· acclaimed journalist Humberto Fontova contrasted the fiction with the facts in these terms: Who Was “Che” Guevara? Myth: International man of the people. Humanitarian. Brave

PennyPressLogotype Pointedlymad licensed from: Rich Gast

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

The Penny Press is published weekly by Far West Radio LLC All Contents © Penny Press 2019

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

775-461-1515

www.pennypressnv.com

THE PENNY PRESS,OCTOBER 17, 2019 PAGE 2

By LAWRENCE REEDSpecial to the Penny Press

Let’s say that all you knew about Adolf Hitler was that he painted scenic pictures, postcards, and houses in Vienna, loved dogs

and named his adorable German Shepard “Blondie,” and frequently expressed solidarity with “the people.” You might sport a T-shirt adorned with his image if you thought such a charismatic chap was also good-looking in a beret. But your education would be widely regarded as incomplete.

If you later found out that the guy on your T-shirt was a mass

murderer, you might ask your oppression studies professor why she left out a few important details.

This hypothetical resembles a real-world phenomenon seen today on numerous college campuses. Fifty-two years after his demise in Bolivia—on October 9, 1967—the maniacal socialist Ernesto “Che” Guevara is still making headlines and spoiling perfectly good clothes.

In film and pop culture, Che comes off as an adventurous motorcyclist, a humble-living commoner, a romantic egalitarian revolutionary, and a swashbuckling sex symbol. His ghastly history as one of Fidel Castro’s favorite thugs routinely gets whitewashed because, in spite of all the murders, he supposedly had good intentions (read: hate the rich, concentrate power, eliminate dissent, help the

poor by creating more of them).In his remarkable 2007 volume,

Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, acclaimed journalist Humberto Fontova contrasted the fiction with the facts in these terms:Who Was “Che” Guevara?

Myth: International man of the people. Humanitarian. Brave freedom fighter. Lover of literature and life. Advocate of the poor and oppressed.

Reality: Cold-blooded murderer. Sadistic torturer. Power-hungry materialist. Terrorist who inspired destruction and bloodshed through Latin America.

Here are some lesser-known info bits about the psychopath-on-the-T-shirt, drawn from Fontova’s book and other sources:

• He publicly applauded the

Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and denounced the student protesters battling Soviet tanks in Budapest as “fascists.”

• Upon the victory of the 1959 communist revolution in Cuba, Che commandeered for himself one of the most luxurious mansions in Havana—complete with a yacht harbor, monster swimming pool, seven bathrooms, sauna and massage salon, and five television sets.

• Che played a leading role in the Cuban Literacy Campaign of 1961 and, at the same time, helped direct the regime’s brutal policy of crushing dissenting opinion and opposition media. As

Penny PressNEVADA USA 16 PAGES VOLUME 17 NUMBER 5 OCTOBER 17, 2019

Penny WisdomHe (Joe Biden) was never considered a good senator. He was only a good vice pres-ident because he understood how to kiss Barack Obama's ass. —Donald Trump

The Conservative Weekly Voice Of NevadaInsideSon of A Bitch...Making Biden Jr Rich

See Editorial Page 6

RON KNECHT PAGE 5FRED WEINBERG PAGE 6ROBERT RINGER PAGE 7DANIELKOWALSKI PAGE 9DREW JOHNSON PAGE 10ROBERT ROMANO PAGE 11CHUCK MUTH PAGE 14

Dumbass Kids And Che Guevara

Commentary

Continued on page4


Fontova documented in his biography, Che “promoted book burning and signed death warrants for authors who disagreed with him.” Communist despots routinely teach reading and writing but work even harder at making sure you only read and write what they want you to. Che’s first public book-burning set more than 3,000 books ablaze on a Havana street.

• Even Che’s adoring hagiographer, Jorge Castaneda, admits that Che “played a central role in establishing Cuba’s security machinery” in the early days of the Castro regime. In that capacity, Che supervised the torture and execution of untold thousands of Cubans without trial. He had a special affection for firing squads.

• Cuban poet and diplomat Armando Valladares, author of Against All Hope: My 22 Years in Castro’s Gulag, says Che “was a man full of hatred” who executed people “who never once stood trial and were never declared guilty” and who declared, “At the smallest of doubt we must execute.”

• Che was no equal opportunity oppressor. He held special dislike for gays, whom he incarcerated in multiple prisons. He was a well-known racist, as well.

