Anti-Worm Drug Holds Promise For Cancer Patients

An drug commonly used to eliminate parasites in dogs and cats has emerged as an unlikely but promising candidate to treat a variety of cancers in humans.  Researchers are optimistic that Fenbendazole, a staple of veterinary practice, eventually will be approved for cancer therapy.

Mounting research on mice has shown that the anti-worm treatment, one of a class of drugs called benzimidazoles, inhibits cancer tumor growth by killing diseased cells.  In addition, Fenbendazole blocks the intake of glucose in cancer cells, depriving them of their primary fuel.

Early animal studies have demonstrated Fenbendazole and its cousin Mebendazole could be effective in treatment therapy for a host of cancers, including prostate, lung, lymphoma, glioblastoma and brain tumors.  Oncologists would have a new weapon in their arsenal in the battle against cancer.

Researchers stumbled upon the the discovery by accident.  In 2014, a Johns Hopkins team was attempting to grow tumors in laboratory mice.  In one set of mice, they were stumped because it was the only group that showed no tumors.  They realized that group had been dewormed in advance.

As researchers dug deeper into the drug, they found that it had been previously reported Fenbendazole has anti-cancer properties.  Word spread about the discovery and soon researchers in various labs were conducting their own experiments with the anti-worm drug.

A 2018 study published in Nature further set the cancer world buzzing.  An article reported that researchers concluded there was evidence that Fenbendazole may be effective in the elimination of cancer cells.  As it turns out, the use of similar drugs was nothing new in the cancer field.

In the early 90's, a drug called Lemaziole was shown as a complementary treatment for colon cancer, which also restored a depressed immune system.  That means this class of drugs could be used in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiation treatments to wipe out the disease.

Various articles have appeared in newspapers and other publications over the years offering testimonies of cancer patients who have claimed to use Fenbendazole or another similar drug with successful results.  However, this anecdotal evidence is no substitute for clinical research. 

The good news is that Fenbendazole has already been used in clinical trials and has been deemed safe for human consumption.  Unlike chemotherapy and radiation, there are no known serious side effects.  However, doctors still are wary about the effects of long-term use.

But that hasn't deterred researchers.  Bin Chen, a faculty member in Pediatrics in the Institute for Computational Health Sciences at University of California-San Francisco, conducted experiments in mice and expressed cautious optimism about the drug's effectiveness in killing cancerous liver tissue.

"We found these disease genes were reversed after six weeks of treatment in a patient-derived tissue in the mouse model," he was quoted on the UCSF website.  Chen said his team reviewed more than 1,000 current drugs before discovering deworming pills were effective.

Chen was able to evaluate that large a number of drugs quickly, using data tools to screen and identify candidates that would target genes in cancerous liver tissues.  He cross-referenced data on genes and common drugs to find the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Chen is at the forefront of a growing field of researchers looking at approved drugs to repurpose them in treating cancer patients. If successful, this will drastically reduce the millions of dollars spent on years of research and speed up the drug's time to market. 

The next step is for human trials, known as Phase I studies.  The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins has begun recruiting patients for research to determine the safety and side effects of large doses of Mebendazole to treat progressive pediatric brain tumors.

Mebendazole has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for parasitic infections in humans and has a long track record of human use.  The drug is frequently used in countries with tropical climates at high doses for rare parasitic infections of the brain.

The trial's primary objective will be to determine the maximum tolerated dose of oral Mebendazole in patients with either recurrent or progressive pediatric brain tumors, according to information posted by the National Cancer Institute.

The research will also gauge the safety, tolerance and toxicity of the drug in patients.  Another focus will be determining the overall survival rate of patients treated with escalated dosages of Mebendazole.

As is the case with most drug trials, the study will require at least two years.  The estimated study completion date is June, 2022.  However, an advantage is the anti-parasitic drug is widely available, so if it proves effective, large quantities can be immediately distributed to patients.

Sadly, too often potentially promising developments on the cancer front are dashed in trials that fail to produce evidence to support the optimism.  This time the hope is that the research outcome leads to the implementation of a new treatment to arrest cancer and save lives.

American Firms Unholy Alliance With China

The recent dustup over an NBA tweet and China is just the latest example of the Communist country's unapologetic censorship of free speech.  American companies discovered long ago the cost of doing business in China requires kowtowing to the regime's demands or risk banishment. 

