dailysignal--2020-06-11--What These 6 Black Leaders Told Trump He Needs to Do

A half-dozen black leaders met with President Donald Trump and other administration officials Wednesday to discuss issues of concern to the black community .
Trump held the meeting as issues critical to African Americans came to the forefront after George Floyd ’ s May 25 death in police custody in Minneapolis .
“ You go down the list of criminal justice reform and all of the things we ’ ve done–opportunity zones , the best unemployment rate in history just before the plague came in , ” Trump said in opening the meeting while news cameras were still there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be back again soon , ” he added of record employment .
“ I think it ’ s going to be back again , a lot sooner than people think.
” Here is what six of the black leaders and influencers had to say at the beginning of the roundtable with Trump and aides in the Cabinet Room of the White House .
After supporting Trump in 2016 , the Rev .
Darrell Scott said in introducing himself , he has been a liaison between the Trump administration and the black community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after another , and we ’ ve pressed pause , but we ’ re ready to press play now and continue in the positive initiatives regarding the black community , ” said Scott , co-chairman of the Urban Revitalization Coalition .
Significant accomplishments resulted after he helped connect the Trump administration with key activists and leaders , Scott said , adding : The left-leaning media has been harmful to black Americans , said Raynard Jackson , CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates , a Washington-based public affairs and consulting firm .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media assembled here that I wish they would quit lying about what you ’ ve done , specifically for the black community , ” Jackson said , adding : Talk radio host Wayne Dupree noted that he had interviewed Trump on several occasions as a candidate and as president , and originally met him when he was a businessman .
“ I ’ m glad that he has changed things here in D.C. , ” Dupree said .
“ But my daughters and my son and my family , they want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the White House.
” “ They want to see your leadership , and they also want to see things change for the better in this country .
I know you can do it , ” he said .
Talk radio host Sonnie Johnson called herself the “ most Trumpish ” of the group assembled , argued that the administration should do even more in what turned out to be the lengthiest early remarks .
“ The black community is not doing OK .
I understand the perspective and the desire to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not , ” Johnson said .
“ And I can do it in a simplistic way of just saying : What are the first things you did when you first came into the presidency ?
The very first thing you did was remove regulation and taxation at high levels.
” The change , she said , gave oxygen to black entrepreneurs .
“ Think about the black community that has been under Democratic rule , progressive rule for 60 years , ” Johnson said .
Johnson stressed the need for reforming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing , and said local governments that preside over major cities need to make improvements to help black residents : “ The fake news media spread lies because we aren ’ t there giving another choice as to how these things can be done , ” Johnson said .
“ And it ’ s going to continue to go left if we aren ’ t there , giving an option to make it go right.
” The president could help push more entrepreneurship among African Americans , she said , recalling how Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrities such as rapper Snoop Dogg before he ran for president as a Republican .
“ You were taking pictures with Snoop , and you were taking pictures with all of the icons of hip hop , ” Johnson said .
“ You did that , I think–and you can tell me if I ’ m wrong–but you did that because you saw capitalists , you saw branders , you saw entrepreneurs.
” “ You saw people that were willing to take a chance and make things grow .
That is–that is us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said , adding : Trump ’ s presidency has “ been nothing short of historic for black America , ” said Kareem Lanier , co-chairman with Scott of the Urban Revitalization Coalition .
“ I don ’ t say that because I have to , because I can say whatever I want to say as a free citizen here in the U.S. , ” Lanier said , prompting some laughter .
He also referred to Trump ’ s successful championship of criminal justice reform , saying black Americans “ were getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of crime legislation championed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s .
Lanier also praised opportunity zones , designed to draw more investment in poor urban and rural areas , and noted Trump ’ s long-term budgetary commitment to Historically Black Colleges and Universities .
The next goal must be police reform , he said , one day before Trump and Attorney General William Barr convened a meeting on that topic in Dallas .
“ Police reform is the gateway to what we see as an unjust criminal justice system sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do a terrible , corrupt thing with an individual , we never get into that bad system , ” Lanier said .
Trump , he added , likely could identify with this problem : Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson , who spoke first after the president , touted the historic economic progress for black Americans before the COVID-19 pandemic struck .
“ This administration has already established a record of actually solving problems–problems that other people just talk about and then talk about for many years , ” Carson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said .
“ You know , there are some who just wait for anything to criticize it , but there are actually some people who actually want to see a solution , ” Carson said .
“ And I ’ ve had a chance to talk to many of them .
We ’ ll continue to do that– [ to ] put forward the kinds of programs that actually get people out of poverty , not things that just keep people stable in poverty and happy in poverty .
We want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HUD secretary added that economic growth helps everyone .
“ Your philosophy , of course , has been that a rising tide floats all boats , ” Carson said to Trump .
“ And that ’ s why you don ’ t spend a lot of time with identity politics .
We want everybody to be successful .
”

A half-dozen black leaders and influencers met with President Donald Trump and other administration officials Wednesday to discuss issues of concern to the black community.
Trump held the meeting as issues critical to African Americans came to the forefront in unrest after George Floyd’s May 25 death in police custody in Minneapolis.
“You go down the list of criminal justice reform and all of the things we’ve done—opportunity zones, the best unemployment rate in history just before the plague came in,” Trump said in opening the meeting while news cameras were still there.
“And it’s going to be back again soon,” he added of record employment. “I think it’s going to be back again, a lot sooner than people think.”
Here is what six of the black leaders and influencers had to say at the beginning of the roundtable with Trump and aides in the Cabinet Room of the White House.
1. Darrell Scott: ‘Ready to Press Play’
After supporting Trump in 2016, the Rev. Darrell Scott said in introducing himself, he has been a liaison between the Trump administration and the black community.
“It’s been one challenge after another, and we’ve pressed pause, but we’re ready to press play now and continue in the positive initiatives regarding the black community,” said Scott, co-chairman of the Urban Revitalization Coalition.
Significant accomplishments resulted after he helped connect the Trump administration with key activists and leaders, Scott said, adding:
Since then we’ve worked on criminal justice reform, we’ve worked on urban revitalization, prison reform … HBCUs [historically black colleges and universities]—a number of initiatives that are proactive toward the black community. And here we are now, and we’re facing another challenge, and we’re going to come up with some great solutions to these problems that are confronting this country. And I’m just glad to have a seat at the table and to have my input received.
2. Raynard Jackson: A ‘Lying’ Media
The left-leaning media has been harmful to black Americans, said Raynard Jackson, CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, a Washington-based public affairs and consulting firm.
“I’d like to say to all the media assembled here that I wish they would quit lying about what you’ve done, specifically for the black community,” Jackson said, adding:
So you got radical liberal journalists, like Joy Reid from MSNBC, Don Lemon from CNN, [and] Roland Martin, who are putting more poison into the black community than any drug dealer, who are killing more black folks than any white person with a sheet over their face. How are they doing it? Spreading these lies about the economy you had, Mr. President, before the virus, was the continuation of Obama. That’s just factually not true. I have a degree in accounting. I keep up with the economy. They’re lying. So to all these folks on MSNBC, CNN, [and] Roland Martin: What? Are you afraid to have real black Republicans who know what the hell they’re talking about? If you want to know the truth, if you want us to dissect the Obama economy, let’s do it. And I think, Mr. President, your record would win the debate.
3. Wayne Dupree: ‘Changed Things in DC’
Talk radio host Wayne Dupree noted that he had interviewed Trump on several occasions as a candidate and as president, and originally met him when he was a businessman.
“I’m glad that he has changed things here in D.C.,” Dupree said. “But my daughters and my son and my family, they want to see a lot more positive things coming from the White House.”
“They want to see your leadership, and they also want to see things change for the better in this country. I know you can do it,” he said.
4. Sonnie Johnson: ‘Go Into These Communities’
Talk radio host Sonnie Johnson called herself the “most Trumpish” of the group assembled, and argued that the administration should do even more in what turned out to be the lengthiest early remarks.
“The black community is not doing OK. I understand the perspective and the desire to put out this talking point, but it’s not,” Johnson said. “And I can do it in a simplistic way of just saying: What are the first things you did when you first came into the presidency? The very first thing you did was remove regulation and taxation at high levels.”
The change, she said, gave oxygen to black entrepreneurs.
“Think about the black community that has been under Democratic rule, progressive rule for 60 years,” Johnson said.
Johnson stressed the need for reforming and improving public education as well as policing, and said local governments that preside over major cities need to make improvements to help black residents:
All of these things have been under Democratic control for 60 years, and they are not going to change until you—we—have a Republican Party that is willing to go into these communities and actually offer a choice to these people about how we can do things differently. Because the way it is structured now, the only choice that we get is ‘left’ or either ‘further left,’ and we’re not getting the opportunity to actually vote on what we look at as ‘conservatism,’ equally applied.
“The fake news media spread lies because we aren’t there giving another choice as to how these things can be done,” Johnson said. “And it’s going to continue to go left if we aren’t there, giving an option to make it go right.”
The president could help push more entrepreneurship among African Americans, she said, recalling how Trump used to be popular among many black celebrities such as rapper Snoop Dogg before he ran for president as a Republican.
“You were taking pictures with Snoop, and you were taking pictures with all of the icons of hip hop,” Johnson said. “You did that, I think—and you can tell me if I’m wrong—but you did that because you saw capitalists, you saw branders, you saw entrepreneurs.”
Trump nodded as she spoke.
“You saw people that were willing to take a chance and make things grow. That is—that is us. That is the black community,” she said, adding:
I would like to see a challenge from you to see how many in the black community can put their names on the side of a building coming out of this. If we’re really going to reshape and reform the way that we do this, issue that challenge, because that’s what we need more now than ever. And we need it to be focused and [centered] on the black community, not into letting people come in and gentrify areas that are traditionally ours.
5. Kareem Lanier: ‘Police Reform the Gateway’
Trump’s presidency has “been nothing short of historic for black America,” said Kareem Lanier, co-chairman with Scott of the Urban Revitalization Coalition.
“I don’t say that because I have to, because I can say whatever I want to say as a free citizen here in the U.S.,” Lanier said, prompting some laughter.
He also referred to Trump’s successful championship of criminal justice reform, saying black Americans “were getting locked up at unprecedented rates” as the result of crime legislation championed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Lanier also praised opportunity zones, designed to draw more investment in poor urban and rural areas, and noted Trump’s long-term budgetary commitment to historically black colleges and universities.
The next goal must be police reform, he said, one day before Trump and Attorney General William Barr convened a meeting on that topic in Dallas.
“Police reform is the gateway to what we see as an unjust criminal justice system sometimes, meaning if a crooked cop doesn’t do a terrible, corrupt thing with an individual, we never get into that bad system,” Lanier said.
Trump, he added, likely could identify with this problem:
This administration has been marred by a crooked cop like [former FBI Director] James Comey and others going after you and … creating things that just were not there. The impeachment was … just not real, but they can do that. And our community has been affected by that in a way that it’s hard to explain.
“I tell people this all the time. This whole situation with this policing, it’s not new to black people. We’ve been used to it,” he added.
“As a kid, I got harassed by the police all the time and I was a good—I was, I think I was, a good kid,” Lanier said, prompting laughter. “But it was a part of—it’s a part of our community.”
6. Ben Carson: ‘Solving Problems’
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, who spoke first after the president, touted the historic economic progress for black Americans before the COVID-19 pandemic struck.
“This administration has already established a record of actually solving problems—problems that other people just talk about and then talk about for many years,” Carson said.
Political opponents continued to criticize, he said.
“You know, there are some who just wait for anything to criticize it, but there are actually some people who actually want to see a solution,” Carson said. “And I’ve had a chance to talk to many of them. We’ll continue to do that—[to] put forward the kinds of programs that actually get people out of poverty, not things that just keep people stable in poverty and happy in poverty. We want to change that whole dynamic.”
The HUD secretary added that economic growth helps everyone.
“Your philosophy, of course, has been that a rising tide floats all boats,” Carson said to Trump. “And that’s why you don’t spend a lot of time with identity politics. We want everybody to be successful.”


