

For example, a person might believe that failure is inevitable for him and thus resign himself to a life of frustration. Unfortunately, this is precisely what millions of people do. Yet, the reality is that failure is not inevitable in anyone’s life.

But what about things that really can’t be changed, such as blindness and quadriplegia? Thousands of people have endured major physical handicaps, yet found the mental and physical strength to accomplish great things. By accepting the reality of their physical handicaps, such people were able to rise above their handicaps.

The challenge is to be able to determine what is and is not inevitable. When I use the word inevitable, I think of it in the future tense — as something that has not yet happened. Carnegie, however, seemed to be referring to the inevitable in the present tense. (It’s already a fact of life, so learn to accept it.) Thus, it could be that his oversimplification of the subject was simply a matter of semantics.

Technically speaking, the only thing that is 100 percent certain to occur in the future is death. Frank Sinatra expressed his view of this certainty with typical candor when said, “You better enjoy livin’ baby, ’cause dying is a pain in the ass.”

I wouldn’t exactly compare Sinatra to Shakespeare from a linguistic standpoint, but in reality he summed up perfectly the solution to dealing with the inevitability of death: Become so focused on life that you don’t have time to think about it.

When you direct your energy away from the inevitability of death, it paves the way for focusing on constructive living. The least expensive medication for worry and stress is activity.

While death stands alone as the one fact of life that is truly inevitable, many other things come close. Even so, none of them deserve your stress or worry.

So, yes, Dale Carnegie was right when he preached resignation of the inevitable, but it’s important to be able to differentiate between what is and is not inevitable. The reality is that most perceived problems can be overcome through a combination of (1) relentlessness, (2) resourcefulness, which opens the mind to new possibilities that people with a low awareness level cannot see, (3) the law of averages, and, above all, (4) being conscious of your connection to the Universal Power Source.

Any way you slice it, and whatever your spiritual beliefs may be, what it all boils down to is focusing on constructive thoughts that will better your existence and the existence of your loved ones. It’s okay to plan for

the future, but worrying about the future can actually get in the way of sound planning.

Above all, exerting mental energy to worry about the inevitable is illogical. We’re all familiar with the Serenity Prayer, which includes the words: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.” If something is truly inevitable, that means there is nothing you can do about it. And if there’s nothing you can do about it, what’s the point in worrying?

Just make certain that you don’t cavalierly apply the term inevitable to a situation that doesn’t warrant it. As I pointed out, very few things in life are inevitable, and only one — death — is 100 percent certain. And since, as Sinatra put it, death is “a pain in the ass,” why spend time thinking about it?

A better idea is to invest your mental and physical energy in thinking about how to be the best spouse you can possibly be, the best parent you can possibly be, the best son or daughter you can possibly be, the best sibling you can possibly be, the best friend you can possibly be, the best employee or employer you can possibly be, and the best overall person you can possibly be.

Which is more than enough to keep you busy. However, as a bonus, to the extent you are successful in these pursuits, that other little issue we worry so much about — financial success — somehow works itself out without your having to fret and stew about it. ROBERT RINGERRobert Ringer (© 2017)is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has appeared on numerous national radio and television shows, including The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, ABC Nightline, The Charlie Rose Show, as well as Fox News and Fox Business. To sign up for a free subscription to his mind-expanding daily insights, visit www.robertringer.com.

Commentary: Robert Ringer


Commentary: Peter PittsPresident Trump Misunderstands What Government Drug Price Negotiations Entail

President Donald Trump recently pledged to let federal officials negotiate the prices of drugs covered under Medicare. He claims this will save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Nobody doubts that Trump and his team are shrewd negotiators. But the sorts of “negotiations” that Trump refers to have nothing in common with haggling over a real estate deal. Instead, the action that Trump has proposed — repealing the non-interference clause, originally drafted by Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle — would result in Medicare drug prices going up and patient choice going down.

This clause has been the key to Medicare’s success. Between 2004 and 2013, the Medicare “Part D” prescription drug benefit program cost an extraordinary 45 percent less than initial estimates. Premiums for the program also are roughly half of the government’s original projections.

These unprecedented results are largely due to Part D’s market-based structure. Beneficiaries are free to choose from a slate of private drug coverage plans, forcing insurers to compete to offer the best options to American seniors. This year, seniors can choose from among 746 plans nationwide, with an average monthly premium of around $35.

Such great choice and low costs have led to widespread support for the program. In fact, nine out of ten seniors report satisfaction with their Part D coverage, according to a recent survey.

Through their own negotiations with drug makers, private insurers that offer Part D plans have had great success in keeping pharmaceutical

prices down. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office observed that Part D plans have “secured rebates somewhat larger than the average rebates observed in commercial health plans.” The non-interference clause prohibits government officials from intruding in these negotiations.