In this latest incident, the general manager for the Houston Rockets took to social media to express his support for the courageous protesters in Hong Kong.  After China's official condemnation, NBA commissioner Adam Silver reprimanded the GM and apologized to the regime's government.

Silver with the support of wealthy NBA owners put profits over principle.  The NBA has lucrative television contracts for its games to be aired in China.  The league has long viewed China as its future with billions of potential viewers who buy league's jerseys and other merchandise.  

The NBA is not the only entertainment industry to bow to Chinese pressure.  China banned movies from Sony and Disney in 1997 after the two studios released films about Tibet.  Both entertainment giants groveled before the Communists to earn the right to distribute future films in China.

Chinese bullying of American firms has been a staple of its government.  However, it has grown more bellicose under the autocratic rule of President Xi Jinping.  The Communist ruler has made it clear that he will curtail freedom of speech even in America as a price for access to China's market.  

Since President Nixon's historic 1972 visit to China, globalists have advocated American investment in the Asian nation as a way to open up the Communist regime to democratic changes.  This theory has been discredited by decades of Chinese trampling of basic human rights of its citizens.

Under China's leader Xi Jinping, the regime has become increasingly insular, more hostile to democratic principles, militarily threatening and an economic behemoth with world domination as its goal.  No serious economist or politician can claim trade has loosened China's oppressive policies.

In spite of growing Chinese antagonism, American companies' investment in the Communist country continues unabated.  In 2018, U.S. businesses invested $116.52 billion in China, according to Statista, a global research firm.  That is a ten-fold hike from $11.4 billion almost two decades ago in 2000.

Meanwhile, the trade deficit with China has ballooned as the regime ships more goods and equipment to the U.S., while the Communists buy fewer American products.  This trade imbalance has resulted in the elimination or displacement of 3.2 million U.S. jobs, estimates the Economic Policy Institute.

Some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley--Apple, Google and Facebook--are heavily invested in China. All have caved at one time to demands from the government to alter its applications to placate the Communists, including deleting information about the recent Hong Kong protests.

Their conduct rankles many Americans, who view their behavior as hypocritical.  These same companies have been openly critical of objections by Congress and interest groups about their content.  The trio huff they will not cower to attempts to restrict free speech on their platforms.

The high-tech industry and other American firms--GE, Intel, Walmart, Starbucks, Boeing, GM--are complicit in the regime's dynamic global economic growth by spending lavishly on Chinese facilities and hiring local workers.  Meanwhile, China continues to steal American technology.

Beijing has made no secret of its ambition to become the global leader in key emerging industries, including information technology, alternative energy, biotechnology, alternative-fuel cars and high-end equipment manufacturing.  The regime will back Chinese firms with generous state funding. 

China's subsidy of these sectors will put American firms at a competitive disadvantage.  If you doubt China's ability to overtake America, you haven't been paying attention.  In 2011, Apple was the dominant smartphone in China.  Today, the top three brands, all Chinese, own a 71% market share.

China's long range plan is for its home-grown industries to be become not only the country's market leaders, but to supplant American brands worldwide.  Recent research by groups such as McKinsey document that Chinese consumers are increasingly showing a preference for China-made goods.

To secure its economic superiority, China has launched a multi-trillion-dollar project to revive the ancient "Silk Road," which could redefine global trade and signal the tipping point for a new Asian century.  The scope of the project is typical of the country's audacious economic dreams.

The regime already has invested billions in new infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, ports and maritime corridors that will span more than 60 countries and 4.4 billion people, covering up to 40 percent of the global GDP.  The plan includes linking Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

This unprecedented scale of the project should worry American firms.  China's aim is to end dependence on American goods, innovation and technology.  While it extends its economic power, China's blueprint includes exporting its brand of Communism worldwide.

American businesses may one day be forced to abandon the Chinese market, either because of dwindling profits or because the government decides to limit foreign investment.  China has employed this tactic in decades past.  There is no certainty it will not do it again.

The NBA, businesses, movie studios and others that appease China in the name of profits may rue the day they ignored the Communist nation's geopolitical and economic aspirations.  Not only will their profits be harmed, but they will have lost something more valuable: the American public's trust.  

