Everything is energy! So why not recycle energy and help the environment too?
The same way we recycle other things, new technology can recycle carbon out of the atmosphere, combine it with hydrogen and oxygen to a create fuel that it is the same chemically as gas, diesel or jet fuel that can burn without pollutants as a biproduct. No pollutants? YES! No pollutants! No black smoke you see from trucks when they go up hill... even the diesel fuel burns completely clean!
Instead of changing our whole way of travel from vehicles that burn fuels to vehicles that run on electricity, (electricity by the way, is made by burning carbon producing fuel, but that’s another story) why not change the fuel to a clean burning one, that does not pollute and removes CO₂ from the air in the process of being made?
In a small town in Squamish, B.C., a facility is making gasoline from carbon dioxide emissions captured from thin air. The company named Carbon Engineering applies equipment and chemistry common in other industries to remove CO₂ from the air and then make fuel with it. They claim that those fuels, which are compatible with all vehicles or planes, can be entirely carbon neutral. While scientists debate the word “entirely,” they generally agree the process works. "This isn't a PowerPoint presentation," said Steve Oldham, CEO of Carbon Engineering."It's real."
A Swiss-based Company ‘Climeworks’ has already built a commercial-scale plant that removes carbon from the air, but their process costs Climeworks about $600 US a ton to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon Engineering says it can do the job for between $94 US to $232 US a ton because it uses technology and components that are well understood and already commercially available.
"We're tapping into existing industrial equipment and then defining a new process and applying some unique chemistry to it," said Oldham.
Carbon Engineering's plant in Squamish, B.C., currently pulls about one ton of carbon a day from the air and produces about two barrels of fuel. Since the technology and components it uses are off the rack, it should be easy to scale up, Oldham said.
The plant currently uses some natural gas, so by the time the fuel it produces has been burned, the production of it will release a half-ton of carbon dioxide for every ton it removed from the air. That gives it a carbon footprint 70 per cent lower than a fossil fuel, he said.
That footprint would shrink even further if the plant were all-electric. And if it ran on wind- or solar-generated electricity, the fuel creation would be almost carbon neutral.
Carbon Engineering's next step is to build a full-scale plant. That'll take about 2 1/2 years, said Oldham.
Carbon-neutral fuels would allow everyone to ditch the guilt associated with, say, booking an overseas flight or driving that big gas guzzler, Oldham points out: “If you can eliminate your carbon footprint, you don’t have to change your behavior.”
Carbon is uniformly distributed in the air so having a plant next to a “dirty factory” or having one in the middle of the desert would produce the same amount of fuel.
One of the great benefits of making fuel from air is energy independence, said Oldham. "Any country, any region, can have its own fuel. They'd be no longer dependent on the geopolitical situation if Country X has oil and Country Y does not."
A carbon neutral fuel that is compatible with any vehicle in use today? Truth is truly stranger than fiction.
The New York Times recently published a snippy attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, portraying him as a single-minded zealot pursuing crackpot ideas that were putting the Trump administration "on track to lose in court and prompting high-level departures."
The Times' sources were "current and former career department lawyers." In other words, Trump-hating Democratic zealots weeks away from their book contracts.
One attorney who left the Department of Justice during its descent into madness under Sessions was Stephen J. Buckingham. (Why not "Astor" or "Carnegie"?)
As at any federal agency, 99 percent of "career" attorneys at DOJ are left-wing. Social activists move effortlessly from the ACLU, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force to government jobs. Thus, one entry on Buckingham's resume is that he "created a program to amend the immigration status of unaccompanied Sudanese refugee minors."
During Democratic administrations, these selfless career employees sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and run around the country making sure local police forces can't do their jobs. During Republican administrations, they spend their time quietly, relentlessly sabotaging the administration they allegedly serve.
In addition to being a nonstop source of critical remarks about the Trump administration, "career" DOJ employees also lead mob assaults on Cabinet members, as Allison Hrabar did to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in June.
Along with a dozen of her friends from the Democratic Socialists of America, DOJ paralegal Hrabar surrounded Nielsen's table at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, shouting: "Kirstjen Nielsen, you're a villain!" "If kids don't eat in peace, you don't eat in peace!" "The f---ing gall!" "Shame on you!" "Shame! Shame! Shame!" "Fascist pig!" -- which Nielsen eventually realized was not the evening's special. (And it still didn't occur to Gen. John Kelly's special friend Nielsen why voters wanted a wall.)
