State Department Says Reporters Fly Commerical : Has It Come to This?

Again, I don't know if this article is in fact based on fact, but in this case I will pull a Dan Rather, formerly of CBS News, and say this has to be true because it's what I want to believe is true, therefore it is true. Yikes!  S

Still, given the many reports that we have on Rex Tillerson as no nonsense guy, we can assume that it must contain some truth knowing the history of our former president and two secretaries of state histories. And hey, if it cause stress having to sit by the unwashed in a commercial aircraft, all the better for the main stream scribbles. I love it!

(Author Unknown)
Worth reading in its entirety.  A Reuters filing en route to Asia showcases the bitterness, anger and seething rage of U.S. journalists who have been forced to fly First-Class Commercial to cover Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s Asia trip.

State Department correspondents are used to the exclusive wide-body private charters of the U.S. federal government’s airline fleet.  Previous heads of the Department of State have flown aboard Air Force 3.  Normally a Boeing 757.  At the very worst Air Force 3 would be a C17 Globemaster.

However, T-Rex is taking a smaller jet to Asia and only one journalist accompanies him.  To make matters exponentially worse, T-Rex did not select a journalist from the corporate stable of the refined and pedigreed media elites.

We can only imagine how Andrea Mitchell must be seething at having to take simple first-class commercial flight accommodations with ordinary people.  The scope of the almost unimaginable horror she has to face will soon pour from her pursed and vengeful lips.  We can predict a retaliatory report soon from the wrath of the ignored elitist within NBC.  This shall be, as they say, epic.

Secretary Tillerson has rebuked customs and norms.  The traveling correspondents will have to pass through customs and passport checks as if they are ordinary travelers.  There is a very real possibility no-one will recognize them or care diligently for their very individual and specific needs.

Can you imagine Mrs. Alan Greenspan flying all the way to Asia from the Eastern Seaboard and having to do that on a commercial flight?  My God, have we really dropped our standards of decency that far…

Air Force 3 T-Rex doesn't use it?

Oh yeah, the pontificating journalist elites are  pi**ed off.   After traveling with every possible indulgence aboard exclusive State Department accommodations with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry, you cannot even fathom how angry they are right now without private dining, DoS chefs, shaved chocolates and Cristal mimosas.

None of this is me joking.  This bunch of snobs having to fly commercial is unheard of.

They are ready to tear into Secretary Tillerson in every single filed report.  Just watch what you see on TV:

(Reuters) U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is traveling to Asia this week accompanied by only one reporter, a White House correspondent from the Independent Journal Review (IJR), a digital news outlet founded in 2012 by former Republican political operatives.

The IJR said in a statement late Tuesday the State Department last week offered one of its reporters, Erin McPike, a place aboard the Secretary’s aircraft on his trip this week to Asia.

[…]  The State Department had previously told reporters covering Tillerson’s trip to South Korea, Japan, and China that he would not be taking reporters on his plane and that they would have to fly commercially, breaking with decades of precedent stretching back to Henry Kissinger.

Major news organizations complained, among them the BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and Reuters.

The State Department Correspondents Association, which represents reporters who cover U.S. diplomacy, said in a statement that it was “disappointed” Tillerson chose to travel to Asia without a full contingent of media “or even a pool reporter”.

“After saying it was unable to accommodate press on the Secretary’s plane to Asia due to space and budget constraints, the State Department offered a unilateral seat to one reporter,” the statement said.

“Several of our members have traveled commercially to meet Secretary Tillerson on the ground in Asia. We expect that the diplomatic press corps will be afforded access to Secretary Tillerson equal to that given to the reporter on the plane.”

A spokesman for IJR, Matt Manda, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether McPike would file pool reports to colleagues, or whether IJR had any comment on the SDCA’s statement.

For decades, secretaries of state have nearly always invited media to travel with them. In rare cases, particularly late in a secretary’s tenure, some outlets have declined the invitations, such as for former Secretary John Kerry’s December 2016 trip to Saudi Arabia.

Republican secretaries of state Alexander Haig, George Shultz, James Baker, and Condoleezza Rice routinely took 10 or more journalists on their overseas trips, even to conflict zones such as Lebanon and Central America.