The Billionaire Behind Impeachment Impetus

California billionaire Tom Steyer is spearheading an under the radar campaign to intimidate Democrats to impeach President Trump.  A political action committee, Need to Impeach, bankrolled primarily by Steyer has a multi-million dollar war chest and an expansive staff at its disposal.

Steyer, one of the Democratic Party's most prodigious contributors, is a former hedge fund manager who sold his share in 2012. Forbes estimates his net worth at $1.6 billion.  Since 2014, Steyer has shelled out more than $100 million to Democrat candidates.

Less than six months after Trump was sworn in as president, Steyer called for the impeachment of the nation's chief executive. From that day in June of 2017, the Californian has used his fortune to build a formidable cache to underwrite a nationwide grassroots campaign to remove the president.

According to the non-partisan group OpenSecrets.org, Steyer has written checks totaling nearly $50 million to underwrite the impeachment effort.  In fairness, there is nothing illegal about the activities of his organization.  However, Steyer's tactics are worrying some Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.

Steyer's committee has used negative advertising, petitions, rallies, protests and door-to-door canvassing to target House Democrats reluctant to sign on to impeachment. Even before the Mueller report, the Steyer forces were ganging up on key House Democrats to support impeachment.

Under the banner of Need to Impeach, Steyer unleashed negative ads targeting Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York, the diminutive Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee after he announced that he advocated a "wait and see" impeachment approach before the special prosecutor issued his findings.

Elijah Cummings of Maryland is another Democrat who found himself in the Steyer crosshairs as chair of the House Oversight Committee. The negative ads failed to impress Cummings.  "He ought to spend his money on something else," Cummings said after the Streyer-backed attack.

In another political assault, the organization zeroed in on Virginia Democrat Don Beyer. The Steyer troops choose Beyer's district for one of its town halls to "call out" the Democrat for his lack of support for impeachment,  Beyer relented under pressure and signed on to impeachment soon after.

As these developments were happening, Speaker of the House Pelosi found herself languishing in a boiling political caldron.  Early on, Ms. Pelosi sidestepped the issue, rebuffing party progressives who were spoiling for a formal impeachment vote.

Then a spokesman for the impeachment outfit let it be known that his group was considering funding pro-impeachment Democrat candidates in the primaries, unless incumbents give their full throated support to ridding Washington of President Trump.  That well-timed leak scared fence sitters.

One of the names mentioned was Speaker Pelosi, one of the party's most influential fund raisers. Surely it is coincidental, but after months of tap dancing around the subject Pelosi surrendered to the growing cacophony from her caucus to become a focal point for impeachment.

Steyer is unapologetic for the bare knuckled political campaign.  "There's a gigantic cost to not listening to your constituents," Steyer said in an interview with Politico. "There's a gigantic cost to thumbing your nose at democracy."  Democrats dodge impeachment at their own peril.

To underscore his boss' intentions, Need to Impeach strategist Kevin Mack claims the organization had virtually unlimited resources to spend in key districts.  The group has already committed $40 million to the impeachment effort, according to Mack.

The PAC is not the only forum for Steyer to preach removing Mr. Trump.  The 62-year-old is running for president in the Democratic Party primary.  He has made it clear that he will spend up to $100 million of his own money to win the nomination.

His candidacy has brought impeachment to center stage, making it a litmus test for his opponents. Those who don't support forcibly throwing out the president will earn Steyer's scorn.  That could spell doom for the eventual nominee, if Steyer withholds financial support.

The Californian has already spent an estimated $19 million for advertising over the airwaves for his candidacy.  In addition, his campaign has purchased at least $10 million on digital platforms since he entered the race in July.  His spending far eclipses that of his opponents.

His high rolling spending has not impressed some Democrat candidates.  New Jersey Senator Cory Booker told supporters that Steyer's "ability to spend millions of his personal wealth has helped him gain in the polls like no one else."  One poll shows support for Steyer has reached eight percent.

Don't be fooled: Rep Adam Schiff and Rep. Nadler are just puppets in the impeachment sideshow. The puppet master is Tom Steyer.  Even if his Quixotic presidential campaign flops, the billionaire will remain the political energy behind the political operation to overturn the 2016 election.