dailysignal--2020-06-11--Woke Chaos and Naked Power

Woke Chaos and Naked Power

With the death of George Floyd—a heinous atrocity virtually every American decries—unity should have prevailed .
Americans hate police brutality ; Americans care about black lives ; Americans despise looting and rioting ; Americans want to protect citizens but preserve the ability of the police to stop crime .
Instead , the country seems to be falling apart .
That ’ s because of the utterly chaotic political and media response to the Floyd tragedy : a response that demands agreement but , most of all , requires compliance .
You must kneel .
You must kneel because you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you have to ask for a definition of systemic privilege , we are told , it ’ s because your white privilege has blinded you to reality .
If you point out that not all inequality is inequity , we are told , it is because your latent racism is leeching into your worldview .
If you defend America ’ s history , philosophy , and culture—or , God forbid , her flag—you must apologize .
And , if Drew Brees is any indicator , your wife must also apologize , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You may not understand what is being demanded of you .
You may see the wave of conflicting messages emanating from the press and wonder just what you ’ re supposed to do .
But the chaos is the point .
You are supposed to be confused .
Confusion is a political weapon .
Clarity is a shield .
If our media and political class can prevent clarity , they can prevent unity ; if they can obscure , they can demand acquiescence .
Thus , we hear messages that are obviously in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are told , our inability to square those messages means that we must listen to the woke priesthood that can untangle these Gordian knots .
Thus , we hear that silence is violence , that being non-racist simply isn ’ t enough , and you must actively fight racism .
But we also hear that speech is violence , that if you oppose policies the political left supports , your words are a form of violence and you must be silenced .
The only safe path , therefore , is parroting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion of wokeness .
Thus , we hear that individuals ought not be held responsible for the sins of those in their racial group , and that ’ s why it ’ s so wrong for police to engage in profiling .
But we also hear that white Americans bear full responsibility for the sins of both modern racists and historic racists , and ought to atone on behalf of their race and their country .
And if you refuse , you must be considered racist .
Thus , we hear that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , and that ’ s why they must be defunded .
But we also hear that police absence , a product of racism , created the conditions that originally led to higher crime rates in black communities .
We can , therefore , blame the police for crime whether they ’ re present or absent in minority communities .
Thus , we hear that the rioting and looting were exaggerated by the media , or that they were largely the product of white Antifa members .
But we also hear that rioting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centuries of black rage .
You can not , therefore , oppose rioting and looting too strenuously , lest you be labeled a racist .
Thus , we hear that COVID-19 is so extraordinarily dangerous that anti-lockdown protesters were endangering the lives of other Americans ; in fact , they were racist , since COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority communities .
But we also hear that protesting racism is so extraordinarily important that we can freely ignore all restrictions surrounding COVID-19—and , indeed , that we have an obligation to do so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be treated with the utmost respect because they are doing a difficult job and pursuing facts and the truth ; and that harsh words spoken about journalists reflect underlying unease about freedom of the press .
But we also hear that journalists are actually activists and thus have a duty not to be objective ; op-ed editors should be fired for the sin of green-lighting pieces opposed by woke staffers .
In the end , our republic runs only so long as we ’ re able to hold some semblance of logical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republic isn ’ t running .
Instead , we are battered with logically incoherent nonsense , a variety of messages that carry only one consistent bottom line : Shut up .
Believe .
Repeat .
The chaos of the moment isn ’ t a bug ; it ’ s a feature .
And the more confused we are , the less we can possibly hold together , despite the fact that nearly all Americans agree on the most important issues .

With the death of George Floyd—a heinous atrocity virtually every American decries—unity should have prevailed.
Americans hate police brutality; Americans care about black lives; Americans despise looting and rioting; Americans want to protect citizens but preserve the ability of the police to stop crime.
Instead, the country seems to be falling apart. That’s because of the utterly chaotic political and media response to the Floyd tragedy: a response that demands agreement but, most of all, requires compliance. You must kneel.
You must kneel because you cannot understand. You simply cannot. If you have to ask for a definition of systemic privilege, we are told, it’s because your white privilege has blinded you to reality. If you point out that not all inequality is inequity, we are told, it is because your latent racism is leeching into your worldview.
If you defend America’s history, philosophy, and culture—or, God forbid, her flag—you must apologize. And, if Drew Brees is any indicator, your wife must also apologize, and your second cousin once removed.
You may not understand what is being demanded of you. You may see the wave of conflicting messages emanating from the press and wonder just what you’re supposed to do. But the chaos is the point. You are supposed to be confused. Confusion is a political weapon. Clarity is a shield.
If our media and political class can prevent clarity, they can prevent unity; if they can obscure, they can demand acquiescence.
Thus, we hear messages that are obviously in direct conflict with one another. And, we are told, our inability to square those messages means that we must listen to the woke priesthood that can untangle these Gordian knots.
Thus, we hear that silence is violence, that being non-racist simply isn’t enough, and you must actively fight racism. But we also hear that speech is violence, that if you oppose policies the political left supports, your words are a form of violence and you must be silenced. The only safe path, therefore, is parroting the messages of those initiated in the religion of wokeness.
Thus, we hear that individuals ought not be held responsible for the sins of those in their racial group, and that’s why it’s so wrong for police to engage in profiling. But we also hear that white Americans bear full responsibility for the sins of both modern racists and historic racists, and ought to atone on behalf of their race and their country. And if you refuse, you must be considered racist.
Thus, we hear that the police are the greatest threat to black Americans, and that’s why they must be defunded. But we also hear that police absence, a product of racism, created the conditions that originally led to higher crime rates in black communities. We can, therefore, blame the police for crime whether they’re present or absent in minority communities.
Thus, we hear that the rioting and looting were exaggerated by the media, or that they were largely the product of white Antifa members. But we also hear that rioting and looting are the justified outgrowth of centuries of black rage. You cannot, therefore, oppose rioting and looting too strenuously, lest you be labeled a racist.
Thus, we hear that COVID-19 is so extraordinarily dangerous that anti-lockdown protesters were endangering the lives of other Americans; in fact, they were racist, since COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority communities. But we also hear that protesting racism is so extraordinarily important that we can freely ignore all restrictions surrounding COVID-19—and, indeed, that we have an obligation to do so.
Thus, we hear that journalists ought to be treated with the utmost respect because they are doing a difficult job and pursuing facts and the truth; and that harsh words spoken about journalists reflect underlying unease about freedom of the press. But we also hear that journalists are actually activists and thus have a duty not to be objective; op-ed editors should be fired for the sin of green-lighting pieces opposed by woke staffers.
In the end, our republic runs only so long as we’re able to hold some semblance of logical conversation with one another. But the republic isn’t running.
Instead, we are battered with logically incoherent nonsense, a variety of messages that carry only one consistent bottom line: Shut up. Believe. Repeat.
The chaos of the moment isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. And the more confused we are, the less we can possibly hold together, despite the fact that nearly all Americans agree on the most important issues.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-06-12--Why Americans Must Stand Up to the Left’s Power Grab

