Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attacking State Governments

The heavy hand of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has detrimentally affected not just private enterprises and individuals, but also the authority of state governments, all without making any true difference in the quality of the environment.  A study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute  outlines the issue:

“This transition from cooperative to combative federalism has led to some serious problems for the nation’s air quality policy:

  •          EPA takeovers of state air quality programs, known as Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), have increased precipitously since President Obama took office. The Obama administration has imposed more FIPs than the sum of the previous three administrations—multiplied by 10.
  •          Ninety-eight percent (50 of 51) of Obama-era Clean Air Act FIPs are of dubious legitimacy.
  •          Environmental special interests have “captured” the EPA. In return for investing in electoral politics, green groups have been given the reins to environmental policy making at the EPA.
  •          By using a legal strategy known as “sue and settle,” the EPA has effectively undermined states’ authority in favor of environmental special interests in the implementation of the Clean Air Act. This involves the agency implementing policy changes in response to lawsuits by environmental pressure groups, rather than pursuant to any explicit delegation by Congress. Sue and settle litigation has tripled during the Obama administration.


Two legislative solutions would restore the proper balance of power between the state and federal governments pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The first would level the balance of justice when state and federal governments disagree on how to implement the Clean Air Act. The second would ameliorate the impacts of collusive “sue and settle” policymaking between EPA and special interests, to the exclusion of the states.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Recognizing Danger

Over the past six years, While America substantially cut military spending, reduced key oversea commitments, withdrew its tanks from Europe, weakened ties with some allies and conceded to Moscow’s wishes regarding missile defense, Russia dramatically strengthened its armed forces, returned to cold war bases, sold nuclear technology to Iran, moved nuclear weapons to its European border, enhanced military ties with Latin America, invaded the Ukraine, engaged in joint war games and shared military technology with China.

The Obama Administration’s pacifist tendencies have been apparent for some time. Indeed, for over six years, the Obama/Clinton “Reset” policy with Russia has been based on little more than wishful thinking.

But why have so many journalists not recognized the growing danger?

Paul Goble, writing for the Jamestown Foundation notes that “The Russian Federation uses extensive propaganda, outright lies, and—most importantly—disinformation as part of the hybrid warfare it is waging against Ukraine and the West… Moscow’s message is given undue exposure and lack of questioning due to some Western journalists’ misunderstanding between balance and true objectivity, as well as the existence of a large constituency whose jobs rely on the West maintaining strong relations with Russia. In order to limit the spread and impact of disinformation, Western governments will need to recognize the difference between simple lies and actual disinformation, acquire expertise to identify disinformation and parse the truths and falsehoods within it, as well as develop methods to answer and counteract such disinformation both at home and abroad. The policy changes necessary to achieve this will require political will and some costs, but the costs of doing nothing may be even greater.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Europe, Russia cooperate in space

The United States is starting to be closed out of key international space ventures, signaling future problems for American aerospace and high tech industries, and the valuable employment opportunities they offer.

Lev Zelyony, who heads the Russian Academy of Science’s Space Research Institute, has announced that Europe and Russia are working on an agreement to jointly explore the Moon.  The potential deal complements a previous arrangement penned in 2012 for exploring Mars, with an unmanned landing scheduled for 2018.  The latest discussion highlights the growing closeness between the European  Space Agency and Roscosmos, its Russian equivalent.

Spacetravel.com, which reported the deal, noted that a lunar landing is planned for 2030, “with subsequent deployment of a manned lunar base.”

Russia has also worked on a number of cooperative efforts both economic and military with China.

Increasingly, America’s failure to timely return to manned space flight and the stagnant NASA budget threatens the future of the U.S. economy. Far from being a “frill,” as detractors imply, the prosperity and national security of the nation is significantly tied in with the exploration and exploitation of space.

Particularly during the past several years, meaningless statements about support for NASA goals in the future while not providing the current funding to keep them alive have been made.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Global warming, the “Irreconcilable Differences” Issue

Guest editorial from Russell Cook

 Russell Cook recently appeared on the Vernuccio/Allison Report.  In response to a number of requests for more information, he has submitted the following.

One has to wonder if global warming promoters are oblivious to the manner in which their talking point narratives are plagued with crippling contradictions. Consider the following statements, paraphrased from my own experience of being on the receiving end of such assertions:

“You have no climate science expertise allowing you to comment on whether global warming is happening.” Neither does Al Gore, nor scores of book authors declaring the issue settled, or the collective lot of environmental organization administrators, or any mainstream media reporters.