• Fidel Castro appointed Che Guevara as communist Cuba’s first “Economics Minister” and president of the country’s National Bank. Within months, the Cuban peso was practically worthless. Castro appointed him Minister of Industries, too. In that job, Che proved equally incompetent. He once bought a fleet of snowplows from Czechoslovakia because he thought they would make

excellent sugar cane harvesters but, sadly, the machines simply squashed and killed the plants.

• Che was Castro’s economic czar, though he knew nothing about economics beyond Marxist bumper stickers. His former deputy Ernesto Betancourt said Che was “ignorant of the most elementary economic principles.” Nonetheless, he actually wrote communist Cuba’s agrarian reform law, limiting the size of all farms and creating state-run communes. Production plummeted and is still lower today than before the revolution.

• The Soviet missiles in Cuba that nearly precipitated a world war in 1962 were Che’s idea. When the Soviets were pressured by the Kennedy administration to remove them, Che publicly declared that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have been fired at the US because the cause of socialism was worth “millions of atomic-war victims.”

• Che left Cuba in 1965 to foment violent insurrections first in Africa and then back in Latin America. He was captured by the Bolivian military on October 8, 1967, and administered a dose of his own summary medicine the next day.

Bottom line: Think twice (actually, just once ought to be enough) about adding a Che Guevara T-shirt to your Christmas giving this year.

Lawrence W. Reed is President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Ambassador for Global Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education. This article originally appeared on fee.org.

Don't Waste Your Chistmas Money On CheContinued from page 3

Baseball’s Greatest Lefthander EverEditor’s Note: This column originally appeared here on April 7, 2016.

Monday, April 4, 2016, the greatest sportscaster ever began his 67th and final season.

Don’t take the word of two life-long Dodger fans that 88-yearold Vin Scully, the Voice of Da Bums since 1950, is the best. His awards and recognitions are way too numerous to list, so here are the greatest highlights. The American Sportscasters Association named him Sportscaster of the Century in

2000 and first on its all-time Top- 50 list later. Numerous halls of fame, a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame, etc.

The reasons for that extend from his encyclopedic knowledge of the game and technical broadcasting skills to his modesty, casual friendly manner, and personal warmth, all conveyed in a lyrically descriptive style via a dulcet voice. His vivid yet simple description of a game has thrilled fans for years.

It all starts with his signature introduction: “It’s time for Dodger baseball! Hi, everybody, and a very pleasant good day/evening to you, wherever you may be.”

When the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles in 1958, fans began bringing their transistor radios to the ballgame because he added so much to what they saw. Part of his

charm is his mastery of baseball history and anecdote, which makes fans feel a special connection to him and the game.

He learned early on to be objective and understated, not a home-team shill and loud. And he always kept in mind that sportscasting is about the players and the game, not about him.

He’s witnessed more spectacular sports history moments than anyone. He was there (but not calling the action) for baseball’s most famous moment ever, Bobby Thomson’s pennant-winning “shot heard ‘round the world” homerun in 1951 for the Giants that broke Dodger hearts forever.

Four years later, he called the seventh game of the Dodgers’ first World Series championship ever, which Scully recalls as his favorite moment. On the last out, he said simply, “Ladies and gentlemen, the Brooklyn Dodgers are the champions of the world.” Then he turned the mic to the cheering crowd for an extended time in what became another signature move.

He explains that as an eightyear-old boy, he used to lay his head on a pillow under the large radio counsel in his parents’ home and let the sounds of the crowd and the game wash over him as ate crackers and drank milk. That memory comes back at every good baseball moment, and that’s what he shares with fans.

Other highlights? Kirk Gibson’s 1988 World Series walkoff homer that’s widely viewed as the second most memorable moment in baseball history. Hank Aaron’s 715th homer in 1974 that broke Babe Ruth’s most famous career

record. Barry Bonds’ 71st, 72nd and 73rd home-runs in 2001 to capture the single-season record.

Did we mention that he called “The Catch” on TV in 1982, when the San Francisco 49ers’ Joe Montana and Dwight Clark beat the Dallas Cowboys and started a dynasty? Yes, he’s great at television, too, plus football, golf and tennis broadcasting.