Parts of the movement started by widespread revulsion at the murder of George Floyd have metastasized into a power grab by hard leftists .
Their aim goes beyond dismantling the police—likely to have an early sell-by date—but targets the suppression of such tenets of liberalism as speech and property rights .
Conservatives who want to conserve the republic as it is need to gird up for this battle .
For a brief , ephemeral moment , the country came together in condemnation of Floyd ’ s death in police custody in Minneapolis .
But a crisis is a terrible thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change America root and branch , because they see it as an experiment not worth preserving , sensed an opportunity for their agenda .
Have no illusion : They are seizing the moment .
“ These protesters have begun to create a new movement—one that aims to rework society , ” wrote Sean Collins in Vox on June 4 .
The protests are a reminder , he went on , that “ there is something very wrong with American society , all of it , everywhere , and that people across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe people when they are this direct .
Yes , years of being told by their teachers and professors that America was a hideous creature , an indoctrination that kicked into high gear with the pseudo-historian Howard Zinn and followed by his many copycats , including the current 1619 curriculum by the New York Times , has not stayed behind ivied walls or state campuses .
They were never meant to .
The leftist ideologues indoctrinated youth because they knew they would get compliant adults .
Think Napoleon ’ s kidnapping the puppies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and then , unexpectedly later on in the book , unleashing them on Snowy once they were grown up .
George Orwell , the author of “ Animal Farm , ” also wrote “ Nineteen Eighty-Four , ” in which he said : “ The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.
” Orwell was warning us of this totalitarian attempt to control the meaning of words .
But 1960s radical organizer Saul Alisnky embraced this tactic .
To win the cultural battles , you must take control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be surprised that the first victories of the new power grab have come in newsrooms .
Two editors at large city newspapers , The New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer , have been fired .
In the case of the first , it was because he ran an op-ed by a sitting U.S. senator , Tom Cotton of Arkansas , advocating a view endorsed by almost 60 % of Americans .
In the case of the second , the editor ran a headline that read , “ Buildings Matter , Too.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ came at the instigation of the news-side staff , who told editors and owners cowed by the riots that such views no longer were permitted in the new America .
Katie Kingsbury , the new acting op-ed editor at the Times , told staff : “ Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism , headlines , social posts , photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause , please call or text me immediately.
” Writing in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal , a paper where the news side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of surrender to the editorial side , Dan Henninger says : This renunciation of journalistic objectivity has been openly embraced by reporters , editors , and deans of journalism schools .
Nikole Hannah-Jones , creator of the Times ’ mendacious 1619 Project—another Zinnian-styled effort meant to make Americans dislike the Founding—went on NPR and denounced the very possibility of objectivity .
“ All journalism is activism , ” she proclaimed .
Hannah-Jones , incidentally , also has been leading the crusade against property rights , saying in an interview that “ destroying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not violence.
” She ’ s not alone .
That vile view is now what is acceptable at The New York Times and throughout American journalism .
The Times is Hannah-Jones ’ paper now .
One of the aims of the language power grab is to make it impossible for conservatives to openly discuss their policy remedies to the ills besetting society , such as emphasizing civic equality , equal protection under the law , economic growth , and education equality through choice .
Take for example having public and private schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sequence—the idea that if someone graduates high school , gets a job , marries , and then has kids , they are highly unlikely to become poor .
But to say this now falls under the heading of “ blaming the victim , ” a form of racism according to the “ Pyramid of White Supremacy ” taught to our children .
Many conservatives , and even non-conservatives such as law professor Jonathan Turley , are coming round to the view that this is a moment not unlike those we saw in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maoist Cultural Revolution of 1966-76 .
“ The atmosphere is strikingly similar for those familiar with history and specifically the course of the French Revolution , ” Turley writes .
“ Welcome to the French Revolution 2.0.
” Perhaps because of my years in Asia as an American journalist , I see Maoism in today ’ s ritualized self-criticisms , struggle sessions , and modern-day Red Guards .
New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees had to offer an abject apology , complete with “ I statements ” such as “ I am an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say he would not stand for disrespecting Old Glory .
Cotton said on the floor of the Senate this week that “ the cancel culture , whether in its Maoist or Jacobin forms , ultimately is animated by a single idea : that America , at its core , is fundamentally irredeemable and wicked.
” Either way , conservatives better be prepared for much worse .
The writer Rod Dreher warns : “ We are going to come out of this long , hot , miserable summer with the progressive ruling class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ righteousness , and much more willing to clamp down on dissent from its ‘ social justice ’ gospel .
We have to get ready for it .
We have no time to lose .
”

Parts of the movement started by widespread revulsion at the murder of George Floyd have metastasized into a power grab by hard leftists.
Their aim goes beyond dismantling the police—likely to have an early sell-by date—but targets the suppression of such tenets of liberalism as speech and property rights.
Conservatives who want to conserve the republic as it is need to gird up for this battle.
For a brief, ephemeral moment, the country came together in condemnation of Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis. But a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so those who want to change America root and branch, because they see it as an experiment not worth preserving, sensed an opportunity for their agenda.
Have no illusion: They are seizing the moment.
“These protesters have begun to create a new movement—one that aims to rework society,” wrote Sean Collins in Vox on June 4. The protests are a reminder, he went on, that “there is something very wrong with American society, all of it, everywhere, and that people across the nation want something new.”
You should believe people when they are this direct.
Yes, years of being told by their teachers and professors that America was a hideous creature, an indoctrination that kicked into high gear with the pseudo-historian Howard Zinn and followed by his many copycats, including the current 1619 curriculum by The New York Times, has not stayed behind ivied walls or state campuses.
They were never meant to. The leftist ideologues indoctrinated youth because they knew they would get compliant adults. Think Napoleon’s kidnapping the puppies at the start of “Animal Farm” and then, unexpectedly later on in the book, unleashing them on Snowy once they were grown up.
George Orwell, the author of “Animal Farm,” also wrote “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” in which he said: “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.”
Orwell was warning us of this totalitarian attempt to control the meaning of words. But 1960s radical organizer Saul Alinsky embraced this tactic. To win the cultural battles, you must take control of the language. That is why we should not be surprised that the first victories of the new power grab have come in newsrooms.
Two editors at large city newspapers, The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, have been fired. In the case of the first, it was because he ran an op-ed by a sitting U.S. senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, advocating a view endorsed by almost 60% of Americans. In the case of the second, the editor ran a headline that read, “Buildings Matter, Too.”
These firings, mind you, came at the instigation of the news-side staff, who told editors and owners cowed by the riots that such views no longer were permitted in the new America.
Katie Kingsbury, the new acting op-ed editor at the Times, told staff: “Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
Writing in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, a paper where the news side still isn’t allowed to dictate terms of surrender to the editorial side, Dan Henninger says:
It is impossible not to recognize the irony of these events. The silencers aren’t campus protesters but professional journalists, a class of American workers who for nearly 250 years have had a constitutionally protected and court-enforced ability to say just about anything they want.
This renunciation of journalistic objectivity has been openly embraced by reporters, editors, and deans of journalism schools.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the Times’ mendacious 1619 Project—another Zinnian-styled effort meant to make Americans dislike the Founding—went on NPR and denounced the very possibility of objectivity. “All journalism is activism,” she proclaimed.
Hannah-Jones, incidentally, also has been leading the crusade against property rights, saying in an interview that “destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”
She’s not alone. That vile view is now what is acceptable at The New York Times and throughout American journalism. The Times is Hannah-Jones’ paper now.
One of the aims of the language power grab is to make it impossible for conservatives to openly discuss their policy remedies to the ills besetting society, such as emphasizing civic equality, equal protection under the law, economic growth, and education equality through choice.
Take for example having public and private schools teach what is known as the success sequence—the idea that if someone graduates high school, gets a job, marries, and then has kids, they are highly unlikely to become poor.
But to say this now falls under the heading of “blaming the victim,” a form of racism, according to the “Pyramid of White Supremacy” taught to our children.
Many conservatives, and even non-conservatives such as law professor Jonathan Turley, are coming round to the view that this is a moment not unlike those we saw in the French terror of 1793-94, or the Maoist Cultural Revolution of 1966-76.
“The atmosphere is strikingly similar for those familiar with history and specifically the course of the French Revolution,” Turley writes. “Welcome to the French Revolution 2.0.”
Perhaps because of my years in Asia as an American journalist, I see Maoism in today’s ritualized self-criticisms, struggle sessions, and modern-day Red Guards.
New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees had to offer an abject apology, complete with “I statements” such as “I am an ally,” for having the temerity to say he would not stand for disrespecting Old Glory.
Cotton said on the floor of the Senate this week that “the cancel culture, whether in its Maoist or Jacobin forms, ultimately is animated by a single idea: that America, at its core, is fundamentally irredeemable and wicked.”
Either way, conservatives better be prepared for much worse.
The writer Rod Dreher warns: “We are going to come out of this long, hot, miserable summer with the progressive ruling class with much more confidence in its own righteousness, and much more willing to clamp down on dissent from its ‘social justice’ gospel. We have to get ready for it. We have no time to lose.”
We don’t.


