Here are my observations and opinions of my selected news of the day.

POOR BETO – In his desire to out-pledge his opponents on climate change, he unveiled his $5 trillion plan to battle climate change with a goal of zero carbon emissions in the U.S. by 2050, a move to give himself some breathing room since in the previous month he said the world will end in 12 years (2031) if nothing is done.

Incidentally, don’t believe the poll that shows O’Rourke beating Trump in 2020.

THEN THERE’S KATY TUR at MSNBC, who said, “The U.N. said we have 12 years before complete disaster. The reports are people will die. Millions and millions and millions of people will die.” OMG!

IT’S ALWAYS GRATIFYING to read the comments of others who agree with my observations and opinions. Several people wrote letters to the editor of the Wall Street Journal to cite similar opinions of Peggy Noonan’s column, which I criticized in my April 20, 2019 piece, “Noonan’s concern for ‘official Washington’ misplaced.”

“Peggy, we had seriousness, calm, aesthetics and a gifted orator in President Obama, so how did the country fare under his eight years?” wrote Lucy Artinian of Manhattan Beach, California. “You give no credit to President Trump for the improved economy, the added jobs, less regulation, better negotiated trade deals, lower taxes and renewed confidence in America’s ability to compete in the world.”

“President Trump may not be the most tactful and diplomatic president we’ve had,” Artinian added, “but I will take him any day versus a stagnant economy driven by an eloquent pontificator.”

“The first three paragraphs of Ms. Noonan’s piece explains why Donald Trump is president,” wrote Roger Keats of Dripping Springs, Texas. “She suggests that the arrogance of the D.C. establishment/swamp has no limits. We sent Donald Trump to D.C., to cast those people into the outer darkness, not to become their lackey.”

Lastly, Kenneth Jasinski of Dallas, Texas put in his two cents worth on the old ambassadors Noonan says were idled by Trump writing, “Seriously, who in today’s America cares about what old, elitist ambassadors think?”

ANOTHER EMBARRASSMENT FOR CNN – With its ratings dipping lower every day, with less than a million viewers for its prime night shows, Stephen Moore, who recently took his name out of consideration to join the Federal Reserve, revealed an interesting background story on the network in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, “My Brush With Personal Destruction.”

“One irony is that one my most vicious attackers has been CNN. In 2017 the network signed me to a two-year contract as a senior economic analyst,” Moore writes. “I appeared on the air more than 100 times, and CNN renewed my contract. As soon as Mr. Trump said he would nominate me to the Fed, the network began trashing me day after day for things I’d written decades before it hired me.”

LEFTIST COLUMNIST E. J. MONTINI, who writes in the Arizona Republic, apparently opened his copy or Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals on May 4, 2019, deciding it was time to attack Sen. Lindsay Graham, who was encouraging Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the Deep State.

Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, was especially critical of Hawaii’s Sen. Mazie Horono, who openly insulted Barr and accused him of lying.

So, what does Montini do? Why … bring in the name of the late John McCain, of course.

“It is now clear that after the many valuable lessons taught by the late Sen. John McCain on matters principle, service and commitment to country over party, the one nationally lingering negative aspect of his legacy is Sen. Lindsay Graham,” wrote Montini. “Graham, it turns out, is a cheap political opportunist who latched onto McCain as a way to achieve some national prominence and then abandoned all that talk of principles and latched onto Donald Trump.”

I found it interesting that Montini concluded his column with the belief that “Graham was absent the day McCain taught that lesson (of restoring honor and integrity),” when that’s Graham and Barr’s goal for the FBI and DOJ.

It’s obvious that Montini has joined the throngs concerned with what Barr and DOJ IG Michael Horowitz are uncovering in the Deep State.

KIMBERLY A. STRASSEL, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, perhaps said it best in “For Fear of William Barr,” on May 3, 2019. “The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.”

THAT RETURN TO CIVILITY that Nancy Pelosi alluded to if the Democrats won back the House in 2018, is but a memory as she went to the Speaker’s microphone to call Attorney General Bill Barr a liar and accuse him of committing a crime.

With the findings by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which didn’t find President Trump guilty of anything except perhaps making some embarrassing comments, Pelosi “is worried about what Bill Barr might reveal about 2016,” the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal believes. “Democrats want to intimidate him to drop this or discredit him before he can release his findings. That’s what Democrats shouting “liar” are really upset about.”

THE BIG LIE THAT BARR LIED is the title of Andrew McCarthy’s article in National Review, in which he begins by relating that it was a subject “too stupid to write about. But stupid is like the plague inside the Beltway … one person catches it and next thing you know there’s an outbreak at MSNBC and the speaker of the House is showing symptoms while her delirious minions tote ceramic chickens around Capitol Hill.”

McCarthy believes “the claim that Barr gave false testimony is frivolous,” as he reviews the discussion between Rep. Charlie Christ (D-FL) and Barr over the frustration by members of the counsel team over the context of Barr’s summary … the summary Mueller declined to review.

“And now Democrats are using the letter as the launch-pad for “The Big Lie That Barr Lied, calculating that if they say it enough times, and their media collaborators uncritically broadcast these declarations, on one will notice that they never actually refer to the transcript of what they claim is the false testimony,” writes Barr.

“Barr is way too smart to have lied about any interaction with Mueller,” writes Boncie @bonchieredstate. “In fact, I’d guess he’s got the whole thing recorded and memorialized just in case the former special counsel tries anything. If you’ve watched Barr work in his testimony before Congress, it’s clear he’s not a guy you screw with.”

BARR THE NEW CHENEY – “Republicans have found a new hero,” suggests Matthew Continetti in the Washington Free Beacon. “Barr is the new Dick Cheney: a stocky, bespectacled, confrontational, blunt, intelligent, unapologetically conservative, experienced, and high-powered official who believes in and fights for the office of the president.

“The qualities that drove Democrats batty over Cheney – his inscrutability, his cleverness, his asperity, and above all his success – make them incensed about Barr. These happen to be qualities Republicans find appealing.”

Kramerontheright wishes there were Republican lawmakers with the same attributes.

HAVE YOU HEARD that Real Clear Investigation’s Eric Felton obtained a copy of the still unreleased transcript of then Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s December 19, 2018 closed-door Congressional testimony about her infamous meeting with former president Bill Clinton on her airplane sitting on the tarmac in Phoenix?

Clinton clearly ran up the stairs of the plane before Lynch could exit. If you believe Lynch, there was a lot of small talk between Clinton and Lynch, Lynch’s husband, and even members of the crew. And it was obvious that Lynch tried a number of times to make a gracious exit from her plane. “At one point, I said: Well you know, thank you very much. It’s lovely seeing you. We have to move on,” but he kept chatting.

“Let’s assume for the sake of argument,” writes Elizabeth Vaughn in Red State, “that Lynch was not lying to Congress. If so, it seems to have dawned on her rather late that Clinton had compromised her, had put her in a jam. What if that’s exactly what he set out to do? Give Bill Clinton his due – the man is no amateur.

“Would he risk his reputation or his wife’s presidential campaign by asking the attorney general to clear Hillary? Probably not.

“What if Bill only wanted to give the impression that he was inappropriately intervening?” writes Jim Treacher in PJ Media. What if he knew exactly how it would look, and want it to look that way?”

Then, astonishingly, Treacher suggests, “What if Bill used that (meeting)? What if he hates Hillary as much as we do, and he figured out a way to destroy he one big dream without even needing to lie?”   Hmmmmm.

                                 May God bless the United States of America.