Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Joe Biden Apparently Made a Locker Room Promise to Make Sure Anita Hill’s Testimony was ‘Very Quick’

Joe Biden made a promise in the Senate men’s gym to keep Anita Hill‘s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee “very quick,” according to former U.S. Representative Pat Schroeder.
That promise was apparently made to then-Senator John Danforth of Missouri, a Republican. Danforth was Clarence Thomas‘ chief sponsor during Thomas’ 1991 Senate confirmation hearings.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post on November 16, Hill and five of her biggest congressional boosters–all former or current female Democratic politicians–sat down to reflect on the strenuous ordeal that Hill went through during those hearings.
Without fail, each of the six women heavily criticized the process–both explicitly and implicitly laying a great deal of the blame at Biden’s feet as he was the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman at the time.
Biden’s status among the center-left–and women’s rights advocates in particularhas deteriorated in recent years as his role in the character assassination of Anita Hill has been revisited. 

The Russia Scandal Just Got Much Worse … For Hillary Clinton And Barack Obama

Corruption: Shortly after the Uranium One story broke, various news reports claimed that it was much ado about nothing. But a review of a huge cache of newly available documents shows that, if anything, it was worse than previously thought.
The Hill broke the bombshell story last month, which summed up goes like this: While the Obama administration was approving the controversial 2010 sale of Uranium One to a state-owned Russian energy giant — which gave it control of one-fifth of U.S. uranium supplies — the FBI was actively investigating that company for extensive criminal activity designed to expand Russia's footprint in the U.S. uranium business.
This raised questions about who in the Obama administration was aware of the FBI's evidence — which included bribery, extortion and racketeering — before greenlighting the sale. Officials involved denied knowing anything about the investigation at the time.
Now a cache of documents 5,000 pages long, which were reviewed by The Hill, sheds new and more troubling light on this story.

Liberal Millionaires Group Seeks to ‘Fundamentally Reset’ America’s Ideology and Economy

A group of deep-pocketed progressive millionaires seeks to "fundamentally reset" America's ideology and economy and "expose the dogma of free enterprise, limited government, and traditional family values," according to a brochure obtained by the Washington Free Beacon at a secretive progressive dark money donor conference.
The group, called Patriotic Millionaires, is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that consists of wealthy liberals with an income of at least $1 million. The organization initially formed in 2010 to "demand an end to Bush tax cuts for millionaires" and has launched a recent campaign against the Republican tax cut plan.
Patriotic Millionaires's newest organizational overview, which is not the same brochure that is currently available on its website, was obtained by the Free Beacon at the Democracy Alliance's fall investment conference held last week at the swanky La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, Calif. Each Democracy Alliance member vows to steer hundreds of thousands in funding to approved left-wing organizations the group supports.
The group is led by Morris Pearl, a former managing director at BlackRock, one of the world's largest investment firms, and identifies its core values as pushing for "equal political representation," a "livable minimum wage," and a "fair tax system" that rejects free enterprise, limited government, and traditional family values.

Have Roy Moore’s Main Accuser’s Claims Been Debunked?

She has been Judge Roy Moore’s most damning accuser, but now people “who were there when” have come forward to make us wonder if the allegations are damned lies. Yet the national media refuse to cover the story. 
Flanked by fame-seeking feminist attorney Gloria Allred, Beverly Young Nelson gave a teary-eyed press conference November 13 claiming that GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore violently sexually assaulted her in 1977, when she was 16. But other individuals, in positions to know, are now disputing key facts in Nelson’s story.
Notable among them is retired public school teacher Rhonda Ledbetter, who for almost three years, 1977-79, worked at the restaurant where the alleged assault took place, Olde Hickory House in Gadsden, Alabama. Another is former sheriff's deputy Johnny Belyeu, Sr., who stated that he was a “regular” at the restaurant and that he personally knew Moore from the Etowah County courthouse in the 1970s. The last is former waitress Renee Schivera, who says that she worked at Olde Hickory House during the summer of ’77.
Here are their revelations, summed up by Gateway Pundit:
1.) The Olde Hickory House required employees to be at least 16. Beverly Nelson claims she was 15 when she started.
2.) The restaurant’s dumpsters were on the side of the building and not in back as Nelson claimed.
3.) A former employee says the restaurant NEVER closed at ... [10 p.m.] as Nelson claimed and at midnight on most nights.
4.) Customers at the counter were served by the bartender or cook and not by any waitress [thus, Moore wouldn’t have had occasion to interact with Nelson, the theory goes].
5.) The witnesses claim they have shared this information with several news outlets but they have refused to report the truth!
Most significantly, all three witnesses state that they never saw Judge Moore dining at the restaurant. Ledbetter told WHNT 19 News, “I never once saw Roy Moore come into the restaurant in all the time that I worked there.”
Likewise, Johnny Belyeu, Sr., who, again, knew Moore personally, tells us, “I was a regular customer at Olde Hickory House ... and I never once saw Judge Moore come in there,” reported One News Now. Schivera also states that she never saw the judge at the restaurant.