dailysignal--2020-06-12--Campus War on Free Speech Reaches US Newsrooms

Two weeks ago , if you ’ d asked what American institution was most intolerant of dissenting opinion , preoccupied with promoting radical ideology , and prone to erupting into disruptive temper tantrums , the answer would have been easy .
Now it ’ s not so clear–the hysteria on college campuses has spread to America ’ s newsrooms .
Over the weekend , the opinion page editor of the New York Times , James Bennet , resigned under pressure , and another opinion editor , Jim Dao , was reassigned to the newsroom .
Their offense was soliciting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cotton last week on invoking the Insurrection Act .
After recent protests in over 700 cities , polling showed a majority of Americans , including nearly four in 10 African Americans , were amenable to using the military to restore order .
Whatever you think of the need for the Insurrection Act , which was last used during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992 , Cotton ’ s op-ed had undeniable news value .
That didn ’ t matter to the more than 1,000 employees of the Times who signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Running this puts Black @ NYTimes staff in danger , ” was the message that upset Times employees spread across Twitter .
According to Times media columnist Ben Smith , the paper ’ s union advised the employees to make their complaint a “ workplace safety ” issue to prevent retribution by management , but it ’ s no coincidence their argument dovetails with the illiberal rhetoric emanating from college campuses .
Ironically , three years ago Bennet published an op-ed by an academic making the suspect argument that some kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of violence.
” And much like campuses , the Times is now on record saying its staff is to be treated like young students who must be coddled and protected from ideas they don ’ t like .
Katie Kingsbury , who was made acting editorial page editor following Bennet ’ s resignation , has already sent a note to staff indulging their sensitivities .
“ Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism , headlines , social posts , photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause , please call or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That statement came after the “ virtual walkout ” of 300 employees last week demanding approval of opinion pieces by the paper ’ s “ diverse staff ” before publication .
Giving every employee a veto over what appears on the opinion page is not a recipe for fostering the kind of intellectually robust debates necessary to sustain democracy–especially when those same employees are intolerant of ideas firmly in the mainstream .
Even though Times employees seized on the revelation that Bennet failed to personally read the op-ed before publication , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument that the Times failed to uphold editorial standards with the Cotton op-ed .
By all appearances , the Times management is hostage to an impetuous mob enforcing a political orthodoxy .
The lengthy and argumentative editor ’ s note appended to Cotton ’ s op-ed cites no meaningful factual concerns , and instead accuses the piece of being “ needlessly harsh ” and says it “ should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny.
” But on Friday , the same day the paper tacked the editor ’ s note onto Cotton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a column calling Tom Cotton “ fascist ” in the headline .
On Saturday , the paper published an op-ed encouraging readers to text all their family members and tell them you won ’ t visit or speak to them until they either make financial contributions to support “ black lives ” or protest in the streets during a pandemic .
To recap , Tom Cotton is a “ fascist ” for an argument most of the country supports , but there ’ s still no editor ’ s note explaining why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Taliban in February .
Cotton is “ needlessly harsh , ” but the paper published a Donald Trump assassination fantasy in 2018 .
Cotton ’ s op-ed needed the “ highest level of scrutiny , ” but somehow a piece urging people to tear their own families apart with accusatory political blackmail was unobjectionable .
Then , for good measure , in the Times article on Bennet ’ s resignation , the paper mischaracterized Cotton ’ s op-ed as saying the senator was calling for the use of military force against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article without making a factual correction .
It would be reassuring to think that the Times has an institutional culture that is uniquely politicized .
However , the last week has been defined by a wide cross-section of journalists acting completely unhinged .
Saturday was the anniversary of D-Day , and NPR national correspondent Mara Liasson declared the famous battle was the “ Biggest [ A ] ntifa rally in history.
” Antifa , the black-clad gutter punks and Marxist-anarchist revolutionaries , have been denounced by FBI Director Christopher Wray for bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ anti-fascist ” bona fides of the recent protests are also in doubt .
The national World War II memorial in Washington was defaced in the protests last week , and the mobs in London spray-painted “ racist ” across a statue of Churchill .
( If Churchill is racist , someone might want to tell the vandals about the guy he saved us from . )
Given this context , it ’ s “ staggering that a top NPR reporter equates the heroes of Normandy with some two-bit anarchist thugs , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sullivan , he made it clear New York magazine would not publish his regular column last week–leading to much speculation he was being censored for wrongthink .
Bari Weiss , perhaps the only New York Times employee to publicly oppose the Times ’ editorial putsch , endured vicious personal attacks for speaking out .
This culminated in Daily Beast editor Goldie Taylor asking a Slate journalist why he hadn ’ t hit Weiss in the face .
( Taylor deleted the tweet . )
For its part , Slate told its readers violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters .
Over the weekend , a Washington Post columnist , Karen Attiah , put up a tweet asking people to directly give her money for “ reparations.
” ( She also deleted her tweet . )
When a top editor at Business Insider told its employees last week that giving money to bail funds to support the recent protests would damage the publication ’ s credibility , the staff revolted–never mind that at least some of that money is going to people arrested for destructive acts that undermined the message of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media columnist Margaret Sullivan blessed the Business Insider staffers ’ uprising .
She did this in the same column where she argued against publishing Cotton ’ s op-ed with a tendentious comparison to publishing “ the denialist views of , say , Alex Jones of Infowars on the Sandy Hook massacre.
” The New York Times isn ’ t even the only major paper that forced out prominent editors over the weekend .
Stan Wischnowski , the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer , resigned days after the paper ran the headline “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the staff found offensive .
It didn ’ t matter that the point of the column was that buildings matter precisely because black lives matter–the urban decay that results from rioting is going to hurt America ’ s vulnerable African Americans .
Despite the fact Wischnowski had doubled the number of minorities on the paper ’ s editorial staff in the last four years , there was no forgiveness for three supposedly ill-chosen words .
No doubt the media establishment feels like it ’ s undergoing an anti-liberal ideological purification reminiscent of China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may cement power for activist factions within newsrooms , it also legitimizes and empowers conservatives who are openly waging war on the media establishment .
“ This entire episode could not have gone better for Tom Cotton if he wrote the script himself , ” concedes New York magazine ’ s Olivia Nuzzi .
Cotton is a Trumpian populist with presidential ambitions .
Being able to take credit for the New York Times ’ self-immolation is quite a feather in his cap .
Meanwhile , lots of serious people aren ’ t responding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for media reform .
They ’ re more worried about which needed American institution will go crazy next .
“ Remember all those commentators and journalists who smugly informed us that the Woke craziness and suppression of campus speech was being overhyped and it was just a few overzealous students ?
” asks Brookings Institute fellow and Atlantic writer Shadi Hamid .
“ They ’ ll never admit they ’ re wrong .
But they were very , very wrong .
”

