A12| Saturday/Sunday, August 17 - 18, 2019 ** THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.**
Assessing Various Terrorist Threats at Home
Former FBI special agent Clint
Watts designates lethal white su-
premacists as “Our New Terrorism
Problem” (Review, Aug. 10), arguing
that the white supremacist threat
has eclipsed international jihadist
terrorism in frequency and severity.
He faults President Trump for lack
of leadership in supporting minor-
ity groups targeted by white su-
premacists and for not launching a
counterterrorism initiative compa-
rable in scope to those launched by
his predecessors in response to al
Qaeda and Islamic State. Mr. Watts
offers ideas worth considering in
his aggressive plan to address the
white supremacist problem, but it
is hard to gauge the magnitude of
the threat and the extent to which
a political agenda drives his and
the media’s demands for action.
Mr. Watts has been a welcome
guest on political talk shows during
the Trump presidency, expressing
opinions that generally reflect his
animosity toward Mr. Trump. Just
because Mr. Watts questions Presi-
dent Trump’s character and leader-
ship doesn’t mean he isn’t exagger-
ating a white supremacist threat
that Democrats and the media link
to the president’s rhetoric. The
white supremacist movement is de-
testable, but is it comparable to the
global jihadist threat? The wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq following 9/
have resulted so far in about 15,
deaths of U.S. military and contrac-
tor personnel, along with a half-
million other casualties. The white
supremacist threat in the U.S.
should not be trivialized, but
equating it to a jihadist terrorism
threat is more about 2020 presi-
dential politics and blaming Mr.
Trump than about protecting Amer-
icans.
DEANRICHARDS
Annapolis, Md.Are the mass shootings in this
country the work of a loosely orga-
nized domestic extremist movement
or something more sinister? Con-
gress should heed Clint Watts’s ad-
vice to “examine the degree to
which foreign countries and con-
nections intersect with domestic
extremist movements.” Russian op-
eratives have hacked our comput-
ers, released stolen emails, and
sown division through fake social
media accounts. So, one can easily
imagine that foreign actors are
among the anonymous users of on-
line platforms supporting white su-premacists, misogynists, and other
antisocial extremists. How better to
sow fear and chaos within the U.S.
than to radicalize young, alienated
men and spur them to act violently
on their growing hatred?
JAMESLAGRO,JR.
Madison, Wis.The essay on the scourge of
white nationalism posits a diagno-
sis and prescription that, I fear,
would exacerbate the underlying
disease from which this hateful vio-
lence originates. The author argues
that similar methods used to target
and eliminate the threats posed by
jihadist extremists abroad should
be applied to domestic terrorists in
the U.S. As a Marine Corps infantry
officer who served in Afghanistan, I
believe Mr. Watts makes two er-
rors: first in his assessment of the
threat and then, as a consequence
of this misdiagnosis, a feckless
strategy prescription that would
make the Patriot Act’s authors
proud.
How is it that despite being
hunted by a global intelligence
campaign, the jihadist organiza-
tions persist? In short, we applied
solutions to fix symptoms of the
problem instead of confronting the
core problem itself: the mental con-
tagion of extremist ideology. Ideas
persist where martial power may
fail. We failed to understand when
the jihadists explained their posi-
tions in plain language, choosing a
war of attrition. In the U.S., a
homegrown adversary is telling us
something today. A better approach
would be to take a course of “hid-
eous empathy” and examine the
root ideas that drive these young
men to embrace extremism—not to
sympathize, but to ameliorate. Of-
ten extremism results from exas-
peration at underlying problems.
In place of perceived occupation
of Muslim lands, this domestic ad-
versary cites our changing demo-
graphics and changing economy,
which has left many behind. Mental
contagions arise from undeniable
truths, vilify a perceived “other,”
and offer only violent recourse.
Empathy and leadership that pro-
vides alternatives are needed, not
scoffing disdain flavored with addi-
tional forfeiture of civil liberties.