New FBI Records Show FBI Leadership’s Conflicts of Interest Discussions on Clinton Email Investigation

Judicial Watch today released 79 pages of Justice Department documents concerning ethics issues related to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s involvement with his wife’s political campaign. The documents include an email showing Mrs. McCabe was recruited for a Virginia state senate race in February 2015 by then-Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam’s office.
The news that Clinton used a private email server broke five days later, on March 2, 2015. Five days after that, former Clinton Foundation board member and Democrat party fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, met with the McCabes. She announced her candidacy on March 12. Soon afterward, Clinton/McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated nearly $700,000 (40% of the campaign’s total funds) to McCabe’s wife for her campaign.
Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a July 24, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to an October 24, 2016, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01494)). Judicial Watch seeks:
  • All records of communication between FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and other FBI or Department of Justice officials regarding ethical issues concerning the involvement of Andrew McCabe and/or his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, in political campaigns;
  • All records related to ethical guidance concerning political activities provided to Deputy Director McCabe by FBI and/or DOJ officials or elements.
An October 23, 2016, email shows McCabe running the response effort to a Wall Street Journal article that was published that day, titled “Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife.” McCabe provides Michael Kortan, the assistant director of Public Affairs, his version of a timeline of events surrounding the Clinton investigation and his wife’s campaign. McCabe said he contacted then-FBI Chief of Staff Chuck Roseburg about Jill McCabe’s candidacy and was told that “the D [Comey] has no issue with it.” (Judicial Watch earlier this month released documents showing that McCabe finally did recuse himself from the Clinton investigation only a week before last year’s presidential election.)
Internally, the Wall Street Journal article started a flurry of emails among Mrs. McCabe’s campaign, Kortan, Director McCabe, and the FBI’s General Counsel. Part of that exchange is an email from McCabe to someone in the General Counsel’s Office: “Sucks pretty much. Buckle in. It’s going to get rough.” The colleague responds, “I know. It’s awful. I shouldn’t be shocked by now, but I really am appalled.” McCabe also forwarded the article to Comey who responded, “Copy.”

Dem Sen. Nancy Skinner Involved in Cover-Up of Sexual Harassment?

The California Legislature has declared and legislated sex “a contractual event,” and redefined consensual sexual relations as “rape” if it occurs on a college campus—but not in their own offices. Perhaps lawmakers should have turned their attention inward to their own Capitol offices where lawmakers have been accused of a great deal of non-contractual sexual events.
Headlines Monday by KTLA screamed, “San Fernando Valley Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra to Resign Next Year Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations.” But the devil is in the details. The article then states, “Bocanegra announced he will not seek reelection Monday, citing ‘persistent rumors and speculation’ regarding sexual harassment claims.”
‘Not seeking reelection’ is not a resignation.
Assemblyman Bocanegra has been accused by six new women of sexual harassment, according to the Los Angeles Times. “The allegations come as women in various industries are coming forward to tell their stories of sexual harassment and abuse.”
Remember, sexual harassment is about power disparity, and not sex. Unfortunately for the women, it’s about both.
Surely “persistent rumors and speculation” regarding sexual harassment claims would not prevent Bocanegra from running for a guaranteed reelection if these in fact were just persistent rumors and speculation. However, Bocanegra is accused of sexually harassing six more women, in addition to the first woman who accused Bocanegra of sexual assault, while he worked as the chief of staff in the legislative office of then-Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Pacoima.
The latest charges come after the Los Angeles Times reported last month that in 2009, Bocanegra was disciplined in a human resources investigation. Elise Flynn Gyore accused Bocanegra, then a chief of staff, of “inappropriate and unwelcome physical contact.”
Bocanegra, who was supposedly “disciplined” in 2009 by the Assembly Rules Committee, just issued yet another quasi-apology:

Options to Eliminate the State-Licensing Roadblock

One of the most promising areas of medical innovation is the expansion of telemedicine, where medical professionals treat patients across great distances using electronic communications. A significant barrier to telemedicine is the requirement that physicians obtain licenses from each state in which their current or potential patients are, or may be, located.
The best option is to eliminate government licensing of medical professionals altogether. Eliminating licensing would eliminate these barriers without compromising quality. State medical licensing boards often place the interests of physicians ahead of patient safety. Health insurers, medical malpractice liability insurers, hospitals, and others — many of whom are liable when a physician injures a patient, and all of whom seek to protect their reputations — would continue to protect patients by doing periodic, substantive reviews of physician skills and qualifications.
A second-best way to eliminate barriers to affordable, quality care would be for Congress to redefine the location of the interaction between patients and physicians from that of the patient to that of the physician. Digital patients would be no different from patients who travel across state lines or national borders for care. A physician would need only one license, and would be responsible for only one set of licensing laws governing the practice of medicine — that of his or her home state.

Tax Reform Fight Shows Why Subsidies Never Die

Chances are fading fast that tax reform will roll back a wasteful energy subsidy.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed by the House last week, promised to save about $12.3 billion over the next decade by scaling back a "production tax credit" mostly used by wind energy producers. It was a tepid but welcome change to a program that has far outlived whatever usefulness it might have had. Sadly, even this marginal reform seems to be too much for Senate Republicans, who have left the credit untouched in their version of the bill.
"This is how government grows," says Veronique de Rugy, a researcher at George Mason University's Mercatus Center and a regular Reason columnist. "It concentrates benefits on a few winners, and it spreads the cost on a large number of losers."
In 1992, the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit gave renewable energy producers a 1.5 cent per kilowatt tax break for the first 10 years a facility is online. That tax break was indexed to inflation, and by 2016 it had grown from 1.5 to 2.3 cents.
That might not sound like much, but it costs the federal treasury about $3.4 billion per year in forgone revenue. The vast majority of its benefits go to wind farm producers, who receive up to 80 percent of these tax credits per year and who have eaten up $12.8 billion in production tax credits since 2008.
When it was first created, the program was supposed to expire in 1999, having fulfilled its role in jumpstarting new wind farms. Instead it has been extended 10 times, most recently in 2015. It has even risen from the dead: The credit has expired five times, and each time it was resurrected by wind lobbyists, who insist their industry can't survive without it. They are now howling about the modest rollback the credit would see under the House bill.

The Rise of the Beta Male Sexual Harasser

The winds of what the New York Post calls Pervnado continue to gather strength, carving a hole through the beta male worlds of NPR, PBS, Hollywood, the New Republic, Vox, the New York Times, and MSNBC, among others. What emerges from this storm of scandal is a clearer picture of a culture that trained men not to respect women but to respect feminism. In many ways, the Beta Male sexual harasser is the squalid offspring of the unhappy marriage between feminism and the sexual revolution, from whose chaotic household he learned virtue-signaling without virtue.
The growing pile of confession notes — which combine ostensible empathy and promises of sensitivity and submission with strategically placed, lawyerly denials — testifies to the grimly comic dishonesty of the Beta Male sexual harasser. He thought that he could continue to indulge his appetites as long as he adjusted his attitudes, a view that all of the prattle about “systemic change” confirms him in, insofar as it treats his misbehavior as an ideological problem rather than a moral one. Implied in many of the confession notes from the harassers is the ludicrous suggestion that with a little more “education,” with a few more training seminars, with a little more consciousness-raising, they would have behaved virtuously. This pose allows them to escape moral responsibility and painlessly join the “solution.” The sexual revolution’s massive crisis of unchastity is thus turned into a “problem of power” that can be remedied by the hiring of more female executives, the expansion of HR departments, and “better” education.
For sheer pomposity, perhaps nothing beats Richard Dreyfuss’s non-apology apology, chalking up his misbehavior to the “performative masculine man my father had modeled for me to be.” But, no worries, he is enlightened now: “I have had to redefine what it means to be a man, and an ethical man. I think every man on Earth has or will have to grapple with this question. But I am not an assaulter.”