Doing away with the non-interference clause, on the other hand, “would have a negligible effect on federal spending.” In a report from 2009, the CBO reiterated this view, explaining that such a reform would “have little, if any, effect on [drug] prices.”

In fact, allowing the feds to negotiate drug prices under Part D likely would have a negative effect on the program. The CBO explains that to achieve any significant savings, the government would have to follow through on its threats of “not allowing [certain] drug[s] to be prescribed.”

In other words, the government might drop some drugs from Medicare’s coverage. Patients who need those drugs would then be forced to pay for them out-of-pocket, which would make medicines vastly more expensive for the seniors that Trump wants to help.

If patients couldn’t afford the prescription, then they might switch to a less effective drug or stop taking the medicine altogether. Their health would suffer.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a hypothetical consequence. Just look at what’s happening with the Veterans Affairs formulary, which permits government interference. The VA covers barely 80 percent of the 200 most popular drugs in the country. Medicare, which doesn’t allow for government meddling, covers 95 percent of these medicines.

Letting Medicare go the way of the VA would be devastating for seniors.

Senators Kennedy and Daschle knew what they were talking about. The President should pay close attention. PETER PITTSPeter J. Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner, is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.


Pipeline Populism: Complete, BuildPresident Donald Trump is about to give the U.S. economy a power-up. He

just approved the long delayed construction of two megaprojects, Keystone XL and the Dakota Access pipelines.

This means more domestic energy, more economic growth, and more jobs for Americans. But it also means more theatrics from environmental extremists. The new president and his team should hang tough and ignore their doomsday predictions.

Keystone XL will transport oil from Canada to Nebraska. The Obama administration blocked Phase IV, claiming it would “undercut” America’s role as a leader in the fight against climate change.

The Dakota Access pipeline will carry 500,000 barrels of oil a day. The Obama administration stopped construction when it was nearly complete. This came after protests promoting the baseless claim that the pipeline would harm the drinking water of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

President Trump, in his first full week in office, brought both pipeline projects back to life. He promised to streamline “the incredibly cumbersome, long, horrible permitting process” and cut unnecessary environmental regulations. This is good news.

Green HysteriaTo say that the reaction from extreme greens was overwrought would be

an understatement.“Keystone XL is a carbon bomb that would cook the planet,” cried the

environmental advocacy group 350.org.“Donald Trump has been in office for four days and he’s already proving

to be the dangerous threat to our climate we feared he would be,” squealed Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

Such hyperbole and misdirection are at least a half-century old. In the 1960s, Paul Ehrlich et al. warned us about mass starvation from the population bomb. The famine scare continued in the 1970s with resource exhaustion.

Now, climate-alarmist smears are being recycled to drum up fundraising dollars for environmental groups.

Eco-friendly, EconomicalHistrionics aside, there are good reasons why the new president is moving

forward with the pipelines.Pipelines are the safest way to move oil — safer, in fact, than rail or road.

The great majority of energy transported via pipeline — 99.999 percent — reaches its final destination safely.

That’s because pipelines are carefully constructed and monitored. The industry constantly upgrades its systems to include the most advanced safety technology.

What’s more, federal and state governments alike have reviewed Keystone and Dakota and concluded that they are safe for the environment.

Even the Washington Post Editorial Board recently acknowledged the overreach by environmental activists.

Dakota Access poses no threat. The pipeline will be placed deeper and farther away from existing infrastructure than mandated by government regulations.

To ramp up fears around these pipelines, activists are pointing to two oil spills. Neither is cause for alarm. The more recent of the two caused no injuries and did not get anywhere near drinking water supplies. The other did not even take place in the United States.

Pipeline to JobsThe pipelines are not only environmentally friendly, but also economically

beneficial. Keystone XL would involve 42,000 jobs in construction and add $3.4 billion to U.S. GDP.

Dakota Access, which has already involved 12,000 jobs, will produce $55 million in taxes. It will spur millions of dollars in investment.

President Trump should be applauded for his decision to kick-start the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.

One can only hope that the Democratic Party returns to its roots as the party of the small person, now known as the forgotten man and forgotten woman. Fossil-fuel populism, not environmental extremism, is winning politics. ROBERT L. BRADLEYRobert L. Bradley Jr. is the founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research.

Commentary: Robert Bradley

Trump: ‘Nuclear Holocaust Would Be Like No Other’

Faced with repeated questions on Russia amid increasing calls from some members of Congress for a hard line on Moscow, President Donald Trump outlined what is truly at stake with U.S.-Russian relations at his Feb. 16 press conference, and that is avoiding nuclear war.

“If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along, and don’t forget, we’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are they. There’s no upside. We’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are they,” Trump noted.

Together, the U.S. and Russia own about 94 percent of the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons — about 7,000 apiece — enough to kill everyone many times over.