MAJ.JOSHUAC.WADDELL
Tel Aviv
Maj. Waddell’s opinions are his
own. He is not speaking for the U.S.
military.LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters intended for publication should
be addressed to: The Editor, 1211 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,
or emailed to [email protected]. Please
include your city and state. All letters
are subject to editing, and unpublished
letters can be neither acknowledged nor
returned.“It’s come to my attention that
you’ve been pushing the box and
thinking outside the envelope.”THE WALL STREET JOURNALCalling for Accountability in Use of ‘R’ Word
In “What Would We Do Without
the Word ‘Racism’?” (op-ed, Aug. 3),
Joseph Epstein observes that the
word “racist” has been and is being
used as a tool of political terror,
and implies that a reassessment of
our increasingly frequent and mali-
cious use of the term is long over-
due.
However, rather than asking what
we mean when we use the term
“racist,” he merely provides a “dic-
tionary definition” of the term—that
a racist feels his own race is supe-
rior and is willing and likely to treat
other races badly. Providing no al-
ternative definition, he inadvertently
gives aid and support to those verypeople who use the word as a tool
to acquire and maintain power. To-
day, half the country—the president
and those who voted for him—are
routinely labeled as racists, a very
ugly charge if Mr. Epstein’s defini-
tion is accepted.
Alternative ways of looking at
things are needed. For example,
what are we to make of a half-cen-
tury of Supreme Court decisions
that, however well intentioned, ef-
fectively require racial biases in ed-
ucation, employment and profes-
sional certification? This is the law
of the land. Mr. Epstein notwith-
standing, many would agree that
these laws are racist in effect if not
intention.
IRWINROMANER
Suffern, N.Y.Will someone please explain to
me the difference between racism
and identity politics?
DAVIDPAUGH
Ryegate, Mont.A Hurricane by Any Other
Name Would Still Be Bad
In “Who’s Afraid of Hurricane
Dolly?” (op-ed, Aug. 8), Jim Sollisch
erroneously concludes that “people
won’t evacuate until storms are
given scarier names.” The article
cites a flawed, in our opinion, 2014
report which studied hurricanes
from 1953 to 2012 to conclude that
death tolls from hurricanes with
feminine names tend to be higher
than from those with masculine
names.
As we pointed out in 2014, that
conclusion is flawed because, to our
knowledge, no adjustment was made
for the fact that hurricanes were
only given female names from
1953-1979. This, coupled with declin-
ing fatalities from hurricanes over
time caused the authors to over-
weight the greater rate of deaths
from long-ago, female-named storms.
Measured since 1979, the average
death tolls of male and female hurri-
canes were nearly equal.
The far more important and posi-
tive point to be made, we think, is
that as forecasting tools and commu-
nication have improved, deaths from
hurricanes have been declining—irre-
spective of their name.
WILLIAMM.WILT
President, Assured Research
Madison, N.J.A Kamikaze Climate Suit
D
emocratic states challenging the
Trump Administration’s redo of the
Obama CO2 emissions regulations
should be careful what they
sue for. Their lawsuit could
backfire and undermine the
Environmental Protection
Agency’s power to regulate
carbon emissions.
Twenty-two Democratic
state Attorneys General and seven cities this
week asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to
vacate the Trump EPA’s CO2 emission rules for
coal plants. The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to
implement the “best system of emission reduc-
tion” for pollutants, which the agency has tradi-
tionally applied to individual power plants.
The Obama EPA went further and required
states to re-engineer their electric grids by
replacing all coal and eventually natural gas
with wind and solar. The Supreme Court in
2016 stopped the Obama power grab from be-
ing implemented as it likely exceeded the
EPA’s legal authority and unconstitutionally
commandeered the states.
The result is that federal CO2 emission stan-
dards for power plants have been nonexistent.
Last month the Trump EPA issued new regula-
tions requiring states to implement the “best
system of emission reduction” by making on-
site efficiency improvements at coal plants.
The rule gives states flexibility and won’t force
them to prematurely close plants.