Why Roy Moore and Tax Cuts Matter

Turn on the news to hear about the latest powerful man, almost to a man Democrats, accused of sexual misconduct. Hollywood moguls and actors, media political commentators, and now elected officials. The sole accused Republican, however, seems to be garnering the most attention: Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.
After the smart-set cable news panels play compare and contrast between Roy Moore and Al Franken, they pivot to the Republican tax cut plans, currently limping through Congress. Democrats trot out their hackneyed “tax cuts for the rich” mantra despite marginal tax rates staying put under both House and Senate plans.
What do these two current events have in common? Roy Moore isn’t in the Senate yet and can’t vote on tax cuts. Yet these two unconnected issues are a pivotal moment for the GOP. Will it be their Waterloo or their Yorktown? Defeat or victory?
Roy Moore is clearly unpopular with Democrats. Yet the Republican establishment doesn’t want him either. Ask Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, John McCain or Cory Gardner. He’s another Donald Trump, opposed by the establishments of both parties, but perhaps not by the voters. The same pollsters predicting Moore crashing and burning also predicted a Clinton landslide victory. We know how that turned out.
What happens if he does lose? Moore would be a solid Republican vote in a closely divided Senate. Without him, the Senate would be one seat closer to a Democrat majority. 

The Damn Debt That Will Never Go Down

America’s massive $20.5 trillion debt will never go down if the federal government continues spending at the rate it has been over recent decades. No amount of tax increases will close the gap between what our government takes in and what we spend on our ridiculously bloated bureaucracy in Washington DC. We need true spending cuts and a reeling in of big government once and for all.

But will that ever happen?

Some have declared that Congressional Republicans’ tax plan to cut taxes and increase budget deficits will grow the national debt to almost the size of the entire U.S. economy in ten years. An alarming statistic, if true. Does that mean we will finally cut entitlements in a meaningful manner to coincide with the tax cuts putting more money in the pockets of businesses and therefore employees and families? 

Though House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady are already coming out and stating that entitlement reform is next, the GOP always caves and says what they need to in order to get reelected while enacting no lasting change in DC that would improve the wellbeing of the rest of the country. The rise in debt will never be reversed if the spineless politicians in our nation’s capital do nothing to tackle our out of control entitlement spending on countless and ineffective programs. 

