Federal Political Land Grabs : We Know What's Best

Oh my goodness, allowing the people to regulate the land right outside their collective doors is unacceptable. What is needed is for the federal government to deciding what and how a piece of land can and should be used. When you are the smartest people in the room making the decisions, what is the debate about?

Just imagine someone that doesn't have an advanced degree from Harvard making decisions concerning their own welfare. Why it's laughable. How could anyone without an advance degree begin to understand all of ramification that come into play in making any kind of decision, let alone one that concerns people a 1000 miles away and is decided over lunch at the White House.

'Utah, where is that, laughter around the table, that must be some place where no one lives anymore, right? It's not as though it's New York or New Hampshire?'  Laughter.

Federal Land Grabs Have Gotten Out of Control. Why Trump’s Executive Order Is a Positive Sign.
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / April 26, 2017

Draining the swamp doesn’t just mean shrinking the size of federal bureaucracies. It means reducing the role of government throughout our society—including its ability to seize land. A good place to start is President Donald Trump’s executive order, which calls for a review of national monument designations—a tool long used by presidents to unilaterally restrict land use.

The tradition of presidents designating national monuments began in 1906 when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act. That law was intended to prevent the looting of archaeological and Native American structures and objects, and it gave the federal government an expeditious path to do so.

Unsurprisingly, its use has evolved into a federal power tool for making land grabs that cater to special interests, rather than welcoming input from local affected parties, such as the outdoor tourist industry, Native American tribes, or simply the people living in the community. Such land grabs date way back before President Barack Obama. Before his last-minute monument designations, 16 presidents designated more than 140 monuments covering over 285 million acres of land and marine areas.

Like every other environmental decision ordered by a new administration, the left responded to Trump’s executive order by predicting that it will reduce America the Beautiful to a dumpster fire.
As one publication put it, the order is a “sop to right-wing radicals who are hostile to public lands—and really hate Obama.” (They forgot to mention the hatred for puppies and rainbows, too).
Contrary to the media spin, the issue at hand is not about environmental stewardship, but taking decisions away from states, private citizens, and local interests.

For more than a century, the president of the United States has had the power to unilaterally designate land as a national monument, without input from Congress or the affected states. Such action from the president either prohibits or restricts economic opportunity in the area, and often does more environmental harm than good.

Reading The Washington Post article on Trump’s order, one could easily assume that there is no local opposition to the controversial 1.35 million acre monument designation at Bears Ears declared by Obama in the final days of his presidency—one of the presumed targets of Trump’s executive order.
The Post gives the false impression that only elected Republican members of Congress opposed Obama’s designation.

The article highlights that a coalition of tribes, environmentalists, archaeologists, and outdoor industry groups all lobbied Obama for the protection at Bears Ears. Yet the author conveniently fails to include opposition from, you know, the local tribes and people that actually live in San Juan County. For instance, members of the Navajo of San Juan County tribe—the county where Bears Ears resides—rescinded their support for the monument designation. Chester Johnson, of the Aneth Navajo chapter said,

At that time when they switched to national monument they didn’t share it back with the community what their intent was. Aneth is the only one chapter that had the backbone to stand up and say, ‘Look central government, you don’t do that. You share it with us what the intent is for our region, the land that we use for centuries.’

Another Aneth chapter member, Susie Philemon, fought back tears as she urged opposition to the designation, underscoring the fact that they have strong incentives, both economic and spiritual, to protect and preserve the land. She stressed that “[t]here are people that still graze there, they reside there, and they make that place their livelihood and you cannot just take that away.” San Juan County leaders staunchly opposed Obama’s designation.

Native American Rebecca Benally, the first woman elected to the San Juan County Commission, voiced opposition to the centralized decision, saying, “My constituents do not want a national monument in San Juan County because it’s just another federal overreach with empty promises.”
Read Utah Sen. Mike Lee’s commentary piece against the Bears Ears monument designation.

As loudly as the local community, the Navajo of San Juan County tribe, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, and members of Congress and state officials voiced their concerns, they all fell on deaf ears.

The problem of unilateral land designation dates much further back than Obama and Bears Ears.
Although Obama designated the contentious Bears Ears monument in Utah as he walked out the White House door, the use of the Antiquities Act is a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have abused the power to restrict land use. A review of the use of the Antiquities Act designations is a welcome and necessary first step, but ultimately Congress needs to intervene.

Congress should recognize that states, local governments, and private citizens are the best arbiters of how to manage land and should repeal the Antiquities Act or limit the president’s power by requiring congressional, state, and local approval for any national monument designation. Whether the issue is logging, recreation, conservation, or energy extraction, such decisions are most effectively made at the state and local levels. An antiquated law more than 110 years old shouldn’t ruin the lives of communities.

Nancy Pelosi In Scientific Terms : ''Pelsoium'' And It's Derivatives

News you can use in your daily life to stay attuned to what is happening in the larger world of progressive socialist liberal democrat collective leadership. derivatives

Here is just a small factoid that helps to explain and describe Nancy Pelosi in scientific terms, and to some degree, how she thinks, or doesn't. This also takes steps to identify those that find her delightful and meaningful in the larger society of common sense and viable logic that is needed to identify themselves as actually knowing who they are and how they actually got of bed by themselves.

Science also cannot explain how she can be what appears as being in a perpetual wind tunnel? Beyond strange or science. Where did she come from?

This might explain how she can be seen as unconnected and surreal.

Bill Nye, The Science Guy : Now A Progressive Disciple?

Truly, what I don't understand is how is it possible that a TV host of a children's program become an accepted authority on all thing pertaining to scientific fact?? Who decided that Bill Nye is a true scientist and who decided to grant him televise time to show us all he isn't what he and they say he is?