Tailgating: Expand A Great American Tradition

This is the season for tailgating, which for some fans is the only reason to attend a football game.  Smoke from grills wafting through a parking lot.  Adult beverages flowing from kegs and cans. Food piled on card tables and in the back of pickups and in motor homes.  It's an American tradition.

As soon as the last football game is played in bone chilling weather, tailgating goes into hibernation until next season.  It seems like an eternity for die hard fans.  Why can't tailgating last all year?  There is no law that sanctions tailgating only at football games.  This calls for some creative thinking.

A perfect occasion for tailgating would be right after your colonoscopy.  You emerge woozy from your procedure and waddle into the parking lot on the arm of your spouse.  Cheers erupt from people in flimsy paper gowns, their bottoms exposed.  It's a celebration like none other.

After fasting and gulping foul liquids, you are ready for food.  Your fellow colonoscopy victims wrap you in blankets and hand you a plate filled with breakfast tacos.  Someone begins a chant: "C-O-L-O-N! C-O-L-O-N! Go Colon Go!"  Suddenly, you have forgotten the previous day's noxious prep.

A week passes and you arrive for your dental appointment for a cleaning.  The parking lot is packed with cheering people carrying festive signs such as, "My Dentist Is Long In The Tooth!"  You cautiously approach a dental hygienist handing out blue plumes of cotton candy.

"Should I eat this before my cleaning?" you ask skeptically.  She grins, "Of course, that will make it more fun to scrape, chisel and scrub brush your teeth."  As you move toward the dental office, someone presses a bag of corn nuts in your hand.  "Chew these before your cleaning," she cackles.

As you gaze around, you see booths offering chewy caramel candies, popcorn, chocolate blueberries and red wine.  You graze along with the other dental patients until your teeth look like the bottom of a sewer drain.  Your dental cleaning takes four hours and the cost is double the normal fee.

A month later your arrive a the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew your driver's license.  Instead of the usual line snaking around the building, you see hundreds of people milling around pickup trucks, campers and recreational vehicles.  A band is marching and playing the DMV Fight Song:

"We'll do our best,
So you'll fail the test,
And treat you badly,
so you'll leave sadly!"

State troopers are offering massages in the RV's.  The pickups are stuffed with kegs of beer.  Campers are crammed with people watching television.  You gulp liquid refreshment and celebrate. After waiting five hours, you enter the DMV office and flunk the test because of your blood alcohol level.

Next day you chauffeur your spouse to the Symphony Hall for a performance of Beethoven's Ninth in C Minor. The usual stuffy crowd sheds their suit coats and fur wraps to huddle around grills with lobster tails sizzling over a fire.  There's a sushi bar and a caviar tent in the parking lot.

A tuba player and violinist are belting out tunes from your college alma mater. Some symphony patrons are wearing jerseys with the name of their favorite wind instrument.  There is a giant television showing replays of last year's award winning performance of a Mozart concerto.

The well coiffed crowd, humming with excitement, enters the Symphony Hall in a rowdy mood.  As the orchestra begins its first piece the audience starts the wave.  The conductor drops his baton.  A few patrons begin bellowing, "We Want Mozart." The orchestra storms off the stage in protest.

Actually, all this daydreaming about tailgating sparks an idea.  Given the number of birthdays I have celebrated, perhaps, it is time I start making plans for a tailgate party for my funeral.  Pardon me if it sounds a bit macabre, but what better way to celebrate a rabid sports fan's final game?

Picture this: Outside the funeral home my friends (both of them) and my creditors (2,000) are grilling my favorite food group, barbecue.  Huge vats of potato salad and coleslaw are strategically located in the parking lot.  Baked beans are forbidden out of respect for the deceased.

A putting green and a driving range have been installed in the cemetery.  People are whacking golf balls off headstones on graves. There are contests for hitting the ball closest to my burial plot.  The prize is a truckload of all the used golf balls I found in the woods during searches for my own ProV1.

As a tribute to my love for college football, there are goal posts leading into the funeral home.  Admission is granted only to those who can kick a field goal from 15 yards.  Pom poms and face paint are distributed to attendees.  Cheerleaders lead everyone in a rendition of "Amazing Grace."

Tailgating extends well into the evening.  Everyone agrees it is the most enjoyable send off they have ever attended.  Some predict tailgate funerals will become an overnight sensation.  No sense in limiting merriment to the football season when other opportunities abound for tailgating.