It took months of complaints about the DOJ not firing Hrabar -- and her own arrogant claim that she couldn't be fired -- for her to finally lose her job.
In Buckingham's case, he told the Times that his conscience was shocked when Sessions asked him a legal question. (God forbid the attorney general question one of the lawyers working at DOJ!)
The Times reports: "In one instance, Mr. Sessions directly questioned a career lawyer, Stephen Buckingham, who was asked to find ways to file a lawsuit to crack down on sanctuary laws protecting undocumented immigrants. Mr. Buckingham, who had worked at the Justice Department for about a decade, wrote in a brief" -- and presumably his forthcoming memoirs -- "that he could find no legal grounds for such a case."
Anyone else remember Arizona being denounced for two years during the Obama administration for trying to enforce immigration laws that the federal government wouldn't? Hey, idiots! The feds have total control over immigration.
Didn't Khizr Khan give Buckingham a copy of his Constitution?
I have been not practicing law longer than "Buckingham" was at the Justice Department, but I found possible legal grounds to go after sanctuary cities in approximately eight seconds on Google.
Title 18 of the U.S. Code is the federal criminal code. Section 3 states: "Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."
It's hard to miss Section 3. Section 1 was repealed in 1984, and Section 2 consists of only 52 words. But Buckingham must have exhausted himself reading Section 2 and didn't have the energy to shove ahead to Section 3.
Even if a couple sentences is your maximum reading limit, the crime of "accessory after the fact" has gotten a lot of airtime since Trump became president. It is one of the literally millions of laws Trump has probably broken, demanding his impeachment.
Before Trump was even inaugurated, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee was claiming on MSNBC's Chris Matthews' show that Trump could be an "accessory after the fact" to the (nonexistent) Russian collusion.
Earlier this year, Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, elaborated on this theory on MSNBC's "The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell," explaining that the president may have helped Vladimir Putin avoid punishment for his felonious act of taking out Facebook ads (or something).
By contrast with the (nonexistent) felony of (nonexistent) Russian collusion, the whole point of a "sanctuary city" is to shelter known criminals from arrest and deportation.
Sanctuary cities like Philadelphia expressly prohibit officials from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement advance notice before releasing illegal alien inmates to the public. In California, even if ICE shows up asking for a specific criminal alien, state and local government officials are instructed to refuse to comply, except in cases of certain violent felonies.
Prosecutors in "sanctuary" jurisdictions throughout the country are dropping criminal charges against immigrants -- or allowing them to plea to minor offenses -- for the sole purpose of preventing their deportation.
In practice, this means less punishment for noncitizens than U.S. citizens. Talk about the "new Jim Crow."
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf not only refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement, she actually warned illegal aliens of an impending ICE raid.
These government officials are threatening the lives and safety of their own constituents by actively assisting known criminals escape apprehension by federal law enforcement. As Democrat Sheila Kuehl, chair of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, put it, Californians should "lie, cheat and steal" to ensure that no immigrant be deported.
It's hard to think of a more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.
Yes, you're right, New York Times. Poor career attorneys are being asked to do horrible things under Jeff Sessions. Such as enforce the law.
Our mainstream media remain consumed with the grisly killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and how President Donald Trump will deal with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Understandably so, for this is the most riveting murder story since O.J. Simpson and has strategic implications across the Middle East.
Yet far more critical to the future of our civilization is the ongoing invasion of the West from the Third World.
Consider the impact of the decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015 to throw open Germany's doors to 1 million refugees from Syria's civil war.
Last weekend, in a crushing blow to Merkel, the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of her CDU, won its smallest share of the vote in half a century, 37 percent. Her coalition party, the SPD, saw its share of the Bavarian vote fall to a historic low of less than 10 percent.
The right-wing Alternative for Deutchland saw its support rise to 10 percent and has become a force in German politics. Some conservatives are urging the CDU to adopt the AfD hardline on illegal immigration.
The message sent by the Bavarian electorate is the message voters across Europe have been sending to their own capitals for years: You are failing in your first duty -- defense of the homeland from foreign invasion. Mass migration of unassimilable peoples and cultures from a global South represents an existential threat to our Europe.
As Merkel's chancellorship approaches its end, French President Emmanuel Macron, her progressive EU partner, has seen his approval fall to below 30 percent.