Yet Democratic states complain in an-
nouncing their lawsuit that the “EPA’s rule
rolls-back [the Obama] limits and will have
virtually no impact on these emissions pro-
longing the nation’s reliance on polluting, ex-
pensive coal power plants and obstructing
progress of states toward clean, renewable,
and affordable electricity generation.” This is
false in every respect.
The Trump rule will cover 600 coal-fired
plants and cut emissions to 34% below 2005
levels—similar to what the Obama Clean
Power Plan purported to achieve. As the
Trump rule notes, “updated analysis shows
the [Clean Power Plan] would have no effect
on future CO2 emissions” due to “current mar-
ket trends.”
Coal plants have struggled to compete with
cheap natural gas and heavily subsidized re-
newables. As much coal power will be phased
out during President Trump’s first three years
in office as during Barack Obama’s last three.
Dozens of coal plants are slated to retire over
the next few years regardless
of government diktats.
Yet some utilities and coal
plant owners are currently in-
vesting in emission-control
technologies to become more
efficient and competitive. By
giving coal a death sentence, the Obama rule
would have halted these investments and coal
emission reductions in the short term.
Also note that energy-related CO2 emissions
declined by 14% in the U.S. from 2005 to 2017
while increasing 21% globally. Most of the U.S.
reduction was due to natural gas replacing
coal. Carbon dioxide emissions fell five times
more in Ohio and four times more in Pennsyl-
vania between 2006 and 2016 than in Califor-
nia, which had long banished coal.
Vacating the Trump rule wouldn’t reinstate
the defunct Obama Clean Power Plan, but
would instead produce a regulatory vacuum.
Democrats may not have standing to sue since
they won’t suffer a concrete harm from the
Trump rule, and they remain free to impose cli-
mate mandates within their borders.
Perhaps they hope the D.C. Circuit will enjoin
the Trump rule and force EPA to issue more ag-
gressive standards under the Supreme Court’s
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) ruling, which re-
quired the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
But the Court’s four conservatives who dis-
sented said states lacked standing to sue and
courts could not impel EPA to regulate CO2.
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts
noted that “the very concept of global warming
seems inconsistent with this particularization
requirement” of standing since “global warm-
ing is a phenomenon ‘harmful to humanity at
large,’ and the redress petitioners seek is fo-
cused no more on them than on the public gen-
erally—it is literally to change the atmosphere
around the world.”
Even some liberals warn that suing the
Trump Administration could invite the Court’s
new conservative majority to revisit Massa-
chusetts v. EPA. Democratic states may be bet-
ting that President Trump won’t be around by
the time the Court could consider his EPA’s
new rule. But don’t be so sure if Democrats
continue their anti-fossil fuel crusade.Democratic states suing
the EPA could hurt their
own emissions cause.
Newark’s Cry for Trump
D
emocrats in New Jersey love to attack
President Trump, but they are now beg-
ging his Administration to fix Newark’s
lead-tainted water that they
ignored. Here is another para-
ble of how liberal governance
is corroding America’s big cit-
ies from the inside out.
After New Jersey in 2017
mandated that large water sys-
tems be tested every six months, more than 20%
of water samples in Newark were found to ex-
ceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s
threshold requiring action. For more than a year
city officials denied there was a problem. “NEW-
ARK’S WATER IS ABSOLUTELY SAFE TO
DRINK,” the city website declared last year.
A robocall in spring 2018 said lead-tainted
water was “confined to a limited number of
homes.” But then a study last fall for the Newark
Department of Water and Sewer Utilities re-
vealed that shoddy corrosion treatment was
causing lead to leach into the water—the same
problem that poisoned water in Flint, Michigan,
afewyearsago.
Newark officials last fall handed out filters to
residents while still insisting the water is safe.
“When you make a statement that the drinking
water is not safe, it is yelling fire in a crowded
room,” Mayor Ras Baraka explained at a press
conference. “In fact, Newark has some of the
best drinking water. The problem is that our in-
frastructure is not safe.” This nuance was lost
on residents and scientists.