Up through Tuesday, just hours before Tillerson was scheduled to leave, the State Department declined to confirm whether there would be any reporters on Tillerson’s plane.

Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a phone briefing with reporters on Tuesday that the agency was considering “having a seat available” on his plane.

“We’ve been very clear, frankly, that this is a smaller footprint all around, and this is the Secretary’s decision, to travel with a smaller footprint,” Toner said. “To some degree, it’s a cost-saving measure.”  (read more)

The rest of the article is Reuters tearing into IJR for having the audacity to accept a seat on the flight with T-Rex.   This is like High School mean girls taken to exponential levels of vitriol and hatred.

This is going to be ugly.  Very, very ugly.

Oh, and by the way, the party is over!!!

Democrats' Cheering Ended : Republicans Vow to Destroy OgbjmaCare

In truth the Republicans don't have a choice but to get back to work to Repeal and Replace OgbjmaCare as it is headed for the doomster leaving millions of people with out health care insurance  coverage.

What is perplexing is why it always up to the Republicans to fix the mistakes of the progressive democrats? And it not just in healthcare, it's foreign policy, immigration, education, and justice. The nightmare of corruption of common sense and the law is so wide spread that most us down here in the trenches can't begin to comprehend the actually depth of the problems.

But solving the OgbjmaCare disaster is a good start, and the Republicans have to know they will be opposed, savaged on all fronts, including the media. There will no limits on what the progressive socialist democrats won't do to save Barack's legacy.

If you haven't noticed already, the attacks have been brutal from the democrats even when they have to know they are doing the population harm. It's just who they are. Don't vote

House Republicans Renew Plans to Repeal Obamacare After Failed First Attempt
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / March 28, 2017   

Just four days after House Speaker Paul Ryan declared Obamacare the “law of the land,” House Republicans say they’re moving forward with their plan to repeal and replace the health care law despite the divisions in their party on how to reform the health insurance market.

Ryan and members of his leadership team reaffirmed their support for unwinding the Affordable Care Act during a weekly press conference with reporters Tuesday, saying that their first failed attempt to replace Obamacare wouldn’t deter them from moving forward. “We’re not going to retrench into our corners or put up dividing lines,” Ryan said after a meeting with Republican lawmakers. “There’s too much at stake to get bogged down in all of that.” The renewed focus on repealing Obamacare came after Ryan decided to withdraw the House GOP’s health care bill Friday, a decision made after it became clear there wouldn’t be enough votes to pass it.

Republicans released their plan to repeal the health care law and implement parts of a replacement at the beginning of the month. But the bill lacked a natural constituency. Instead, both centrist Republicans and conservatives decried the plan—conservatives disliked it because they felt it wouldn’t lower the cost of premiums, and centrist Republicans felt it didn’t do enough to protect those newly enrolled in Medicaid.

After pulling the bill, Ryan told reporters “Obamacare is the law of the land” and stressed that Republicans would instead move on to other items on their agenda, like tax reform. But by Tuesday morning, Republicans appeared to have regrouped, and Ryan stressed the GOP conference would continue to work toward gaining consensus on a replacement plan even as they tackle other legislative priorities. “We’re going to get this right,” Ryan said, “and in the meantime, we’re going to do all the other work we came here to do.”

Any path forward on Obamacare’s replacement is going to require agreement between conservatives and centrist Republicans, factions of the party that opposed the House GOP’s health care bill for different reasons. But the two groups appear willing to further engage in talks over health care reform.

According to The New York Times, the House Freedom Caucus and centrist Tuesday Group are engaging in talks with Stephen Bannon, President Donald Trump’s top strategist. And even Ryan, who said Friday some Republicans in the House couldn’t get to “yes” on the bill, told reporters Tuesday that Republicans would “sit down and talk things out” until they compromise. “We saw good overtures from those members from different parts of our conference to get there because we all share these goals, and we’re just going to have to figure out how to get it done,” the speaker said.
Ryan wouldn’t elaborate on any details of a new plan or on a timeline. But some conservatives are already plotting their own path.

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., filed a bill Friday that fully repeals Obamacare. Brooks, along with some conservatives, also may use a legislative tool that would force a floor vote on a bill dismantling the health care law. The plan requires Brooks to collect 216 signatures on a discharge petition. Once that happens, and after the legislation has remained in committee for 30 days, the lower chamber would be forced to vote on the bill.
“We will find out who is truly for repeal of Obamacare and who is not,” Brooks told reporters.

