• Fact Check
 
• Politics

‘I Have a Plan to Destroy America’

A former Colorado governor delivered a speech on the destructive effects of multiculturalism on the U.S.

Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. In 2005, a third-person account of a speech attributed to him, on the perils of multiculturalism, became a viral item online:

A Frightening Analysis

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: First to destroy America, “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, “We could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'”

Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

“E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘x! xenophobes’ halt discussion and debate.”

“Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — todate, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Lamm told us in mid-June 2005 that this text represented a reasonably accurate account of a speech he had given a few years earlier:

Yes, it is a speech I gave a year and a half ago in Washington D.C. It was a 5 minute speech, and I am amazed and gratified it has received so much coverage.

He also passed along to us the following “revised version” of his speech:

I HAVE A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA
RICHARD D. LAMM

I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY AMERICA. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT “AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE.” HERE IS MY PLAN:

I.   WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY. HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL. ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:

THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY. CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE. PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED. NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION. FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.

II.   I WOULD THEN INVENT “MULTICULTURALISM” AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL: THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT. I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY. EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.

III.   WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A “HISPANIC QUEBEC” WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT. THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY. AS BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:

…THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY. WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.

IV.   HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED – I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION. I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.

V.   I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY. I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY. I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY – I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.

VI.   I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES. I WOULD “CELEBRATE DIVERSITY.” “DIVERSITY” IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD. IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES. DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. A DIVERSE,” PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA. LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS. DORF’S WORLD HISTORYTELLS US:

THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS. ALL GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI. A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY. YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED POLITICAL DIVISIONS …)

IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE “PLURIBUS,” INSTEAD OF THE “UNUM,” WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.

VII.   THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS – MAKE IT TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO “HERETIC” IN THE 16TH CENTURY – THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING. WORDS LIKE “RACIST”, “XENOPHOBE” THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.

HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF “VICTIMOLOGY”, I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA – “THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD.” I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.

VIII.     LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS’S BOOK MEXIFORNIA — THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS — IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. SO PLEASE, PLEASE — IFYOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED — PLEASE, PLEASE — DON’T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.

“THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN THAT SPECTRUM.” — NOAM CHOMSKY, AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.

An audio recording of Lamm’s speech from 18 October 2003 is now available online:

The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels Far Outweigh the Costs

The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels Far Outweigh the Costswww.wsj.com/articles/the-social-benefits-of-fossil-fuels-far-outweigh-the-costs-1529258294?mod=ITP_opinion_0&tesla=y

Inexpensive power enables technological marvels, and even global warming has positive effects.

An offshore oil platform in Huntington Beach, Calif. PHOTO: LUCY NICHOLSON/REUTERS

By 

Joseph L. Bast and

 

Peter Ferrara

June 17, 2018 1:58 p.m. ET

129 COMMENTS

As several cities continue their suit against oil companies, The People of the State of California v. BP, Judge William Alsup has boiled the case down to its pivotal question. In March he ordered the legal counsels of both parties to help him weigh “the large benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels” against the possibility that such fuels may be causing global warming.

We sent the judge, and posted online, a 24-page document that answers his question. The benefits of oil, coal and gas are rarely acknowledged by environmental activists, who seek to regulate and tax these fuel sources out of existence. But an honest accounting shows that fossil fuels produce enormous social value that far outweighs their costs.

First, fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, and in turn improving health. “The most fundamental attribute of modern society is simply this,” writes historian Vaclav Smil in his 2003 book on energy: “Ours is a high energy civilization based largely on combustion of fossil fuels.”

Fossil fuels, and coal in particular, provided the energy that powered the Industrial Revolution. Today, coal plants still produce most of the electricity that powers high-tech manufacturing equipment and charges mobile computing devices.

The alternative energy sources environmental activists favor are generally more expensive. Energy economists Thomas Stacey and George Taylor calculate that wind power costs nearly three times as much as existing coal generation and 2.3 times as much as combined-cycle gas. There is a negative correlation between energy prices and economic activity. A 2014 survey of economic literature by Roger Bezdek calculates that a 10% increase in U.S. electricity prices would eliminate approximately 1.3% of gross domestic product.