Two weeks ago, if you’d asked what American institution was most intolerant of dissenting opinion, preoccupied with promoting radical ideology, and prone to erupting into disruptive temper tantrums, the answer would have been easy. Now it’s not so clear—the hysteria on college campuses has spread to America’s newsrooms.
Over the weekend, the opinion page editor of The New York Times, James Bennet, resigned under pressure, and another opinion editor, Jim Dao, was reassigned to the newsroom.
Their offense was soliciting and publishing an op-ed by GOP Sen. Tom Cotton last week on invoking the Insurrection Act. After recent protests in over 700 cities, polling showed a majority of Americans, including nearly 4 in 10 African Americans, were amenable to using the military to restore order.
Whatever you think of the need for the Insurrection Act, which was last used during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, Cotton’s op-ed had undeniable news value. That didn’t matter to the more than 1,000 employees of the Times who signed a letter objecting to the Cotton op-ed.
“Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger,” was the message that upset Times employees spread across Twitter.
According to Times media columnist Ben Smith, the paper’s union advised the employees to make their complaint a “workplace safety” issue to prevent retribution by management, but it’s no coincidence their argument dovetails with the illiberal rhetoric emanating from college campuses.
Ironically, three years ago, Bennet published an op-ed by an academic making the suspect argument that some kinds of offensive speech are “literally a form of violence.”
And much like campuses, the Times is now on record saying its staff is to be treated like young students who must be coddled and protected from ideas they don’t like. Katie Kingsbury, who was made acting editorial page editor following Bennet’s resignation, has already sent a note to staff indulging their sensitivities.
“Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately,” she wrote.
That statement came after the “virtual walkout” of 300 employees last week demanding approval of opinion pieces by the paper’s “diverse staff” before publication.
Giving every employee a veto over what appears on the opinion page is not a recipe for fostering the kind of intellectually robust debates necessary to sustain democracy—especially when those same employees are intolerant of ideas firmly in the mainstream.
Even though Times employees seized on the revelation that Bennet failed to personally read the op-ed before publication, there’s simply not much of an argument that the Times failed to uphold editorial standards with the Cotton op-ed. By all appearances, the Times management is hostage to an impetuous mob enforcing a political orthodoxy.
The lengthy and argumentative editor’s note appended to Cotton’s op-ed cites no meaningful factual concerns, and instead accuses the piece of being “needlessly harsh” and says it “should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny.”
But on Friday, the same day the paper tacked the editor’s note onto Cotton’s op-ed, the paper published a column calling Cotton “fascist” in the headline.
On Saturday, the paper published an op-ed encouraging readers to text all their family members and tell them you won’t visit or speak to them until they either make financial contributions to support “black lives” or protest in the streets during a pandemic.
To recap, Cotton is a “fascist” for an argument most of the country supports, but there’s still no editor’s note explaining why the paper published a piece by a representative of the Taliban in February.
Cotton is “needlessly harsh,” but the paper published a Donald Trump assassination fantasy in 2018. Cotton’s op-ed needed the “highest level of scrutiny,” but somehow a piece urging people to tear their own families apart with accusatory political blackmail was unobjectionable.
Then, for good measure, in the Times article on Bennet’s resignation, the paper mischaracterized Cotton’s op-ed as saying the senator was calling for the use of military force against peaceful protesters. The Times then stealth-edited the article without making a factual correction.
It would be reassuring to think that the Times has an institutional culture that is uniquely politicized. However, the last week has been defined by a wide cross-section of journalists acting completely unhinged.
Saturday was the anniversary of D-Day, and NPR national correspondent Mara Liasson declared the famous battle was the “Biggest [A]ntifa rally in history.” Antifa, the black-clad gutter punks and Marxist-anarchist revolutionaries, have been denounced by FBI Director Christopher Wray for bringing violence to the recent protests.
The “anti-fascist” bona fides of the recent protests are also in doubt. The national World War II memorial in Washington was defaced in the protests last week, and the mobs in London spray-painted “racist” across a statue of Winston Churchill. (If Churchill is racist, someone might want to tell the vandals about the guy he saved us from.)
Given this context, it’s “staggering that a top NPR reporter equates the heroes of Normandy with some two-bit anarchist thugs,” declared journalist Andrew Sullivan. Speaking of Sullivan, he made it clear New York magazine would not publish his regular column last week—leading to much speculation he was being censored for wrongthink.
Bari Weiss, perhaps the only New York Times employee to publicly oppose the Times’ editorial putsch, endured vicious personal attacks for speaking out. This culminated in Daily Beast editor Goldie Taylor asking a Slate journalist why he hadn’t hit Weiss in the face. (Taylor deleted the tweet.)
For its part, Slate told its readers violence is “an important tool” for protesters. Over the weekend, a Washington Post columnist, Karen Attiah, put up a tweet asking people to directly give her money for “reparations.” (She also deleted her tweet.)
When a top editor at Business Insider told its employees last week that giving money to bail funds to support the recent protests would damage the publication’s credibility, the staff revolted—never mind that at least some of that money is going to people arrested for destructive acts that undermined the message of the peaceful protesters.
Naturally, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan blessed the Business Insider staffers’ uprising. She did this in the same column where she argued against publishing Cotton’s op-ed with a tendentious comparison to publishing “the denialist views of, say, Alex Jones of Infowars on the Sandy Hook massacre.”
The New York Times isn’t even the only major paper that forced out prominent editors over the weekend. Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, resigned days after the paper ran the headline “Buildings Matter, Too,” which the staff found offensive.
It didn’t matter that the point of the column was that buildings matter precisely because black lives matter—the urban decay that results from rioting is going to hurt America’s vulnerable African Americans.
Despite the fact Wischnowski had doubled the number of minorities on the paper’s editorial staff in the last four years, there was no forgiveness for three supposedly ill-chosen words.
No doubt the media establishment feels like it’s undergoing an anti-liberal ideological purification reminiscent of China’s Cultural Revolution. While this may cement power for activist factions within newsrooms, it also legitimizes and empowers conservatives who are openly waging war on the media establishment.
“This entire episode could not have gone better for Tom Cotton if he wrote the script himself,” concedes New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi. Cotton is a Trumpian populist with presidential ambitions. Being able to take credit for The New York Times’ self-immolation is quite a feather in his cap.
Meanwhile, lots of serious people aren’t responding to this crisis of legitimacy by clamoring for media reform. They’re more worried about which needed American institution will go crazy next.
“Remember all those commentators and journalists who smugly informed us that the Woke craziness and suppression of campus speech was being overhyped and it was just a few overzealous students?” asks Brookings Institution fellow and Atlantic writer Shadi Hamid. “They’ll never admit they’re wrong. But they were very, very wrong.”
Originally published by RealClearPolitics


dailysignal--2020-06-12--Raise Entry Fees for Funds to Reduce the Maintenance Backlog at Our National Parks

The Great American Outdoors Act is well-intentioned , with its goal of addressing the nearly $ 20 billion deferred maintenance backlog of our nation ’ s public lands .
But the bill , which the Senate will vote on soon , would also add to the federal debt and empower the executive branch to acquire more federal land with limited accountability .
Recognizing some of the bill ’ s flaws , Sen. Mike Enzi , R-Wyo.
, offered an amendment that would , in his words , “ fix future problems without having to put the cost on the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why adjusting fees are necessary , it ’ s imperative first to understand the deferred maintenance problem .
The national parks have both cyclical and deferred maintenance .
Cyclical maintenance is routine , regularly scheduled maintenance , while deferred maintenance refers to “ maintenance and repairs that were not performed when they should have been or were scheduled to be and which are put off or delayed for a future period.
” Roughly $ 12 billion of the nearly $ 20 billion deferred maintenance backlog is within the National Park System .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bridges , tunnels , and parking lots .
Buildings account for $ 2.2 billion , and the deferred maintenance for water and wastewater systems is $ 717 million .
Very old infrastructure and growing visitation at park sites around the country explain why the backlog exists .
Deferred maintenance adversely affects the visitor experience and also creates environmental liabilities as wastewater leaks have polluted streams in the parks .
To raise revenue to address the backlog , Enzi ’ s amendment would modestly increase park entrance fees by $ 5 and charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ B-1/B-2 visa fees and the Electronic System for Travel Authorization fee .
America ’ s national parks have been a hot spot for international tourists .
In 2015 , 13.6 million overseas travelers visited America ’ s national parks .
They contribute to the costs of using a national park , but do not pay taxes for their upkeep .
Charging higher entrance fees for international travelers is routine practice in many other countries .
Rather than increasing visa fees , an alternative approach could charge foreign tourists more at the gate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for domestic tourists is another pragmatic approach .
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act authorizes the National Park Service ( and other agencies ) to collect fees and retain 80 % of the revenue without additional appropriations .
Parks charge entrance fees and fees for other activities , such as the use of a campsite .
Only 111 of the 419 park units charge an entrance fee .
By comparison to other family activities , entry to the most popular parks is very inexpensive .
A seven-day vehicle pass for Yellowstone is $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s less than $ 9 per person .
That ’ ll get you two bottles of water at Disney World .
As specified by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act , “ The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with the benefits and services provided to the visitor.
” Park managers should set prices that better reflect consumers ’ value of their parks and their willingness to pay .
Setting more competitive prices for park entrances would generate more revenue , and park directors would have the flexibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best meet the needs of the park .
Prices could provide a useful tool to manage overcrowding and other stressors on infrastructure .
If concerns arise that higher prices would price low-income families out of visiting the national parks , the parks could provide vouchers for certain income thresholds .
Policymakers should make it easier for parks to adjust fees as necessary .
“ America ’ s national parks are something to be proud of and protect , ” Enzi said .
“ We owe it to the parks—and to the citizens and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep them in good working order.
” Adjusting entrance fees is a commonsense measure to do just that .