The U.S.-led NATO alliance may guard the Baltic and Black Sea regions against a Russian invasion from the east. But in Central, Southern and Western Europe, the more feared invaders are the peoples of Africa and the Muslim world, whose numbers are expected to triple or quadruple by this century's end.
And as their numbers grow, so, too, does their desperation to escape, even at risk of their lives, the poverty, wars and repression of their homelands to cross the Med and fill the empty spaces left by a depopulating Europe.
It also now appears that the U.S. elections, not three weeks away, may be affected by another immigration crisis on the U.S. border.
As of Thursday, a caravan of 4,000 refugees without visas had crossed from Honduras into Guatemala and was heading toward Mexico. By Election Day, it will either have been stopped, or it will be here. And this caravan is a portent of things to come.
According to The Washington Post, during FY 2018, which ended last month, 107,212 members of "family units" crossed over into the U.S., "obliterating the previous record of 77,857 set in 2016."
Citing DHS figures, the Post adds, "Border patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September alone, the highest one-month total on record and an 80 percent increase from July."
When Trump, under intense political fire, ended his "zero tolerance" policy of separating refugees from their children, this message went out to Mexico and Central America:
Bring your kids with you when you cross the border. They will have to stay with you, and they cannot be held for more than 20 days. Thus, when they are released, you will be released to await a hearing on your claim of asylum. The odds are excellent that you can vanish into the U.S. population and never be sent back.
Enraged, Trump has threatened to cut off aid to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala if they do not stop the caravans and has warned Mexico he will use the U.S. military to secure our border.
Unwanted mass migration is the issue of our time, as there is no foreseeable end to it before it alters America irremediably.
As these migrants are almost all poor, not highly skilled, and do not speak English, most will join that segment of our population that pays no income taxes but qualifies for social welfare benefits like food stamps, medical care and free education in our public schools.
They are thus a net drain upon the resources of a nation that is already, at full employment, running a deficit of $779 billion a year.
These migrants, however, are a present and future benefit to the Democratic Party that built and maintains our mammoth welfare state, and which, in presidential elections, routinely wins 70 to 90 percent of the votes of people whose trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Not without reason, Democrats believe that if they can change the composition of the American electorate, they can control America forever.
If Donald Trump was elected on any one issue, it was immigration and his promises to secure the border, build the wall and halt the invasion.
How he deals with the impending crisis of the migrant caravan may affect both the fate of his party in November and his presidency in 2020.
Patrick J. Buchanan
Elizabeth Warren's identity crisis should doom the left's exploitation of racist identity politics.
The U.S. senator's disastrous 23andMe reveal opened a bottomless well of social media memes, including a satirical #MeSioux movement and a goldfish claiming stature as 1/1024 great white shark.
Fun at the wannabe president's expense should linger as a serious and disruptive mood that improves the culture's political trajectory.
Warren, D-Mass., isn't the first Caucasian to feign minority status. Former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill falsely identified as a Native American at the University of Colorado-Boulder, before the school fired him in 2007 on charges of research misconduct, plagiarism and exploiting a false identity.
As an Africana Studies instructor at Eastern Washington University, Rachel Dolezal colored her skin and faked being black. She led a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's chapter in Washington state before a reporter outed her as white in 2015.
German actress Martina Big commissioned a medical procedure in 2017 to transition from white to black.
Dolezal wants "transracialism" accepted like the transgender movement. Critics see the likes of Dolezal and Big as frauds in blackface.
Regardless, the Warren sham and other "I'm-not-white" dramas cast light on a racist sociopolitical fungus growing in obscure literature and classrooms of modern Academe.
The insidious movement toward identity politics advocates a social economy that places a high value on victim status while blaming achievers for problems of the aggrieved. It foments hostilities toward majority demographics that could make Caucasians want to crawl out of their skin.
"White domination is so complete that even American Indian children want to be cowboys. It's as if Jewish children wanted to play Nazis," wrote then-professor Churchill in his book "Fantasies of the Master Race."
"The hard truth about our criminal justice system: It's racist. I mean front to back," said Warren, in a recent lecture at Dillard University in New Orleans.
"There's a black and white divide, and I stand unapologetically on the black side of that divide with my own internal sense of self and my values ... and with the greater cause of really undoing the myth of white supremacy," said Dolezal in a 2017 interview with NBC News.
