web analytics



Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.


Call For Free 15/M Consultation



Westlake Legal Group > Infrastructure

Jack Airey: How to unleash the power of the Union 2) Infrastructure can reinforce the Union

Jack Airey is Policy Exchange’s Head of Place.

“Re-inventing patriotism, refreshing the mandate of the UK nation state and creating a new national consensus,” Michael Gove has argued, “is the Unionist mission of our times.” At Policy Exchange we agree with this sentiment. Regardless of the Brexit arrangements that are ultimately agreed with the European Union and brought into law by Parliament, it has been clear for some time that the case for the Union needs to be made anew.

On Conservative Home, Paul Goodman has suggested a new Department for the Union should lead this strategy of national renewal. After decades of half-hearted support for the Union from successive governments, an effective strategy requires intellectual creativity and greater readiness to challenge nationalist arguments. Convincing younger generations who dislike nationalism but are apathetic to the Union should be seen as the priority. It is they, after all, who would be most impacted by the economic effects of dismantling the UK Single Market. And it is on their shoulders that the responsibility for protecting the Union will eventually fall.

In the second of Policy Exchange’s three-part series on the Union for ConservativeHome, we argue that closer economic integration achieved through better infrastructure should be central to the story of modern Unionism. Upgrading the UK’s infrastructure is an opportunity to bind places closer through trains and trade, as Policy Exchange recommended in its report Modernising the United Kingdom. It can mean we truly live in a ‘one nation’ country.

The Government’s infrastructure strategy should have two focal points, the first of which is improving cross-border infrastructure. Devolved administrative boundaries should not in principle artificially hinder cross-border growth, yet in practice too often they do. Projects of this nature have been mooted in the past. They have, however, been driven by other necessities. For instance, in an attempt to get Northern Irish Unionist MPs to abstain in a 1979 confidence vote on James Callaghan’s premiership, Roy Hattersley urged (unsuccessfully) the then Prime Minister to build a pipeline from mainland UK to Northern Ireland.

A number of projects are possible, both ones that the Government can deliver on its own and others that can be delivered in partnership with devolved administrations. Enhancing road capacity to better link North Wales to Merseyside and Greater Manchester, for instance, will be a no-brainer for Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport, and Ken Skates, the Minister for Economy and Transport in the Welsh devolved government. Whatever the case, the Treasury should take a more ambitious approach to funding new transport infrastructure projects across the whole of the UK, rather than just those that begin and end in England.

Priority should be given to investments that support jobs and prosperity, opening up labour markets and also those that encourage more sustainable, greener use of transport, as well as improving the amenity of communities. Some projects might not literally span two sides of a border, but their delivery would yield benefits across the UK. For example, improving the capacity and quality of road networks around Belfast Harbour and Cairnryan Port would make life easier for people using the ferry service that runs between north-eastern Northern Ireland and south-western Scotland.

The Government’s ambition to connect the UK better should not be confined to transport. It should also launch a new Forest of Britain project: a green spine running the full length of Britain. This would consist of a single, unbroken, two mile-wide line of protected natural habitats from John O’Groats to Land’s End, via the east of Wales. It should aim to connect as many existing nature conservation sites as possible along its route. As one of the longest rewilding projects in the world, it would attract tourists to areas along its route for walking, riding and other activities.

The second focal point of this strategy to better connect the UK should be giving places more control over how infrastructure funding is spent in their area. It is local people and local businesses who know the projects that will make the most difference to their daily lives and operations. Local leaders should be entrusted to decide how money is spent rather than Whitehall civil servants. The best returns on infrastructure investments, after all, tend to come from smaller projects that improve connectivity in communities and within towns and cities.

Increasing local control over spending on regional infrastructure is essential to a wider programme of devolving economic powers post-Brexit – what the Government has already called its “levelling up” agenda. Places across the UK should be given more powers actively to shape their local product and labour markets, taking more responsibility for improving economic efficiency. But as part of the bargain, policy makers must also raise their game in terms of analysis and audit. Systematic evaluation is needed to identify what works from what disappoints, along with consistent financial reporting across local authorities and devolved institutions across the UK.