Sancturay Cities Are Not Safe : Cities Ignore the Facts - Why?

What's happening here is reality is butting heads with fantasy. The progressive socialist liberals can not let go of a belief, and ideology that has guided them for decades. And now with Donald Trump taking steps to crush that ideology, in reality it's a religion, the progressives are wildly out of control that begs some sort of insanity. Can entire collective be insane?

Hey, how many people voted for these city and state leaders? And how many of these 276 sanctuary cities are controlled by progressive socialist liberal democrats?

That cities officials and even many law enforcement officials stand before the cameras for all to see and hear them say that they will defy federal law enforcement. And knowing that by doing so the endanger the population from criminals that seek to do them harm, isn't insanity?

Or is it a belief, the faith is so strong that the religion of progressive socialist liberalism can not be defeated that drives them and us to destruction?

The Left’s Sanctuary Cities Hurt Americans’ Safety
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / March 28, 2017   

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement on Monday that the Justice Department will bar all sanctuary cities from receiving any grants or other federal funds from the department should be welcome news to Americans—especially those whose families have been victimized by criminal illegal aliens released by sanctuary cities like San Francisco.

As Sessions pointed out, Kate Steinle, a resident of San Francisco, was shot and killed two years ago by an illegal alien as a direct result of San Francisco’s policy of refusing to honor federal detainer warrants. The killer, Francisco Sanchez, had seven previous felony convictions and the city released him from custody despite the fact that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had filed a detainer with San Francisco asking that he be kept in custody until immigration agents could pick him up.

Sanchez even admitted to a television reporter that the only reason he came to San Francisco was because of the city’s sanctuary policy.

Sessions also mentioned another such incident that happened just within the last two weeks. According to the attorney general, Ever Valles, another illegal alien, was charged with the murder and robbery of a man at a light rail station. The only reason he was on the street was because the city of Denver refused to honor a detainer that ICE had filed with the city and released him from the Denver jail in December. Valles is just one of many such criminal aliens who are being loosed on the American public by the reckless policies of sanctuary cities.

ICE recently released the first of its weekly reports on cities that have refused to honor ICE detainer warrants, as mandated by President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” The report details all of the local jurisdictions across the country from Florida to New York to Washington state that refused ICE detainers from Jan. 28 to Feb. 3 and released criminals from their jails rather than turn them over to the federal government for deportation.

The crimes committed by these illegal aliens, as outlined in a report covering just a single week, include: domestic violence, arson, aggravated assault, burglary, forgery, intimidation, possession of a dangerous weapon, intimidation, drug trafficking, sexual assault, homicide, and a host of other crimes. This is also no surprise.

As I have outlined before, prior reports by the Government Accountability Office that have reviewed the criminal histories of illegal aliens in federal, state, and local jails show a path of destruction and repeated criminal behavior by criminal aliens that is truly shocking. There are literally millions of Americans like Steinle who have been victimized by crimes committed by illegal aliens that should not have happened and would not have happened if we actually enforced our immigration laws and if local jurisdictions cooperated with federal authorities instead of trying to obstruct them.

Sessions said that the American people “are justifiably angry” about these sanctuary policies that endanger them. They understand something that irresponsible local officials don’t seem to care about: “When cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe.”
The failure to deport criminal aliens like Valles puts “whole communities at risk—especially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators.”
The amount of federal grant money at stake is more than $4.1 billion, which the Justice Department distributes through its Office of Justice Programs.

Sessions said that all jurisdictions applying for such grants will have to certify that they are in full compliance with 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373, which bans local and state jurisdictions from prohibiting their employees—including law enforcement—from exchanging information with the federal government over the citizenship status of any individual.

The American people certainly agree with what Trump and Sessions are doing. Sessions cited a poll in which 80 percent of Americans agreed that illegal aliens arrested by cities should be turned over to immigration authorities.

Sessions urged state and city officials to “consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, and to rethink these policies.” Hopefully, the added incentive of losing access to billions of federal dollars will help them “rethink” their rash sanctuary policies.