And if that isn't enough, what turns a supposedly normal and enthusiastic  personality that connected well to children on things that kids are curses about, into a delusional, contentious and shameless surrogate for progressive socialist ideological clap-trap that is totally devoid of common sense, logic or fact?

Can we assume that the result of his ''transformation'' he is now a high profile 'poster child' of Barack's religious jihad for changing America he pursued for 8 years?

When common sense and clear thinking explains the truth.

Is Bill Nye just another aberration of the truth, common sense and logic?

Islamic Immigration As Understood In The Netherlands : Surprised?

Art contest in the Netherlands depicting immigration.

This seems to be a universal belief among the populations of Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, Sweden in particular.

Shamelessly, the leaders of these counties find it convenient to down play the seriousness of the impact that this huge and mostly unrestrained, and in some cases uncivilized immigrant population is having on those countries.

The walled and gated communities have no contract with the large population let alone immigrates. So guess who make the decisions for everyone?

But the people are not fooled as they are in direct contact with the immigrants.They suffer at the hands of an ideology that specifically says everyone is inferior to the blessed ones and therefore the unwashed must be brought under the control of their personal ideology or they must suffer the consequence, which in many instances is violent.

'Barce' Yourself For Amazing : Straightening Teeth Video

We live in amazing times even if it's only about teeth.

This is amazing how this works. If the video doesn't start immediately wait a few minutes for it to load.

Straightening teeth has been around for a long time but through time elapsed video, we can actually see the results.

Barack's First 100 Days : Who Cares! We Love Him!

Barack was never about prosperity. Barack was and is about transformation.

Why should we care? Barack Hessian Ogbjma is ''The One We Have Been Waiting For''. A special individual of unknown status hiding as progressive democrat, wielding power to fulfill his destiny of bringing a religious jihad for ''change and transformation'' as he promised in 2008.

All we really know about Barack is what the media told us, and then it was managed to the point that if he never showed up for work it would be reported as a success.

Did you ever wonder why his total bill for travel was more then $100 million dollars? No matter what he did in his first 100 days would no different then what happened in the rest of the 8 years he was in office but with one clear caveat, his last 100 days in office was dedicated to attacking the opposition party by any means necessary. There were no limits.

And who proclaimed and celebrated Barack as the greatest president every, why the media and their surrogates in the democrat collective. To tell the story any other way would be blasphemy.

Boarder Wall Disaster for Democrats : Voter Demise

Without a doubt, if the democrats believed illegals where being convinced to vote Republican and being registered to do so like the democrats are doing now,  the progressive socialist liberal democrats would be on the boarder themselves with pick and shovels building the wall. And they would do it gladly for nothing.

Fear is a great motivator when progressive democrats believe they are being out smarted in the game of who has first choice at sucking on the federal tit. Normally it's never a contest.

Progressives understand without a federal tap into the Untied States treasury, they become noncitizens, non-persons and non-human beings. The thought of having to seek a job in the private sector for a progressive socialist democrat is death itself.

Illegals are a voting block for democrats

Individual Rights Being Accomodated : Progressives Understand Rights.

Democrats understand individual rights. My right, your accommodations.

Progressives have an answer to every problem even if it means your demise as an individual citizen with Constitutional rights.

Democrats are all about individual rights, and those individuals are members of the progressive socialist liberal democrat collective.

All others must get in line and wait to be accommodated or be detained for further accommodations.

Mr Friend Drinks Water : What A Mess!

If you ever wondered how and why a dog is able to drink a liquid and makes such a mess when the drink, wonder no longer.

Sharing With Your Friends Is Life It Self : Sleep Well.

It's really all about sharing and having special bed fellows is very important.

When it comes time to turn out the lights, good bed fellows are important.

Trump's 100 Day Analysis : Democrats Tortured by His Successes

First of all, I wish Donald Trump had shut down the government over the funding of his boarder wall and then used his bully pulpit to  blame and ravage  the progressive socialist liberal democrats for their contemptuous attitude toward the people of this country. But no, the easiest way out this is to cave to the progressive socialists over just one $billion dollars. In the larger scheme of things, given a budget of more then two $trillion dollars, that's chump change.

Still the author here is on track. Trump is learning the ropes of just how morally?corrupt the government actually is, and how to come to grips with it, to bring new life and hope for a righteous revolution to save the country from decline or worse.

The fact that the progressive socialist liberal mainstream media is so unhinged, pathologically depraved, literally insane, proves he is on the right track for success.

The very bottom line for the progressives socialist is Trump most not become successful as this will be the final nail in their political coffins. The progressive socialist were so totally convinced that a buffoon like Trump could never win out over the conventional debauchery of acceptable established progressive democrat ideology of centralized authority for all decision, and that when they didn't win, it destroyed something inside the democrats as an operational collective of semblances of being rational human beings, not that much was ever there to state with.

Now all that remains is a completely empty shell filled with only ignorance, hatred and violence.

Even after all of the outrageous and unethical attacks from the conspicuously deceitful and amoral liberal media ,and the unscrupulous, ill-conceived and diabolical democrats, Trump still moves forward, unrelenting and successful and that drives the progressive socialist liberals further into the abyss of the darkest pits of total insanity. They are truly in need of special professional medial help, even then maybe it is too late.

Trump’s Unconventionally Successful First 100 Days
Mike Needham / @MikeNeedham / April 26, 2017   

No two campaigns for the presidency are the same, and few were as surprising or unconventional as President Donald Trump’s nomination and subsequent victory. It should come as no surprise then that Trump’s “first 100 days” in office—an archaic benchmark set during a different era—have been equally unconventional and in many important ways successful.