Demonstrating the value of the Union and making the case about why it matters to our future is a chance to appeal to voters who resent nationalism and separatism. Closer connection between nations and places through better infrastructure is a critical part of that. It must be at the heart of today’s Unionist mission.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Melanie Hampton: It’s the small things that provide satisfaction in being a councillor

Cllr Melanie Hampton is the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health on Wandsworth Council.

Local Government has long been the Cinderella of politics. Just look at the low turnout for local government elections, sometimes not even 25 per cent. However, the effect that we have on people’s lives and communities in our local areas often leaves a greater legacy than anything that the Palace of Westminster does.

In 2014 I was elected as a local councillor in Wandsworth. I promised to serve my community. It all started with a bin. The ward of St Mary’s Park borders the River Thames between Albert Bridge and Wandsworth Bridge, in south west London. This is an area that has seen the factories go, to be replaced by residential housing. Regeneration has bought huge benefit to the area but all development can have unforeseen consequences. For example, one resident came to me as his new bus stop did not have a bin. After weeks of lobbying, the bin eventually arrived. Personally, I think that it should say Melanie’s bin on it. You may smile; how can this woman take such pride in providing a bin at a bus stop? Well, she does.

From bins, I moved to buses. Parts of my ward rely heavily on our bus network and in December 2017 I started getting emails about the Number 170 bus. The Westbound route had been changed leaving out whole sections and causing distress to commuters, mums taking kids to school, and leaving nearby sheltered housing residents more isolated. It was a very cold January, but my colleagues, Rhodri Morgan and Charles Pitt, and I got out on the streets to collect signatures for our petition. 1,000 signatures in a week is hard work but then I needed a solution. I managed to source a direct contact at TFL who very kindly met with us on a Thursday – and gave residents their bus back on Monday. TFL then tried to cut the Number 19 bus from Holborn to Battersea. 2,200 signatures later, more trips to TFL and the London Assembly resulted in the axe being lifted, much to the relief of my residents. I’d become the Bus Boudica of Battersea galvanising people power to provide positive outcomes.

From bins and buses, I moved to bridges. Another petition, this time to request lighting for Wandsworth Bridge. We lobbied hard and obtained community infrastructure levy money for a wonderful high tech solution. Whilst this project has been beset with technical delays and the time line has slipped, yet again that determination to make my community safer and a better place to live has driven me on. I get real satisfaction for using what influence I have to make a difference.

To me, politics has always been about people. When I was chairman of the grants committee I worked really hard to offer more to our wonderful voluntary sector. Our parameters are set but I wanted these groups to understand how to access other funding sources. Doing a surgery at our local library, the Librarian told me about a group of final year students at Imperial College who were putting on sessions to engage with people to upskill on the computer. They were regularly getting 50 people and I was able to suggest that they apply for a grant to reach out to even more residents. Having those connections and putting people together is what we are there for.

I am now the Cabinet Member of Adult Care and Health and have hugely enjoyed meeting even more of the 900 voluntary groups in the borough. I learnt that a lot of them struggle with finding the right trustees and using the correct due diligence. They may need help with policies and fundraising. By listening to them, I am able to put in place interactive training sessions to offer relevant and useful help.

I just don’t believe the mantra of cuts. As a local businesswoman, I know about counting the pennies; but too often we look at the money when we should be looking at the outcomes. The two are not necessarily connected. With an increasingly elderly population often with complex medical needs, we face huge challenges but there are also tonal changes. Families are scattered and we have a growing issue with isolation amongst the elderly. I was so saddened to hear from clinical professionals and social workers that so many of our seniors may not talk to anyone for a month or more. Coming from an Irish family I have huge respect from the wisdom of a long-life; but loneliness in old age can be every bit as damaging as poor lifestyle choices, leading to poor health outcomes and a worse quality of life. Only this afternoon my request that we did something for Silver Sunday, which is a celebration of the over 60’s, came to fruition with a Tea Dance. Over 150 people met in Wandsworth’s Civic Suite to dance away the afternoon. I was struck at the diversity of our guests and how many people had come on their own. It was a joyous occasion, getting people together and reaching out.