The Great American Outdoors Act is well-intentioned, with its goal of addressing the nearly $20 billion deferred maintenance backlog of our nation’s public lands.
But the bill, which the Senate will vote on soon, would also add to the federal debt and empower the executive branch to acquire more federal land with limited accountability.
Recognizing some of the bill’s flaws, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., offered an amendment that would, in his words, “fix future problems without having to put the cost on the nation’s credit card.”
Enzi’s pragmatic approach centers on adjusting park entrance fees.
To understand why adjusting fees are necessary, it’s imperative first to understand the deferred maintenance problem.
The national parks have both cyclical and deferred maintenance. Cyclical maintenance is routine, regularly scheduled maintenance, while deferred maintenance refers to “maintenance and repairs that were not performed when they should have been or were scheduled to be and which are put off or delayed for a future period.”
Roughly $12 billion of the nearly $20 billion deferred maintenance backlog is within the National Park System. More than half the deferred backlog concerns roadways, bridges, tunnels, and parking lots. Buildings account for $2.2 billion, and the deferred maintenance for water and wastewater systems is $717 million.
Very old infrastructure and growing visitation at park sites around the country explain why the backlog exists. Deferred maintenance adversely affects the visitor experience and also creates environmental liabilities as wastewater leaks have polluted streams in the parks.
To raise revenue to address the backlog, Enzi’s amendment would modestly increase park entrance fees by $5 and charge international visitors more by increasing the tourist B-1/B-2 visa fees and the Electronic System for Travel Authorization fee.
America’s national parks have been a hot spot for international tourists. In 2015, 13.6 million overseas travelers visited America’s national parks. They contribute to the costs of using a national park, but do not pay taxes for their upkeep. Charging higher entrance fees for international travelers is routine practice in many other countries. Rather than increasing visa fees, an alternative approach could charge foreign tourists more at the gate.
Setting park entrance fees at market rates for domestic tourists is another pragmatic approach.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act authorizes the National Park Service (and other agencies) to collect fees and retain 80% of the revenue without additional appropriations.
Parks charge entrance fees and fees for other activities, such as the use of a campsite. Only 111 of the 419 park units charge an entrance fee.
By comparison to other family activities, entry to the most popular parks is very inexpensive. A seven-day vehicle pass for Yellowstone is $35. For a family of four, that’s less than $9 per person. That’ll get you two bottles of water at Disney World.
As specified by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, “The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with the benefits and services provided to the visitor.”
Park managers should set prices that better reflect consumers’ value of their parks and their willingness to pay. Setting more competitive prices for park entrances would generate more revenue, and park directors would have the flexibility and discretion to use those funds to best meet the needs of the park.
Prices could provide a useful tool to manage overcrowding and other stressors on infrastructure. If concerns arise that higher prices would price low-income families out of visiting the national parks, the parks could provide vouchers for certain income thresholds.
Policymakers should make it easier for parks to adjust fees as necessary.
“America’s national parks are something to be proud of and protect,” Enzi said. “We owe it to the parks—and to the citizens and foreign visitors who partake in their wonders—to keep them in good working order.”
Adjusting entrance fees is a commonsense measure to do just that.


dailysignal--2020-06-15--Chinese Propaganda Outlet Has Paid US Newspapers $19 Million for Advertising, Printing

One of China ’ s main propaganda outlets has paid American newspapers nearly $ 19 million for advertising and printing expenses over the past four years , according to documents filed with the Justice Department .
China Daily , an English-language newspaper controlled by the Chinese Communist Party , has paid more than $ 4.6 million to The Washington Post and nearly $ 6 million to The Wall Street Journal since November 2016 , the records show .
Both newspapers have published paid supplements that China Daily produces called “ China Watch.
” The inserts are designed to look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contain a pro-Beijing spin on contemporary news events .
One insert from September 2018 touted an initiative pushed by Chinese President Xi Jinping with the headline : “ Belt and Road aligns with African nations.
” The same insert ran a story titled “ Tariffs to take toll on U.S. homebuyers ” that asserted that U.S. tariffs on Chinese lumber would raise the cost of building homes in the United States .
China Daily also paid for advertising in several other newspapers : The New York Times ( $ 50,000 ) , Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Des Moines Register ( $ 34,600 ) , and CQ-Roll Call ( $ 76,000 ) .
It spent a total of $ 11,002,628 on advertising in U.S. newspapers , and another $ 265,822 on advertising with Twitter .
China Daily has also paid out more than $ 7.6 million to newspapers and printing companies for its newspaper for U.S.-based readers , the Justice Department ’ s filings show .
The Los Angeles Times , The Seattle Times , The Atlanta Journal-Constitution , the Chicago Tribune , the Houston Chronicle , and The Boston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China Daily .
The Chinese outlet paid the Los Angeles Times $ 657,523 for printing services , according to the Foreign Agents Registration Act filings .
The Justice Department has for years required China Daily to disclose its activities semi-annually under the Foreign Agents Registration Act .
The most recent filing , which China Daily submitted on June 1 , is the first to include detailed breakdowns of payments to American news outlets .
The outlet disclosed those expenditures for the period between November 2016 and April 2020 .
It is unclear if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under pressure from the Justice Department or on its own .
Pro-democracy groups have long warned about the Chinese government ’ s attempts to push propaganda through American news outlets .
Freedom House and the Hoover Institution have both drawn attention to China Daily ’ s paid inserts in reports on the Chinese government ’ s efforts to influence the media .
China Daily and other Beijing-controlled propaganda mills have come under intense scrutiny amid the coronavirus pandemic .
Chinese government officials have tried to divert blame for the spread of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations .
Many of the regime-controlled outlets , including China Daily , have echoed the communist leaders ’ talking points .
China Daily has slowed its advertising expenditures in recent months , the filings show .
China Daily last paid The Washington Post for advertising in December 2019 .
Its payments to The Wall Street Journal have been less than half their average amount since February 2020 , the documents show .
China Daily did not respond to a request for comment .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of this original content , email [ email protected ]

One of China’s main propaganda outlets has paid American newspapers nearly $19 million for advertising and printing expenses over the past four years, according to documents filed with the Justice Department.
China Daily, an English-language newspaper controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, has paid more than $4.6 million to The Washington Post and nearly $6 million to The Wall Street Journal since November 2016, the records show.
Both newspapers have published paid supplements that China Daily produces called “China Watch.” The inserts are designed to look like real news articles, though they often contain a pro-Beijing spin on contemporary news events.
One insert from September 2018 touted an initiative pushed by Chinese President Xi Jinping with the headline: “Belt and Road aligns with African nations.” The same insert ran a story titled “Tariffs to take toll on U.S. homebuyers” that asserted that U.S. tariffs on Chinese lumber would raise the cost of building homes in the United States.
China Daily also paid for advertising in several other newspapers: The New York Times ($50,000), Foreign Policy ($240,000), The Des Moines Register ($34,600), and CQ-Roll Call ($76,000).
It spent a total of $11,002,628 on advertising in U.S. newspapers, and another $265,822 on advertising with Twitter.
China Daily has also paid out more than $7.6 million to newspapers and printing companies for its newspaper for U.S.-based readers, the Justice Department’s filings show.
The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, and The Boston Globe are all listed as clients of China Daily. The Chinese outlet paid the Los Angeles Times $657,523 for printing services, according to the Foreign Agents Registration Act filings.
The Justice Department has for years required China Daily to disclose its activities semi-annually under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The most recent filing, which China Daily submitted on June 1, is the first to include detailed breakdowns of payments to American news outlets. The outlet disclosed those expenditures for the period between November 2016 and April 2020.
It is unclear if China Daily submitted the more detailed filings under pressure from the Justice Department or on its own.
Pro-democracy groups have long warned about the Chinese government’s attempts to push propaganda through American news outlets. Freedom House and the Hoover Institution have both drawn attention to China Daily’s paid inserts in reports on the Chinese government’s efforts to influence the media.
China Daily and other Beijing-controlled propaganda mills have come under intense scrutiny amid the coronavirus pandemic. Chinese government officials have tried to divert blame for the spread of the virus to the United States and other Western nations. Many of the regime-controlled outlets, including China Daily, have echoed the communist leaders’ talking points.
China Daily has slowed its advertising expenditures in recent months, the filings show. China Daily last paid The Washington Post for advertising in December 2019. Its payments to The Wall Street Journal have been less than half their average amount since February 2020, the documents show.
China Daily did not respond to a request for comment.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-06-15--What Social Distancing?  House Transportation Bill Would Pack Americans on Mass Transit