Joe Biden: His Son And The Ukraine Oligarch

Democrats accused President Trump of a quid-pro-quid deal with Ukraine in a veiled move to distract media attention from a controversy engulfing Joe Biden and his son Hunter.  Details continue to emerge about the son's involvement with a Ukrainian oligarch's corruption-plagued gas company.

The former vice president and Democratic Party presidential candidate initially shooed away reporters asking questions about his son's questionable activities and the apparent conflict of interest.  The stonewalling ended when Biden was finally prodded into publicly proclaiming to the media:

"I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings."  However, Biden is on shaky ground based on credible information in the public domain.

To set the stage, President Obama appointed the vice president his "point person" on Ukraine in February of 2014.  From 2014-2017, he made five trips to the Ukraine in his official capacity as vice president as Russian aggression escalated tensions in the Eastern European country.

During the diplomatic shuttling, Biden's son with two business partners were deep in discussions about a deal with the scandal ridden natural gas firm Burisma Holdings.  One of Hunter's partners, Devon Archer, arranged for a meeting with the elder Biden on April 16, 2015 at the White House.

Official White House records show the meeting lasted until 11:59 p.m.  There are no details on the subject of the discussion.  However, less than a week after their chitchat Archer was invited to join the Burisma board  Three weeks later Hunter Biden became a board member, too.

It is not credible to think the vice president knew nothing about his son's Ukraine dealings after the meeting with Hunter's business partner, especially given the timing of the appointments to the Burisma board.  Unless of course, they just talked about grandchildren.  (Sarcasm intended.)

After the board appointments, Burisma touted its newest member, Hunter Biden.  It prominently mentioned he was the vice president's son.  His official role, as vaguely described by Burisma, was to provide "consulting" for the company on "various matters" and to offer "strategic guidance."

Even while the younger Biden had been negotiating with Burisma, the natural gas company was the subject of an investigation into suspected fraud. Great Britain's Serious Fraud Office froze assets of Burisma as part of a money laundering probe.  The assets were later unfrozen when Ukraine sued.

This wasn't the only brush with controversy for Burisma.  It had been suspected of corruption both inside Ukraine and by the United States.  The secretive company's founder Mykola Zlochevsky was also the subject of official Ukrainian inquiries, including for tax evasion.

None of this appeared to matter to Hunter Biden.  Bank records from 2014 and 2015 show Hunter Biden was personally paid more than $850,000.  Burisma does not release compensation details for board members, but the records were uncovered in U.S. litigation into an unrelated case.

Seneca Partners LLC, which included Biden and his two associates, received regular transfers of usually more than $166,000 per month during the 2014-2015 period, according to the same banking records cited above.  These payments came under scrutiny by the Ukraine's general prosecutor.

It was reported that the prosecutor had made plans to "include interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." Both Hunter Biden and the former vice president have declined to comment on this allegation.

This is where the story about the vice president's unawareness of his son's business dealings begins to crumble.   In March of 2016, Biden addressed a public meeting of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, bragging how he had bullied Ukrainian officials into firing the general prosecutor.

Biden described in detail as news cameras rolled how he threatened to pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.  In Biden's own words, here is what he remembered telling Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016:

"I am going to be leaving here in I think about six hours....If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money," he recalled telling Poroshenko.  "Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.  And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

There was one tiny fact Biden omitted.  The prosecutor who was summarily fired was leading a far ranging corruption probe into the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, which employed his son as a board member.  And there is more proof that the elder Biden had to know what was happening.

A New York Times article on December 8, 2015, appeared four months before the firing of the general prosecutor and included information about Hunter Biden's role in Burisma.  Biden's office was quoted as acknowledging that the younger Biden was indeed a Burisma board member.

Bloomberg News recently reported the following: "Joe Biden has said that he's never spoken with his son about his foreign business dealings.  Hunter told the New Yorker earlier this year that he once touched on Ukraine obliquely.  "Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing' and I said, "I do."

There is no better example of a possible quid-pro-quid arrangement between a top U.S. official and a foreign government than this case.  The former vice president has publicly admitted he threatened to withhold U.S. foreign aid if a Ukrainian prosecutor was not dismissed.