“You’re a denier of climate change.” But not one skeptic climate scientist or prominent skeptic speaker has ever been seen saying the climate has remained static over the last century, nor has any actually advocated for an unchanging climate. Global warming promoters, on the other hand, appear to advocating for exactly that.

“You’re ignorant.” Of what? Avid followers of the issue who are skeptical of man-caused catastrophic global warming are often adept at citing specific IPCC material in order to point out which climate predictions are failing to happen, and they are often well-versed in related facets of the issue, such as the fine details and overall scope of the ClimateGate scandal.

“You oppose stopping global warming because you are guided by your religious beliefs / economic greed / political views.” Again with advocating for an unchanging climate? But what church do I belong to / what is my economic situation / what political party am I registered in? Can anyone hazard a guess that has any hope of being confirmed? Can anyone do the same on other skeptics?

“You oppose President Obama’s global warming reduction efforts because you’re a racist.” Vice President Biden holds the same views, as does Hillary Clinton. President George W. Bush suggested global warming reduction efforts could be accomplished through voluntary means.

“If you don’t see what runaway global warming is going to do to us in the future, you are crazy.” Diagnosing a person’s mental health is usually left to those having psychology expertise. But we are talking about events that have not yet happened.

“There’s a 97% consensus among climate scientists saying global warming is happening.” It’s more like 100%, but this goes back to the assertion about ‘deniers’ above. Regarding the “97%” talking point, that largely stems from just three reports having highly suspect methodologies, not restricted to just the loaded too-simple question of whether global warming is happening. On top of that, a show of hands has never validated scientific conclusions any time in the entire history of the Scientific Method.

“A minority of denier scientists have long been given media balance by reporters when they never deserved it.” Again with the denier talking point? But show all of us the last ten times when any mainstream media news outlet balanced their news reports about global warming with equal time given to purely scientific viewpoints offered by skeptic scientists.

“Denier scientists don’t publish papers in peer-reviewed journals, the gold standard of determining science conclusions.” Could we stop with the denier talking point? Skeptic scientists most certainly do get their papers published in peer-reviewed journals, they also describe in great detail how that process has been stacked against them by biased science journal editors, and there is at least one instance of where a science conclusion was seen in a science journal and its conclusion was widely cited as a situation to make decisions from. However, the paper’s author was later found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data for his work The mere presence of a science conclusion in a science journal is therefore no validation of the conclusion’s merits.

“Denier scientists deny that cigarettes cause cancer, that there is an ozone hole, or that acid rain exists.” Each time the ‘denier’ talking point is repeated, it undermines the critic when that individual never proves skeptic climate scientists deny climate change or that global warming has happened over the last century. As for the other points, they would be devastating if only they were supported with actual evidence to prove such a denial took place.

“Well, you and they are shills of Exxon / the Koch brothers / ‘dark money’, and are paid to lie, deceive, and fabricate false reports.” Two words: prove it. If that accusation had any merit, it would have wiped out the skeptic scientists’ credibility more than a decade ago. One more thing, remember who accusers are talking to in this particular situation: I am the one who has access to my bank accounts and my correspondence, and there is no way on Earth anyone can make that accusation stick to me.

“You are an idiot and no amount of reason will change your closed mind.” It must be first proven I am an idiot, that I’ve been presented with reasonable arguments, and that I have rejected such arguments.
I have no climate science expertise, and have said so from the beginning. All I ever did from the start was point to one side of the scientific consideration of the issue completely contradicting the other side. Rather than receive any informed degree of information on why the contradiction existed, I was told to ignore the skeptic side out-of-hand, usually culminating every time with the latter two responses above. The bit about skeptic scientists being paid to lie via industry money at least sounded plausible, but I didn’t proceed farther than just one day into a serious look into where the accusation came from before I ran into irreconcilable differences on who had discovered ‘smoking gun’ evidence proving the accusation to be true, and I could not even find the so-called ‘evidence’ – leaked industry memos – in order to read them for myself. Long story short, when I did find partial copies of the memos seven months later buried in Greenpeace archive scans in a way that ordinary internet searches would not dredge them up, it turns out the memos are not evidence of a sinister top-down industry-wide directive. Worse, narratives about who discovered this ‘industry plot’ are full of holes, and the people surrounding the initial push of the accusation have a lot of explaining to do if they want the accusation to stay afloat.