Trump Moves on Environment Regulation : Trump Steps On Barack's Ideology

Sigh - here we go again - this is not about the CO2, Carbon Dioxide, green house gasses creating havoc around the world, this is just about two things that work hand in hand for the progressive socialist liberals.

It's all about the money to supporting organization that are pushing the narrative of climate change that will destroy us if we don't something to stop and soon, and by limiting access to real adequate energy supplies, coal, natural gas and nuclear power to industry and the population, and by doing this the progressive socialists believe they can limit the options for individual prosperity and ones individual freedom to chose.

After all, this is what the ideology and agenda of progressive socialism is all about, right? The individual is not competent enough to run their own lives, others that know far more about you want and need must make the important decisions for you. All that's required of the population is compliance and obedience. See - problem solved.

Trump’s Sweeping Executive Order on Climate Policy Has Been Sorely Needed
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / March 28, 2017   

As promised, President Donald Trump has issued an “energy independence” executive order to undo several of the Obama administration’s climate change regulations. To the benefit of all Americans who desire affordable, dependable energy, the executive order will help energy companies establish some independence from overzealous regulators. Here’s what the order does:

Orders the Environmental Protection Agency to review and repeal, or revise, the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan is the backbone of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, requiring states to transform their electricity mix away from conventional fuels toward renewables. The plan will raise the costs of energy, and these will be borne by all Americans, especially low-income families who spend a larger portion of their budget on energy costs. And the climate benefits would be practically undetectable, mitigating a mere few hundredths of a degree Celsius warming by the year 2100. Even proponents of action on climate change have savaged the regulation. Climatologist James Hansen called the Clean Power Plan “practically worthless.”

Eliminates the use of the “social cost of carbon.” 
As president, Obama created an interagency working group tasked with calculating the cost of carbon dioxide emissions to the U.S. economy as a whole. This figure, called the “social cost of carbon,” is a dollar amount that federal agencies apply to different regulations to calculate the “climate benefit” of abated carbon dioxide emissions. In 2015, the social cost of carbon was said to be $36 per ton.
The problem is that the math behind these models is completely bogus. They are essentially a faux authority that the Obama administration set up to justify its heavy regulatory agenda.

The working group, led by the EPA, used three statistical models to estimate the value of the social cost of carbon, which is defined as the economic damage that one ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will cause over the next 300 years.

In terms of accurately assessing the social cost of carbon, the EPA may well have pulled a number out of a hat. The models produce widely disparate results when making reasonable changes to key inputs, such as changing the discount rate and climate sensitivity.

To give an example, when changed from a 3 percent discount rate to a 5 percent discount rate, the EPA’s $20 billion in projected climate benefits from the Clean Power Plan regulation decreases to $6.4 billion—less than the EPA’s egregiously low projection of $8.4 billion in compliance costs.
The results are so different that in some instances, the social cost turns negative, indicating there’s actually a social benefit of carbon dioxide emissions.

Further, models start to lose credibility when they start predicting a few decades into the future. These models do just that, attempting to predict alleged climate costs centuries into the future.
The bottom line: These models are baseless tools for regulatory analysis, and scrapping the use of “social cost of carbon” is a strong step along the Trump administration’s path of providing regulatory certainty and sanity.

Rescinds moratorium on new coal leases and methane emissions from oil and gas operations on federal lands.
Under Obama, the Department of Interior would not issue new coal mining leases on federal lands until the agency conducted a more comprehensive environmental review that included the estimated effects the lease would have on global warming. Even though the overall climate impacts of these leases would be minimal, the regulation was symbolic of how the Obama administration approached coal: “Defeat by delay” and “Keep it in the ground.”

Rescinding this regulation keeps Trump’s campaign promise of giving coal communities a fighting chance. The methane regulations only added to the price of Obama’s costly climate policy without doing anything to mitigate global warming.

Repeals guidance on agencies taking global warming into account when conducting National Environmental Policy Act reviews.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to conduct comprehensive environmental assessments for a wide range of projects, including permitting of infrastructure.
Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality added steps that agencies must adhere to when conducting environmental impact statements, layering more bureaucracy on an already cumbersome process.