As a local councillor, I can’t resolve the Middle East peace crisis, hold back recessions, or indeed have much impact on national policy, but you know what? I am happy to stick with the legacy of small things that make people’s lives in my community that little bit better.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

CLIMATE SCARE FLASHBACK: Jimmy Carter Predicts We Run Out of Oil By 2011

Westlake Legal Group jimmy-carter CLIMATE SCARE FLASHBACK: Jimmy Carter Predicts We Run Out of Oil By 2011 white house washington D.C. Ted Cruz Social Media progressives President Trump Middle East Liberal Elitism Jimmy Carter Infrastructure Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Entertainment democrats Culture & Faith corruption Conservatives Congress communism Climate scare Climate Campaigns AOC Allow Media Exception Academia Abuse of Power 2019

We still have oil, Jimmy.

Whether it is that we are going to run out of oil or that we should have already been buried underwater, it seems that all of these dire predictions never come true.

I love to go back and find these nuggets and chuckle.

As I wrote last week here at Red State about how Leonard Nimoy from Star Trek fame said another ice age was coming and we were all going to die…

READ CLIMATE FLASHBACK: In 1978 Mr. Spock Told Us Another Ice Age Would Be Here By

The 39th President of the United States, back while he was running for the job in 1976, made a dire prediction about when we were going to run out of oil at a debate with President Ford on September 23, 1976.

Let’s go to the tape…

We need to have, a realization that we’ve got about 35 years left of oil in the whole world, we’re gonna run out of oil.

This statement was not challenged but just accepted by the moderator and the general press. For those who don’t recall — the United States was coming off the early 70’s embargo of oil from the middle east that caused long waits for fuel. That Carter would say this with no back up was just simply a scare tactic.

Much like the people who are saying that today we have 12 or fewer years to live unless we pass some idiotic legislation that is just a massive wealth transfer.

So if you think that some bill signed in Washington D.C. is going to save the climate and your life you need to do some more research on how long this scam has been playing on a rewind loop. A former President of the United States said the world would be out of oil in 2011 and yet here we are in 2019 still bathing in it at really low prices also.

How about that?


Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post CLIMATE SCARE FLASHBACK: Jimmy Carter Predicts We Run Out of Oil By 2011 appeared first on RedState.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

GUEST POST: Saudi Arabia Oil Field Attack Highlights Importance Of U.S. Energy Infrastructure

Westlake Legal Group Todd-Johnson-620x869 GUEST POST: Saudi Arabia Oil Field Attack Highlights Importance Of U.S. Energy Infrastructure Todd Johnson Saudi Arabia Oil Attacks Iran Infrastructure Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story Energy Infrastructure Energy Capitalism Allow Media Exception

North Carolina State Senator Todd Johnson (R-Union) [Image: Wikipedia]

This guest op-ed was written by North Carolina State Senator Todd Johnson — Ed. 

The recent spike in gas prices after the Saudi Arabia oil field attack is an important reminder of how foreign oil can have a big impact here in the U.S.  Just days after the attack on the other side of the globe, Americans saw gas prices spike across most the country. That’s why it’s critical for the U.S. to strengthen our energy resources and prioritize our energy infrastructure to reduce our dependency on oil in the Middle East and enable greater economic stability here at home.

Pipelines are a critical part of that energy infrastructure, providing us the energy necessary to fuel most of our daily lives, whether it’s to heat our homes, drive to work, or generate electricity. Pipelines are also one of the safest and cost-effective ways to transport crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum, and the reason the United States has the largest network of energy pipelines world-wide.

Each year, over 2.5 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. safely deliver trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of ton/miles of liquid petroleum products. Several of those pipelines are located in the Midwest with nearly 30% of our nation’s crude oil running through Minnesota by pipeline and 20% in Wisconsin.