Blacks, American Indians and other ethnic minorities have historically struggled in the United States. Enlightened Americans of all backgrounds crave eradication of injustice. Toward that end, they fought the Civil War, passed civil rights laws and enacted affirmative action. Like poverty, hatred always survives. Only through unity and love can we keep it at the margins.
Warren and minions of lesser-known promoters of identity politics show no interest in a culture of loving solidarity. They prefer segmenting humanity like breeders at a dog show. After demonizing the traditionally predominant demographic, to promote division and victimization, they resent being part of it. In extreme cases, they invent for themselves a grievance identity and pursue the phony empowerment they assign it. They can attain minority status by checking a box, without enduring life on a reservation or other hardships they blame on whites and claim to worry about.
Living out their fantasies, ethnic identity thieves consume accommodations intended for those who endure the obstacles endemic to authentic minority circumstances. When media questioned Harvard Law School about its all-white faculty in 1997, the administration denied the premise. Law School spokesman Mike Chmura assured the Harvard Crimson the faculty wasn't all white, because professor Warren is "Native American." Fordham's law review labeled Warren a "woman of color."
Satisfied Warren fulfilled the minority quotient, Harvard had no problem to solve. Recruiting a minority was not important, because they had professor Elizabeth Warren.
White Americans are not "persons of color" for knowledge of minute traces of minority DNA in their blood. They enjoy full white privilege and suffer none of the challenges unique to minority demographics.
Fake minorities should remind us all to focus more on character and talent than immutable traits that become less relevant as the culture pursues equal justice. Counterfeit Indians highlight the need to walk away. Say no to the racist curse of identity politics in all aspects of life.
Let's stipulate from the start that yoga is, as Merriam-Webster states, "A Hindu theistic philosophy teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind and will in order that the self may realize its distinction from them and attain liberation."
There's also a "No. 2 definition" in that renowned dictionary: "A system of physical postures, breathing techniques and sometimes meditation derived from yoga but often practiced independently, especially in Western cultures, to promote physical and emotional well-being."
We imagine the people who take classes in yoga studios, in Gadsden and elsewhere, are focusing on that second definition. They're focusing on the physical benefits of the practice, as noted by the American Osteopathic Association: reduction in chronic pain; increased flexibility; increased muscle strength and tone; improved respiration, energy and vitality; a balanced metabolism; weight reduction; cardio and circulatory health; improved athletic performance and protection from injury.
All of those are good things -- so why are we bringing this up?
A document recently was shared online -- we imagine by someone wanting to make the state look bad -- referencing what's permitted and what isn't in Alabama's public schools. That "no-no list" includes "any techniques that involve the induction of hypnotic states, guided imagery, meditation or yoga."
That document had been posted to the state Department of Education's website but has since been removed. State Superintendent Eric Mackey called it "outdated" and said it wouldn't be enforced as long as he's running the department.
We doubt that's not a green flag for teachers to try to mesmerize students into behaving or concentrating on their classwork.
There's one exception -- yoga. It remains verboten in the state's physical education handbook, which cites its Hindu and religious origins and connotations.
The same mindset is present with meditation. It's OK for students if it's "secular," defined as involving "alert, reflective and cognitive contemplation." It's forbidden if it's linked to the "mystical traditions of the East," and involves "focusing on deep breathing and a mantra, or repeated word or phrase." We imagine the buzz at the average public school in Alabama isn't "OMMMMMM" but is "please let me stay awake through this class" or "please let me remember what I studied so I can pass this test."
We really don't have an issue with the notion that public schools shouldn't be involved in religious indoctrination or proselytizing regardless of the denomination. (We'll go to the mat and stay there to defend the right of students to, of their own volition, demonstrate and practice their faith on campus.)
We do have an issue with something else contained in Department of Education documents. They say Alabama P.E. teachers may instruct students on yoga poses, exercises and stretches as long as the "course is not called yoga."
So it's OK to use the physical benefits of the practice to help students feel better and get into shape (rewind to the multiple editorials we've written about childhood and adolescent obesity rates). Just don't use the "y" word.
We know folks who are fearful of kids having their heads turned by ANYTHING, especially when religion is involved, will disagree, but this is just silly.
Yoga has become about as generic as bubble wrap (yes, that started as a brand name). There has been no horde of yogis seeking converts in the exercise studios we referenced. There won't be any in Alabama's public schools, either, if people call what goes on every day by its name.