Cheap energy from fossil fuels also improves human well-being by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air-conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks. Environmental activists often claim that prosperity speeds the depletion of resources and destruction of nature, but the opposite is true. As Ronald Bailey writes in “The End of Doom”: “It is in rich democratic capitalist countries that the air and water are becoming cleaner, forests are expanding, food is abundant, education is universal, and women’s rights respected.”

Fossil fuels have increased the quantity of food humans produce and improved the reliability of the food supply. The availability of cheap energy revolutionized agriculture throughout the world, making it possible for an ever-smaller proportion of the labor force to raise food sufficient to feed a growing global population without devastating nature or polluting air or water.

Fossil-fuel emissions create additional benefits, contributing to the greening of the Earth. A 2017 study published in Nature magazine found that the global mass of land plants grew 31% during the 20th century. African deserts are blooming thanks to fossil fuels.

Finally, if fossil fuels are responsible for a significant part of the warming recorded during the second half of the 20th century, then they should also be credited with reducing deaths due to cold weather. Medical researchers William Richard Keatinge and Gavin Donaldson assessed this effect in a 2004 study. “Since heat-related deaths are generally much fewer than cold-related deaths, the overall effect of global warming on health can be expected to be a beneficial one.”

They estimate the predicted temperature rise in Britain over the next 50 years will reduce cold-related deaths by 10 times the number of increased heat-related deaths. Other research shows climate change has exerted only a minimal influence on recent trends in vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever and diseases spread by ticks.

Altogether, fossil fuels have produced huge benefits for mankind, many of which continue today. But advocates of alternative energy sources usually manage to omit or diminish many of these benefits when calculating fossil fuels’ “social cost.”

Thankfully, President Trump and congressional Republicans understand that the costs of fossil fuels must be weighed against their substantial benefits. They have decided wisely not to carry on the “war on fossil fuels” waged by the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and their Golden State allies.

Messrs. Bast and Ferrara are senior fellows at the Heartland Institute.

Attacking the NRA is really attacking everyday Americans

Link https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/attacking-the-nra-is-really-attacking-everyday-americans/2018/02/27/915c8c74-1be8-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html?utm_term=.0ef212a09f36

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick hugs Stephen Willeford, who shot at and pursued the shooter in the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Tex., in November 2017. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

By Marc A. Thiessen  February 28 at 8:04 AM

A few weeks before the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (Tex.) invited a special guest to attend the State of the Union address: Stephen Willeford, the hero who just months earlier had stopped a mass shooter at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Tex.

An ordinary citizen who heard the shots from his home across the street, Willeford grabbed his weapon, ran to the scene barefoot (knowing every second he delayed could mean another life lost) and exchanged fire with the gunman, wounding him in the leg and torso. When the killer jumped into his vehicle to escape, Willeford stopped a passing vehicle and followed in hot pursuit until the shooter crashed his car and shot himself in the head.

Willeford says he’s not a hero. “I’m no brave man. I was terrified,” he said after the shooting. But, he added, “I was there when nobody else was.” Thank God he was.

The story must be told.

Your subscription supports journalism that matters.

Try 1 month for $1

Here’s something else you need to know about Willeford. First, he is a longtime National Rifle Association instructor; it was his NRA training that allowed him to subdue the shooter. Second, the weapon he used to stop the killing spree in Sutherland Springs was an AR-15 — the very weapon gun-control advocates now want to ban. Without an AR-15, he says, he might not have stopped the killer. “If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and Kevlar and helmets, it might have been futile,” he said. Because of his weapon, his training and his courage, countless lives were probably saved.

They could have used a Stephen Willeford in Parkland.

 1:36

What's the deal with the NRA, firearms and background checks?

Embed 

Share 

A national database that screens potential gun buyers has become a hot topic, but the NRA's claims about it skip some history. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

Keep his story in mind as you watch the current movement to boycott the NRA and ban so-called assault weapons. In the wake of the Parkland shooting at least a dozen companies — including United Airlines, Delta, Best Western and First National Bank of Omaha — have joined the NRA boycott. Chubb Limited insurance even announced it would cancel a program, “NRA Carry Guard,” which provided insurance for NRA members who faced lawsuits for using their weapons in self-defense. When companies do this, they are not boycotting lobbyists in Washington; they are boycotting upstanding citizens such as Willeford. He and his fellow gun owners deserve better.