Basically, the entire global warming issue can be boiled down to a 3-point mantra on “settled science” / “corrupt skeptics” / “reporters may ignore skeptics because of points 1 & 2.” Its promoters almost seem to be praying to whatever god they believe in that nobody will question those assertions.

However, we don’t have to be climate scientists, or really any kind of scientist at all, in order to ask tough questions about the whole issue. We most certainly do not have to be a scientist to ask whether their accusation about ‘corrupt industry funding’ is true, and when it is readily seen how that one folds up like a cheap suit, then the central point in their 3-point mantra implodes, wiping out the other two by default.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Media Ignoring Key News

Long after the blockbuster disclosure that one of the architects of Obamacare revealed that its passage depended on misleading the American public, many of the main national media outlets failed to even mention the story.  The President has barely been pressed on the outright fabrication about Americans being able to “keep their own doctors.”

Scant network or cable news attention has been paid to the overwhelming opposition to the Administration’s position on immigration, even among some of its key supporters.

This is similar to the failure of the mainstream press to appropriately cover Benghazi issues, or to provide significant coverage of the IRS scandal, or of a variety of other Oval Office related misdeeds.

A few other major stories the media has utterly failed to cover includes the withdrawal of all American tanks from Europe in early 2014, or the startling news that for the first time since the end of the Second World War, there will be no U.S. aircraft carriers available for deployment in the Pacific near China. Little significant press has been devoted to attempts by prominent Democrat Senators to abridge the First Amendment.

A similar lack of interest has been said about the White House’s bid to regulate—read control—the internet “as though it were a public utility.”Could it be because the web has become the true “fourth estate,” the medium that dares to raise the tough questions?

Following decades of contentious presidential press conferences, these events, since the election of Barack Obama, have been largely subdued and ultra-polite. It’s time for the public to ask why.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sino-Russian military cooperation threatens U.S. technological edge

Pentagon sources were quoted by the Weekly Standard as being concerned that America is losing its edge in military technology to China.

In addition to its massive strides in cyber warfare and missiles that can destroy American aircraft carriers from almost a thousand miles away and knock vital U.S. satellites out of orbit, Beijing, according to a Spacewar report, has developed a laser that can shoot down light drones.  According to Chinese reports, the weapon has almost 100% accuracy and is transportable.  It is expected that a more powerful version will be developed for use against heavier craft as well.

The American people have been repeatedly told that cuts to the U.S. defense budget were not exceedingly dangerous because of both the higher rate of spending by Washington and the Pentagon’s technological edge.  That edge may no longer exist, and China and Russia’s massive increases in their defense spending may soon close the fiscal gap as well.

There is also the increased threat from the sharing of research and technology between Moscow and Beijing.  China’s Xinhua news paper quotes Vladimir Putin as stating that Sino-Russian cooperation has “reached its all-time best.”   Putin placed particular emphasis on joint high-tech ventures.

Putin emphasized that the two nations are striving to create a “new security” framework in the Asian Pacific region.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Thanksgiving: A Legacy of Courage

There is little doubt that this year’s Thanksgiving takes place at a deeply troubled time. But it is comforting to remember that those who founded this unique holiday did so in the aftermath of enormous difficulties. Further, while the event was commemorated long before, it wasn’t until the Civil War, perhaps the darkest period in American history, that Thanksgiving was first proclaimed a national holiday by President Abraham Lincoln.

In 1621, when the colonists at Plymouth and the neighboring Wampanoag Indians shared an autumn harvest feast, they did so in the aftermath of tumultuous events. The Pilgrims left their homes seeking religious freedom and a chance at prosperity.  Their transatlantic crossing aboard the Mayflower took 66 days of utter misery. When they finally reached the New World, they wound up far north of their target, in area far colder and less hospitable than where they had planned.

That first winter was brutal, and most remained aboard the cramped ship. Barely half survived until spring. Those that did were weakened by a variety of ailments. Were it not for the good will and generous spirit of Native Americans such as Squanto, a member of the Pawtuxet tribe, many more would have perished.

But they persevered, and when their first corn harvest provided a bounty, they celebrated and gave thanks.

Americans today face great challenges.  But a legacy of endurance and heroism provides the blueprint for overcoming them.  For that heritage, it is appropriate to give thanks. Happy Thanksgiving.