He’s called five baseball perfect games – no one else has two – beginning with Don Larsen’s in the 1956 Series, the first perfect game in 34 years. And 18 no-hitters, including four by Sandy Koufax, culminating with his perfecto in 1965. Two more perfect games in 1988 and 1991. Then, in 1999 he played himself in arguably the best sports (and date) film ever, For Love of the Game. As the hero takes the mound for the ninth inning, seeking to finish his perfect game, Scully says: “Billy Chapel is 40 years old, arm weary and aching. And you know, Steve, you get the feeling that Billy Chapel isn’t pitching against left-handers, he isn’t pitching against pinch-hitters, he isn’t pitching against the Yankees. He’s pitching against time. He’s pitching against the future, against age, and even when you think about his career, against ending. And tonight I think he might be able to use that aching old arm one more time to push the sun back up in the sky and give us one more day of summer.”

Vin Scully used that dulcet voice to push the sun back up in the sky for one more summer for all of us


The Penny Press Tips Its Cap To:Phil Ruffin who just bought Circus Circus in Las Vegas for $825,000,000. Ruffic owns Treasure Island, is a superb operator and should do a great job with the Las Vegas icon. The transaction is expected to close by the end of the year, and includes the 5-acre Adventuredome amusement park, a 10-acre RV park and 37-acre festival grounds.

LrBron James for showing his true lack of education by shooting off his big mouth and taking Houston General Manager to task for tweeting in support of the Hong Kong protestors. If there was ever someone who lack an education is is James who barely got out of high school and probably couldn’t spell hypocrisy in a spelling bee.

The Penny Press Sends A Bronx Cheer And A Bouquet of Weeds To:

The Democrat Presidential candidates who debated on Tuesday and, in general, resembled that basket of deplorables which Hillary Clinton used to lose the 2016 election to President Trump. The theme was that Trump is bad, we are good and he needs to be replaced. The actual plans are so bad that even the CNN hosts appeared appalled.


Tips Of Our Capand

Bronx Cheers

RON KNECHT andGEOFFREY LAWRENCE

Commentary: Ron Knecht and Geoffrey Lawrence

My father was a big shot in the worlds of engineering and education.

He retired as the Dean of the College of Engineering at Bradley University after a years long career, producing hundreds of engineers for companies like Caterpillar. One of those young engineers was NOT me.

If I had come to his office one day, when I was still in college, and told my father that Caterpillar had hired me for (this was the 70s) say a mere $20,000 a month in an unspecified position with unspecified responsibilities he would have come unglued.

He would NOT have been proud and congratulated me.

He would have rightfully called the Chairman at Caterpillar (in those days, his friend William L. Naumann), demand I be fired and would never have allowed such a conflict of interest to take place. (I actually had to fight him over the $200 a month job of running the University’s radio station and he ultimately did have me fired after two years.)

Contrast that with former Vice President Joe Biden.

His son, Hunter, is a derelict drug addict who got himself kicked out of the Navy. Serious skillset there.

His father basically had a few responsibilities as Vice President. In addition to staying alive in the event of the President’s untimely demise, two of those were representing President Obama’s policies in China and the Ukraine.

After he got kicked out of the United States Navy, Hunter hitched a ride to China on Air Force Two and a few days after they returned, Hunter’s private equity company got a BILLION dollar “investment” from China’s government.

Imagine that. Coincidence?

Doubtful. But to listen to the former Vice President, sonny boy didn’t do anything wrong—like he intimated the Trump children have. There is, however, a difference. The Trump children were in business long before their father ran for President.

Does Joe really want to take the position that someone who is a businessman CANNOT serve in public office? Why,

that would limit office to dweebs like…Joe Biden.

You see, Donald Trump is the first President we have had in many years who is NOT part of the political club. Who is so wealthy he cannot be bought, despite the ridicules claims by people that, somehow, he has become enriched by becoming President. However much the media hates him, it would be very hard for a President as vilified as he to actually increase his net worth while in office.

And his inability to be bought is just another reason he is vilified by people and institutions which would love to buy him.

How is it that a clown like Joe Biden could use his position to make his derelict son wealthy and look the media in the eye and say that nothing was done wrong? That during his tenure there was no corruption?

Simple.

That’s the very swamp which Trump is in the process of draining. People expect this crap in DC, just as they used to expect the mob to control Chicago, New York and Las Vegas.

Biden would have you believe that he’s an honest man in Washington—that Donald Trump is corrupt. That using his position as Vice President to enrich his son never happened. And, if it did, well, that’s how things work in big time politics.