Earlier this month the city tested water in
three homes with filters, and two showed lead
levels four times the federal limit. Mayor Baraka
again minimized the danger, which prompted
a sharp letter from the EPA on Friday. “It is es-
sential for the City of Newark to advise resi-
dents with known or suspected lead service
lines that until further notice they should not
rely on the efficacy of the filtration devices,”
EPA Regional Administrator Peter Lopez wrote
to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and mayor.
State and city officials this week passed out
bottled water to residents,
though deliveries were delayed
after many bottles were found
to be past their “best use date”
of May 30, 2019. “We are now
in panic mode in this city be-
cause the feds had to come in to
tell us to stop drinking the water,” one resident
waiting in a water line told local ABC News.
Mr. Baraka still downplays the problem while
demanding money from Washington to replace his
city’s aging pipes. Sen. Cory Booker, Newark’s
prior mayor, tweeted that the “water emergency
demands our federal government’s immediate at-
tention. Everyone deserves clean, safe water—it’s
shameful that our national crisis of lead-contami-
nated water disproportionately hits poor black
and brown communities like my own.”
You can count on Mr. Booker to turn a Demo-
cratic government failure into a racial attack on
Republicans. A few months ago the Senator was
howling that the Trump Administration had “gut-
ted the EPA, rolled back clean air and clean water
protections.” But while the Trump EPA rescinded
Barack Obama’s lawless climate-change rules and
land grabs, it has placed a higher priority on
cleaning up contaminated land and water.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Wednesday
belly-flopped into Newark’s water hole, declar-
ing that “the EPA and the federal government
are going to have to punch their weight.” But un-
der America’s system of cooperative federalism,
providing safe drinking water is mainly a state
and local responsibility. Where has he been
these many months?
The central problem is that Democrats too of-
ten prioritize green fashion statements over es-
sential government functions. Newark has in-
stalled solar-powered trash compactors on city
streets. We doubt this is consolation for resi-
dents who can’t drink water from their own tap.The city ignores its lead-
tainted water problem
and now pleads for help.
A Lesson in Judicial Humility
A
t least some judges on the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals have heard the Su-
preme Court’s message to rein in
sweeping nationwide injunctions that are chok-
ing legal debates in the lower courts. Others are
still resisting.
A Ninth Circuit panel on Friday affirmed
Judge Jon Tigar’s decision last month that a
Trump Administration rule barring asylum
claims by Central American immigrants who
pass through Mexico likely violated the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment
requirements. But two judges on the panel also
restricted his nationwide injunction to the
Ninth Circuit.
“The district court failed to discuss whether
a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy
Plaintiffs’ alleged harm,” judges Milan Smith
and Mark Bennett wrote. “In conclusory fashion,
the district court stated that nationwide relief
is warranted simply because district courts have
the authority to impose such relief in some cases
and because such relief has been applied in the
immigration context.”
The judges echo Justice Clarence Thomas’s
concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii that nation-
wide injunctions are limiting debate and the
formation of factual records in lower courts.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly empha-
sized that nationwide injunctions have detri-
mental consequences to the development of law
and deprive appellate courts of a wider range
of perspectives,” the judges note.
Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima dis-
sented in this week’s asylum case, arguing that
a nationwide injunction is warranted because
the rule has potential nationwide effects. But
as the other two panel judges point out, “this
would turn broad injunctions into the rule
rather than the exception.” The Supreme
Court’s message about judicial restraint is sink-
ing in, but it will require more reinforcement.REVIEW & OUTLOOK
OPINION
EDITOR’S NOTE
Pepper ...
And SaltAn early version of the Aug. 16 edi-
torial, “Senators File an Enemy-of-
the-Court Brief,” contained parts of
two sentences that were similar to
those in a column by David French in
National Review. We believe this was
inadvertent, but the sentences were
removed in later editions and we
apologize for the similarity.