Joe Biden has skated around this issue by repeatedly claiming he was clueless about his son's business dealings.  Now it is time for the Department of Justice to open an official inquiry to determine if the former veep used his office and American aid to spare his son from prosecution.

There is far more evidence in the public record about influence peddling by Joe Biden than the thin accusations against Mr. Trump for his discussion with the Ukraine president about Hunter Biden. The media and Democrats can no longer cover up for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

It would  be ironic if the Democrats pursuit of the Ukraine connection with Mr. Trump would instead force the party of impeachment to reconsider the candidacy of Joe Biden, whose interference in a foreign country's justice system weakens his chances in the presidential race.

Democrats' Kavanaugh Impeachment Tactic

Democrats are thumping the drums for impeachment after a New York Times smear article about Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  Even after the once noble Times was forced to admit pertinent facts were omitted thereby shredding the credibility of the allegations, Democrats stubbornly plowed ahead.

To recap, the Times recently carried a thinly sourced article purporting that Justice Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct at a party while an undergraduate at Yale.  For the prurient, the specific unverified allegation was Kavanaugh exposed his penis to college-age women at a drunken party.

Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelley, who are shilling their book about Kavanaugh, used as their source a former Clinton lawyer who was not a witness to the alleged incident.  His information was third-hand.  Even the victim refused to corroborate the event for the reporters.

However, the article did not mention the alleged victim had denied any knowledge of the incident to her friends.  None of the victim's friends came forward to offer any supporting testimony.  This smacks of nothing less than a deliberately vicious attempt to blacken Justice Kavanaugh's reputation.

Putting aside the appalling lapse in journalistic ethics, the Times tried to save its red face by blaming the fiasco on the editing of the article rather than indict the two biased reporters.  Any person with a modicum of understanding of newsroom operations knows this is a canard.

Copy editors do not delete relevant evidentiary information without consulting the writers.  In a story flaunting such damaging allegations, even a senior editor likely would check with the writers before reaching a decision to remove significant revelations.  That's why the explanation is rubbish.  

The Gray Lady, as the Times was known in its heyday, has become the Scarlet Tramp. 

Only after being exposed by another reporter, the Times' offered a correction on Monday conceding key facts were missing. Nonetheless, Democrat presidential candidates raced to the microphones to demand impeachment of Kavanaugh.  Others called for his immediate resignation.  

Democrats tried to justify their renewed effort to remove Kavanaugh based on the fact the FBI never interviewed the alleged victim at the Yale party during the agency's probe for the confirmation hearings.  That is a flimsy excuse because it is apparent the victim had no intention of testifying.  

Kavanaugh's background, including his college days, has been investigated during at least five federal background checks.  No current sitting justice or former Supreme Court justice has been subjected to such scrutiny.  It strains credulity to imagine investigators missed the improprieties five times.

There is no secret about the Times motive.  From the second Kavanaugh, a practicing Catholic, was nominated, liberals have operated on the political assumption that the justice will take "a scalpel" to the Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling once he assumed his seat on the Supreme Court.

The assault began when Democrats ambushed Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings with sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford.  Since her testimony, every single person she claimed could verify her story has disavowed knowledge, including her best friend Leland Keyser.

Despite this fact, Democrats lamely assert that Ms. Ford's account deserves to be believed.

That is why the Times latest hit job on Kavanaugh was needed to provide cover for those Democrats hell bent on forcing Kavanaugh off the court by whatever means.  Their efforts have taken on a new desperation because at least 20 abortion cases are flowing in the pipeline to the Supreme Court.

Democrats are wading in hazardous and uncharted political waters.  If a party can remove a sitting justice based on unsubstantiated allegations, then it will set a precedent that will be used to intimidate members of the court who do not see eye-to-eye on judicial matters with members of Congress.

In fact, the only sitting justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 for partisan reasons.  Chase, appointed by President George Washington, irked Thomas Jefferson's allies with his opinions, leading to the justice's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges.

There is a reason Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments.  It is to remove the judges from being influenced by politics so they can rule impartially without fear of political retribution. That was the clear intent of our founding fathers.  It remains a valid protection today.

In the event impeachment craters, Democrats have another scheme to bully the conservative majority.  Several presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of expanding the court under a Democrat president.  Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pooh-poohed the idea. 