Nowhere is that change more apparent than in foreign affairs. Eight years ago, President Barack Obama began his infamous apology tour, confessing the sins of America and ceding moral authority to any nation or world body willing to listen.

To Europe he apologized for the “times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Obama told the G-20 of world leaders that “with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.”
By contrast, the Trump administration acted decisively in response to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s gassing of his own people. The response was appropriate, proportional, and carefully calibrated—and a welcome change from Obama’s inept response to similar actions.

The missile attack on Assad’s air base coincided with Trump’s dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping, perhaps adding clarity to Trump’s comments earlier in the month that “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.” My Heritage Foundation colleague James Carafano explains the Obama administration was “risk-averse.” There was a “tendency to pull decision-making to Washington” because its “top goal was to figure out how to disengage.” The Trump administration “seems more inclined to let commanders do their jobs and exercise their military judgment.” The results are welcomed and noticeable on the world stage.

Trump’s most obvious domestic accomplishment is the successful confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Not only did candidate Trump seize on the vacancy during the campaign—an opportunity created by a surprisingly strong stand from Senate Republicans—but he nominated a conservative judge that unified a fragmented Republican Party. Gorsuch’s impact on the court will be felt for a generation. Beyond that, there are a few victories Republicans can claim as a result of the party’s unified control of Washington.

The president and his administration have taken aggressive actions to begin rolling back the administrative state and the worst excesses of the Obama administration. Obama-era fuel economy standards are likely gone. Draconian rules on coal-fired power plants will be blocked. And then, of course, there has been the historic use of the Clinton-era Congressional Review Act to permanently repeal more than a dozen midnight regulations issued at the end of the Obama administration. Unlike other regulatory efforts, these cannot be undone by future administrations. Overall, the Trump administration’s regulatory efforts will save the U.S. economy $18 billion annually.

And then, of course, there is the issue of immigration. During previous administrations, the federal government’s commitment to enforcing America’s immigration laws waned as Washington’s desire to grant another round of amnesty grew. There can be little doubt Trump is delivering on one of his key campaign promises by enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. The results are apparent, with illegal border crossings dropping to a 17-year low.

Predictably, liberals will use the 100-day marker to celebrate what has not been accomplished.
While it took Obama, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 428 days to make Obamacare the law of the land, the fact that it remains so is a disappointment.

There are multiple reasons for that, most notable being the extreme divisions within the Republican Party—for instance, some Republicans quietly hoped to repeal the medical device tax while leaving the vital organs of Obamacare in place. These divisions were exacerbated by an insular, leadership-driven legislative process that was designed to “accomplish something” rather than build consensus and deliver for the American people. For its part, the Trump administration was slow to recognize just how bad the policy, politics, and process of the original repeal and replace proposal were. It is clear it has learned from that initial stumble, though.

Trump’s enormous wisdom in tapping Mike Pence as his vice president was apparent in the aftermath of the health care debacle, when Pence’s leading role in pushing to restart health care talks helped the White House recapture momentum for its ambitious legislative agenda.

It is possible—indeed, it is likely—that Congress will provide relief from Obamacare and that our crony-laden tax code will be reformed in less than 365 days. And if you believe the rumors, another conservative jurist will be sitting on the Supreme Court by then as well.

No one would deny that there have been stumbles and missed opportunities—many of those generated by congressional malfeasance—but there is no doubt that an unconventional president is enjoying unconventional successes in his first 100 days. If he learns the right lessons from the health care debate and refuses to let the Washington establishment drive him into similar ditches, many more successes are to come.

Hanger 51 News : Be Informed, Not Scared

Well this is something that we all suspected when the true story came out it would be a revelation and earth shaking news. So according to some unnamed sources indicating they have some inside information as to what transpired on that infamous day back in 1948, we can only wonder why it took so long for this information to become available to the general public.

We down here in the trenches, of course, knew something strange had to have happened to generate so many odd and or strange individuals to knowingly and willingly demonstrate illogical and pathological depraved statements and philosophies as if they actually think they are make sense.

Yikes! This news is not surprising, but still a shock to the system, finally knowing the truth about why these people's behavior is so ludicrous. Worse, of course, maybe, there are so many more in the system of our civil society that are showing the same tendencies for bastardized and debased ideas for what they think is acceptable and mainstream knowledge using rhetoric that is totally implausible and delusional.

(Yeah, your right, this information below is from someone that didn't identify themselves or there source, but if you can come up with a better reason why these special beings act the way they do, please enlighten the rest of us.)

News You Can Use , Don't Snooze !

The year was 1947.  Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little more than 69 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an Unidentified Flying Object, (UFO), with five aliens aboard, crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell,  New Mexico. This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S Air Force, as well as other federal agencies and organizations

However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April, year 1948, nine months after the alien crash, the following people were born:

 

Barrack Obama  Sr. ( and then came Barack).

Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Hillary Rodham

William J. Clinton

John F. Kerry

Howard Dean

Nancy Pelosi

Dianne Feinstein

Charles E. Schumer

Barbara Boxer

Joe Biden

This is the obvious consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses. I truly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you.   It did for me. Now you can stop wondering why they support the bill to help all Illegal Aliens.

 

Environmental Predictions of Catastrophic Events : Dacades of Fraud

Here a news flash - environmental prediction are about the ideology of control. Oh and of course, the money. It's always about the money. $Billions of lost revenue.

 The history of the envo-fascists over the decades is legion. From East Anglia and the famous ''Hockey Stick Graph'' fraud to James Hanson at NASA predicting global warming from managed satellite images. Then the tree ring manipulation lie, and falsified increased climate heating statistics from Russian weather stations located in outside of large cites. To the out right lies from no less then Al Gore and the vanishing polar caps and polar bears. What? Who knew?