The Council on Environmental Quality issued final guidance for how agencies should consider global warming impacts in their reviews, as negligible as they will be. Rather than protecting the environment, the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act statute has evolved to serve more as a tool to delay and obstruct projects that are unpopular with judicially active special interest groups, or biased politicians who ignore scientific and technical logic.

For highway projects, the average time to complete an environmental impact statement increased from 2.2 years in the 1970s to 8.1 years in 2011. Currently, 148 energy and transit projects are undergoing review at an estimated cost of nearly $230 billion.

The National Environmental Policy Act needs wholesale reform or an outright repeal, and repealing the climate change guidance is a step in the right direction. Unwinding Obama’s climate regulations is not just about saving money for industries. It’s about addressing the costs that will be incurred and meager benefits achieved by Obama-era regulations.

These regulations, even when combined with carbon dioxide cuts from rest of the developed world, do not buy much climate insurance. They are simply bad policy—both for the environment and the economy.

Barack's Strategy for School Discipline : Disruption, Chaos And Conflict

How is it that even in the face of on factual evidence that black students are the major problem in the class room, and yet the Ogbjma administration's department of education decided that putting in place a regulation that would end disciplinary action against black students that are out of control causing disruption in the class room and anywhere else on the school grounds.

The thought that allowing these students to remain in school, no matter what they do to harm other students and the teachers, would allow them to take more responsibility for their own actions, is absolute insanity.

But then we are talking about the Barack ideology for transformation and change of the American civil society. Barack entire life's history is dedicated 'righting wrongs as far back as his father knee'. By making sure the public school system becomes a war zone is one small step toward his goal of dismantling the rules of law and the Constitution, and then replacing it with a system centralized authority of progressive socialism.

Lucky most of the people weren't fooled and the voters elected  Donald Trump to begin the healing of the country. But the bad part is the damage is huge from Barack and the progressive democrats. It will take years pf struggle to bring our country back to common sense and logic and the rule of law.

Obama Tried to Make Nice With Rebellious Students. It Backfired Miserably.
Walter E. Williams / March 29, 2017   

Nationally, black junior high and high school students are suspended at a rate more than three times as often as their white peers, twice as often as their Latino peers, and more than 10 times as often as their Asian peers. According to former Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the “huge disparity is not caused by differences in children; it’s caused by differences in training, professional development, and discipline policies. It is adult behavior that needs to change.”

In other words, the Education Department sees no difference between the behavior of black students and white, Latino, and Asian students. It’s just that black students are singled out for discriminatory discipline.  Driven by Obama administration pressures, school districts revised their discipline procedures by cutting the number of black student suspensions.

Max Eden, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has written a report, “School Discipline Reform and Disorder: Evidence from New York City Public Schools, 2012-16.”

The new discipline imposed on public schools is called restorative justice. Rather than punish a student through exclusion (suspension), restorative justice encourages the student who has misbehaved to reflect on his behavior, take responsibility, and resolve to behave better in the future.
The results of this new policy are increased violence, drug use, and gang activity. Eden examines the NYC School Survey of teachers and students and finds that violence increased in 50 percent of schools and decreased in 14 percent. Gang activity increased in 39 percent of schools and decreased in 11 percent.

For drug and alcohol use, there was a 37 percent increase while only 7 percent of schools improved.
It’s not just New York City where discipline is worse under the Obama administration’s policy. Eden reports:

One Chicago teacher told the Chicago Tribune that her district’s new discipline policy led to “a totally lawless few months” at her school. One Denver teacher told Chalkbeat that, under the new discipline policy, students had threatened to harm or kill teachers, “with no meaningful consequences.” … After Oklahoma City Public Schools revised its discipline policies in response to federal pressure, one teacher told the Oklahoman that “[w]e were told that referrals would not require suspension unless there was blood.”

Eden reports that in Oklahoma City a teacher said that:

Students are yelling, cursing, hitting, and screaming at teachers and nothing is being done but teachers are being told to teach and ignore the behaviors. These students know there is nothing a teacher can do. Good students are now suffering because of the abuse and issues plaguing these classrooms.

In Buffalo, a teacher who was kicked in the head by a student said: “We have fights here almost every day. The kids walk around and say, ‘We can’t get suspended—we don’t care what you say.’”
Ramsey County attorney John Choi of St. Paul, Minnesota, described how the number of assaults against teachers doubled from 2014 to 2015 and called the situation a “public health crisis.”

Testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a former Philadelphia teacher said that a student told him, “I’m going to torture you. I’m doing this because I can’t be removed.” Eden’s report cites similar school horror stories in other cities.

Since most of the school violence and discipline problems rest with black students, there are a few questions that black parents, politicians, academics, and civil rights advocates should ponder. Is academic achievement among blacks so high that black people can afford to allow miscreants and thugs to sabotage the education process? For those pushing the Obama administration’s harebrained restorative justice policy, can blacks afford for anything to interfere with the acquisition of academic excellence?

Finally, how does the Obama restorative justice policy differ from a Ku Klux Klan policy that would seek to sabotage black education by making it impossible for schools to rid themselves of students who make education impossible for everyone else?

NBA and NCAA Boycott North Carolina : Fans Should Boycott NBA?

Interesting - the NBA stated as well they won't be playing any games in North Carolina because the transgender bathroom situation.

That maybe 10 people in the entire state demand to use the bathroom facilities of the gender they believe they are today, is enough for these organizations, the NCAA and the NBA will not schedule any games in the state until North Carolina changes it's policy.

I think other states should be proactive and tell the NBA they don't want them in their state. I wonder how long this nonsense would go on if maybe 10 state or more told the NBA they're welcome until they change their organizations stand on this transgender nonsense.

Science Discovers New And Heaviest Element : It Grows From Nothing!

I just love science and how precise it is when describing the workings of natural elements that exist seemingly from nothing, but then remains and grows to become a catastrophic influence in all of our lives that changes everything for the worse.

Nature has a funny of leveling the playing field, in that if you try to escape it's influence, the consequences are dire. That is, you can run but you can't hide.

Scientists at National Research Council in Ottawa have announced the discovery of the HEAVIEST element yet known to science.

AND yes ... It was disovered in Canada, which is now the leading producer. 

 The new element is Governmentium (Gv).  It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.  These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.  Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert.

However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes in contact.   

 A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.  

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 - 8 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.  This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.  When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other by-products are produced.

Trump - 'Climate Change Debate Is Over' : The War Has Begun

If you had to pick one subject that exemplifies the total insanity of the progressive liberals, it's climate change. Even in the light of a mountain of facts accumulated over several decades of recent history, and dozens of decades of natural history, that man-made-climate change is a fraud, is just a progressive tool for control of the population.

'Because of the changing climate, we must reduce the population access to fossil energy resources like coal and natural gas that now support more then 50% of electrical power. Green house gases are destroying the atmosphere and the earth. If we don't stop it now we all will die.'

There is no creditable scientific evidence that climate change is man made, and has done anything to harm the country or the world for that matter, and yet the progressive environmentalist demand $billions more tax dollars to do more research with computer models that have been proven unworkable and manipulated in the past to show desired results.

One the main reasons why Trump won the election is the old saying, ' you can fool some the people all the time, but you can fool all of the people all of time'. Those of us in the trenches know who and what you are Barack, and by our votes we have set you adrift.

Know this as well, the fact that Barack has taken up residence in DC is not by accident. He has no intention of leave any stone unturned to destroy this country along with his ilk in the progressive socialist collective, that believes and supports bringing socialist liberalism to replace individual freedom.

Never vote democrat!

Barack's religious jihad for change has been set adrift. Now the war has begun.

Sancturay Cities Targeted By DOJ : Jeff Sessions Pulls The Trigger

With each passing day, the progressives liberal democrats are showing more and more of who they truly are and what they intend for our country to be going into the future. It's amazing and difficult to see and understand just how far out of the main stream of the public's beliefs of what our country is actually like.

With every new policy that Trump implements to bring sanity back to our government, the progressive liberals become more and more mentally unhinged, deranged to the point that they are seen as dangerous to themselves and to the rest of us. The general public sees and hears them ranting and raving on everything, and as we observe these delusions we are left like 'deer in the headlights' 

In light of social media and that so many of us have access to all kinds of information that mostly explains what is happening around the country, and for them most part has proven to be true, and yet the progressive socialists smoothly and unequivocally deny realty.