The truth can be divined in a quote from a video of Biden talking to the Council on Foreign Relations about a Ukrainian prosecutor who apparently was getting a little too close to Sonny Boy.

“I said we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said ‘you can’t do that, you have no authority, you’re not the president. I said if the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.

Well, son of a bitch…

Is that clear enough for anybody outside of the establishment?

FRED WEINBERG


OPINIONFrom The Publisher...

Well, Son Of A Bitch...Making Biden's Kid Wealthy



The Political Necessity of LyingAs the crazed Democratic presidential candidates continue to ramp up

their frantic efforts to outbid one another in the hopes of buying primary votes, I am reminded of an article in The New York Times titled “Who will tell the people?” written by Thomas Friedman, one of those rare liberals who occasionally displays a modicum of common sense.

In the article, Friedman shared his concerns about the field of candidates in the 2008 presidential election when he wrote, “We don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.”

As I said at the time, “Lots of luck in finding someone.”It’s not exactly a news flash to tell you that none of the psychopaths in

the Democratic field of presidential candidates are tough enough — and certainly not honest enough — to tell the American people the truth. I don’t think anyone — either Republican or Democrat — believes that any of these sorry pretenders has a desire to “talk straight” to voters. As a group, they not only are the most mentally unstable slate of primary candidates ever to appear on a stage together, they are also the most corrupt and dishonest.

Friedman went on to say, “We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.” All of which sounds great, except for the fact that “work on our country” is a subjective phrase that means different things to different people.

All candidates like to talk about measures they believe will “work,” because it allows them to avoid being specific. Everything works, because all actions, whether good or bad, have consequences. But that doesn’t mean everyone likes or benefits from those consequences. Thus, the question is not whether something works, but whether we like the way it works.

Communism works, if your purpose is to enslave people. Stealing works (at least some of the time), if all you care about is money. Lying works, if you don’t care about your personal integrity. Literally anything, no matter how monstrously immoral, will work, depending on the outcome you’re after and how you define the term work.

For example, Ivanka Trump’s “paid family leave” works for people on the receiving end, but not so much for a childless couple who is forced to help foot the bill. Ditto with “free” college tuition, “forgiveness” of student debt, and healthcare for illegals. All of these Democratic proposals would work extremely well for those who receive the largesse, but not for those who pay for it and receive nothing in return.

In truth, they are just doublespeak terms used to obfuscate the fact that they are really just transfer-of-wealth programs. Politicians work hard to convince us that transfer-of-wealth programs are necessary because there is only a certain amount of wealth available and it’s needed to help close the “wealth gap.”

In other words, they rely on the ignorant and childish belief that the size of the world’s wealth pie is fixed, which is absolutely, positively untrue. The amount of wealth on our planet is limitless, because it’s directly tied to the ingenuity, resourcefulness, and hard work of individuals.

But the Dirty Dem presidential candidates will have none of this. In the name of “fairness,” they are promising to take a lot more of your “pie” and give it to those whom they believe are more worthy of it than you. In politically incorrect circles, this procedure is known as Marxism — and, as I said, it only works if the objective is to enslave people.

Which brings us back to Thomas Friedman’s question: Who will tell the people the truth? Answer: No one, because politicians, especially Democrat politicians, realize that you can’t get elected by being truthful. Candidates on both sides of the aisle are well aware that there is no constituency for cutting entitlements, but a very large constituency for increasing entitlements.

Result: Politicians dare not tell their constituents that entitlements are guaranteed to bankrupt the nation and, in the end, leave everyone worse off. And, to their shame, low-information constituents eagerly vote for the highest bidder, because they desperately want to believe that wealth without work is endlessly possible.

In a free country, of course, people have a right to go on believing whatever they want to believe, but the harsh reality is that Nature does not accept ignorance as an excuse for harboring false beliefs. It metes out negative consequences just as harshly to a person who is well-meaning but uninformed as to one who is well informed but malevolent.

Thus, no matter how much voters want to believe the something-for-nothing fairytale and no matter how good their intentions may be, violating the laws of Nature always ends badly. But don’t tell that to the Radical Left cheerleaders in the audience next Tuesday when the Dirty Dem clowndidates once again try to outbid each other in promising free everything in exchange for votes.