There so much more, especially the United Nations agencies tasked to study and report on the nonsense of climate change that has been proven over and over again to be incomplete and managed to meet the requirements set down by other interested scientists and political parties.

The scam of manmade climate changes is just that, a fraud!  Proven by decades of false computer models predicting catastrophic events that have been wrong from the beginning, but still propel the environmental cadre to demand more money to product more lies that produce more money.

Here’s How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been
Walter E. Williams / April 26, 2017   

Each year, Earth Day is accompanied by predictions of doom. Let’s take a look at past predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.

In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.” He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.

In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:

The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.

Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.

Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.

Americans Giving Up Citizenship : IRS Wants Their Money

More big government overreach by progressive socialist democrat 'feel good' legislation to gain revenue on the backs of citizens living overseas. The legislation originally was aimed at corporations harboring revenue in countries that have better tax rates, but ended up being detrimental to average American citizens living abroad.

Attacking the problem of corporate assets not coming back to the United States is the problem of corporate tax rate here being the highest in the world. Why would a company willingly lose huge amounts of revenue just to be compliant to bad legislation.

Now Trump and Republican legislators have a plan to fix this problem. It was announced yesterday.

Why Record Numbers of Americans Are Renouncing Their Citizenship
 Adam Michel / @adamnmichel / April 24, 2017   

Would you give up your citizenship in order to keep your bank account? That’s a question few Americans would ever want to confront, yet many Americans living abroad are now having to answer.

A little-known tax law, known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, has resulted in some foreign banks no longer serving Americans. The law, signed in 2010 by President Barack Obama, was intended to make it harder for Americans to keep money overseas and out of the reach of the IRS. The primary target was rich Americans allegedly hiding money from tax collectors.

To find tax avoiders, foreign banks are conscripted by the U.S. government to serve as a compliance arm of the IRS. As a result, many of these stranded Americans have had to make the undoubtedly difficult decision to give up their citizenship just to continue to access their banking services.

Last year, 5,411 people renounced their U.S. citizenship, the largest number of published expatriates in one year, continuing a four-year streak of record-breaking numbers.

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act requires foreign financial institutions, such as banks, to identify and report to the United States most types of transactions for all American clients.
These new regulations are enforced by the threat of applying a 30 percent withholding tax on revenues generated in the United States by the noncompliant foreign financial institution.
The reporting burden and withholding penalty faced by foreign banks trying to comply with the new regulations has made it easier for some Americans to renounce their citizenship than to find a bank that is willing to bear the bureaucratic costs of complying with the law.

These penalties are not just hitting the rich, and they are not just harming tax dodgers. The cost of complying with this law hits every American living overseas, not just those targeted by the original legislation. Middle-class Americans living abroad who are fully compliant with U.S. tax laws are losing their mortgages, business bank accounts, and personal banking services. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act has unintentionally ruined some Americans’ livelihoods. To add insult to injury, the cost of implementing this law may soon outpace the money that it brings in.

Furthermore, the direct cost to taxpayers does not include the compliance costs to financial institutions. A legal challenge to the law in 2015 estimated compliance costs alone were on track to total more than the 10-year revenue estimates. These regulatory costs can discourage international business, slow investment, and hamper the global economy.

The root of the problem is more than just compliance costs, it’s the U.S. government’s presumption that it is entitled to your money even if it’s earned in another country. The U.S. is one of just a few countries that claims taxing rights on labor income earned abroad. Such a system of worldwide taxation hurts the American economy and makes it much harder for Americans to live abroad
Hopefully, relief from this law is around the corner. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., recently released a bill that would repeal the onerous regulations.

Congress and the IRS should focus on the U.S. domestic tax system and leave Americans living abroad alone. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is yet another example of continued government overreach. Hopefully, tax reform will bring with it relief for all Americans—including those living overseas.

OgbjamCare Repeal and Replace Coming : Principled Dynamics of Hard Work

That the Republicans of all strips continued to work to repeal and replace the disaster that is OgbjmaCare shows that there is hope for a government that is run by adults, and not unconcerned children that were more interested in getting a bill passed then a bill that actually worked to the benefit of all people.

Isn't it interesting that when Republicans try to repair a national disaster brought on by progressive socialist liberal democrats, it's now on the backs of Republicans if  they can't fix this atrocity, it will be seen as a Republican failure to deliver. The media will have a field day attacking them. 

The history of OgbjmaCare was told to us by Johnathan Gruber, the main architect of OgbjmaCare. He understood how to make the progressive socialist liberal legislation work to their benefit. He knew the democrat bill was a disaster and that it was designed to fail, but at the same time he also  knew how it would work to get votes for the next election.

And how did Gruber get the bill passed without getting one Republican to vote for it in the middle of the night? He lied. He lied about how it would be health a care marvel that would being closure on the problems of universal care.

Remember Barack told us more then 27 times how we could keep our doctor and our health care plans? Barack knew it was a lie.

And as we all know now, as did many know back then, OgbjmaCare was designed to fail and eventually be replaced by ''single payer'', government controlled health care. It was Barack's dream for controlling the populations options for survival.

With Support From Conservatives, House Republicans Move Closer to Obamacare Repeal Deal
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / April 26, 2017

Republican leaders in the House received a boost to their attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare on Wednesday as the Freedom Caucus, an influential bloc of conservatives, announced its support for a revised plan. The group of more than 30 lawmakers said it would support a new version of the bill, called the American Health Care Act. The revision includes an amendment crafted by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Tuesday Group Co-chairman Tom MacArthur, R-N.J.

“The MacArthur amendment will grant states the ability to repeal cost-driving aspects of Obamacare left in place under the original [American Health Care Act],” the Freedom Caucus said in a statement. “While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower health care costs.” For the Freedom Caucus to take an official position on legislation, its rules call for 80 percent of members to agree.