Climate Science 2

This item discusses an interesting proposal to oust the US from the UN's Climate Change activities.  It just proves the idiocy of the people within the UN and who support so many of the UN's dishonest, unjust, immoral and unethical actions.  Quote: "The U.S. pays 22% of the UN budget and 20% of the UN climate process."   Ask yourself if the idiots making this proposal will pick up the tab.  Of course not because the UN's climate program is a poorly disguised program (even admitted to by the former head of the climate change program) to transfer money from rich countries to poor countries run by communists, socialists and dictators. The purpose "of course" of the money transfer is to help those countries deal with the expected climate change problems they face.  But, I will give you three guesses as to who's pocket the money would end up in.
This item suggests that scientists are tinkering with an idea to cool down the supervolcano underneath Yellowstone National Park with the goal of avoiding it exploding and creating a nuclear winter on earth.  Their idea is however fraught with dangers that could have devastating consequences.  Read here to get details. 
This is a lesson we all need to learn.  Experts are not always right.  This item provides a cautionary bit of advice.  Quote: "I’ll summarize by reminding readers that I am not a scientist and I don’t have the tools to evaluate the credibility of climate scientists. If you think you do have that ability as a non-scientist, my guess is that you are younger than me or you have less experience of the type I described above.  When I present this sort of framing to climate change believers, they generally retreat to Pascal’s Wager, which says in this case that we should treat any risk of catastrophe as if it is likely, so we aggressively address the risk and eliminate it. That makes sense in a world where resources are not constrained. But our world is the opposite. Everything we do is at the expense of something else we wanted to do. And I am aware of no economic model that considers the opportunity cost of spending a trillion dollars for perhaps a half-degree temperature improvement.  Climate change isn’t our only mortal threat. We have pandemics, terrorism, nuclear war, the singularity, asteroids, and probably a dozen more threats I don’t even know. If we could eliminate all of those threats and have money left over, I say let’s do it. But if resources are limited (and they are), I need a strong argument to put a trillion dollars into any one of the risks."    Wise words indeed. 
This founder of the weather channel speaks truth to foolish global warmest claims.  It is funny how CNN know it all's who have no clue like to try to outsmart a real scientist.  It would be funny if not true.    More trouble for Gore's most recent efforts to dupe people with his unscientific climate change nonsense. 
Global warmests under Obama were in the business of fabricating data to support their political agenda.  It is a good thing Trump dramatically cut their budget.  They wasted far too much money on making up stuff to justify their existences. 
Positions built on false or flawed data cannot long stand.
This item provides another example of why we should always challenge scientific conclusions reached by leftist leaning organizations.  They have a tendency to lie, fabricate data and engage in unscientific research.
This piece is a bit confusing in content.  It blames too much sea ice has caused the penguin population to experience loss of babies as a result.  Yet they say climate change (code word for global warming) is a problem needing to be addressed.  Quote: "Thousands of dead chicks and unhatched eggs were found across the region called Adélie Land.  “The Mertz glacier impact on the region sets the scene in 2010 and when unusual meteorological events, driven by large climatic variations, hit in some years this leads to massive failures,” Ropert-Coudert told the Guardian. “In other words, there may still be years when the breeding will be OK, or even good for this colony, but the scene is set for massive impacts to hit on a more or less regular basis.” The link between climate change and the sea-ice extent around Antarctica is not very clear. Sea ice has been increasing in recent years, which could be attributed to a rise in the amount of freshwater in the ocean around the continent caused by climate change. However, over the long term, climate change is expected to cause the sea ice to shrink dramatically."
Irony of ironies.  Study finds that the globe is cooler now than when Gore claimed it was getting warmer.   The more he opens his mouth the worse he looks.  He has absolutely no credibility whatever.  
This item is for those who wish to review how wrong Gore is in his efforts to warn us about climate calamity.  A study has found that he helps climate change critics make their case rather than the case he hawks.  There is also a detailed critique of his latest movie.  This item is extensive and consumes lots of time.   More analysis of Gore's latest movie.
Tinkering with data is not science.  It is dishonest at best and fraud at worse.  Quote: ""Homogenization" is the process that allows climate scientists to correct for anomalies in raw temperature data. How there can be anomalies in raw data is beyond me.
This latest scandal is even more serious, one in which the BOM has been forced to admit that incorrect temperatures were logged. Naturally, the agency is blaming faulty equipment but Marhosasy is pushing back. According to the Daily Caller she told reporters that the BOM's claims of faulty equipment "are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being 'quality assured' out."  
Bill  Nye should shut up and go away.  He is an uninformed pseudo scientist and should recognize that he is an embarrassment to his causes.  Yet again he had to be corrected by a real expert for his inaccurate accounting of a climate science phenomena.
Thought police with dubious evidence and plenty of unethical practices wish to charge people who do not believe their fake climate change claims should be put in jail.  How is that for tolerance and honest debate?  
About all that seismic activity going on at Yellowstone. 
This Muslim Democrat is someone who is not to be trusted with any responsibility for anything.  His very words prove his irresponsibility. 
Predictions have been made but none have come true.  What does that tell us?
George Burns