Here, Trump was warning that even after the Cold War the threat of nuclear war is still very real.

“I’ve been briefed, and I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say it, because anyone that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other,” Trump warned.

“They’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are we,” he repeated, adding he hopes to ease current tensions, “if we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.”

Trump also emphatically defended his proposed engagement with Moscow as not just for the sake of the American people, but for the sake of us all.

“It would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia but then we’re not going to make a deal. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal, I don’t know. We might, we might not, but it would be much easier for me to be so tough — the tougher I am on Russia the better — but you know what, I want to do the right thing for the American people, and to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world,” Trump declared.

In other words, Trump proposes détente with Moscow not because of shared values or a fondness for the leadership there per se, but because of common interests. Namely, mutual survival in averting nuclear war. The basis for cooperation, for Trump, is in its necessity, for the continued survival of humanity.

That is why this whole fake news business on Trump and Russia right now is so dangerous. For example, the ridiculous story that the Trump campaign supposedly worked as Russian agents to engage in espionage to put the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta emails on Wikileaks. Or the nonsensical allegations against former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn that he was working as a Russian agent to bring an end to sanctions against Moscow during the Trump transition period.

It is yellow journalism at its worst. It’s totally false, but its continued drumbeat of reporting is poisoning the possibility of peace. And it’s time to knock it off. Things are escalating rapidly, for example, in Ukraine where

the civil war is worsening.When asked about reports of a Russian spy ship spotted off the east

coast of the U.S., Trump implied that the current foolish allegations about Russia were having an impact, “If you were Putin right now, you would say, hey, we’re back to the old games with the United States, there’s no way Trump can ever do a deal with us… because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal.”

Therefore, it’s a most dangerous political game being played by Trump’s political foes on this issue. The Democrat opposition, Senate Republican hawks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the media with its irresponsible reporting on Trump and Russia.

Pushing that false dossier around Washington, D.C. throughout 2016 was destructive. And now it’s getting out of control — making war between the two nuclear powers more likely.

For Trump to be able to calm things down, this stuff needs to stop. It’s becoming a credible threat to national security. If the administration is in a position to prove these allegations are false, it should do so immediately. If the transcript on Flynn talk with ambassador is benign, release portions that need not be classified. Now that he is in office, Trump and his intelligence team should have access to all of the intelligence that exonerates him. This story needs to be put to bed.

After Trump was declared the winner of the election early in the morning on Nov. 9, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Trump his congratulations and his hope that the crisis in U.S.-Russian relations over Syria and Ukraine could begin to come to an end.

“[Trump] spoke about resuming and restoring relations with Russia. We understand the way to that will be difficult, taking into account the current state of degradation of relations between the U.S. and Russia,” Putin said on Russian television, adding, “Russia is ready and wants to restore the fully-fledged relations with the U.S. I repeat we understand this will be difficult, but we are ready to play our part in it.”

Afterward, the outgoing Obama administration rapidly escalated matters, continuing to assert — but not proving — that Russia somehow had hacked the election. And then slapping sanctions on Moscow. And then surveilling Flynn apparently without a warrant and then leaking his conversations with the Russian ambassador to create the appearance of a quid pro quo.

It was all nuts. An attempt to weaken Trump and to wreck the possibility of his proposed détente. The work of fools.

Fortunately, despite the current escalation, with renewed fighting in Ukraine and the naval incidents, Trump says he is still committed to his policy, because the stakes are so high.

“Maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I will have tried,” he said. For all our sakes, the American people, including Trump’s political opponents, should hope he succeeds. All of our lives may very well depend on it. ROBERT ROMANORobert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.



Commentary: Robert Romano


Watching Outfor Our Country, County and CityLIKE A HAWK!

KELY 1230AM

Ely’s Radio Station293-1875 Georgetown Ranch

Should Republicans Support the National Popular Vote Compact?

If you’re a conservative like me, your knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of changing our presidential elections to a national popular vote isn’t just no, but…”Heck (or stronger), no!” After all, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton both won the popular vote but lost the elections under the current system, right?

But after attending a conference last weekend to learn more about the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), I’ve changed my position to…well, maybe. But to get there you need to get to the devil in the details.

The first detail actually comes from President Donald Trump himself, who wrote last November, “If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily.”

Indeed, the only reason Gore and Clinton won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 is because their GOP opponents didn’t worry about the popular vote. They were totally fixated on winning the election under the rules of the game at the time. If the rules had been different, they would have played the game differently.

Secondly, and I know this is a biggie for many conservatives, the NPVC does NOT do away with the electoral college system of electing our president. Here’s why…

First, the NPVC is not a constitutional amendment that changes our electoral system to a nationwide winner-take-all election. The key word is “compact.” It’s something each of the 50 states can voluntarily join or not join.