The culmination of weeks of negotiations between Meadows and MacArthur, the compromise amendment aims to unite the House’s centrist and conservative Republican wings behind the health care bill. With their legislation, GOP lawmakers and President Donald Trump are working to fulfill a major campaign promise—to repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump initially promised to dismantle the health care law his first day in office, but disagreement among Republican lawmakers has delayed efforts in Congress to do so.

Lawmakers received the text of the amendment last night, but a rough outline of the plan was leaked to the press last week. The deal takes aim at regulations implemented under what President Barack Obama considered one of his major domestic achievements, the Affordable Care Act, which conservatives said caused premiums to rise dramatically.

Under the amendment, states can apply for federal waivers to opt out of Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement, a list of 10 services that insurance plans are required to cover. The measure leaves in place a provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions, but allows states to waive its community ratings rules, which ban insurers from charging sick patients more than healthy ones. States could opt out of the community ratings rules only if they implement a program designed to minimize costs for patients with pre-existing conditions, such as a high-risk pool.

High-risk pools, subsidized by the government, are insurance pools for patients with pre-existing conditions. Additionally, only patients who fail to maintain continuous coverage could be charged more by insurers. The amendment from MacArthur and Meadows attempts to assuage the concerns of House conservatives who, along with a bloc of centrist Republicans, opposed GOP leadership’s original health care bill.

Though Republican leaders now have the support of the Freedom Caucus, it’s unclear if the revised plan will have the backing of centrist Republicans. Members of the centrist Tuesday Group told reporters Wednesday they needed more time to look over the amendment. The revised bill has swayed influential conservative groups, however.

Club for Growth and FreedomWorks, which both opposed the original bill, announced their support for the amendment and said they would back the bill with its addition. “While we’re still short of full repeal, this latest agreement would give states the chance to opt out of some of Obamacare’s costliest regulations, opening the way to greater choice and lower insurance premiums,” Club for Growth President David McIntosh said in a prepared statement. “It’s a solution we’ve supported for weeks, and the time to move forward is now.”

Heritage Action for America, the lobbying affiliate of The Heritage Foundation, backed away from its key vote against the health care bill. In a formal statement, Mike Needham, CEO of Heritage Action, said:

To be clear, this is not full repeal and it is not what Republicans campaigned on or outlined in the Better Way agenda. The amendment does, however, represent important progress in what has been a disastrous process. Given the extreme divides in the Republican Party, allowing Texas and South Carolina to make different decisions on health insurance regulations than New York and New Jersey may be the only way forward.

Discussions over the health care bill began early last month after Republican leaders revealed their plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, a years long promise to voters. Lawmakers were supposed to vote on the original legislation twice late last month. But House Speaker Paul Ryan delayed one vote and then abruptly pulled the bill the next day after it became clear not enough Republicans supported it. Conservatives, led by Meadows, continued discussions with MacArthur, Republican leaders, and the Trump administration.

GOP leaders and the White House are discussing a potential vote on the revised bill Friday, according to Axios, and the House whip team is counting votes. Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters at a press conference earlier Wednesday that the lower chamber would vote “when we’ve got the votes.”
Still, the speaker said the MacArthur amendment “helps get us to consensus.”
“We think it’s very constructive,” Ryan said, adding:

We think the MacArthur amendment is a great way to lower premiums, give states more flexibility while protecting people with pre-existing conditions. Those are the three things we want to achieve.

Living The Good Life With Friends : I know Who My Friends Are.

Living the good life with friends is the goal of all living creatures.

One thing that is a given in this world of chaos, if we try to do the right thing in our daily lives, we will have clear conscience, falling  asleep won't be a problem.

Friends who believe in one another will have a good life no matter who they are. It shouldn't be a struggle when we all are looking for the same thing, living the good life with friends.

It can't get any better then this.

Progressives Protest Think Tank for Helping Trump? : It's Much More The That

The question now is what do progressive socialist liberal democrats intend for our country? They obviously are not part of the solution to the problems that they and the 'maximum leader ' Barack Ogbjma created over the last 8 years, the progressives are the problem.  It seems all they want now is to create as much chaos and hatred among as many groups as the can by demonizing the newly elected administration as possible.

Remember the lamented cry from the losers in last election that was ordained to be theirs, 'resist' the new administration on everything. The progressives believe if they do not participate at any level of government, and at any time they can destroy Donald Trump and his new idea of how government can be run. Driving the entire country into ruins they believe will give them a chance to recover their power.

The progressives believe they can rebuild the country with their own agenda in place if they regain power. But progressive democrats have already driven the country into decline and chaos, but now they believe they could rebuild it?

Democrats have a very sorted history of not actually building anything. Democrats are all about taking things from others that do the work, not about building things that benefit civil society. 

Demonstrators Descend on Heritage Foundation to Protest Trump Budget
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / April 25, 2017   

Demonstrators and activists opposed to President Donald Trump descended upon The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday to protest the think tank’s budget plan and attempt to bring the organization to a halt. Approximately 200 protesters entered the lobby of the think tank’s Capitol Hill headquarters Tuesday morning and protested against The Heritage Foundation’s budget document, called “Blueprint for Balance.”

The Heritage Foundation is the parent organization of The Daily Signal. The group spent nearly an hour at the think tank, holding signs stating “A Budget for the People,” “A Budget for Health Communities,” and “A Budget for Immigration” and chanting “water not walls” and “shut it down” before moving to protest outside of The Heritage Foundation’s Capitol Hill headquarters.