H.L. Mencken summed it up perfectly when he said, “An election is an advance auction of stolen goods.” I’ll end on that note, since there’s no way I can say it any better. ROBERT RINGERRobert Ringer (© 2019)is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has appeared on numerous national radio and television shows, including The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, ABC Nightline, The Charlie Rose Show, as well as Fox News and Fox Business. To sign up for a free subscription to his mind-expanding daily insights, visit www.robertringer.com.

Commentary: Robert Ringer


The New Trickle-Down Theory of Economics

A recent New York Times opinion piece by David Leonhardt titled “The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes” can best be described as an advertisement for Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman’s new book The Triumph of Injustice. Saez and Zucman are both left-leaning economics professors from the University of California-Berkley, and they’ve been propelled to the national stage because they are Elizabeth Warren’s economic advisors. They’ve crafted a few of the radical policies she is proposing, like the wealth tax. According to the Times, in their new book, they lay out a series of tax policy proposals they believe will transform and fix inequality in America.

The New Trickle-Down Theory“Trickle-down theory,” where the rich keep their money rather than

have it taxed away, and it then trickles down to the poor, is a term created by those who oppose free markets. In fact, the popularly criticized “trickle-down theory” that so many progressives like to criticize really doesn’t exist. It’s a strawman created to vilify and discredit any line of thinking that goes against theirs.

And yet these same people think it is the dutiful purpose of government to take wealth from the top of the country and redistribute it to those who are less fortunate in the crusade of making everyone more equal. Another way to look at this is to believe that the federal government will take a portion of wealth away from people who don’t need it and then trickle it down to those who want it throughout the country (despite the fact that most federal tax dollars stay in the DC metro area).

The same people who have created the myth of “trickle-down theory” to discredit the free market embrace the same philosophy they declared as flawed in order to justify government redistribution.

The Purpose of Income TaxesThe purpose of income taxes is to provide the federal government

with revenues that fund it to operate.Prior to 1913, when the United States already stretched from coast

to coast, income taxes were considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and it took a constitutional amendment to make them legal. From that moment, what was first proposed as a modest tax on corporations morphed into the system we have today thanks to a government that grows faster than the ability to fund it. As of the writing of this article, the United States government is over $22 trillion dollars in debt.

Higher Tax Rates Do Not Guarantee Higher RevenuesWorld-renowned economist Thomas Sowell points out in his paper

“‘Trickle Down Theory’ and ‘Tax Cuts For the Rich’” that tax rates can sometimes be so high that the government would collect more revenue if they were lowered because people’s behavior would change due to the changed incentives, which would lead to more economic activity, more increases in income, and more tax revenue despite the lowered tax rates. He then goes on to prove this belief with data from the Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan administrations, where tax rates were lowered and

tax revenues overall increased as a result.As Thomas Sowell points out in another book, Disparities and

Discrimination, tax revenue is dependent on how people react to tax rates.The Trump Tax Cuts and RevenuesThis past year we have seen many progressives in politics and the

media denounce the Trump tax cuts (properly called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) with the usual criticism that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share,” along with the “unique” complaint that working-class people got smaller refunds than in previous years. But these criticisms ignore the purpose of taxes, which is to increase revenue for the government.

With America so bitterly divided by partisanship, getting a straight answer from non-biased organizations isn’t that simple. The Tax Policy Center declared that the tax cuts were a failure in 2018 because the real revenues fell short of their own predicted 2018 tax revenue estimated before the tax cuts were proposed. However, it looks like they predicted a spike in revenues for that year despite any major changes to tax policy or the economy. So even if revenues increased modestly from 2017 levels, they would still be judged as failures because they would not live up to the predicted higher-than-normal number.

But when examining the hard data of the actual revenue, these tax cuts can be viewed as successful. During the first seven months of 2019, there was a 2 percent increase in government revenue. In other words, more people and businesses got to keep more of their money to spend as they saw fit, while the government collected more money than before.

However, critics often choose to ignore this because the deficit, the difference between government spending and government revenue, continues to widen despite the increase of money into the Treasury.

Politicians Ignore Basic MathIn their book, Saez and Zucman propose a new progressive tax code

that includes a 60 percent tax rate for the top income bracket, along with increases in corporate taxes and an expansion of the government by the creation of a new agency called the Public Protection Bureau, which would assist the IRS in cracking down on those tax dodgers not paying their “fair” share. The pitch to the public to sell these ideas is that they

claim revenues will dramatically increase, and this new flow of money will fund new government programs like universal pre-K and Medicare for All.