For months , the news media and health experts have repeatedly told Americans that the main way to stop the spread of COVID-19 is to avoid crowded and enclosed spaces .
That guidance led to a nationwide shutdown of churches , schools , businesses , and other places of public gathering , causing the greatest disruption to our way of life in generations .
It seems like a bad time to pack as many people as possible into crowded and enclosed spaces .
Yet that ’ s precisely the goal of the surface transportation bill recently unveiled in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on mass transit .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
The Invest in America Act is the House majority ’ s version of surface transportation legislation that ’ s typically renewed every five years .
The current iteration expires in September .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure , such as highways , bridges , mass transit , and Amtrak ( intercity rail ) .
The bipartisan Senate version , which was released last year , has plenty of flaws , but those problems are magnified considerably in the House bill .
For starters , the House bill would increase spending on mass transit by 54 % , and more than triple the subsidies for Amtrak .
That would have been poor policy a year ago , as transit and Amtrak are already heavily subsidized compared with other modes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mass transit gets a big share of the Highway Trust Fund despite the fact that transit fares do not pay into the fund .
As a result , billions of dollars in gas tax revenue flow to mass transit every year , meaning that suburban and rural Americans are providing subsidies to cities .
Ramping up spending on mass transit in 2020 is even more nonsensical , since it ’ s still unclear when the COVID-19 pandemic will be fully contained .
The House transportation bill would take effect on Oct. 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the cold , dry months that are already synonymous with communicable diseases .
That would be rolling the dice with public health , especially considering the warnings from epidemiologists about the potential for a second wave of COVID-19 infections starting in the fall .
It ’ s even more of a risk when we consider that New York City , the most transit-dependent area of the country , has been the focal point of national infections and deaths .
To put it another way : If COVID-19 was worth shutting down civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people into unemployment , and adding trillions to the national debt , it should also give pause to legislators eager to pack people together onto buses and subways .
Beyond the public health problems with the House transportation bill , it ’ s also worth examining the funding numbers .
The Highway Trust Fund , which is the overarching subject of the bill , is already running large deficits .
The last reauthorization bill used $ 75 billion in new debt to cover the balance over five years .
That gap would increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five years for the House bill , unless Congress makes the mistake of ramping up gas and vehicle taxes in the middle of a crippling recession .
The House bill devotes about 25 % of proposed spending to transit and Amtrak , which account for only about 1 % of miles traveled .
This shows how skewed the legislative priorities are .
Further , the bill would spend billions of dollars on climate- and “ resilience ” -related projects that would add little to the actual effectiveness of our transportation system .
Fortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the House and the Senate to improve their transportation bills .
Reforms should include : • Removing diversions that only benefit local areas , such as mass transit and sidewalks , from the Highway Trust Fund .
• Eliminating federal regulations that needlessly increase the cost of projects , such as union-based wage and work-rules requirements .
• Giving states more flexibility to raise their own funds , which would reduce the amount of power and control centered in Washington .
Policy changes along these lines would greatly increase the value of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
It would also avoid the potential health consequences of using taxpayer dollars to encourage people to crowd onto mass transit .
If state and city governments want to take the risk of increasing their own transit spending in the midst of COVID-19 , that would be their choice .
Federal lawmakers , however , should recognize that doing so nationwide would be financially and medically irresponsible .

For months, the news media and health experts have repeatedly told Americans that the main way to stop the spread of COVID-19 is to avoid crowded and enclosed spaces.
That guidance led to a nationwide shutdown of churches, schools, businesses, and other places of public gathering, causing the greatest disruption to our way of life in generations.
It seems like a bad time to pack as many people as possible into crowded and enclosed spaces. Yet that’s precisely the goal of the surface transportation bill recently unveiled in the House, which would sharply increase federal spending on mass transit.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The Invest in America Act is the House majority’s version of surface transportation legislation that’s typically renewed every five years. The current iteration expires in September. The authorization covers federal spending on transportation infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, mass transit, and Amtrak (intercity rail).
The bipartisan Senate version, which was released last year, has plenty of flaws, but those problems are magnified considerably in the House bill.
For starters, the House bill would increase spending on mass transit by 54%, and more than triple the subsidies for Amtrak. That would have been poor policy a year ago, as transit and Amtrak are already heavily subsidized compared with other modes of transportation.
Further, decades-old formulas dictate that mass transit gets a big share of the Highway Trust Fund despite the fact that transit fares do not pay into the fund. As a result, billions of dollars in gas tax revenue flow to mass transit every year, meaning that suburban and rural Americans are providing subsidies to cities.
Ramping up spending on mass transit in 2020 is even more nonsensical, since it’s still unclear when the COVID-19 pandemic will be fully contained.
The House transportation bill would take effect on Oct. 1, increasing transit subsidies just in time for the cold, dry months that are already synonymous with communicable diseases.
That would be rolling the dice with public health, especially considering the warnings from epidemiologists about the potential for a second wave of COVID-19 infections starting in the fall.
It’s even more of a risk when we consider that New York City, the most transit-dependent area of the country, has been the focal point of national infections and deaths.
To put it another way: If COVID-19 was worth shutting down civil society, sending tens of millions of people into unemployment, and adding trillions to the national debt, it should also give pause to legislators eager to pack people together onto buses and subways.
Beyond the public health problems with the House transportation bill, it’s also worth examining the funding numbers.
The Highway Trust Fund, which is the overarching subject of the bill, is already running large deficits. The last reauthorization bill used $75 billion in new debt to cover the balance over five years.
That gap would increase to at least $140 billion over five years for the House bill, unless Congress makes the mistake of ramping up gas and vehicle taxes in the middle of a crippling recession.
The House bill devotes about 25% of proposed spending to transit and Amtrak, which account for only about 1% of miles traveled. This shows how skewed the legislative priorities are.
Further, the bill would spend billions of dollars on climate- and “resilience”-related projects that would add little to the actual effectiveness of our transportation system.
Fortunately, there’s still time for both the House and the Senate to improve their transportation bills. Reforms should include:
Removing diversions that only benefit local areas, such as mass transit and sidewalks, from the Highway Trust Fund.
Focusing spending on core federal highways.
Eliminating federal regulations that needlessly increase the cost of projects, such as union-based wage and work-rules requirements.
Giving states more flexibility to raise their own funds, which would reduce the amount of power and control centered in Washington.
Policy changes along these lines would greatly increase the value of infrastructure spending for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
It would also avoid the potential health consequences of using taxpayer dollars to encourage people to crowd onto mass transit.
If state and city governments want to take the risk of increasing their own transit spending in the midst of COVID-19, that would be their choice. Federal lawmakers, however, should recognize that doing so nationwide would be financially and medically irresponsible.


dailysignal--2020-06-18--NBC Tries and Fails to Wreck a Conservative Website. Here’s Why It’s Deeply Problematic.

If you value a robust media offering a variety of voices , you should be troubled by a chilling incident that occurred this week .
Citing the work of two foreign-based activist groups , NBC News reported Tuesday that Google would demonetize a conservative news and opinion outlet , The Federalist–meaning not allow it to carry Google Ads on its site .
Why ?
Because of The Federalist ’ s coverage of the George Floyd protests .
Later that day , Google clarified that its specific issue was the comments section below articles on The Federalist , not the articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments section , Google said it considered the issue resolved .
This episode shows how a media outlet such as NBC News apparently is willing to collude with radicals alongside one of the world ’ s most powerful tech companies to ruin the competition .
“ Google ’ s ban of the websites [ The Federalist and financial blog ZeroHedge ] comes after the company was notified of research conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate , a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation , ” NBC initially reported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that 10 U.S-based websites have published what they say are racist articles about the [ Floyd/ Black Lives Matter ] protests , and projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.
” NBC worked with two left-wing advocacy organizations as sources in its reporting : the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Stop Funding Fake News .
NBC reported that Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after NBC brought the project to its attention .
The tech giant already had demonetized ZeroHedge , it reported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our policies , we take action , ” an unnamed Google spokesman told NBC .
“ In this case , we ’ ve removed both sites ’ ability to monetize with Google.
” Shortly after NBC published its article , Google denied demonetizing The Federalist .
Google said the issue was that The Federalist ’ s comments section , maintained by a third party , paired Google Ads with “ dangerous or derogatory content ” there .
Google said nothing about The Federalist ’ s articles , as NBC initially claimed in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retracted—after publication .
And although The Federalist removed the comments section below the pieces on its website , founders Ben Domenech and Sean Davis vow to bring back comments .
For full disclosure , I have written for The Federalist and my wife , Inez Stepman , is a senior contributor at the publication .
Unfortunately , the issues involved in this story are much bigger than a single NBC report .
The reporter who wrote the story , London-based Adele-Momoko Fraser , did little to hide the fact that she worked in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now-deleted tweet—with far-left groups .
Later , Fraser changed her tune and said on Twitter that she obtained her research “ exclusively ” from Stop Funding Fake News , but didn ’ t “ collaborate ” with them .
Regardless of what actually happened , this is deeply troubling .
Unfortunately , it ’ s unlikely that these brute-force tactics to curb speech will end here .
Far from it .
I wrote in 2018 how YouTube—which is owned by Google—partnered with the Southern Poverty Law Center to police content under YouTube ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPLC is notorious for making wild and exaggerated claims about mainstream conservative organizations , lumping them in as “ hate groups ” with extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan .
Last year , YouTube effectively censored the words of a medical doctor who writes about children and gender identity issues .
She had said in a Daily Signal video : “ See , if you want to cut off a leg or an arm , you ’ re mentally ill , but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Rob Bluey , vice president for communications at The Heritage Foundation and executive editor of The Daily Signal , criticized the actions of NBC and Google and said all Americans should be appalled .
This whole episode has disturbing implications for the free exchange of ideas in America , where the “ cancel culture ” of college campuses has been injected into the mainstream of our national political discourse .
The Federalist successfully fought back .
But as noted by its founders , could they have done so if they didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
In a commentary published by The Wall Street Journal , Domenech and Davis lambaste what they call an attack “ not only individuals but free speech itself ” : NBC ’ s failed attempt at bullying The Federalist is just another example of how social justice warriors have taken hold of newsrooms , using the immense power of their positions to squash voices that dare to contest the all-important “ narrative.
” It ’ s the narrative , rather than pursuit of the truth , that ’ s been prioritized .
Activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how and what people think .
Dissent is problematic ; debate ensures that not everyone will come to the “ correct ” conclusions .
It ’ s far more effective simply to silence the opposition .
My colleague Mike Gonzalez , author of the forthcoming book “ The Plot to Change America : How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free , ” recently wrote that the far left is manipulating language and using activists in media institutions “ to make it impossible for conservatives to openly discuss their policy remedies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this trend continues unabated , we will lose our grip on our culture of free speech—and our free society along with it .