Categories
Announcements

Meet the real “most interesting man”

From classified military missions to the Wall Street jungle, L. Todd Wood has been at the center of the most vital stories affecting the USA.  Now an author of several fascinating works of fiction ripped from today’s headlines, Todd is truly one of the most interesting individuals around. Tune into the Vernuccio/Allison Report this Wednesday, December 3 at 10am on the amfm247.com network, and on local radio in a number of cities across America (check local listings.) Also available on iheart radio.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Europeans deeply concerned about Russian military activity

The European Leadership Network (ELN) is an organization working to bring European nations together to deal with serious international challenges and threats to the safety of the continent.

Its recently released report on Russia is deeply troubling.  According to its latest policy brief,

“Since the Russian annexation of Crimea, the intensity and gravity of incidents involving Russian and Western militaries and security agencies has visibly increased. [There have been…] almost 40 specific incidents that have occurred over the last eight months. These events add up to a highly disturbing picture of violations of national airspace, emergency scrambles, narrowly avoided mid-air collisions, close encounters at sea, simulated attack runs and other dangerous actions happening on a regular basis over a very wide geographical area.

“Apart from routine or near-routine encounters, [There have been…] 11 serious incidents of a more aggressive or unusually provocative nature, bringing a higher level risk of escalation. These include harassment of reconnaissance planes, close overflights over warships, and Russian ‘mock bombing raid’ missions. [There have been…] 3 high risk incidents which in our view carried a high probability of causing casualties or a direct military confrontation: a narrowly avoided collision between a civilian airliner and Russian surveillance plane, abduction of an Estonian intelligence officer, and a large-scale Swedish ‘submarine hunt’.

Even though direct military confrontation has been avoided so far, the mix of more aggressive Russian posturing and the readiness of Western forces to show resolve increases the risk of unintended escalation and the danger of losing control over events.

Categories
Quick Analysis

2014 election aftermath: Union’s bark worse than its bite

F. Vincent Vernuccio, writing for the Mackinac Center

The 2014 election was not so much a referendum on labor reform as yet another reminder that when elected officials protect freedom and taxpayers they do not need to fear the wrath of the union political juggernaut.

These reformers winning and opponents losing cannot be easily dismissed as “it was a Republican wave which protected the politicians who took on labor reform.” Almost more striking than what was in the Republican wins was what was not in the Democrat losses.

In Michigan for example, the birthplace of the UAW, the state with the 5th highest union membership rate in the country and long considered a labor stronghold, right-to-work was nowhere to be found in the election. Not on the ballot as an initiative or Constitutional Amendment, nor even in the gubernatorial or legislative races.

During the sole Michigan gubernatorial debate of the season, the only time worker freedom came up was as a subpart of another question and one that neither candidate addressed.

So low was the saliency of right-to-work as a negative issue that even representatives from the Michigan Education Association dismissed it. At a right-to-work panel discussion in October, MEA communications consultant David Crim explicitly stated:

I do not believe that on November 4th when people go to the polls they are going to say ‘you know what I am going to decide who I am going to vote for, for governor, for the legislature, any office on the ballot based on the right-to-work law that was passed…’ See 46:30 on video 

This is a far cry from the violent protests outside the Capitol and a “there will be blood” threat by Rep. Douglas Geiss, D-Taylor, during the passage of Michigan’s right-to-work law in 2012.

In Wisconsin, proxies for Gov. Scott Walker’s reforms have been on the ballot almost too many times to count. In every election that was deemed a ‘must win’ by unions to repeal labor reforms there was a loss. In fact, after the initial flurry of recall attempts, Gov. Walker’s budget repair bill was not a central issue of the Democratic campaigns.

The same goes for the legislators who voted for right-to-work in Indiana and even for Gov. Kasich in Ohio, whose labor reforms were overturned yet still won re-election handily last night.

Big Labor lost four of the five gubernatorial races the AFL-CIO initially said it would focus on — Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida — with Pennsylvania being their only win.

As Lee Saunders, chairman of the AFL-CIO’s political committee, told The New York Times in February, ousting Republicans in the industrial battleground states was “about survival.”

Labor lost races that were not even initially on their radar. This shockingly includes Illinois, where Gov.-Elect Bruce Rauner dared to take on forced unionism.

The “survival” lesson from the 2014 election is that labor reform is not the third rail of politics. Despite enduring a lot of noise from Big Labor, reformers need not fear its wrath. Voters will continue to reward those who support freedom and taxpayers.

As for labor’s survival, this election should be a lesson. It is time they give up the compulsion and privileges of the past. In order to not just survive but grow, they need to adapt.