Look at it this way: Do you think some coach thought up the stretching exercises players do before every game?
You may have noticed that meteorologists and climatologists define seasons differently from “regular” or astronomical spring, summer, fall, and winter. So, why do meteorological and astronomical seasons begin and end at different times? In short, it’s because the astronomical seasons are based on the position of Earth in relation to the sun, whereas the meteorological seasons are based on the annual temperature cycle. The Astronomical Seasons
People have used observable periodic natural phenomena to mark time for thousands of years. The natural rotation of Earth around the sun forms the basis for the astronomical calendar, in which we define seasons with two solstices and two equinoxes. Earth’s tilt and the sun’s alignment over the equator determine both the solstices and equinoxes.
The equinoxes mark the times when the sun passes directly above the equator. In the Northern Hemisphere, the summer solstice falls on or around June 21, the winter solstice on or around December 22, the vernal or spring equinox on or around March 21, and the autumnal equinox on or around September 22. These seasons are reversed but begin on the same dates in the Southern Hemisphere.
Because Earth actually travels around the sun in 365.24 days, an extra day is needed every fourth year, creating what we know as Leap Year. This also causes the exact date of the solstices and equinoxes to vary. Additionally, the elliptical shape of Earth’s orbit around the sun causes the lengths of the astronomical seasons to vary between 89 and 93 days. These variations in season length and season start would make it very difficult to consistently compare climatological statistics for a particular season from one year to the next. Thus, the meteorological seasons were born.
The Meteorological Seasons
Meteorologists and climatologists break the seasons down into groupings of three months based on the annual temperature cycle as well as our calendar. We generally think of winter as the coldest time of the year and summer as the warmest time of the year, with spring and fall being the transition seasons, and that is what the meteorological seasons are based on. Meteorological spring includes March, April, and May; meteorological summer includes June, July, and August; meteorological fall includes September, October, and November; and meteorological winter includes December, January, and February.
Meteorological observing and forecasting led to the creation of these seasons, and they are more closely tied to our monthly civil calendar than the astronomical seasons are. The length of the meteorological seasons is also more consistent, ranging from 90 days for winter of a non-leap year to 92 days for spring and summer. By following the civil calendar and having less variation in season length and season start, it becomes much easier to calculate seasonal statistics from the monthly statistics, both of which are very useful for agriculture, commerce, and a variety of other purposes.
The natural rotation of Earth around the sun forms the basis for the astronomical calendar, in which we define seasons with two solstices and two equinoxes.
Meteorologists and climatologists break the seasons down into groupings of three months based on the annual temperature cycle as well as our calendar.
Heart disease is an equal opportunity killer. It's the No. 1 cause of death for both men and women. But a new study of more than half a million cases of heart attack victims rushed to Florida emergency rooms between 1991 and 2010 suggests a person's sex plays a surprising role in whether they are likely to survive a heart attack.
Researchers divided the cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men and female doctors treating women. Only one category was statistically distinguishable: men treating women, where the risk of the female patient dying rises roughly 12 percent.
The why remains unknown, but the study poses troubling questions about the treatment and health outcomes of women in emergency rooms.
But don't count on finding a female emergency room doctor: Women make up just 25 percent of emergency doctors in the U.S.