Climate Science 1

Yellowstone super volcano update.  This thing could cause a calamity.
This item has nothing to do with climate science.  It has to do with why and how our universe even exists.  This is a scientific puzzle being wrestled with by top scientists and they have no idea what the answer is.  This item explains.
This world class scientist debunks climate science and scientists who claim CO2 is a poison gas. Quote: " Everything you’ve been told about global warming, climate change and carbon dioxide by the mainstream media — and mainstream “science” — is an outright lie. Far from being a dangerous poison, carbon dioxide is a miraculous life-giving nutrient that plants need to thrive. Rising carbon dioxide is actually helping “green” the planet, as any legitimate science already knows. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, nearly all life on the planet would collapse, including both human life and plant life."
This piece may cause some of us to question the government's party line when telling us what happen in certain events.  They argue that the science supports them.  This piece looks at an example that may cause a question or two to arise from one the government's conclusions with this one incident.  Quote: "As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”  The lesson worked.  Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.  And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.  Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.  If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?"    My experience over the years is that we should always question what the government tells us about events that would make it look bad, foolish or incompetent.
This article lays out the facts that climate alarmist will not like, agree with or ignore.  The reasons will appear in the piece.
This leftist governor and off his rocker.  He thinks that reason must be thrown out of the window and be replaced with leftist propaganda.  Science is what the propagandist say it is.  To heck with the facts.
Former EPA scientist calls for Trump to clean up the fake science mess that is so rampant across government, academia and corporate entities. Quote: "In a recent article published on The Daily Caller, columnist David Lewis, Research Director at the Focus For Health Foundation and a former EPA scientist, called on President Trump to put an end to the “fake science” routinely being perpetuated by leftists and radical environmentalists alike. “Trump can eliminate federal funding of data fabrication,” Lewis wrote. “It just takes putting accomplished scientists in charge, who understand both science and the federal bureaucracy from top to bottom and will do whatever is necessary.”" 
This is both scientifically sound and common sense.
Does evidence mean anything to unethical scientists anymore?  This is a truly sad tale.
Radical leftist climate change hokus pokus is being debunked left and right.  Quote: "According to an outspoken university biologist and author, at least 400 scientific papers have been written this year alone that raise serious doubts regarding the theory that recent changes in the Earth’s climate are primarily caused by rising carbon dioxide emissions. Writing for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the climate change “consensus” touted by left-wing politicians and mainstream media — and also make it clear “that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes.” In other words, they prove that “(c)limate science is not settled,” no matter how much liberals claim otherwise. For instance, the studies show that what some perceive as bizarre temperatures, sea levels and weather patterns “are neither unusual nor unprecedented,” Miller explained. “Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years,” he wrote."    More:
I have called the so called Science Guy, Bill Nye, a fraud a number of times.  This item seems to confirm that as fact.  You be the judge.
No matter how much evidence emerges the global warming advocates continue to say humans a responsible for global warming.  Likewise their intelligence is challenged when considering the cost of their foolish plans to solve what is not likely to have a remote chance of accomplishing their objectives which are likewise challengeable. This short item helps us understand the dilemma.  Spending that kind of money on a definite uncertainty is a fools errand.  Helping people solve hunger, homelessness, poverty and diseases is a more realistic use of such funds.
Quote: "Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang, two academic microbiologists with no special knowledge of climate, recently used their article in the Hill to commit the repellent but now commonplace hate-crime of describing researchers skeptical of the sillier exaggerations of the climate-change establishment as “denialists.” This disfiguring hate-word, calculated to invite an invidious comparison between climate skeptics and those who say the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, is not fit to be uttered by any serious academic. Here, as always, its misuse by intellectual pygmies indicated more than a little nervousness on the part of the establishment, for the world continues to warm at a rate well below what was originally predicted, and, as it turns out, there is a good explanation for the discrepancy."  And, "The two microbiologists have missed the point entirely. They talk of “virtually unanimous consensus” that Earth is facing a period of anthropogenic climate change. Yet the largest sample of academic papers on climate ever studied — an impressive 11,944 papers over the 21 years 1991–2011 — showed only 0.3 percent “consensus” explicitly supporting the proposition recent global warming was mostly manmade. The question whether the small warming that is to be expected will prove dangerous was not even asked; the “consensus” on that question is even smaller."
Hopefully this is the beginning of a shift away from climate change alarmism. Quote: "A supposedly breathtaking, bombshell report published in the journal Nature Geoscience this week has taken the scientific community by storm. At long last, the global warming alarmists of the world are ready to admit what the skeptics have been saying for years: That the official climate models that predict global catastrophe within just a few years thanks to carbon emissions…well, they’re just a teensy bit off. So off, in fact, that climate scientists are now being forced to admit that the Great Emergency we were all facing just a few days ago is in fact not that big a deal."  And, "In other words, the official models used by the IPCC have us budgeting for a much smaller amount of CO2 emissions than we actually have to expend. This gives nations around the world much more leeway when it comes to imposing regulations on the industrialized sector. Good news if you’re a capitalist.  Bad news if you’ve been using the hoax of man-made climate change to eradicate Big Oil, Big Coal, and the rest of the fossil fuel industry."