No matter the facts of the matter, the progressive will stand straight and tall explaining to all of us they are right and we are wrong. Truly they are insane, and there are millions of them. Go figure!

Never vote democrat again!!

How Jeff Sessions Plans to Fight Back Against Sanctuary Cities
Caleb Ecarma / March 27, 2017

The Justice Department will start enforcing federal immigration laws by discontinuing the funding of sanctuary cities, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Monday while speaking at the White House.
If carried out, this new policy will result in the loss of federal money for cities that permit residents to be illegal immigrants, as Sessions stated that the Justice Department will avoid using its $4.1 billion in grant money to fund sanctuary cities. The attorney general added that the DOJ will even “claw back” funds from jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration laws.

“The Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for DOJ grants to certify compliance with [U.S. Code 1373] as a condition of receiving those awards,” Sessions said.
U.S. Code 1373 is a law stating that localities cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing the nation’s laws on immigration. The law also regulates communications between local agencies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Countless Americans would be alive today … if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended,” Sessions said.

Sessions said following this policy was simply enforcing policies put in place by the Obama White House a year ago, as the previous administration made similar threats to sanctuary cities but did not act on the threats in the way Sessions is proposing. “I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to our citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, and to rethink these policies,” Sessions said. “When cities and states refuse to enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe.” “We have simply got to end this policy,” Sessions said.

The DOJ’s targeting of sanctuary cities follows a January executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at improving border security and enforcing immigration laws. Hans von Spakovsky, an immigration law expert at The Heritage Foundation, views this sanctuary city policy as a step in the right direction.

“This is a long-needed move by the Justice Department. The federal government’s chief law enforcement agency should not be giving any funds to cities or states that are obstructing federal enforcement of our immigration laws through sanctuary policies,” von Spakovsky said.

Trump's Energy Independence Policy : Prosperity for All of Us

Barack's religious jihad for the 'transformation of America' that he promised back in 2008, has  manifested itself in many ways but the two most important are found in the control energy and health care.

Both have been driven to near destruction by a sinister and lurid ideology that is progressive socialist liberalism, or even worse, Barack's personal Venda to right perceived wrongs that America has supposedly done to the world, which have resulted in reducing the American population's options for prosperity.

The liberal ideology is based on rendering individuals helpless and therefore must look to government for help. The old failed system that saw millions of people in bondage to centralized authority but now has been reborn in progressive socialist liberalism ; "Each according to his need and from each according to his ability".

Trump's new energy policy will bring hope for a new future in our country, a hope based on personal freedom to chose one's own destiny. All most people want is a chance to succeed under their own power without the strangling grip of government.

Trump Readies ‘Energy Independence’ Order to Repeal Obama Climate Policies
Michael Bastasch / @MikeBastasch / March 27, 2017

President Donald Trump will issue a sweeping “energy independence” executive order Tuesday to dismantle signature global warming policies put in place by President Barack Obama’s administration. environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told ABC News Trump will issue the order Tuesday to make “sure that we have a pro-growth and pro-environment approach to how we do regulation in this country.”

“The executive order is going to address the past administration’s effort to kill jobs across this country through the Clean Power Plan,” Pruitt told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos of the “energy independence” executive order on Sunday.

Trump promised to eliminate “job-killing” energy regulations during his campaign, specifically rolling back an EPA regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions on power plants—the Clean Power Plan. The upcoming order goes even farther than axing the Clean Power Plan, according to Bloomberg’s Jennifer Dlouhy, who got a sneak peek at Tuesday’s order. Here’s what it does:

• Orders EPA to review and “if appropriate” work to repeal or revise the Clean Power Plan.
• Rescinds the Interior Department’s moratorium on new coal mining leases on federal lands.
• Repeals an Obama-era guidance on how federal agencies should take global warming into account when doing National Environmental Policy Act permitting reviews.
• Disbands a federal working group that developed the “social cost of carbon” estimate used to justify onerous global warming regulations. The social cost of carbon will also be thrown out.

Dlouhy reports Trump’s order revokes “six specific directives from his predecessor, including Obama’s broad strategy for paring emissions of methane released from oil and gas operations.”
Trump will also rescind “Obama directives targeted for repeal [which] include one on climate change and national security, as well as a pair of directives from June 2013 that laid out his climate plans,” Dlouhy reported.