Scott La Fee
It wasn't a normal Sunday in Catholic pulpits across America, as priests faced flocks touched by sorrow and rage after the release of a sickening grand jury report packed with X-rated details about decades of sexual abuse by clergy. At St. Thomas More Catholic Church in Decatur, Georgia, Father Mark Horak said he half expected empty pews, but was thankful that the faithful came to Mass. He openly addressed the crisis and urged the laity to speak out. "We should not be afraid to demand, of our leadership, fundamental reform," he said, wrapping up his homily, which was posted online. "Don't be afraid to demand it. But do it with love. Do it with love. Maybe with some anger mixed in -- but do it with love. Please." But something extraordinary happened in another Mass that day, according to a wrenching series of Twitter posts by Susan B. Reynolds. Reynolds is a Catholic studies professor at nearby Emory University's Candler School of Theology. One of her research topics: religious rites in the context of suffering. Reynolds posted about something that happened at the Mass she attended Sunday. After a sermon similar to Horak's, with the same appeal for the laity to act, "a dad stood up," she wrote. "'HOW?' he pleaded. 'TELL US HOW.' His voice was shaking and determined and terrified. His collared shirt was matted to his back with sweat," wrote Reynolds. "Jaws dropped. My eyes filled with tears. ... This is a big, middle-of-the-road parish in a wealthyish Southeast college town. In such contexts, it's hard to imagine a more subversive act than doing what that dad just did." One parishioner muttered, "Sit down." But the priest listened, and this unusual dialogue continued for several minutes. "I have a son," said the dad. "He's going to make his first communion. What am I supposed to tell him?" The posts by Reynolds exploded on social media on a day when many Catholics were posting commentaries on what their priests did, or didn't, say on the Sunday after the Pennsylvania grand jury report. Many Catholics were pleased that priests were candid and frustrated. Others were disappointed to hear bureaucratic "PR talk." Some were furious that all they heard was -- to use one common image -- "crickets." The wave of online reactions to "a simple plea by an angry dad" showed the depth of the pain many Catholics are feeling, said Reynolds, reached by phone. She received notes from friends about similar confrontations -- in Mass or afterwards -- in other parts of the country. In addition to her academic work, she said, "I am a mother and a Catholic. I am both of those things. I am a lifelong Catholic and this is what I do. ... This dad had the courage to stand up and speak for all of us." The drama continued the following day, when Pope Francis released a letter to the "People of God" about the grand jury report. "The heart-wrenching pain of these victims, which cries out to heaven, was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced. But their outcry was more powerful than all the measures meant to silence it, or sought even to resolve it by decisions that increased its gravity by falling into complicity," he wrote. "The Lord heard that cry and once again showed us on which side he stands. ... If, in the past, the response was one of omission, today we want solidarity, in the deepest and most challenging sense, to become our way of forging present and future history." The pope's letter -- after a painful silence -- declined to commit the church establishment to specific reforms or pledge that bishops and cardinals who hid crimes would suffer consequences, including being removed from ministry. The pope didn't name names or announce any resignations. He pledged that the church would repent, without saying how this would happen. People in the pews, said Reynolds, are listening and watching to see what their leaders are willing to do. Some are fed up. Some are ready to take action on their own. Something needs to happen. "Even the most faltering attempt to speak or to act is better than nothing, in a situation like this," she said. "Silence is not where you begin, with something this painful. Silence is what kills. Silence followed by more silence will be profoundly wounding."
If you've ever wondered how Russia became America's most fearsome enemy, long after that country gave up Communism, gulags, forced starvations and mass murder (all of which liberals were cool with), the answer is: This crackpot idea came from the same woman who blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for Monica Lewinsky. The Russia conspiracy is classic Hillary, as detailed in my new book, "Resistance Is Futile!" Throughout her long and blemished public career, Hillary has always blamed her troubles on bad people conspiring against her. When her husband's mistress, Gennifer Flowers, stepped forward as Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, Hillary blamed a former gubernatorial opponent of her husband, who "has now spent the last two years doing everything he can to try to get even, and it's a sort of sad spectacle." Bill later admitted to the affair. When Hillary callously fired long-serving White House travel office employees to make room for her friends' travel business, she responded to the public outcry by accusing the head of the travel office, Billy Dale, of embezzlement. To continue the charade, her husband's government criminally prosecuted Dale. The jury acquitted him after about three minutes of deliberation, but Dale was left jobless and nearly bankrupt. When Hillary's health care bill went down in flames, hurting the Democrats and leading to the first Republican Congress in 40 years, she blamed the media for having "bought into the right-wing attack." (You know how the media slavishly repeat conservative talking points.) As mentioned above, when her husband was caught for the millionth time molesting the help, Hillary blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy." When DNA proved the story was true, she blamed the fuss in the media on "prejudice against our state" -- meaning Arkansas. "They wouldn't be doing this if we were from some other state," Hillary said. Even The San Francisco Chronicle hooted at that one. When she lost to Obama in 2008, she blamed the media's rampant sexism. In fact, a ham-handed liar like Hillary could only have survived in politics as long as she did thanks to the media's devotion to her. Quiz: When the Democratic National Committee's emails popped up on