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Robert Mueller Is the Cover-Up

Friendship is a beautiful thing, and it's really good to know that Robert Mueller, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper have known each other for many years.  They're loyal friends. 
Mueller is a former top FBI dude, who helped to clear Bill Clinton after that impeachment mess, and like Mr. Comey, he did his very best.  Clapper was the single most powerful man in the "intelligence" "community," a centralized directorate (as the Soviets used to call it), which was George W. Bush's principal response to 9/11/01. 
Now don't get me wrong: I'm sure all these brave men (or persons, I should say) made great contributions to the safety and welfare of all of us.  But here they are at the peak of their careers, each one of them, and Democrat candidate Hillary is suddenly exposed to the world with her email fiasco as SecState.  Violating the very first rule of intelligence and statecraft, to protect your country's secrets.  And she obviously sold secret and sensitive information to Clinton Foundation "donors" around the world, including old friend Vladimir Putin (who now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium, or possibly more), the Muslim Brotherhood (friends of Huma), the Iranians (who sponsor half the terror attacks in the world), the Chinese (who want more of our secret high tech), and probably the French (who understand bribery and just wanted to get access to Hillary as POTUS). 
We've seen how Bill sold U.S. rocket-launching secrets to the Chinese for campaign money...or personal money.  It's so hard to tell the difference. 
Well, skip that. 

Kamala Harris Trashes Private Jet Tax Break in GOP Bill That Fellow Democratic Senator Previously Proposed

Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) on Friday ripped a provision in the Senate Republican tax reform bill that gives a tax break to private airplane owners, not noting that a fellow Democrat proposed a similar idea earlier this year.
The latest version of the Senate GOP bill would "lower taxes on some of the payments made by owners of private aircraft to management companies that help maintain, store, and staff those planes for owners," the Hill reported.
The language would exempt owners or leasers of private aircraft from paying taxes on certain costs related to the upkeep and maintenance of the jets, according to a description from the Joint Committee on Taxation
Harris blasted the provision in the GOP bill on Twitter, linking to a Business Insider article about it and writing, "Retweet if you would *not* benefit from a private jet tax break." Her message has been retweeted more than 14,500 times since she posted it Friday morning.

State Dept. Sued for Secret Records on UN Paris Climate Accord

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has filed suit against the State Department for illegally withholding documents related to the 2015 Paris climate agreement — particularly e-mails of two State Department officers involved in the Obama administration’s maneuvering to evade the Senate’s constitutional role in the treaty process.

On November 11, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed its second lawsuit against the State Department to obtain illegally withheld documents related to the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The lawsuit is the result of the State Department’s failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank in October of 2017. CEI is requesting e-mails of two State Department officials involved in the Obama administration’s maneuvering to circumvent the Senate in order to join the Paris agreement.
Those officials, Trigg Talley and Alexandra Costello, “were both members of the State Department when the decision was made to avoid characterizing the Paris agreement as a treaty,” according to a CEI press release. “The Obama administration cut the Senate out of the treaty process in order to join the Paris agreement,” CEI asserts. “Documents obtained under a previous FOIA production show Costello's correspondence with a lawyer for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker,” the press release notes, stating further: “In response to an August 2014 New York Times report about Obama’s plan to circumvent the Senate, the lawyer said this news ‘indicate[s] a disturbing contempt for the Senate’s constitutional rights and responsibilities.’ Yet, Chairman Corker never publicly opposed Obama’s circumvention of the Senate. CEI seeks to learn just why this silence occurred.”