While most of Trump’s order can immediately take effect, repealing the Clean Power Plan will have to go through a lengthy process that could take months or years. Environmentalists have also vowed to sue the Trump administration to defend the Clean Power Plan. They’ll likely be joined by Democratic state attorneys general.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Liberal Compassion Is About Control : Our god Is Best For You

As the saying goes, 'Charity begins at home.' Liberal charity is about dictating an ideology that is all things to all people. All that is required is obedience. Their charity is their compassion and willingness  to give away, redistribute other peoples money that proves how much the liberal loves everyone.

Did you ever wonder why the progressive socialist liberals hate the Christians so much? Barack saying Christians love their God and guns?  Here is one reasons, and the most important one, is the Christian God is a God of faith, and unseen God that is full of love and compassion.  All that is required of the Christian to step forward and render a helping hand.

And here is why the liberals are so hate Christians so passionately, the liberal can't comprehend a person that can believe, have faith in a God that is unseen, when their god is right here for all to see, the liberal god of an all seeing, all knowing and all regulating government.

With the god of government there is nothing to worry about, All decisions are made for you. No stress of making decisions on your own, we are here to serve you.  What more could anyone ask for?

The False Compassion of Liberalism
Stephen Moore · Mar. 28, 2017     

Last week on CNN I debated a liberal commentator who complained that the problem with President Donald Trump’s budget blueprint is that it lacks “compassion” for the poor, for children and for the disabled. This woman went on to ask me how I could defend a budget that would cut Meals on Wheels, after-school programs and special-education funding, because without the federal dollars, these vital services would go away.

This ideology — that the government action is a sign of compassion — is upside-down and contrary to the Christian notion of charity.

We all, as individuals, can and should act compassionately and charitably. We can volunteer our time, energy and dollars to help the underprivileged. We can feed the hungry, house the homeless. Most of us feel a moral and ethical responsibility to do so — to “do unto others.”
And we do fulfill that obligation more than the citizens of almost any other nation. International statistics show that Americans are the most charitable people in the world and the most likely to engage in volunteerism. Whenever there is an international crisis — an earthquake, a flood, a war — Americans provide more assistance than the people of any other nation.

But government, by its nature, is not compassionate. It can’t be. It is nothing other than a force. Government can only spend a dollar to help someone when it forcibly takes a dollar from someone else. At its core, government welfare is predicated on a false compassion. This isn’t to say that government should never take collective action to help people. But these actions are based on compulsion, not compassion.

If every so-called “patriotic millionaire” would simply donate half of their wealth to serving others we could solve so many of the social problems in this country without a penny of new debt or taxes. My friend Arthur Brooks, the president of American Enterprise Institute, has noted in his fabulous book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” that conservatives donate more than the self-proclaimed compassionate liberals.

The liberal creed seems to be: “We care so much about poor people, climate change, income inequality and protecting the environment (or whatever the cause of the day) that there is no limit to how much money should be taken out of other people’s wallets to solve these problems.”

Let’s take Meals on Wheels. Is this a valuable program to get a nutritious lunch or dinner to infirmed senior citizens? Of course, yes. Do we need the government to fund it? Of course not. I have participated in Meals on Wheels and other such programs, making sandwiches or delivering hot lunches. And many tens of thousands of others donate their time and money every day for this worthy cause.

Why is there any need for government here? The program works fine on its own. Turning this sort of charitable task over to government only makes people act less charitably on their own. It leads to an “I gave at the office” mentality, which leads to less generosity. It also subjects these programs to federal rules and regulations that could cripple the programs. Why must the federal government be funding after-school programs — or any school programs, for that matter?

One of my favorite stories of American history dates back to the 19th century when Col. Davy Crockett, who fought at the Alamo, served in Congress. In a famous incident, Congress wanted to appropriate $100,000 to the widow of a distinguished navel officer. Crockett took to the House floor and delivered his famous speech, relevant as ever: “We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. … I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

Crockett was the only member of Congress who donated personally to the widow, while the members of Congress who pretended to be so caring and compassionate closed their wallets. It all goes to show that liberal do-gooders were as hypocritical then as they are today.