Democrats should remember the lesson of the Senate's nuclear option invoked by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who broke decades of tradition. Once Republicans returned to power,  Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employed the same tactic.  Democrats fumed.  They shouldn't have been surprised.

Political intimidation of justices, if the Democrats succeed, surely will be used by Republicans against Democrat appointed judges in the future.  It is a dangerous precedent that should be rejected by even those who hold opposing views to Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

Climate Predictions Hinder Environmental Efforts

Discredited predictions about climate cataclysm are promoting an ideological tug-of-war over the issue.  Global organizations, academics and scientists have been guilty of grossly inaccurate forecasts, reducing the debate over the environment to gratuitous scaremongering. 

Climate change, closely identified with liberalism, has become a political catechism, crippling chances of a bipartisan approach.  That is tragic because the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of clean air, clean water and conservation.  Virtually no one opposes that ideology.

However, spreading apocalyptic prophecies to urge action has invited criticism instead of cooperation.  Environmentalists need to practice more education and less proselytizing.  Everyone should be able to agree the current approach has failed miserably to gain bipartisan traction.

One of the worst offenders of wildly misleading forecasts has been the often-cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program.  It counts among its members more than 1,500 scientists.

For example, the IPCC issued a report this month maintaining global warming has devastated crop production. The document sounded the alarm of a impending disaster of epic proportions.  But the report parsed language and relied on heresy instead of evidence.

"Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in dry lands, particularly those in Africa and high mountain regions of Asia and South America," the report claimed.   Note the lack of hard data to justify the original premise about drastic consequences.

Another agency in the same building, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a report citing record-setting production of global corn, wheat and rice crops five years running through 2017, the most recent available data.  This is the latest contradiction to calamitous claims.

Here are a few other doozies.  A Department of Oceanography professor of the U.S. Navy predicted in 2007 an ice free Arctic Ocean  by 2013.  That same year the IPCC predicted that by 2020 there would be increasing droughts worldwide.  It later was forced to admit the forecast was overstated.

Even when predictions are found baseless, the proponents refuse to budge.  James Hansen, who headed NASA's Goddard Institute for three decades, has a long and shameful record of counterfeit predictions.  Despite the facts, Hansen's forecasts are still repeated by climate alarmists.

Lead IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund was pressed once on his debunked forecasts.  His reply: "On the whole I would stand by these predictions--not predictions, sorry, scenarios--as having at least in a general way actually come true."

Oppenheimer's most glaring error was predicting greenhouse gases would desolate the heartlands of America, "causing crop failures and food riots," adding the situation would send Americans fleeing to Mexico to work as "field hands."  He once served as an advisor to Al Gore on climate matters.

Liberals and conservatives need to start fresh, armed with facts not spurious forecast models and outlandish predictions. That means putting aside a polemic that suggests saving the environment is an either or proposition: do you want oil or a clean environment; economic growth or pure water, etc.

Here's a novel approach: stop arguing about climate change and pursue policies that are good for the environment.  There are literally  hundreds of ways to decrease waste and reduce air and water pollution. Many are far less expensive and require far less government intrusion than current ideas.

University of Central Oklahoma research found that if manufacturers used recycled paper, it would cut air pollution 73% and water pollution by 35% compared to current methods.  Recycling glass would reduce mining waste by 80% and air pollution by 20%.

A U.S. Forest Service study estimates the U.S. loses around 36 million trees every year.  Many of those trees are in urban areas, where temperatures tend to be higher because of a phenomenon known as the heat island effect.  Urban reforestation would reduce energy use and carbon dioxide.

Recycling steel would trim 97% of the mining waste produced through traditional manufacturing and cut 86% of air pollution and 76% of water pollution in the country.  Non-biodegradable plastic is clogging landfills and polluting oceans.  Reducing plastic waste is a no brainer.

The good news is America is making progress.  A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 12.2% since 2007.  In the same period, China's emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons and India's surged 1 billion tons.

That last point deserves underscoring: India and China are creating environmental havoc.  The Health Effects Institute (HEI) of Boston reported in 2017 that the two countries had the deadliest air pollution in the world.  Cleaning up America is just one solution of the global climate we all share.

American ingenuity is a transformative force when it is unleashed to tackle thorny issues.  As a country, we need to agree to put aside differences and harness that creativity to make our environment cleaner tomorrow and for future generations.  There should be no debate about that.