The NRA is a grass-roots organization made up of millions of decent, patriotic Americans who believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens make our country safer, not more dangerous. To suggest that it is responsible for what happened in Parkland is obscene. Police officers were called to alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz’s house on 39 occasions since 2010. The FBI was warned about the shooter in January and failed to adhere to its own procedures to follow up. An armed sheriff’s deputy was on the scene at the shooting, but he failed to act. And yet somehow the NRA is at fault? Please.

The NRA is far from perfect. I’ve criticized the NRA leadership’s resistance to legislation banning “bump stocks.” And there is nothing sacrosanct about the age of 18 for buying certain guns (or voting, for that matter).

But NRA members have done more to prevent gun deaths, and promote firearms safety, than any other citizens’ association in the country. When Democrats respond to shootings like the one in Parkland by demonizing the NRA and calling for a ban on weapons such as the AR-15 that are critical to Americans’ right to self-defense, they send a clear and unmistakable message to millions of gun owners across the country: We don’t respect you or your gun rights. This makes it harder to reach bipartisan agreement on solutions that could improve public safety without threatening the fundamental constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

We all want to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people such as Cruz. But we should all want to keep guns in the hands of responsible citizens such as Stephen Willeford. That’s not the case today. Willeford deserves a medal, not a boycott. If corporate America can’t figure that out and continues capitulating to the NRA boycott movement, maybe it is time for gun owners to boycott them.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Climate Change Could Swamp Your Muni-Bond Portfolio

Climate Change Could Swamp Your Muni-Bond Portfoliowww.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-could-swamp-your-muni-bond-portfolio-1517613603?mod=ITP_opinion_0&tesla=y

California localities warn of disaster when suing oil companies. So how come they don’t tell investors?

San Francisco in 2015. PHOTO: DAVID PAUL MORRIS/BLOOMBERG NEWS

By

Jay Newman

Feb. 2, 2018 6:20 p.m. ET

176 COMMENTS

By the end of this century Oakland, Calif., will be experiencing a “100-year flood” every week. At least that’s what the Oakland city government argued last year, when it filed a lawsuit against several oil companies for contributing to climate change. The city forecasts that rising water levels in the San Francisco Bay will threaten the sewer system and other property “with a total replacement cost of between $22 billion and $38 billion.”

Suppose you hold some of Oakland’s municipal bonds. This climate apocalypse sounds like a serious risk, right? Yet a recent prospectus for Oakland’s general-obligation bonds shrugs off the threat. “The City is unable to predict when seismic events, fires or other natural events, such as sea rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm, could occur,” the prospectus states. And even if such events occur, the city can’t be sure “whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy.”

Other California localities have told courts one thing and investors another regarding climate change. In a similar lawsuit, San Francisco claims it faces “imminent risk of catastrophic storm surge flooding.” But in a bond offering last year, the city said it is “unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding . . . will occur.” San Mateo County claims in another suit that there is a 50% chance that a “devastating three-foot flood . . . occurs before 2030.” The county uses boilerplate similar to San Francisco’s to play down such risks in its communications to bondholders.

These jarring inconsistencies have led Exxon Mobil , a target of the lawsuits, to seek judicial relief. In a petition to a Texas court, the company states: “The disconnect . . . indicates that the plaintiff municipal governments do not actually believe the allegations in their complaints and that the allegations were not made in good faith.” Exxon is also asking for permission to depose the lead plaintiff’s lawyer, along with 15 California officials involved in filing the lawsuits.

It is possible the California officials were truthful in their attestations about their forecasts. But that means they seriously misled their investors, hoping they could ding deep-pocketed oil companies while continuing to borrow cheaply in the municipal bond markets.

This is not an uncommon practice. As a longtime investor in sovereign bonds, I can attest to the “flexibility” politicians demonstrate when approving prospectuses and agreeing to bond covenants. Reneging on contracts and explaining away misrepresentations are standard operating procedure for the political class in localities, states, countries and territories such as Puerto Rico.

Investors are relatively powerless in the face of such government dissembling. Besides selling their bonds, their only recourse is the courts. And because politicians readily spend taxpayer money to draw out the legal process, this option is generally too lengthy and unpredictable to be worthwhile.

But this case may be different thanks to the astonishing presence of contemporaneous, and directly contradictory, legally binding statements. This could prompt the Securities and Exchange Commission to abandon its hands-off approach and require state and local governments to disclose to investors risks arising from climate change, rather than allowing them to equivocate.