The truth is that higher tax rates do not always lead to higher revenue, and even if there were an increase in revenue, with current spending producing trillion-dollar deficits, it seems like radically increasing that spending instead of reducing our debt would be a financially irresponsible idea. The United States government has a serious spending problem, and any politician who wants to radically add to it is setting up the country for long-term future problems in order to facilitate their short-term personal gains. DANIEL KOWALSKIDaniel Kowalski is an American businessman with interests in the USA and developing markets of Africa. This article originally appeared on fee.org.


Commentary: Daniel Kowalski


The Extremists Behind Covering Climate Now

Last month, over 170 news outlets around the world devoted coverage to climate change.

The project, dubbed Covering Climate Now, may seem like a feel-good effort to raise awareness of sound environmental policies. But it’s actually an attempt by climate extremists to go mainstream.

The weeklong campaign was officially spearheaded by The Nation, but it’s the brainchild of Bill McKibben, a well-known climate activist who for years has worked to brand fossil fuel companies as “Public Enemy Number One.”

Covering Climate Now is McKibben’s attempt to give his activism a mainstream platform. Like the rest of McKibben’s work, this campaign sacrifices pragmatic reform in favor of radical change, and does so at the expense of vulnerable communities.

The Nation launched Covering Climate Now back in April, at a five-hour event with panels full of climate extremists. They claimed that quickly transitioning to renewable energy is our best chance at avoiding catastrophe.

After turning up the threat level, conference leaders issued their call to action: seven days of climate-focused coverage, leading up to the UN Climate Action Summit on September 23. The campaign’s organizers claimed it was not an attempt to “tell people what to write or broadcast.” That proved false from the outset.

Covering Climate Now began with an email campaign designed to bully journalists into supporting the project. The emails called on reporters to stop “underplaying the climate story.”

These emails also included sources for journalists to consult when

writing their climate stories. For the most part, the emails linked to opinion pieces that relied on selective data and alarmist rhetoric.”

According to the organization’s website, journalists can even “learn the science” of climate change from Bill McKibben.”

There’s just one problem — McKibben’s writings contain more rhetoric than science.

Consider his work at 350.org, an anti-fossil fuel group he co-founded. The group likens the extraction of oil, gas, and coal reserves to the “crimes of slavery, totalitarianism, colonialism or apartheid.”

According to McKibben, the only way to end these “crimes” is to stop harnessing fossil fuels altogether. He thinks America should rely entirely on renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power.

That’s basically impossible. Renewables currently account for just 17 percent of our nation’s electricity, while fossil fuels provide over 60 percent. Generating enough renewable energy to completely replace fossil fuels would cost the average household close to $2,000 a year.

These increased costs would hit low-income Americans the hardest. On average, poor rural households spend close to 9 percent of their annual income on energy bills. That’s more than double what the median urban household spends.

Switching to renewable energy sources will force these vulnerable Americans to spend even more of their income on energy bills. Meanwhile, fossil fuels are saving Americans money. Thanks to the natural gas boom, the average U.S. household is spending nearly $3,000 less each year on energy than experts had predicted.

The folks behind Covering Climate Now are right about one thing: we need to have a balanced conversation about climate change. But doing so will require presenting the facts, not strong-arming the media into reprinting activist talking points. DREW JOHNSONDrew Johnson is a national political columnist and former opinion page editor.

Commentary: Drew Johnson

Where is the Trade Depression the Smoot-Hawley Alarmists Predicted?

Readers will recall that in the 2016 election and since then financial and political analysts were tripping over themselves to predict that if President Donald Trump won and implemented his planned trade agenda, which included tariffs, why, we’d have a global recession perhaps even as bad as the Great Depression.

Well, Trump went through with the tariffs on China, so where’s the trade depression some were warning about?

For example, one headline on CNBC in May 2016 blared, “Trump trade plans could cause global recession: Experts”.

That piece quoted Caroline Freund of the Peterson Institute for International Economics saying, “If you take (Trump’s) position as real, that we would do this, then it would take the world down the road that we saw in the 1930s that we saw with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff.”

Freund added, “The world would definitely fall into a recession.”Definitely? Still waiting.The Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson wrote in June 2018, “The

ghost of Smoot-Hawley seems to haunt Trump,” after Trump levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, with Samuelson warning, “By slowing economic growth, it darkens the outlook and reduces the ability of debtors to repay their lenders. So much for the lessons of history.”