That’s why the recent Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of allowing the Line 3 pipeline project to continue is so important. It puts additional pressure on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to give the green light to regulators to allow pipeline construction to build. And it denies a petition from opposition groups to further review an Environmental Impact Statement, an already rigorous safety review process that the company must go through to ensure a project is safe for the environment and surrounding community.

The non-profit environmental groups like Honor the Earth and Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe are protesting the replacement of an aging pipeline that currently runs through North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. This is another classic case of outside groups strategically attempting to further their agenda by holding up projects in litigation. While they present themselves as environmental groups, many of them are funded by billionaires with competing interests like transporting crude by railway.

In addition to bolstering our energy infrastructure, there are economic benefits that result from pipelines – a fact that’s ignored by these outside groups. Pipeline companies contribute millions, sometimes even billions to a state’s economy during construction and many years after in tax revenue. Pipeline construction creates jobs and income which results in increased demand in consumer goods and services.

Opposing the pipeline is also out of step with Minnesota itself and the many other groups and communities who support this pipeline being rebuilt. The Laborers’ International Union of North America and Iron Range labor union members in Minnesota, for example, are vocal proponents of the pipeline’s construction because it will create more union jobs and enrich the local economy.

The bottom line is that the recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision is a positive step for bolstering U.S. energy resources. Without pipelines like Line 3, we are undermining our energy infrastructure and the ability to safely, affordably deliver the energy resources that are needed to power our everyday life. This, in turn, helps the U.S. reduce our dependence on oil in the Middle East and strengthens American energy leadership. That’s something every American should get behind.

North Carolina State Senator Todd Johnson (R) represents North Carolina’s District 25. He also serves as a member of the North Carolina Board of Community Colleges.

Westlake Legal Group cleardot GUEST POST: Saudi Arabia Oil Field Attack Highlights Importance Of U.S. Energy Infrastructure Todd Johnson Saudi Arabia Oil Attacks Iran Infrastructure Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story Energy Infrastructure Energy Capitalism Allow Media Exception

The post GUEST POST: Saudi Arabia Oil Field Attack Highlights Importance Of U.S. Energy Infrastructure appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group GettyImages-626619694-300x200 GUEST POST: Saudi Arabia Oil Field Attack Highlights Importance Of U.S. Energy Infrastructure Todd Johnson Saudi Arabia Oil Attacks Iran Infrastructure Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story Energy Infrastructure Energy Capitalism Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ryan Bourne: To help grow prosperity, let’s focus on people and not places – such as towns

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.

Stian Westlake describes it as the “Strange Death of Tory Economic Thinking”. Conservatives have ceased telling an economic story about why they should govern, and how. Sure, there’s still the odd infrastructure announcement, or tax change. But, since Theresa May became leader, the governing party has shirked articulating a grand economic narrative for its actions.

This is striking and problematic. From Macmillan to Thatcherism to deficit reduction, the party’s success has coincided with having clear economic agendas, gaining credibility for taking tough decisions in delivering a shared goal. But, arguably, deficit reduction masked a secular decline in interest in economics. David Cameron and George Osborne, remember, wanted to move on to social and environmental issues until the financial crisis and its aftermath slapped them in the face.

Now, with the deficit down, economics is in the back seat. Fiscal events are low key and economic advisors back room. To the extent the dismal science is discussed, it’s as a means to other ends, or a genuflect to “Karaoke Thatcherism.”

In short, I think Westlake is right: the Tories do not have an economic story and, post-Brexit, it would be desirable if they did. So we should thank both him and Sam Bowman (formerly of the Adam Smith Institute), who have attempted to fill the vacuum. In a rich and interesting new paper, the pair set out to diagnose our key economic ailments and develop a Conservative-friendly narrative and policy platform to ameliorate them, even suggesting reform of the Right’s institutions and think-tanks in pursuit of the goals.

Such an effort deserves to be taken seriously, though not everyone will agree with their starting premises. It is assumed, for example, that Conservatives believe in markets and want to maintain fiscal discipline, which bridles against recent musings from Onward or thinkers such as David Skelton.