States and municipalities facing climate-change-associated risks would suffer a significant blow to their credit ratings, according to a Moody’s Investors Service report issued in November 2017. Municipalities that sought big paydays from major oil companies may end up with a bitter second prize—more disclosure and higher borrowing costs.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers probably never intended that their war on the fossil-fuel industry would end up shining a light on the perilous state of local public finances. But wars have a funny way of creating unintended consequences. If the unqualified statements made in court about the impact of climate change are even half true—regardless of the cause—the finances of many of California’s coastal cities could soon be underwater.

Mr. Newman is a former hedge-fund manager who specialized in sovereign debt.

We are a republic, not a democracy

http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/17/republic-not-democracy/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURJeU9UUmxNelZoTVRobSIsInQiOiIxeDZ4cGZLMGgwd1ZyTm9XV296ckV6TXFWS2V3Z3NPbWVDdklWa3pvcUFFNUVzUE8rcnBxd0s2TXJtXC9lRnd3bG51MHZvbUVnTUhoS2hORTA3WmZiajJuc1hDMWtLaWJYOEUxdTlRUXl5U1RSS3Y5Y1RxenVLS2ZwR3o2RW40dzYifQ%3D%3D

Five Eyes Are Better Than One

This should be everyone's goal, the ideal. We don't really need edifices to move forward. We don't need stagnant bureaucracies to make things work. We only need mutually agreed upon goals. Five Eyes Are Better Than One https://www.wsj.com/articles/five-eyes-are-better-than-one-1509402670?mg=prod%2Faccounts-wsj&tesla=y An ad hoc Anglophone alliance is far more effective than most global institutions. PHOTO: ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES By Walter Russell Mead Oct. 30, 2017 6:31 p.m. ET 19 COMMENTS This is a trying time for international institutions, and the alphabet soup of aging bureaucracies often proves too slow, too legalistic or too corrupt to meet today’s most demanding tests. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must cope with a world in which Turkey is increasingly hostile to its values and objectives. Neither Mercosur (the South American trade bloc) nor the Organization of American States has dealt effectively with the Venezuelan crisis. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is increasingly divided in the face of Chinese maritime claims. Unesco has lost its largest donor as the U.S. pulls out, while the World Trade Organization no longer produces new global trade agreements. FIFA (the soccer federation) and the International Olympic Committee have seen their prestige collapse as corruption scandals widen. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has become less effective as the Continent’s security challenges rise. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a shadow of its former self, and the Arab League hardly exists. Even the European Union, the world’s most successful international institution, struggles against a nationalist and populist backlash. There is an important exception to the trend—an international coalition that influences global affairs but doesn’t have an official name, a headquarters, an entrenched bureaucracy, a charter or a set of bylaws. This is the group of countries in the “Five Eyes” network: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The name comes from the world of intelligence, where certain types of sensitive information are shared only among these five countries. There is no formal requirement that they act together. They have no joint decision-making process. Teams of diplomats don’t negotiate long and detailed memorandums governing their plans for common action. Nor do these countries force a consensus where one doesn’t exist. Each partner moves at its own speed, on its own path, and there is no obligation or expectation that they will agree with one another or work together on every issue. Each of the Five Eyes countries is jealous of its independence. They seek to maximize their sovereignty through cooperation rather than pooling it. Yet their cooperation is real. They share a common cultural and institutional outlook, and they are all engaged in global trade and concerned for the security of an international system that promotes the free flow of information, money and goods. Over and over since World War II, the Five Eyes countries have found themselves with similar interests and priorities. Over time, this habit of cooperation has led to deepening institutional links, but their loose association has never taken the top-down and bureaucratic form that makes most international institutions so cumbersome. As British policy makers struggle with the consequences of Brexit, some hope the Five Eyes will come riding to the rescue. In population and gross domestic product, these countries are a formidable potential trading bloc: With more than 450 million citizens and a GDP of around $24 trillion, a trading system built around the Five Eyes could offset many of the problems Britain expects to encounter once it leaves the EU. But that is not how this group works. Anyone who expects some kind of formal trade or political bloc to emerge doesn’t understand the Five Eyes’ ethos. But even without the creation of a formal trade or political bloc, membership in the Five Eyes will help Britain avoid isolation in a post-Brexit world. In the fields of trade, investment and migration, the Five Eyes countries will continue to be relatively open to one another. Their diplomats and policy makers will continue to work toward the kind of world in which Britain, and the rest of the coalition, can flourish. The Five Eyes coalition has always disappointed those who sought to turn their partnership into something more formal. But it has also disappointed those who expected it to fade away. Flexible, pragmatic and open, the world’s least organized international coalition is among its most effective. As the new century unfolds and bureaucratic, legalistic institutions struggle in an increasingly fast-paced and turbulent international environment, looser associations on the Five Eyes’ model could well play a growing role in world affairs, supplementing or in some cases replacing the legacy institutions and bureaucracies that dominated the international landscape of the late 20th century. That would be a positive development. This difficult century will require more international cooperation, not less. With legacy institutions in disarray, countries need to find new ways to cooperate across borders on problems that no single country, however powerful or rich, can solve on its own. Mr. Mead is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor of foreign affairs at Bard College. Appeared in the October 31, 2017, print edition.