If you value a robust media offering a variety of voices, you should be troubled by a chilling incident that occurred this week.
Citing the work of two foreign-based activist groups, NBC News reported Tuesday that Google would demonetize a conservative news and opinion outlet, The Federalist–meaning not allow it to carry Google Ads on its site.
Why? Because of The Federalist’s coverage of the George Floyd protests.
Later that day, Google clarified that its specific issue was the comments section below articles on The Federalist, not the articles themselves. When The Federalist removed its comments section, Google said it considered the issue resolved.
This episode shows how a media outlet such as NBC News apparently is willing to collude with radicals alongside one of the world’s most powerful tech companies to ruin the competition.
“Google’s ban of the websites [The Federalist and financial blog ZeroHedge] comes after the company was notified of research conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation,” NBC initially reported, according to Fox News. “They found that 10 U.S-based websites have published what they say are racist articles about the [Floyd/ Black Lives Matter] protests, and projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.”
NBC worked with two left-wing advocacy organizations as sources in its reporting: the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Stop Funding Fake News.
NBC reported that Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after NBC brought the project to its attention. The tech giant already had demonetized ZeroHedge, it reported.
“When a page or site violates our policies, we take action,” an unnamed Google spokesman told NBC. “In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”
Shortly after NBC published its article, Google denied demonetizing The Federalist. Google said the issue was that The Federalist’s comments section, maintained by a third party, paired Google Ads with “dangerous or derogatory content” there.
Google said nothing about The Federalist’s articles, as NBC initially claimed in its report, which was changed significantly—although not retracted—after publication.
The Federalist was never demonetized. — Google Communications (@Google_Comms) June 16, 2020
And although The Federalist removed the comments section below the pieces on its website, founders Ben Domenech and Sean Davis vow to bring back comments.
For full disclosure, I have written for The Federalist and my wife, Inez Stepman, is a senior contributor at the publication.
Unfortunately, the issues involved in this story are much bigger than a single NBC report.
The reporter who wrote the story, London-based Adele-Momoko Fraser, did little to hide the fact that she worked in “collaboration”—her words in a now-deleted tweet—with far-left groups.
Later, Fraser changed her tune and said on Twitter that she obtained her research “exclusively” from Stop Funding Fake News, but didn’t “collaborate” with them.
Regardless of what actually happened, this is deeply troubling.
Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that these brute-force tactics to curb speech will end here. Far from it.
I wrote in 2018 how YouTube—which is owned by Google—partnered with the Southern Poverty Law Center to police content under YouTube’s “trusted flagger program.”
The SPLC is notorious for making wild and exaggerated claims about mainstream conservative organizations, lumping them in as “hate groups” with extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
Last year, YouTube effectively censored the words of a medical doctor who writes about children and gender identity issues. She had said in a Daily Signal video: “See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm, you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender.”
Rob Bluey, vice president for communications at The Heritage Foundation and executive editor of The Daily Signal, criticized the actions of NBC and Google and said all Americans should be appalled.
Americans should be appalled at how @NBCNews and @Google treated @FDRLST.
Shameful to watch so many media outlets jump at the chance to smear the reputation of a conservative news outlet.
It’s a textbook case of how the left operates, plain and simple. — Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) June 17, 2020
This whole episode has disturbing implications for the free exchange of ideas in America, where the “cancel culture” of college campuses has been injected into the mainstream of our national political discourse.
The Federalist successfully fought back. But as noted by its founders, could they have done so if they didn’t already have a significant public megaphone?
In a commentary published by The Wall Street Journal, Domenech and Davis lambaste what they call an attack “not only individuals but free speech itself”:
NBC News colluded with a foreign left-wing group [Stop Funding Fake News] in an attempt to destroy us because it disagrees with our political commentary and media criticism. The episode illustrates how dangerous the combination of partisan media and monopolistic tech companies is to America. We survived the attack because our organization is well known.
NBC’s failed attempt at bullying The Federalist is just another example of how social justice warriors have taken hold of newsrooms, using the immense power of their positions to squash voices that dare to contest the all-important “narrative.”
It’s the narrative, rather than pursuit of the truth, that’s been prioritized.
Activists on the far left want to control how and what people think. Dissent is problematic; debate ensures that not everyone will come to the “correct” conclusions.
It’s far more effective simply to silence the opposition.
My colleague Mike Gonzalez, author of the forthcoming book “The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free,” recently wrote in The Daily Signal that the far left is manipulating language and using activists in media institutions “to make it impossible for conservatives to openly discuss their policy remedies to the ills besetting society.”
Absolutely.
If this trend continues unabated, we will lose our grip on our culture of free speech—and our free society along with it.


dailysignal--2020-06-18--‘Completely Crazy’: Lighthizer Denies Bolton’s Claim That Trump Asked China for Election Help

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer denied Wednesday that President Donald Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping in June 2019 for help in the upcoming presidential election , an allegation that former national security adviser John Bolton levels in his forthcoming memoir .
“ Absolutely untrue , never happened .
I was there , I have no recollection of that ever happening .
I don ’ t believe it ’ s true , I don ’ t believe it ever happened , ” Lighthizer testified during a Senate Finance Committee hearing .
New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez had asked Lighthizer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about an excerpt from Bolton ’ s book in which he alleged that Trump asked Xi for election help during a meeting in Japan on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in June 2019 .
“ Trump then , stunningly , turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election , alluding to China ’ s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he ’ d win , ” Bolton wrote in an excerpt published by The Wall Street Journal .
“ He stressed the importance of farmers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the electoral outcome .
I would print Trump ’ s exact words , but the government ’ s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.
” Lighthizer told Menendez that he was in the meeting in question and that Bolton ’ s allegation was “ completely crazy.
” “ Would I have recollected something as crazy as that ?
Of course I would , ” Lighthizer said .
Bolton makes numerous other bombshell allegations against Trump in his book “ The Room Where It Happened.
” He accuses his former boss of appeasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Recep Tayyip Erdogan , and Russian President Vladimir Putin .
Bolton also claimed that top Trump administration officials , including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , were highly critical of the president during private conversations .
The Trump Justice Department sued Bolton on Tuesday to delay the release of the memoir , which is set for release on June 23 .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content @ @ @ @ @ @

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer denied Wednesday that President Donald Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping in June 2019 for help in the upcoming presidential election, an allegation that former national security adviser John Bolton levels in his forthcoming memoir.
“Absolutely untrue, never happened. I was there, I have no recollection of that ever happening. I don’t believe it’s true, I don’t believe it ever happened,” Lighthizer testified during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez had asked Lighthizer, a well-known critic of the Chinese government, about an excerpt from Bolton’s book in which he alleged that Trump asked Xi for election help during a meeting in Japan on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in June 2019.
“Trump then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win,” Bolton wrote in an excerpt published by The Wall Street Journal.
“He stressed the importance of farmers and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome. I would print Trump’s exact words, but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.”
Lighthizer told Menendez that he was in the meeting in question and that Bolton’s allegation was “completely crazy.”
“Would I have recollected something as crazy as that? Of course I would,” Lighthizer said.
Bolton makes numerous other bombshell allegations against Trump in his book “The Room Where It Happened.” He accuses his former boss of appeasing foreign dictators such as Xi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Bolton also claimed that top Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, were highly critical of the president during private conversations.
The Trump Justice Department sued Bolton on Tuesday to delay the release of the memoir, which is set for release on June 23.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.