Wikileaks in July 2016, embarrassing her campaign and enraging Democrats, would Hillary: A) Apologize to Bernie Sanders for the DNC's horrible mistreatment of him; B) Demand an accounting of the inept computer security measures at the DNC; Or C) Invent a story about Russia conspiring against her? Answer: C. Russia had to become the next Linda Tripp, a mysterious enemy undermining our heroine. Hillary's campaign manager Robby Mook launched the Russia conspiracy theory on the eve of the Democratic National Convention on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" -- because who better to ask the tough questions than a former top aide to Hillary's husband? Mook explained: "Well, what's disturbing about this entire situation is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites. ... And it's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by -- by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." Stephanopoulos may not have burst out laughing, but, at the time, every serious journalist in America did. Right up until Trump drove liberals mad by winning the election, Hillary's Russia conspiracy theory was scoffed at throughout the media. A New York Times story described Mook's claim as an "eerie suggestion of a Kremlin conspiracy to aid Donald Trump." It was, the Times reporters said, a "remarkable moment." Even at the height of the Cold War, such an accusation had never been leveled by one presidential candidate against another. And yet, the Times dryly observed, Mook had cited nothing more than unnamed "experts." Los Angeles Times reporter Mark Z. Barabak also pointed out the unnamed "experts" and noted that Mook's "allegation" served two political purposes. It tainted Trump's boast that he'd get along with Russia and "also served the added benefit, from Clinton's perspective, of distracting from internal party divisions over the emails." Russian scholars and cyber-security experts dismissed the harebrained claim: "Experts: Hard to prove Russians behind DNC hack" -- USA Today "Why the Kremlin might not be the fan of Trump that it's said to be" -- The Christian Science Monitor A month later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held a conference call with nervous Democrats, urging them to push the Russian conspiracy theory and also to put out the word that "the Russians" might have altered the content of the emails. President Obama took the alleged Russian hacking so seriously that he told Putin to "cut it out." It was only after disaster struck and Trump won the election that the media decided maybe there was something to that Russia business, after all. As described in the book "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," two days after the election, Hillary's communications team met for hours "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. ... Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." The entire Russian collusion gag was invented to assuage the potty pantsuit's embarrassment at having lost a second election that was fixed for her to win. In the two years since the media guffawed at Mook's claim, the public has been presented with no new evidence. All that's changed is that the media suddenly decided to demand that we all believe it.
"If anyone is looking for a good lawyer," said President Donald Trump ruefully, "I would strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen." Michael Cohen is no Roy Cohn.
Tuesday, Trump's ex-lawyer, staring at five years in prison, pled guilty to a campaign violation that may not even be a crime.
Cohen had fronted the cash, $130,000, to pay porn star Stormy Daniels for keeping quiet about a decade-old tryst with Trump. He had also brokered a deal whereby the National Enquirer bought the rights to a story about a Trump affair with a Playboy model, to kill it.
Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president.
Would a Democratic House, assuming we get one, really impeach a president for paying hush money to old girlfriends?
Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature.
But if Cohen's guilty plea and Tuesday's conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump's dealings for more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation.
Nothing that comes of this collaboration will be helpful to Trump.
Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of motives to "flip" and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump.
Then there is the Mueller probe itself.
Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate.
However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down.
Mueller may not have the power to haul the president before a grand jury or indict him. After all, it is Parliament that deposes and beheads the king, not the sheriff of Nottingham. But Mueller will file a report with the Department of Justice that will be sent to the House.
And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller's report.
Still, as of now, it is hard to see how two-thirds of a new Senate would convict this president of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Thus we are in for a hellish year.
Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas, federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his enemies.
No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted.
Democrats who have grown giddy about taking the House should consider what a campaign to bring down a president, who is supported by a huge swath of the nation and has fighting allies in the press, would be like.
Why do it? Especially if they knew in advance the Senate would not convict.
That America has no desire for a political struggle to the death over impeachment is evident. Recognition of this reality is why the Democratic Party is assuring America that impeachment is not what they have in mind.
Today, it is Republicans leaders who are under pressure to break with Trump, denounce him, and call for new investigations into alleged collusion with the Russians. But if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment.
Taking the House would put newly elected Democrats under fire from the right for forming a lynch mob, and from the mainstream media for not doing their duty and moving immediately to impeach Trump.
Democrats have been laboring for two years to win back the House. But if they discover that the first duty demanded of them, by their own rabid followers, is to impeach President Trump, they may wonder why they were so eager to win it.
Patrick J. Buchanan