But, again, the key economic problem they identify is incontrovertible: poor economic growth. Weak productivity improvements since the crash have been both politically and economically toxic, lowering wages, investment returns, and necessitating more austerity to get the public finances in structural order. And the nature of modern innovation, arising from clusters and intangible assets, means that growth that is experienced isn’t always broadly shared.

Their agenda’s aim then is to achieve both concurrently: maximize the potential of the economy by taking policy steps on planning, tax policy, infrastructure, and devolution, to increase investment levels, allow successful cities and towns to grow, and to connect “left behind” places to local growth spots through good infrastructure. None of their ideas are crazy. Indeed, I would support the vast majority of them.

And yet, something bothered me about their narrative. In line with the current zeitgeist, they too discuss “places” and their potential, as if towns and cities are autonomous beings. My fear is this focus – shared by those who want to regenerate “left behind” areas – creates unrealistic expectations about what policies can achieve in a way that undermines a pro-market agenda. Importantly, it warps what we should really care about: “left behind” people, not left behind places.

A people-centred narrative recognises that just as firms fail in the face of changing consumer demands and global trends, so high streets, towns, cities, and even regions will shrink too. As Tim Leunig once said, coastal
and river cities that developed and thrived in a heavy manufacturing, maritime nineteenth century world might not be best placed to flourish in a service sector era of air and rail.

A true pro-market policy agenda would admit -and that’s ok. Or at least, it should be, provided we understand that raising growth and sharing prosperity requires adaptation, not regeneration. That means removing barriers for people either to move to new opportunities or have control to adapt their situations to ever-changing circumstances. This might sound Tebbit-like (“get on your bike”), but really it’s just saying policy must work with market signals, not against them.

Today though, interventions actively work in a sort of one-two-three punch against inclusive growth and adjustment. First, we constrain the growth of flourishing cities. Tight land use planning laws around London, Oxford, and Cambridge contribute to very high rents and house prices, and prevent these places benefiting from growing to obtain thicker agglomeration effects.

This contributes to the “left behind” scandal, but not in the way people imagine. When rents and house prices are higher in London and the South East and we subsidse home ownership or council housing elsewhere, it’s low productivity workers from poor regions that find it most difficult to move given housing cost differentials. As a result, they get locked into poorer cities and towns that would otherwise shrink further. That’s why Burnley, Hull and Stoke are the most egalitarian cities in the country, whereas prosperous London, Cambridge and Oxford are the most unequal, even as inequality between regions has intensified.

Having restricted people’s mobility through bad housing policy, we then impose one-size-fits-all solutions and subsidies which dampen market signals further. National minimum wages, fiscal transfers, national pay bargaining, and more, might be designed to alleviate hardship, but they deter poorer regions from attracting new businesses and industries by trading on their market cost advantages. Then, to top that off, we compound the problem further by centralising tax and spending powers, preventing localities from prioritising their spending and revenue streams to their own economic needs.

Now, as it happens, Bowman and Westlake’s policy agenda is perfectly compatible with assisting  “people” rather than “places,” precisely because it’s market-based. They advocate planning liberalisation, a flexible right to buy, and stamp duty, all of which would improve labour mobility. They prioritise infrastructure spending based on benefit-cost ratios, making investments more profitable with sensible tax changes, and devolving more transport power to regions and localities. All, again, will help facilitate areas adapting to changed economic conditions, rather than reviving Labour’s failed top-down regeneration attempts.

But pitching this as a city and town agenda still risks creating the false impression that the net gains from “creative destruction” nevertheless can be achieved without the destruction, and that all places can thrive in the right policy environment.

One can understand why they framed it in this way. Their aim is to persuade the party and its MPs of their platform. Anti-market commentators would call them fatalistic and “abandoning” places if they acknowledged the downside, as if facilitating more free choice amounts to design.