Yes, so much for those lessons. In fact, instead of slowing economic growth, 2018 as it turns out had the strongest economic growth since 2005 at 2.9 percent. Or maybe they were worried about China’s economy more?

Unemployment is now at a 50-year low at 3.5 percent, whereas in the Great Depression it hit a high of more than 25 percent.

And now with the first step of a free trade deal with Japan finalized with reciprocal tariff reductions on agriculture and digital trade — plus other deals with South Korea, Mexico and Canada — bold predictions of an all-out trade war with the rest of the world have proven to be greatly exaggerated.

Even on China, where trade talks continue, Trump has shown a willingness to negotiate for reciprocal tariff and non-tariff trade barrier reductions — including dealing with China’s competitively devalued currency the yuan — that his critics alleged the President was incapable of.

Which, think on that aspect. If Trump were to succeed with a deal with China, that would still be closer to free trade than what the defenders of the status quo were advocating, which was to do nothing or to unilaterally eliminate tariffs, because then both sides would be lowering trade barriers instead of just one side.

That is because the surest path to free trade has always been fair and reciprocal reductions of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. It is only way to sustainably do it both economically and importantly, politically.

Which, the failure here on the part of the punditry might have to simply do with a lack of listening comprehension. All Trump was ever

saying was that it was a bad idea to unilaterally give away something for free, that a better deal could be had and that, as president, he would pursue better deals.

As for policymakers in Washington, D.C. and other capitals for years there was simply a failure to negotiate. Others would have preferred the Trans-Pacific Partnership multilateral deal to somehow lure China into a trade deal. Trump prefers the bilateral approach and he is apt to use confrontation to get trade partners’ attention.

The idea that Beijing was desperate to get in on the Trans-Pacific Partnership was always speculative when the U.S. was giving China access to it our markets in return for almost nothing. Where the TPP globalist hoped something might happen in the future, Trump increased the ante.

To bring Beijing to the table Trump did indeed threaten tariffs. And he levied them. Now there are talks where once there were none. Whether they will ultimately succeed is another matter, but initiating the discussion in itself is a win.

All of which is a far cry from the Great Depression, which back then we were a net exporter. Now we’re a net importer looking for ways to expand U.S. producer access to foreign markets and ways to boost domestic production. The U.S. always had more to gain from Trump’s tough trade stance, and China the most to lose, and with the trade deals with Japan, Canada, Mexico and South Korea in the bag, plus a strong economy and best labor market perhaps ever, it turns out Trump was right after all. ROBERT ROMANORobert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.


Commentary: Robert Romano



Queensridge Quagmire: Badlands Fight a Bad Deal for Vegas Taxpayers

Most people have at least heard of the monster-mash brawl between the owner of the Badlands golf course in northwest Las Vegas and the homeowners who bought million-dollar-plus luxury homes in the development that surrounds it.

But most people also don’t really understand what the brouhaha is all about. The minute terms such as “inverse condemnation” are uttered, eyes glaze over. So let me try to clarify this murky swamp in layman’s terms…

The golf course owner, Yohan Lowie, owns the land the golf course is on. He also owns the property right to redevelop that land into something that would be worth more than it is as a golf course.

The homeowners in the tony Queensridge planned community, however, want the golf course owner to keep the plush-green golf course in their backyards a plush-green golf course. Who wouldn’t, right?

But that’s the problem. The golf course property doesn’t belong to the homeowners. It belongs to Mr. Lowie. And he has the right to redevelop the property into something else – which the homeowners were told when they bought their homes. More on that later.

So the homeowners hired a bunch of high-priced lawyers – the most prominent of which, Frank Schreck, also just so happens to be one of the homeowners – who have filed a lawsuit to block Mr. Lowie from turning the green – well, brown now since the course has been closed for two years – golf course into a pot of redevelopment gold.

The homeowners have also been pressuring the Las Vegas City Council to change the zoning rules, after the fact, and force Mr. Lowie to “submit a major modification” request in an effort to block Mr. Lowie from developing the land in ways that were approved back when he originally bought the land – again, before Queensridge was built

The homeowners won the first legal round in District Court. However, that decision was appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, with Mr. Lowie arguing that the District Court’s decision was “flawed.”

And many believe the Supremes will agree.Now, since the city has thus far stalled approval of Mr. Lowie’s new

development plan, the city’s taxpayers are at risk of being on the hook for the loss of income Mr. Lowie has suffered due to the multi-year delay – a “taking.”