Secondly, according to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, each individual state legislature has the power to decide how its electoral college delegates are awarded. So each state is free to decide whether to give its delegates to the candidate who wins the state popular vote or the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

Got it?Now here’s the potential payoff for Republicans…There are 11 solidly “blue” states, including California, already signed

up for the NPVC. Combined they account for 165 electoral votes which today are virtually impossible for Republican presidential candidates to win individually.

Which is why so many GOP voters in those states stay home. Their vote really doesn’t matter. The winner is a foregone conclusion.

However, if Republican voters in those “blue” Hillary states had had a reason turn out and add to Trump’s national popular vote total and given him the majority, he would have won those 165 electoral votes. Which means he would have won a YUGE landslide of 471 electoral votes.

Now THAT’S a mandate!So, yes, while I still have reservations as to whether or not “red” states

should join the compact, I’m all in favor of “blue” states doing so since Republicans have virtually no chance whatsoever of winning those states under the current system.

I told you the devil was in the details. CHUCK MUTH(Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and publisher of NevadaNewsandViews.com.)


Commentary: Chuck Muth Every week in Nevada, someone is trying to screw us.

Most of the time, we elected that someone.

That's why we conserva-tives NEED a WEEKLY voice.

That's why the Penny Press has made sticking up for us little guys a whole new Nevada tradition.

Penny Press775-461-1515

eFax [email protected]

pennypressnv.com


SparksReno

Carson Citywww.LaMejorReno.com


Protect your home & family from anywherewith Vivint Smart Home Security

GET UP TO

$1500

Limited Time! Call Now!

worth of

FREE EQUIPMENT*

Touchscreen Panel24/7 Domestic MonitoringWireless ConnectivityRemote AccessTwo-Way CommunicationSmartphone AppsAutomatic door locks & MORE!

Whether you’re away or at home, you can still rest easy and feel secure. Your smartphone will tell you if anything changes around the house, and you’ve got a whole army of monitoring professionals looking out for you.

Get a smart home system that’s customized to suit your lifestyle.

Call Now For Your No Obligation Rate Quote 800.940.2187

Vivint Home Security. Simply smarter.

*60 month monitoring agreement (48 months in AR, WI, or CA total fees from $3,359.52) at $69.99/month for Full Home Automation Package required. Up to $99 activation fee after discount, home ownership, and satisfactory credit history required. Taxes and permit fees may apply services not available in all areas. Offer valid for new customers only. Package includes 7” touchscreen Vivint Sky panel, 7 points of security equipment, smart thermostat, 1 small appliance module, 1 door lock, and 1 camera. Additional equipment may be added for a fee. Speak to a representative for complete equipment details and pricing.

MS #: 15010729 / Alabama #: 980, 12082, 1321 / Alaska #: 952694, 36012, 10-052 / Arizona #: ROC218272, ROC272138, 18335 / Arkansas #: E 07-009, 1440150 / California #: ACO6286, LCO5368, 874794 / Connecticut #: ELC - 0192591-L5, ELC.0191352-L5, HIC.0634529 / Delaware #: 06-116, 2006209146, FAL-0328 / Florida #: EF20001030 / Georgia #: LVU406189 / Hawaii #: CT31374 / Idaho #: 011630, 012673 / Illinois #: 127-001290 / Iowa #: AC-0011, 04643-06 / Maine #: LM50017112 / Maryland #: 107-1302, IR-2525 / Massachusetts #: 1471 C, 1351 / Michigan #: 3601206218, 7109296 / Minnesota #: TS01618, MB648213 / Montana #: 216 / Nebraska #: FA12465 / Nevada #: 62684 / New Jersey BURGLAR AND FIRE ALARM #: 34BF00000100 / New Mexico #: 93695 / New York #: 12000301658, 68VI1000200, D BY THE N.Y.S DEPARTMENT OF STATE / North Carolina #: 25514-SP-LV, 1811-CSA, NC: 2370-CSA / North Dakota #: TM-00227 / Ohio #: 53891547 / Oklahoma #: 1026, 143819 / Oregon #: 173349, CLE216, 37646 / Pennsylvania #: PA017248 / Rhode Island #: 3734, 34456 / South Carolina #: BAC5569, FAC3437, 1256 / Tennessee #: 1253, 333, 1524 / Texas #: TACLA00043940E, B13684, ACR-2854, 2854A / Utah #: 6093322-6501 / Virginia #: 11 4822, 2705 138422 / Washington #: VIVINI*894BZ / Washington D.C. #: ECS901552, 71101930 / West Virginia #: WV040401 / Wisconsin #: 1209627 / Wyoming #: LV-G-16005

penny press 23, 2017the penny press,february 23, 2017 page 4 school education. walmart money...

Documents