Successful past Tory economic narratives, though, willingly acknowledged hard truths. Deficit reduction entailed tough choices to curb spending. Thatcherism entailed making the case for letting inefficient industries fail. If a new Tory vision is serious about raising productivity growth and spreading opportunity for people, it will have to confront the inevitable market-based adaptation for some places.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Are We Allowing Communist China to Sell Subway (Spy) Trains to American Cities?

Westlake Legal Group 13556907-sculpture-dragon-in-china-flag-620x414 Why Are We Allowing Communist China to Sell Subway (Spy) Trains to American Cities? Trains rail prc NTA National Security metro Infrastructure Front Page Stories Front Page Economy dc metro CTA crrc Communist China Cities

We Should Stop Riding the Dragon


It’s as if we’re willing if not eager to say to commuters nationwide:

“Your next scheduled ChiComm Spy Tubes arrive at….”

All day, every day.

God bless Donald Trump.  As a businessman for decades – he raised the issue of Communist China’s very negative influence on our national security and economy.

And then he decided to run for President.  And then he won.

Trump arrived in a DC – in the midst of a half-century, yuan-funded slumber.

Most of DCs Swamp Creatures have been either too sleepy or too well fed with Chinese take out – to have ever said anything about Communist China’s ongoing, increasing, evil influence in and on our country.

Watching the defenders of the status quo rapidly evolve to Trump’s position – if not his prescriptions – has been hilarious.

They went from “Communist China is no threat at all” – to “China is a real threat – but Trump is dealing with it in all the wrong ways” – in about a year.

Talk about rapid transit.

The ChiComm problems – are everywhere.

Trump is considering banning from the US – Chinese telecom company Huawei.

Because having a Communist Chinese company intrinsically integrated into our wired and wireless Internet and communications networks – is insanely stupid.

Huawei is in neck-deep with the Chinese Communist Party.  Because of course it is.

You can’t open a noodle stand on the corner of 主要街道 and 埃尔姆街 in any rural town in any Chinese province – without being neck-deep with the Chinese Communist Party.

There is no way any Chinese company goes international – without owing everything to the Chinese Communist Party.

Trump should follow all the way through – and completely bar Huawei.

Another example:

As if our colleges weren’t already Communist enough….

Controversy Surrounds Confucius Institutes at American Universities:

“Since 2005, the Chinese government has been funding Confucius Institutes (CI) in the United States—a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. For example, it gave $4 million to Stanford University as a onetime gift.

“What is behind the largesse? Does the China regime just want to promote Chinese culture or is there something more insidious about its intentions?”

They’re Communists – what do you think?

FINALLY, in February 2019 (thank you yet again, President Trump)….

Senate Inquiry Finds Problems with China-Funded Confucius Institute at U.S. Campuses

You think?

Here’s another thought:

Having our political and business personnel – in our major cities all across the country – traveling to and from work on ChiComm subway cars…is a REALLY bad idea.

Imagine the conversations to which the ChiComms could listen – in DCs Metro system.  Or in New York City’s Subway system (“你好, Wall Street”).

It is clinically insane to think we would allow that to happen, right?

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet CRRC:

“CRRC Corporation Limited (known as CRRC) is a Chinese publicly traded rolling stock manufacturer and is the largest rolling stock manufacturer in the world eclipsing Alstom and Siemens….

“The parent company of CRRC Corp., Ltd. is CRRC Group, a state-owned enterprise that was supervised by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council.”

And great news: CRRC has a manufacturing plant – right here in the US.  In Springfield, Massachusetts.

Even better news – CRRC has already been selling US cities its train cars.

Because of course.  This isn’t a fair economic fight.

This isn’t multiple competitors competing on equal footing in a free market – and the best company winning.

The Communist Chinese government – subsidizes the daylight out of their companies and products when they go international.

And they ridiculously rig their currency – lowering its value whenever they deem it necessary to screw the rest of the planet.

The ChiComms thereby artificially lower their prices.  Thereby undercutting everyone else.

And for the last half-century, we have been the biggest gaggle of the planet’s Useful Idiots.

We have time and again blithely ignored the economic and national security implications – and simply said “Wow…look how cheap this ChiComm stuff is.  Sold!”