Which could cost city taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars the city doesn’t have.In fact, according to a story in Las Vegas Review-Journal on Saturday, this

legal battle has already cost city taxpayers – all of them, not just the Queensridge residents – almost $1 million dollars, with no end in sight.

So the Las Vegas City Council voted 5-2 this week to authorize the City Attorney to join the Supreme Court appeal on Mr. Lowie’s side.

Now – for me at least – the big question is whether or not the homeowners were made aware of Mr. Lowie’s right to redevelop the golf course when they bought their homes, because according to Mr. Schreck, “Everybody who bought on the golf course bought into the golf course based on what you see is what you get.”

And what they saw was a plush-green golf course view.But apparently what they didn’t see were the actual terms of the contract they

signed which clearly stated that what they wanted to see wasn’t necessarily what they’d always get.

I have a copy of the “Covenants, Conditions Restrictions and Easements” (CC&R) issued by the city for the Queensridge planned community development dated May 10, 1996 – well BEFORE any homes were built.

This document outlines what the property being approved for development as the Queensridge planned community could be used for, including single-family homes, multi-family homes, condominiums, hotel, etc.

But here’s the thing…Again, the Badlands Golf Course was already there BEFORE the Queensridge

planned community was built. And the CC&R specifically stated that “The existing 18-hole golf course commonly known as ‘Badlands Golf Course’ is not part of the property.”

That’s because the land the Badlands Golf Course was on wasn’t owned by the developers of Queensridge. That land was owned by Yohan Lowie.

And since it was Mr. Lowie’s land, it was up to Mr. Lowie, not the Queensridge planned community, to decide whether to keep that land as a golf course…or do something else with it.

Well, a few years ago Mr. Lowie decided to exercise his property rights and do something else with the land. Which resulted in Mr. Schreck and other homeowners – who didn’t want to lose their backyard view of a plush, green golf course – had a conniption.

But here’s the thing…When Mr. Schreck and the other homeowners bought their homes in the

Queensridge planned community, the “Purchase Agreement” they signed specifically stated that the Seller “has made no representations or warranties” concerning possible “future development” of “the surrounding area of nearby property.”

Surrounding area like…the Badlands Golf Course.In fact, a map included in the CC&R of the area specifically shows that

the Badlands Golf Course was “NOT A PART” of the Queensridge planned community and was “SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.”

Including the development rights of…Yohan Lowie.But the Purchase Agreement went even further.Under “Additional Disclosures” – which buyers had to initial, acknowledging

it had been “read and approved by the purchaser” – the Queensridge planned community specifically advised Mr. Schreck and the others that what you see might NOT always be what you get.

“The Lot (being purchased) may have a view or location advantage at the present time,” Section 6 of of the Purchase Agreement reads.

A view advantage like a plush, green golf course off the back yard.Now here’s the kicker…“Morevover, depending on the location of the Lot, adjacent or nearby

residential dwellings or other structures, whether within the Planned Community or outside the Planned Community, could potentially be constructed or modified in a manner that could block or impair all or part of the view from the Lot and/or diminish the location advantages of the Lot, if any.”

The operative words here are “outside the Planned Community. Like…the Badlands Golf Course.

Section 6 concludes…“Purchaser acknowledges that Seller has not made any representations,

warranties, covenants, or agreements to or with Purchaser concerning the preservation or permanence of any view or location advantage for the Lot.”

Like the view and location advantage of a golf course view.So from where I sit with what I’ve learned so far – acknowledging that I’m

no lawyer and don’t even play one on TV – it appears the home owners in the “Queensridge Quagmire” don’t have a leg to stand on. Will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court agrees.

Either way, city taxpayers are gonna get fleeced. The only question is how Badlands badly. CHUCK MUTH(Mr. Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.org and publisher of NevadaNewsandViews.com. He blogs at MuthsTruths.com. His views are his own.)


Commentary: Chuck Muth


KNNR, KNNT, KAVB, KNVR, KPKK, KELY


Watching Outfor Our Country, County and CityLIKE A HAWK!

KELY 1230AM

Ely’s Radio Station293-1875 Georgetown Ranch

Documents

· acclaimed journalist Humberto Fontova contrasted the fiction with the facts in these terms: Who Was “Che” Guevara? Myth: International man of the people. Humanitarian. Brave