There, a number of speakers addressed the crowd of activists and criticized Heritage for the role it played in crafting Trump’s budget. “Trump is a puppet of The Heritage Foundation,” one woman told the crowd outside of the organization. Protesters criticized The Heritage Foundation for its “Blueprint for Balance,” a 230-page document with recommendations for the 2018 budget. The budget document was crafted by more than two dozen scholars at the think tank.

Trump adopted many of the recommendations from The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 “Blueprint for Balance,” released last year, in his own 2018 budget, which the protesters disagreed with.
However, it’s ultimately the responsibility of Congress to draft and pass the federal budget.
“These groups do not represent the majority of Americans who have continually called for a return to fiscal discipline and an end to ballooning federal debt,” Sarah Mills, a spokeswoman for The Heritage Foundation, said in a statement. “If the protesters were serious about reforming the way Washington works, they would join us in fighting for an end to special interest policies that harm the American people.”

“Heritage will not back down. We will keep fighting for a responsible budget, a pro-growth tax system, a repeal of Obamacare, and a stronger national defense—only then will we have opportunity for all and favoritism to none,” she continued.

The Daily Signal made multiple attempts to speak with protesters. However, all demonstrators approached said they couldn’t speak with the media. One woman told The Daily Signal—which identified itself as being affiliated with The Heritage Foundation—that protesters would not speak with anyone from the think tank. Event organizers who were authorized to speak with the media were not made available.

Watch video : https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/837076049791682/

The protesters were affiliated with a group called People’s Action, a Chicago-based nonprofit founded in 2016. People’s Action did not return The Daily Signal’s requests for comment.

The protest at The Heritage Foundation was part of a larger, three-day “founding convention” that took place this week at a hotel in Washington, D.C. According to the organization’s website, the conference was the birthplace of a “new political force comprised of people united against the Trump-Ryan-McConnell agenda,” a reference to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

During the convention, attendees heard from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and political activist Van Jones, among others. They also attended various trainings on issues including health care, climate change, and immigration, according to a schedule of events.
Before heading to The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday morning, conference attendees protested Trump’s budget in front of the White House. They then boarded buses bound for an undisclosed location, which turned out to be the think tank, Phillip Stucky, a political reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation who accompanied the protesters, told The Daily Signal.

Watch video : https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/837124133120207/

After the demonstration outside of the think tank, activists then attended a lunch with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., at the Lutheran Church of the Reformation.

"The many will overcome the money." #RiseUp2017 #ProtectOurCare pic.twitter.com/uuzpN5i1V2

— People's Action (@PplsAction) April 25, 2017

So excited to be speaking to more than 700 activists with @PplsAction here in DC to fight for the Affordable Care Act! pic.twitter.com/eBE15gwIzl

— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) April 25, 2017

"There's a new spirit in the Democratic Party. We want a Resistance Summer." @keithellison #RiseUp2017 #ProtectOurCare pic.twitter.com/3U1VI6cUxn

— People's Action (@PplsAction) April 25, 2017

The conference this week was sponsored by the Democracy Alliance, National Education Association, Communications Workers of America, and others, according to a program booklet.
According to its website, People’s Action is part of a larger network of groups, including Alliance for a Just Society, National People’s Action, and USAction Education Fund.

People’s Action and National People’s Action, a network of grassroots organizations, operate out of the same office in Chicago. The latter group was founded in 1972 and has received at least $1.3 million in funding from billionaire investor George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, according to GuideStar, an organization that tracks nonprofits. Neither the Open Society Foundations nor a representative for Soros returned The Daily Signal’s request for comment. National People’s Action also did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

National People’s Action was involved in an earlier protest against Trump and The Heritage Foundation that took place in Chicago last month. On March 21, between 100 and 200 demonstrators descended on the Bank of America Building in Chicago protesting Trump’s budget cuts, some of which were proposed in The Heritage Foundation’s budget blueprint.
Fair Economy Illinois and the Jane Addams Senior Caucus, an affiliate of National People’s Action, organized the demonstration, which targeted Anthony Saliba, a member of The Heritage Foundation’s Board of Trustees.

Friends for Life : Animals to The Rescue!

Just when you thought the world couldn't be saves from the ravages of insufferable political morons and immoral news scribblers and pundits, here we have a trio of friends that find compatibility and friendship.

If your day has gone badly so far, cheer up, the world just turned the corner for the better.

Enjoy!! 

                                    What are friends for but to love one another.

Don't worry friend, I'm here to help.

Defining The Free Press : Free Doesn't Mean Licence

I'm still confused as to the definition of a 'free press'. As long as I can remember, reading the news paper, especially during the Vietnam war, seeing pictures that had no connection to the captions below the picture, and after reading the article attached, wondering what was going on as the article as well made no sense. I didn't learn anything more after reading the article.

It was obvious enough the author, a scribbler, certainly not a journalist, had an agenda. Back then I wondered why they were doing this. And the truth is I was not alone in this observation. 

I was confused then and confused now watching television today, all the while trying desperately not to throw something at the television just to keep my head from exploding from the shear incomprehensible and mostly insane rhetoric. I wonder if I'm locked in an asylum where the inmates are loose and running wild. Worse, I begin to wonder if I'm the one that's nuts and everyone else is sane but just look crazy.

I can't and don't read the news papers and longer as they are completely undisguisable from the agenda and ideology of the national progressive socialist liberal democrat collective. From one day to the next the story lines are t he same, the subject might change but the bias is always front and center. Kind of like in North Korea, you can read a newspaper from three years ago and not miss a thing of what is happening today, the head lines and article are the same.

So what is a free press in todays socialist leaning world, what does it mean? Is a free press allowed to openly support a point of view, and at the same time denigrate any opposition to that point of view? Even if it means news organizations have to manage the news to make their personal agenda more important then the truth still can be defined as a free press?