We have time and again proved Russian Communist Vladimir Lenin correct:

“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

The noose is tightening.

Boston Buys $567 Million in Subway Trains from Chinese Company (CRRC)

These trains are already deployed for spying and timely shutdown purposes.  Oops, I mean in use in Boston’s system.

Boston was the first local gaggle of Useful Idiots.  They are nowhere the last.

China’s CRRC Lands $1.3 Billion Chicago Rail Car Project

Oh – and even better in the Windy City….

Losing Rail Car Bidder Says CTA Rigged Contract Process:

“The losing bidder for a $1.3 billion CTA rail car contract has filed a protest with the agency, saying that the bidding process was rigged in favor of a Chinese firm that promised to bring manufacturing jobs to Chicago, at the direction of (Democrat, natch) Mayor Rahm Emanuel.”

Way to play for the home team, Rahm.

CRRC to Build Rail Cars for Los Angeles

CRRC Wins Subway Deal in Philadelphia

We can be really, REALLY stupid.

To wit: Some DC Denizens – are REALLY slow on the uptake.

US Rep. Richard Neal, Citing Springfield CRRC Jobs, Says Ban on Buying Chinese Rail Cars ‘Misguided’

Neal isn’t selling the ChiComms rope – he is GIVING it to them.

But a growing number of DCs Denizens – are awakening from their slumber.

And trying to at least make it a little more difficult for our cities – from cutting all our throats for us.

And it has led to a sighting of a DC politics Unicorn – bipartisanship.

Bipartisan Rouda Provision Blocking Federal Transit Dollars to Chinese State Sponsored Companies Passes House in National Defense Authorization Act

And there’s hope for the bill in the Senate – given New York Democrat Chuck Schumer’s concern for NYC.

U.S. Senate’s Top Democrat Calls for Probe of CTA’s Chinese Rail Car Supplier

And pockets of political resistance are arising in the nation’s hinterlands.

Fifteen state-level elected officials in New York – are with Schumer.  They wrote a letter to the heads of the New York City Transit Authority and the Metro Transit Authority saying in part:

“Over the past five years, a Chinese state-owned enterprise has won four major contracts to build metro cars for transit systems….

“(T)he prospect of a government-controlled entity doing so in such a widespread fashion is alarming – and we share the concerns raised by many of our colleagues in cities such as Washington, D.C.”

And the Bay State is contemplating an effort to put the genie back in the bottle.

Massachusetts Considers Banning Future Contracts with Chinese Rail Companies

ChiComm CRRC is starting to feel the political heat – so they are dumping money on K Street.  Just this summer….:

“Squire Patton Boggs has signed…CRRC, a Chinese railroad company that has pushed to keep Congress from passing bills that would make it harder for U.S. transit systems to buy its trains.”

Crossroads Is Working on the Chinese Railroad:

“Crossroads Strategies represents China’s CRRC North America, the unit of the world’s largest maker of railroad cars, as it seeks to fend off moves to ban it from US contracts.”

And ChiComm CRRC – continues to look to expand its footprint.  Including, inarguably, the worst place of all for US.

China to Bid on D.C. Metro Rail Deal

That should be an immediate, hard “No.”

And we should take this rare bipartisan coalition – and derail CRRC everywhere in the country.

And send them back to Communist China – as rapidly as possible.

The post Why Are We Allowing Communist China to Sell Subway (Spy) Trains to American Cities? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 13556907-sculpture-dragon-in-china-flag-300x200 Why Are We Allowing Communist China to Sell Subway (Spy) Trains to American Cities? Trains rail prc NTA National Security metro Infrastructure Front Page Stories Front Page Economy dc metro CTA crrc Communist China Cities   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Transport Secretary – “We will make a go, no go decision by the end of the year”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Transport Secretary – “We will make a go, no go decision by the end of the year”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Burnham promises ‘almighty fight’ if Johnson tries to scrap HS2

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: ‘Anything is possible’ – Shapps on whether High Speed Two could be abandoned

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com