The Progressive War Against the Dead

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/24/the_progressive_war_against_the_dead_134819.html

By Victor Davis Hanson
August 24, 2017

Much of the country has demanded the elimination of references to, and images of, people of the past -- from Christopher Columbus to Robert E. Lee -- who do not meet our evolving standards of probity.

In some cases, such damnation may be understandable if done calmly and peacefully -- and democratically, by a majority vote of elected representatives.

Few probably wish to see a statue in a public park honoring Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founding members of the Ku Klux Klan, or Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the majority opinion in the racist Dred Scott decision that set the stage for the Civil War four years later.

But cleansing the past is a dangerous business. The wide liberal search for more enemies of the past may soon take progressives down hypocritical pathways they would prefer not to walk.

In the present climate of auditing the past, it is inevitable that Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood will have to be disassociated from its founder. Sanger was an unapologetic racist and eugenicist who pushed abortion to reduce the non-white population.

Should we ask that Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign from the Supreme Court? Even with the benefit of 21st-century moral sensitivity, Ginsburg still managed to echo Sanger in a racist reference to abortion ("growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of").

Why did we ever mint a Susan B. Anthony dollar? The progressive suffragist once said, "I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman."

Liberal icon and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren pushed for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II while he was California's attorney general.

President Woodrow Wilson ensured that the Armed Forces were not integrated. He also segregated civil service agencies. Why, then, does Princeton University still cling to its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? To honor a progressive who did a great deal of harm to African-American causes?

Wilson's progressive racism, dressed up in pseudo-scientific theories, was perhaps more pernicious than that of the old tribal racists of the South, given that it was not regionally centered and was professed to be fact-based and ecumenical, with the power of the presidency behind it.

In the current logic, Klan membership certainly should be a disqualifier of public commemoration. Why are there public buildings and roads still dedicated to the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, former "exalted cyclops" of his local Klan affiliate, who reportedly never shook his disgusting lifelong habit of using the N-word?

Why is 20th century Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, once a Klansman, still honored as a progressive hero?

So, what are the proper rules of exemption for progressives when waging war against the dead?

Do they tally up the dead's good and bad behaviors to see if someone makes the 51 percent "good progressive" cutoff that exempts him? Or do some reactionary sins cancel out all the progressive good -- at least in the eyes of self-styled moral superiors to those hapless Neanderthals who came before us?

Are the supposedly oppressed exempt from charges of oppression?

Farm-labor icon Cesar Chavez once sent union thugs to the border to physically bar U.S. entry to undocumented Mexican immigrants, whom he derided as "wetbacks" in a fashion that would today surely earn Chavez progressive ostracism as a xenophobe.

Kendrick Lamar, one of the favorite rappers of former President Barack Obama, had an album cover featuring a presumably dead white judge with both of his eyes X'd out, surrounded by black men celebrating on the White House lawn. Should such a divisive racialist have been honored with a White House invitation?

What is the ultimate purpose of progressives condemning the past?

Does toppling the statue of a Confederate general -- without a referendum or a majority vote of an elected council -- improve racial relations? Does renaming a bridge or building reduce unemployment in the inner city?

Do progressives have their own logical set of selective rules and extenuating circumstances that damn or exempt particular historical figures? If so, what are they?

Does selectively warring against the illiberal past make us feel better about doing something symbolic when we cannot do something substantive? Or is it a sign of raw power and ego when activists force authorities to cave to their threats and remove images and names in the dead of night?

Does damning the dead send a flashy signal of our superior virtue?

And will toppling statues and erasing names only cease when modern progressives are forced to blot out the memories of racist progressive heroes?

(C) 2017 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is The Savior Generals from BloomsburyBooks. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.