Does the definition of  the new 'free press' mean license?

A Free Press Should Liberate Minds, Not Enslave Them
Arthur Milikh / April 12, 2017   

Over the past few months, there has been much public commotion and blowback against the news media. News anchor Chris Cuomo nicely, though unwittingly, predicated the problem live on CNN back in 2014: “We couldn’t help [Hillary Clinton] any more than we have; she’s gotten just a free ride so far from the media; we are the biggest ones promoting her campaign.”

Watch the video ; https://youtu.be/3ESUUhncaYk

The implication of Cuomo’s admission—that the press should dominate the public mind in service of its prejudices and interests—shows a dangerous misunderstanding of the purpose of this institution’s role in our republic, and a shallow view of the stakes involved.  As originally understood by our founders and the enlightenment thinkers who preceded them, the freedom of the press had a two-fold aim.

First, the press would serve to promote the discovery and dissemination of truth, in philosophy, science, and politics, to the benefit of society and the individual. It would serve both by defending republicanism, which is founded on rational truths discoverable by the mind, against various kinds of dogmatism.

Second, our Founders understood that a free press would serve as a bulwark to protect citizens’ rights against government’s abuses. That is, the press would expose government corruption, ensuring that government itself abides by the law and serves the public good. As constitutional scholar Walter Berns observed, “Just as republican government requires public men of the highest character, it requires a press to point to the derelictions.” In this two-fold way, the original conception of this institution would preserve and bolster republicanism and allow for and protect intellectual liberty.

Perhaps more so today than ever before, the press has an unrivaled power in setting the tone in our society. It often contributes to forming citizens’ characters and sentiments. Yet in wielding this power, it remains unclear the extent to which most of today’s press actively seeks to serve republicanism or whether it encourages certain habits of mind in the public for the sake of its own interest of ruling over public opinion.

A few examples of how it rules the public mind are telling.

In setting the intellectual tone, the press often encourages citizens to develop fanatical hatreds and belief in fantastical powers. The Washington Post’s editorial board, for example, has asserted that “[the] scope of the damage a President [Donald] Trump could do cannot be fully predicted or imagined.” In fact, according to the Post, a President Trump could not only “destroy the world economy,” but could “fundamentally reshape the world, too.” What remarkable powers does he not possess? One could not help but both fear and hate him—viewing neither him nor his supporters as one’s fellow countrymen.

In addition, the public mind frequently comes to imitate the methods of analysis used by the press, where it learns that political analysis should appear objective in order to legitimate one’s own prejudices. Rather than searching for answers, dishonesty is legitimate policy.

Few examples illustrate the point as well as a recent CNN documentary, narrated by Fareed Zakaria on Russian President Vladimir Putin, called “The Most Powerful Man in the World.” In it, Zakaria alleges that Putin disrupted U.S. elections based on personal hatred for Clinton. “It went beyond ideology,” Zakaria narrates, “it was personal”—as though these could be the only motives animating any human being, let alone heads of state.

Zakaria, of course, never demonstrates nor even attempts to argue that Putin has a track record of acting based on hatred alone, nor does he address why a leader of a nation would take enormous risks to act only on the basis of single-minded hatred.

In spinning such a story—intentionally or not—Zakaria flatters Clinton and her supporters by implying that Clinton is a frightening force, even to the “most powerful man in the world”—an odd conclusion given that few seemed to have feared her as secretary of state. By dominating public opinion in these subtle ways, the press inclines citizens toward self-satisfied seriousness. Moreover, our constitutional republic depends on citizens jealous of their rights, who are prepared to push back against government corruption.

The press is a mechanism through which to voice legitimate jealousy and make public officials, regardless of party affiliation, responsible to the public. Yet the press has made relatively little issue of corruption reminiscent of the last days of Rome.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, in the run-up to the presidential election, sought to pardon 200,000 felons so that they could vote. Why the rush, one wonders? When a court ruled this action illegal because pardons can come only from the pardoner’s direct knowledge of the circumstances of each case, McAuliffe proceeded to autopen as quickly as possible each pardon to circumvent the spirit of the judicial ruling. In the end, he pardoned some 60,000 felons, according to The Daily Caller. Rather than alerting the public to this corruption, The New York Times preempted any opposition as racist.

Less and less, it seems, is the press concerned with the duty of preserving and bolstering political and intellectual liberty. Yet, perhaps more than any other public institution, the free press holds the key to preserving our civilization.

The press can fight off dogmatism, or it can perpetrate it. It can elevate citizens toward intellectual independence, or it can infuse them with its taste for unserious partisanship, and even fanaticism, indifferent to the common good. It can expose threats to our republic, or it can instead target its political enemies.

Progressives Attacking Children : A New Book, ''Communism for Kids''.

Want to know the scariest part in all this, it seems the ''transformation'' has already started more then 8 years ago, and the catalyst was Barack Ogbjma and his religious jihad for ''change'' and forcefully brought to the country by his congregation of believers that swooned at the mere mention of his name.

And maybe even more foreboding, there are millions that are more then willing to follow his lead without have any direct contact with ''The One We Have Be Waiting For''. Just knowing the will of the One is enough.

For all thence and purposes, progressive socialist liberalism is a religion based not on faith and good works, but based on a presence, whether in a real life presences or a depiction of their 'Maximum Leader' that will force the horde to kneel, and then go forth blindly and wholly commit themselves to the calling duty of opposing any and all that stand ''his'' way that brings the change and transformation promised.

That a book, Communism For Kids, depicting mass murders in our history as the new wave ideology for young people to follow is not a surprise. College campuses, as well as many elementary and high schools are keeping in step with the ideology of 'one size fits all' and if you don't like it, you will be cast out, condemned as nonbelievers of the new society or be destroyed.

The very base philosophy of the communist party works well for the new wave democratic collective, "To each according to ones needs and from each according to ones abilities''.

Can you believe that global warming, now climate change is not the work of those that believe an all powerful centralized authority must be the bases of civil society? Democratic socialism or communism? New wave democrats want and have proposed legislation to destroy 'climate deniers'.

If you need more proof that our civil society is on the verge of 'transformation', we, in the United States have the largest and the best funded working domestic terrorist organization in the world, the democrat collective, formerly the democrat party, that is wholly dedicated to the destruction of our civil society as we know it today.  

The new collective has but one goal, getting and keeping power, and by any means necessary. The people are just tools to that end, to be used and abused as necessary.

Recently, the collective has become completely unrestrained in it's organizational intent, that has stated they will not participate in the functioning of  government to help facilitate a new effort to correct the destruction that occurred over the last 8 years , but have stated, especially democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, minority leader in the Senate, and democrat Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives will oppose any and all efforts the newly elected government from bringing success and prosperity back to the people.

The intent of the progressive socialists is clear,  to deconstruct the Constitution as founded, and then rewrite it to fit the new wave ideology of liberal socialism. And this isn't anything new, Ted Kennedy was leading a group years ago rewriting a new and updated constitution to better reflect the new thinking.

Remember as well, Barack said the constitution should reflect what the government can do for you not only what the original said what it can't do. I believe he has a copy of the new wave constitution.

But it's only now the collective has become mentally depraved and pathologically unhinged that boarders on if not actual insanity, believing the new leader actually might make a difference, actually bringing success where the progressives failed. The new wave ideology cannot allow success or all will be lost.

 Welcome to the new wave world jihad of progressive socialism, the new wave democrat collective.

‘Communism for Kids’ Turns Deadly Ideology Into a Fairy Tale
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / April 21, 2017   

In order to make the deadliest ideology of the 20th century palatable to young Americans, “Communism for Kids” is coming to a bookstore near you. This newly released book from MIT Press “proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism.”

The death toll from communist regimes in the 20th century is well-documented. One study found that more people were killed under communism than homicide and genocide combined, and only 9 million more people were killed in World War I and World War II combined than under governments of this ideology. Another study showed how the mass killings of civilians by their own governments took an immediate nosedive after the collapse of the Soviet Union and international communism.

According to the Amazon synopsis, the book weaves a fairy tale of “jealous princesses, fancy swords, displaced peasants, mean bosses, and tired workers.” It is bewildering why MIT Press would publish a book that cutesies up the political creed that gave the world Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and many more of the world’s most prolific mass murderers. None of these brutal dictators are mentioned in the book, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Communism seemingly gets a pass to be reimagined as a sweet fable while it’s inconceivable that a book called “Fascism for Kids” would ever be printed by a reputable publisher. Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation wrote, according to The Washington Free Beacon:

While I can imagine a book so titled that would make a valuable contribution to a reader’s understanding of the truth about communism, the book MIT Press published is not it. ‘Communism for Kids’ whitewashes and infantilizes ideas that, when put into action, have cost more than 100 million lives.

This odd attempt to get kids into communism is unlikely to spawn a new generation of true believers on its own, but it does highlight the growing problem for younger Americans who are generally clueless about even recent history.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, a study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials, in particular, are stunningly ignorant about what occurred under the Soviet Union and other communist regimes just a generation ago. One-third of millennials surveyed actually believe that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Soviet dictator Stalin.

If one truly wants to teach young Americans what communism is really about, it would be better to hand them a copy of the classic “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell. The book is an allegory—using farm animals as stand-ins—about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia a century ago. The revolutionary promise of “all animals are equal” is used to overthrow farmers, but quickly turns into a new, even more oppressive tyranny under animal overlords. A reign of forced labor, intimidation, and terror puts the animals under the thumb of their new masters—their ideals used to prop up an all-powerful regime. The refashioned creed becomes “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the end, human, or rather “animal,” nature proved to be more powerful than any ideology.

As the Roman poet Horace once said: “You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will ever hurry back.”

This lesson from Orwell would be a much better way to teach young people about destructive ideology than a fanciful account of how “true” communism—minus the mean authoritarian stuff and mass murder—would be truly grand.

Under communism, tyranny is a feature, not a bug.

Ogbjma Offical Says Climate Facts Managed : Ogbjma Lied? Oh No!! Who Knew?

Oh wow, this is news? Ogbjma lied??? His surrogates lied to us like Johnathan Gruber on OgbjmaCare, Eric Holder on Fast and Furious, Jay Johnson on immigration etc. etc. etc.??

And now we find out even the climate changer scientists misinformed, lied to us?? Oh NO!! What are we to do?? What are we to believe if ''The One'', Ogbjma lied to us? 

How do function properly if there isn't a government official telling what to do and where to go to protect ourselves, especially a progressives democrats that we know have been lying to us for decades stealing $100's of million of tax dollars for global warming they knew didn't exist?

Is there no shame in these people?  dah!  They're democrats. And still more, how do we know Ogbjma and his buddies, camped out in the United States Treasury, were and are lying? Easy, their lips are moving. How else? It's a given. At what point in the last 8 years have the progressive socialist liberal democrats told the truth? Ever!

Former Obama Official Says Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats to Influence Policy
Chris White / April 24, 2017   

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington, D.C., often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion. Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the assessment was technically incorrect. “What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print, is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said. The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.” Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.

Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for instance, recently jump-started an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.” NASA and NOAA’s actions, he said, are problematic because “public opinion is formed by the data that is formed from those organizations and appears in newspapers.”
Neither agency responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

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.